Groover158

Looks like a decision has been made, I think the Boeing supporters will be in shock.

Tanker contract award announced

From the link;

"2/29/2008 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb announced the selection of Northrop Grumman as the winner of the KC-X competition for development and procurement of up to 179 tanker aircraft for approximately $35 billion..."

Interestingly, the word 'Airbus' doesn't come up at all in the article.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

QFA388

Does that announcement signify the death knell for the 767 production line?
I thought this program was all that was delaying the final decision to stop manufacture.
Not being biased but I think the A330MRTT is an extremely snappy looking aircraft.

champpitbull2

This isn't over yet. Boeing can challange the decision and they undoubtedly will. This will go on for months just like the USAF combat search and rescue hellicopter replacement.

D-AIHC

Not quite...Boeing plans to shut down its B767 production line in 2012, after the last delivery to UPS on their order for 27 B763Fs.

Boeing: Boeing and UPS Finalize Major 767 Freighter Order

Oh no, not at all...I think the RAAF A330 MRTT looks fabulous!!! You should check out the 1:200 model of it by SkyMarks - you will like it, although you're not into 1:200.

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

Groover158

I agree that it may go on for months. I did hear on radio that Boeing is yet to decide whether to contest the decision. Nonetheless, I am pretty confident the KC-30 (or -45 as they are calling it) will win out. It has so far attracted orders from Australia, Britian, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and seems to be a great piece of kit. I also think that developmentally (in terms of aircraft and flying boom) it is more advanced than the KC767.

I wouldn't blame Boeing for challenging the outcome, there are very big bucks at stake. Unfortunately, there has to be a winner...and a loser.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

champpitbull2

One of the things I think Boeing will challenge is the whole size issue. It had been said from the vary begining by Boeing that if the USAF wanted a larger plane they could give them one in the form of the 777. But with the way the proposal was interpreted, size wasn't the overall issue. In the case of the 330 and the 767, the 330 wins out on many of the issues that deal with size. If Boeing had entered the 777 the competition would have been more compareable.
As a replacement for the KC-135, going with the 330 is going to cost an astronomical amount of money in terms of infrastructure due to the large amount of money that will have to be invested in hangars alone.

KC135- Height 41ft Length 136' Wingspan 130'
B767- Height 52ft Length 159' Wingspan 156'
A330- Height 58ft Length 192' Wingspan 197'
B777-200 Height 60ft Length 209' Wingspan 199'


With those numbers some hangars would have to be replaced in order to fit a 767 in a KC-135 hangar but many would fit. I doubt any of the current KC-135 hangars will be able to hold an A330 or a 777 for that matter.

gospodin

What do want to bet there was a bit of politics involved also? Throwing a big bone to EADS and Northrop is likely to keep our allies happy, who were pushing for the KC-45, not to mention taking Boeing down a peg, since they were feeling like they were the only game in town. I got a laugh at the protester with the sign, "American Workers = Better Tankers"...where did they think these were going to be built? They're building them in Alabama.

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

CcrlR737pilot

The Italian Air Force and JASDF will get theirs. Boeing will still test fly to make it certified to fly for those air forces.

Serously, I would have asked the USAF anything you wanted to do to make a tanker-even making a new one from another variant that we produce, then I would do it. They could have done a 767-300 tanker for them or the 400 version or a 777 as one just to please them. Somehow we can have a mix of tankers like how we do with the KC-135 and the KC-10s that we use.

__________________

I flushed a potato down the toilet and now we have to live in a hotel!-Ralph Wiggum

Groover158

I think you'll find that the -300 or -400 B767s are too long. In particular, when the aircraft rotates, the refueling boom which hangs below the rear of the aircraft would contact the runway due to the lengthening of the aircraft rear of the MLG. For the same reason, they dont offer a A330-300 as a tanker.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

swisshansa10

Boeing is basically behaving like a child who lost in a game. My 2 cents bit.

Groover158

Unfortunately, Airbus would have probably done the same with a different outcome; and I'm sure they are not the only two aircraft manufacturers who would contest the decision in the event of a loss. There is frankly too much to gain for them not to contest.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Prestwick Pioneer

Me and my mates discussed what would make the best tanker and we thought the MD-11 woulda made a cracking MRTT but it wasnt to be for the tri-jet. As to the size issue, surely some of the old cold war bases would have acres of tarmac available for parking these aircraft, rather than throw money away building new bases.

Seperately, a few years ago, Flight International published an artists impression of a Lockheed Martin designed tanker to replace the KC-135 fleet. Not a transport/tanker, just a tanker. It looked neat too. I think it had overwing engines VFW614 style.

__________________
The Prestwick Pioneer

champpitbull2

It's not that simple. That Cold War infrastructure is probably in bad shape after all of these years not in use. Many of them have other uses today and are owned by corporations and communities. They have been changed. I'm not saying that current bases won't have the ramp space. It's the buildings that are going to have to be replaced. Places such as Grand Forks, which currently can hold about 60 tankers, will need at least 10 new hangars to accomadate the new tanker. Guard bases which sometimes have as few as 8 KC-135's will need at least 2 new hangars a piece. One for ISO inspections and the other for fuel cell work. Switching to a new plane is expensive to begin with but when you need new buildings it's very expensive. Not to mention Iraq isn't going to end any time soon.

Prestwick Pioneer

Why ten new hangars? Surely these aircraft will require much less servicing throughout their service life, and I would guess there are plenty hangars in the civil sector, if neccessary. It will be interesting to watch what happens over time anyway.

__________________
The Prestwick Pioneer

champpitbull2

It's a fact airplanes break, and many different tasks cannot be accomplished outdoors. Fuel cell maintenance, acft jacking, and the rigging of flight controls, can be done outside sometimes but it is much easier to do them inside out of the weather and wind especially in the north. If a base has more than 12 planes during the year their will be times when more than one will be down for it's ISO inspection at the same time. Doing ISO's outside can be done but it is not fun in the winter. Bases such as Grand Forks and McConnell have over 40 tankers a piece and have temps that dip well below freezing. Planes don't break on schedules so utilizing civilian hangars is not a good idea.

corby78

Champ brings up some great points. There are some jobs that have temp restrictions on them and cant be done outside. Then any type of x-raying has to stay out of the wind. Besides that there are restrictions on the personel as when they can be outside. And when your in grand forks or minot you can easily go weeks and never see above 0*F. Also to stand up a cold war base you have to think of all the supporting assets that would have to be stood up as well. From billiting and food to housing. The MX squadrons the OG, CE, on and on and on. It would mean adding more people, and that right now is the opposite direction the AF is going.
Prestwick, I know they didn't use the MD-11, but the KC-10 is pretty close and she is a beauty.

N. Eberhard

Interesting tidbit here. The current Sec of the Air Force has been out of the Air Force for THIRTY FIVE YEARS! He has no direct experience with tankers of any sort, in fact, he has been involved in space and missile programs for the better part of three decades since leaving the AF.

This is the guy who professes to know that the A330 will make a better tanker even though it has never been used as such and neither EADS nor Northrup Grumman have been involved in making tankers.

Am I missing something here?

gospodin

Good points, Nick. Look for some serious gremlin activity on these new tankers. And I don't mean the ugly little AMC variety

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

N. Eberhard

Rant epilogue:

I have never been impressed with our Senator Patty Murray (from WA) until this tanker contract debacle. Her speech/statement, which was directed at the President and Congress, brought up some outstanding points and questions which need to be addressed, if not just for the sake of keeping this kind of situation from happening again.

I do not believe that this decision will be reversed. However, I do think that there will be some future 'greasing' of Boeing's coffers via some other lesser publicized contracts to make up for them being blindsided.

Groover158

Hi Nick,
I think its a bit much expecting the Secretary for Air Force to have specifically had tanker experience, much the same as we wouldn't expect our Australian Defence Secretary or Defence Minister to have driven a tank, Captained a ship or flown a fighter jet. The Secretary's job is to promote the outcomes of the KC-X project as well as look after all other aspects of the US Department of Air Force. Could you imagine the uproar if the KC-X project concluded that the Northrop Grumman / EADS product was superior and the Secretary started to talk up the Boeing product. Also, I suspect that there will have been countless tanker jocks and maintainers all over this project, and if they haven't, then that's just plain dumb.

I think the public sentiment is split on this decision. Personally, I think the KC-30B is the better choice and you obviously think differently. It doesn't matter which way they went, they will have always copped some flack.

BTW, I checked out two of Senator Murray's speeches regarding the tanker and I find it interesting that at no point does she argue that the KC767 is a better tanker than the KC-30. Of course that is typical of politicians.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Groover158

I don't think that Boeing were 'blindsided', I just think they didn't supply a product that was good enough to win the contest. By the sentiment surrounding this decision, it appears that the contract should have been handed to Boeing on a silver platter whilst also allowing them to decide what they want to charge the US taxpayers for it. If Boeing were supposed to be a shoe-in for this contest then NG/EADs should never have been invited to tender for the KC-X. The fact that NG/EADS won the contest noting these factors speaks volumes about their product.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

champpitbull2

The problem with the decision for me is the Air Force went for an airplane who's advantages stem from the fact that it is bigger. Boeing said from the begining that if the Air Force wanted a bigger plane they would offer the 777. Instead they offered the 767. I want to know why? Did the decision stem from Boeing being too cocky or because the Air Force gave the immpression that size wasn't the overriding issue? Personnaly I'm pissed at the US government and Boeing. Boeing should have offered the 777 along with the 767 for this competition. Instead they approached as if they had the competition wrapped up before it ever started. There are other factors that this competition didn't factor. What if the US and France have a fallout somwhere in the future, is there a guarentee that we'll be supplied with the neccessary parts? Trust me, making parts from scratch is not an easy venture. Should we reward a consortium that has been less then a friend to the US and is at the center of a trade dispute? In addition, the economy is not doing so hot right now. Should we really be shipping jobs to Europe and increasing our trade deficit?

champpitbull2

On a side note I would not put it past the leaders of the Air Force to concoct some other alterior motive behind this decision. One possible reason could be that they know this will not go over smoothly and may take quite a bit of time to iron out all of the wrinkles. In the mean time they mabe looking to take the money meant for tankers and put it into .....more F-22's?

D-AIHC

Almost all the article I've read before the contract winner was announced, they had one thing in common - all mentioned that this was for Boeing to lose!

I think the question is not about shipping jobs elsewhere, but rather the number of jobs...as I do not believe that Boeing will not outsource parts suppliers, if they had won the contract.

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

champpitbull2

The 767 is 85% American made

Groover158

Found this interesting article this morning in relation to the decision.

TANKER COMPETITION: NORTHROP WON BY A WIDE MARGIN : LexingtonInstitute.org

Some highlights;

"...The superior airlift capacity of Northrop's plane was deemed a "compelling" consideration in giving Northrop the edge for this factor...."

"...The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost. ..."

Note: This relates to that tanker being offered as being quite different to the ones used by Italy and Japan which are also quite different to eachother.

"...Airbus usually underbids Boeing in commercial competitions. But Boeing compounded its difficulties in the eyes of reviewers by failing to adequately explain its assumptions in calculating the cost of developing a tanker. ..."

"... Air Force reviewers had less confidence in Boeing's past performance due to poor execution in three relevant programs. In addition, Northrop's subcontractors were rated more highly on past performance than Boeing's. ..."

"... So Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. Although both proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards."

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Darryl

Why was the 767-300 not put forward?

champpitbull2

It pretty much comes down to Boeing becoming too cocky and confident while not offering the right plane. Still, the reason the US has C-5's, C-17's, C-130s and soon the C-27 is the same reason the US shouldn't have a single fleet of airplanes bigger than KC-10s. Bigger isn't always the answer.

Darryl

Interesting article on this B.S.

Townhall.com::Plane-Wreck::By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Groover158

I believe that a B767-300 would be too long for the boom to be placed on the rear of the aircraft. When the aircraft rotates the boom would contact the ground. At least that's what I was told. That's also why they don't offer the A330-300 and B767-400.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Groover158

Interesting yes, although I suggest that it also reads as being somewhat xenophobic as well. As with the speeches I read from Senator Murray, there doesn't seem to be any argument in the link stating that the KC767 is a better aircraft. So I can only assume that American-made is a far more important criteria than capability and cost effectiveness. I wonder where these people were when NG/EADS were first allowed to tender for the KC-X Project. I have to say that tendering of this magnitude is not cheap and frankly NG/EADS would not have tendered if they thought for a second that the USAF were going to place American-made as the fait-accompli criteria.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Darryl

Nationalistic and Strategic, yes. Xenophobic? I don't think so.

BTW, thanks for your insightful posts, as you seem to be more informed than most.

Cheers.

Mystère

You're right, it's not xenophobic. Paranoïd and blind-sided fits it better.

__________________


Take the money-grab & deceit out of our hobby, and bring back ethics and quality!!
Just say NO to Green Bucks/PAMSick/CJWings

D-AIHC

Thanks for the article - a very interesting read! May I point you to another article posted in the first post on this thread:

http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...up-boeing.html

Direct link to the article:
Boeing to protest KC-X tanker award to Northrop and EADS

What caught my attention was this:
"Boeing also disputes the USAF's assessment of the Northrop/EADS team's past performance as satisfactory arguing that relevant Airbus programmes - Australia's KC-30B tanker and the A400M airlifter - "are struggling"."

In what sense is RAAF's KC-30B tanker programme "struggling"? I figured you will be the person to ask on the forum.

Was there an alternate bid for the RAAF tanker contract? If so, which aircraft was it? How much is the contract worth? How many did RAAF acquire? How many have been delivered and to be delivered? When is the sceduled last delivery? Thanks!

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

champpitbull2

I watched Boeing file it's official protest today. It was pretty interesting to see my boss, Gen. Mosely, get torn into by the Boeing officials. They had some very valid points. Infrastructure was one of them. Bases would have to build bigger hangars, runways, taxiways, and parking ramps to accomadate the A330. An investment that would cost billions. Another was that In recent history there have been multiple attempts to build production facilities or depot maintenance facilities in the same region as the proposed Airbus plants. Those attempts were unsuccessful because they could not draw enough aviation qualified people to come and work in those areas. I know this is true in many places. Every time we have a depot team arrive at our base to evaluate something, the depot guys are more than willing to hire any of us because they are so short manned. Not because the funding isn't available, but because they just don't have enough people. Another point, cargo capacity of the next tanker was weighted much to heavily because current tankers account for only one percent of all cargo carried by AMC. Another point, and this one I can back up because I'm a KC-135 mechanic, to much was made of the fuel capacity of the Airbus seeing how often times tankers RTB half full. Boeing was quite addamant that the Air Forces initial proposal requested a medium sized aircraft. Instead the Air Force changed focus during the competition and wanted a larger plane. Boeing officials stated in passionate terms that if the Air Force had requested this from the begining they would have submitted the 777. Despite this, Boeing stuck to its guns stating that the 777 and the A330 are much to large, which I agree with. Just because an airplane is bigger doesn't mean that overall it can do more. Bigger planes eat more gas, have more parts that can break, take up more space and cost more.

Darryl

Groover, what do you think of the previous post to this one from Champpitbull2?

If the 767-200 was too short, and the 767-300 too long (increased chance of tail-boom strikes) how can the A330 be just right? I don't know the lengths off-hand, but would not the A300/A310 have been a better fit for EADS? The A300-600F sits real tall on its gear and the lower fuselage slopes quite dramatically up to the tail (providing an awesome view of fueling aircraft and a nice, safe place to stow the boom).

Darryl

The U.S.A. takes this as a compliment.

Darryl

Check out this recent news post on Yahoo. Looks like John McCain has his hands in a lot of things these days.

Me thinks the chap spent a little too much time in the Hanoi Hilton.

McCain defends his tanker deal inquiries - Yahoo! News

Groover158

Hi D-AIHC, you'll forgive me for not being able to comment on any specifics in relation to your question (not that I'd know anyway), but from my understanding which is based on documents in the public record; I think 'struggling' may be an exaggeration. From what I understand the In-Service-Date (ISD) which includes two aircraft is still scheduled for late 2009 as planned.
As with the KC-X program, the Boeing KC767 was pitted against the EADS CASA MRTT (KC-30B).
I think it's around AU$2B which may include through-life support from Qantas Defence Services.
We will eventually acquire five.
None so far. As stated, first delivery is slated for next year.
Err, you have got me there I don't know.

As an aside I found it this today which is very pertinent;

Military Transport Aircraft EADS MTA successfully performs the first in-flight wet contact of its Air Refuelling Boom System. | AVIATION-NEWS

Interesting reading at the time of the Australian tanker decision from a guy called Carlo Kopp. Depending on who you speak to, he is either a genius or a moron, but suffice to say, he has an opinion on just about anything to do with Australian military aircraft;

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-...p-Jun-04-P.pdf

I don't know, obviously it's to do with the angle of clearance aft of the main landing gear and the angle at rotation. Would make a great minimum velocity take-off (VMU) test. Seriously though, as I said in my earlier post: BTW, I dig your Achmed avatar.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Groover158

I have dug out some side views from ANet which may provide some answers;

A330-200 Side View

A330-300 Side View

B767-200 Side View

B767-300 Side View


Folks, this is as unscientific as it gets. Below are the images cropped, resized and joined as one for your viewing pleasure. Interestingly, the A330s tend to sit nose-down, whilst the B767s sit nose-up. However, what is clear is that the A330 tails sit up a lot higher than the B767s.

Attachment 42616

Does this help? Probably not.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

champpitbull2

Check these pics out Google Image Result for http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=13491 The boom at it's widest part is really not that big and it's tucked in very clost to the tail. Like Groover said, this is very unscientific and requires a bit of imagination. However the767 still sits high enough.

Darryl

Hey "Champ," you are the man-in-the-know, so what do you think will happen next with this whole mess?

champpitbull2

I must not know that much because I thought the 767 would win.

Groover158

Hey Champ,
I wouldn't read too much into that. I think it was always a decision that could have gone either way. Having just come off three years in a major defence acquisition project office I guess you learn that not everyone is going to like your decisions. For us it's a little bit harder because we are a small nation and haven't got the capital to have aircraft purposely designed for our needs. Instead we rely heavily on COTS or MOTS products and make minor design changes that usually relate to interoperability. This means that at times we may want an aircraft to perfoirm a specific function, but sometimes there is nothing that can perform that function. Whilst in the Project Office I used to joke that getting the stakeholders to agree on something was like herding cats. For you, I truely hope that the KC-30B exceeds your expectations. Whilst it is replacing the KC-135s whose role you are no doubt quite intimate with, I believe that you do yourself a disservice if you try to replace a capability with the same type of capability. As an example, we are currently looking to replace our F-111s and unfortunately there is nothing out there that will do what an F-111 can do. So we need to step back and say, what is it that we are actually trying to achieve? can we use something else differently, do we need to rely on only one aircraft type? These are all questions that have to be answered. I'm sure that regardless of the aircraft which won the KC-X contest, the USAF will quickly develop its employment in an effective manner.

PS. In the other forum, I notice that people were taking my theory about the 767-300 being too long to be used as a tanker as the gospel truth, despite my disclaimer that I wasn't sure if that was correct.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Darryl

Well said, "Groover."

bobcoppk

As the GAO reviews the Contract Specifications, Evaluation Process and Scorecards, and the potential Award of Bid should not an the issue of "A vs. B" or even the "Buy American" senarios. What really should be the issue is; a) was / is the process of the Specification Requirements through the Award of Bid done correctly, and b) is the Replacement a Sound Investment.

Airbus as well as Boeing have stated the justifications which they believe should make them the respective winners, but the bottom line is what is the best investment for equipment that will perform what it meant to do.

champpitbull2

You guys may want to check this out. Boeing wins key round in tanker protest - U.S. business - MSNBC.com With Mosely and Wynne resigning a couple of weeks ago, the new AF Chief of staff and Secratary of the AF are going to have a much easier time re-bidding this contract because they can blame it on Mosely and Wynne.

corby78

just one of the many ripples in the firing...er...uh I mean resignation. I hope whatever the outcome it is made with the AF needs in mind.

Mystère

Most unlikely now I guess, as it will be brought to the political battlefield...

__________________


Take the money-grab & deceit out of our hobby, and bring back ethics and quality!!
Just say NO to Green Bucks/PAMSick/CJWings

jcochr

washingtonpost.com

I hope they can expedite this re-bidding process. I have always personally felt that the Boeing 767 was the best airplane for the KC-45A tanker, but they need to get this done and get a new tanker aircraft built.

Maybe both airplanes (KC-45 and KC-46?) ultimately should be built as tankers for the USAF (179 to 200 or so in the first group, and then a follow on order a few years down the road of a tanker version of the other aircraft).