| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Pentagon may speed U.S. air tanker award |
| 2010-03-10 |
| Northrop Grumman drops out WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The Pentagon may speed up awarding a multibillion-dollar aerial tanker contract after Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS pulled out of the contest, leaving Boeing Co the sole bidder. The current plan calls for companies to submit their bids by mid-May, with a contract award expected in September; but Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said defense officials are looking at accelerating the current timeline for the program. "We may be in a position where we will be able to take a look at reducing some of those milestones," he said on Tuesday, referring to the 75-day deadline for bids, and plans for the U.S. Air Force to award a contract 120 days later. Senator John McCain, whose probe of an earlier $23.5 billion lease-then-buy tanker deal with Boeing eventually scuttled that contract, declined to fault the latest contest. McCain told reporters on Tuesday the Air Force's handling of the competition appeared to be "legitimate," which made it difficult for lawmakers to intervene, even if they would have preferred to see a competitive process. "I don't see how we can, unless we find some flaw in it, and we haven't found any flaws so far," McCain said. Defense analyst Jim McAleese said McCain's endorsement of the Air Force process, however tepid, made it unlikely that Congress would intervene to avert a sole-source bid by Boeing. "No one else has the conviction or credibility to generate an intervention," McAleese said. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton chimed in late on Tuesday, saying he was disappointed that there would be no competition, but said it was important to start replacing the aging current KC-135 fleet "without any further delay." Whitman said the Pentagon was confident it could negotiate a reasonable price for the tankers even if Boeing were the only bidder. EADS on Tuesday ruled out a solo bid for the work. "There is baseline cost data that is associated with these air frames," he said. "There are also measures the department can take to make sure we are controlling the costs." He declined to specify what measures were in mind, but federal acquisition rules require sole-source providers to certify their pricing data is accurate, timely and complete. The government could also buy less than the 179 airplanes expected in this competition if it believed Boeing's prices were too far off the mark, McAleese said. Unlike the new radar-evading fighter being developed by Lockheed Martin Corp, aerial tanker planes already exist today, Whitman said. He said officials also have ample cost data from the last competition, which Northrop and EADS won in February 2008 but later lost after government auditors upheld a Boeing protest. Boeing last week said it would offer an updated 767-based tanker this time around, including a new digital flight deck from its 787 Dreamliner and a new fly-by-wire refueling boom. The European Commission on Tuesday said it regretted Northrop's decision and would be "extremely concerned" if it became clear that the terms of the competition were written to inhibit competition from Northrop and its European partner. It also noted that the United States traditionally sold more defense goods to Europe than vice versa. In 2008, the United States exported $5 billion, and imported only $2.2 billion of defense material from the European Union. Northrop said it was disappointed that the rules favored Boeing's smaller tanker, but said it would not protest to avoid further delays in the Air Force getting new planes that are used to refuel fighter jets and other planes in mid-flight. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 Classic Rantburg U thread. Thanks guys. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2010-03-10 21:01 |
| #15 What we need now is planes in the air. This is an unmet operational need from the nineties that has been a total procurement disaster. Mistakes were made. People were fired. Perhaps the Feds would have had to settle a civil suit if it were awarded then. None of that is important. Getting the 80% solution in the air five years ago was the most important thing. Similarly now, the most important thing is getting tankers in the air. You will never hear about the mission that ended early, or was never flown, for lack of a tanker. But the opportunity cost there is soldier's lives, lost initiative, and enemies who live to fight again. |
| Posted by: rammer 2010-03-10 20:50 |
| #14 Still a 767-200 fuselage (200LRF vs 200ER). Correction. The 2007 Boeing proposal already used the strengthened freighter airframe. Airbus proposed using the passenger airframe. That ought to have been fun for the aircrew having tons of pallets on rollers on an non-level surface. To overcome the standard A330's nose-down body angle on the ground, the A330F will use a revised nose landing gear layout. The same leg will be used, however its attachment points will be lower in the fuselage, requiring a distinctive blister fairing on the nose to accommodate the retracted nose-gear. This provides a level deck for cargo loading. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-03-10 19:12 |
| #13 The European Commission on Tuesday said it regretted Northrop's decision and would be "extremely concerned" if it became clear that the terms of the competition were written to inhibit competition from Northrop and its European partner. It also noted that the United States traditionally sold more defense goods to Europe than vice versa. In 2008, the United States exported $5 billion, and imported only $2.2 billion of defense material from the European Union. I don't know whether to laugh or rage. 2008 US-EU trade deficit: $96 billion. That includes the measly $2.2 defense surplus but does not include the tens of billions spent subsidizing European defense. Another way to look at $96 billion is more than twice the entire German military budget. That's goes into Euro retirement funds while it comes out of American kids futures. So who has a bone to pick with whom? In addition, I would not be surprised if in 2009 the $2.2B surplus turned into a deficit (Can you say LUH-72?). Bottom line: The B767 won on cost. While it is cheaper to produce is also cheaper to operate. The A330 burns 20% more fuel. That comes out to around 1500 gallons on every 6 hour mission and will do so for the next 50 years of service life. This does not even include the new hangers and tarmac the A330 requires but the N767 does not. Did you know that the KC's haul cargo nearly every bit as much on their mission as they do fuel - and that's why cargo is so important which you didn't account for. Less than 5% of the time. Less than 2% of the time as primarily cargo hauler. But the A330 carries the weight and fuel burn penalty 100% of the time. Tankers are limited and expensive assets whose airframe hours is better spent doing it primary mission than using up life hauling MREs. Tankers make poorer freighters than their commercial cousins due to extra weight and drag they carry. There is nothing either the B767 or A330 can carry that UPS won't for much less cost and that is why the Air Force contracts that stuff out to the thousands of commercial airframes. Combi tanker/freighters only make sense for small Air Forces that can't afford separate tankers (or too cheap/rely on Uncle Sugar) and proper airlifters (C-17). These planes will likely be flying 50+ years. The 767 line had been planned to close in a decade except for this contract. Didn't take that into your decision did you? The A330 will close (see A350 XWB) before the B767 line closes. The Air Force just guaranteed that. Did you consider that the original bid the KC45 outperformed the KC767 in cargo lift, range and fuel capacity? 20% more initial capacity, decreasing to 0% end capacity due to the 20% greater fuel burn. That is why both aircraft have the same range. The A330 is also is limited in basing options due to it's near 2X footprint. And with billions in new required infrastructure not included in the A330 cost calculations. Too me it looks like you'd rather have an inferior flag waving product for the troops than better gear for about the same money. I see where you stand. You are more worried about flag waving than function. Looks to me like you want to blow billions on unneeded, unwanted and unused capacity. Money that could be better used elsewhere, like buying ammo or preparing for the 30% cut Obama desires for the US military. Let me tell your boat riding candy ass something: when you are in the shit, you don't care who made it or where it was made - you just need stuff to work. And that includes the logistics chain. The B767 works. You get more refueling booms/hoses that cost less to operate. That's called combat effectiveness. As for the 777: The 777 is a more modern design air frame, lower cost to maintain, longer between main times, and will remain in production far longer than the 767, meaning we don pay a premium in the out years to get upgrades and parts. Wrong tender. Look to KC-Y or KC-Z tender in 10 or 20 years to replace the KC-10 "strategic" tanker. The Air Force wants to tankers to refuel fighters. One of the good things to come from the protest and rebid is that it forced Boeing to rework the original inferior design. They did re-engine the 767, - Stock B767-200ER engine. update the cockpit to glass, - Yes go with the FBW boom (cuts a lot of weight), - Nothing new. Boeing included that in the 2007 proposal and is offloading fuel. Can't say the same for the Airbus boom. and in doing so, they upgraded the cargo, lift, range and capacity of the 767 based design to something competitive with the NG/EADS design. - Still a 767-200 fuselage (200LRF vs 200ER). Fuel/cargo capacity has not changed. The wing comes from the larger -400 (vs -300). FYI, the Assembly maint, etc was to be done in Alabama. Design and airframe parts built in France. Screwdrivers turned in Alabama. I could go on. But I will not, the die is cast and idiots like you got their way, and as usual the troops pay. Go wave a flag and cheer that Boeing is getting the money. Like it will do any difference for the troops out on the pointy end of things. And USN Ret you are one of the jingoistic buttheads I was referring to. Yada yada... No need to go on. You've waved your weewee quite enough. In the mean time, the Boeing tanker will get to the troops quicker and cost less to buy and operate. The Air Force wanted a KC-135 replacement, an updated 100,000 lb class aircraft that could carry 200,000 lbs of fuel. Instead they will get a 200,000 lb widebody that will carry 200,000 lbs and not the 300,000 lb monstrosity. Unfortunately the US is broke and doesn't have the funds to develop a new tanker airframe. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-03-10 18:47 |
| #12 Spook - which pols do you blame, specifically, for this clusterf&&k? |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-10 16:17 |
| #11 And USN Ret you are one of the jingoistic buttheads I was referring to. I've run into your sort time and again in the service and the various agencies I worked in over my career. I know the stink. Your kind does more harm then you realize with your interference, you tend to be very handy for politicians to use - and use you they did. How does it feel to be a tool? Guys like you burn me up eventually and I let go. Man up and deal with it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-03-10 16:11 |
| #10 No! We need the BEST hoses in the air - and more; the tankers are not just flying gas stations. Did you know that the KC's haul cargo nearly every bit as much on their mission as they do fuel - and that's why cargo is so important which you didn't account for. These planes will likely be flying 50+ years. The 767 line had been planned to close in a decade except for this contract. Didn't take that into your decision did you? Did you consider that the original bid the KC45 outperformed the KC767 in cargo lift, range and fuel capacity? Too me it looks like you'd rather have an inferior flag waving product for the troops than better gear for about the same money. I see where you stand. You are more worried about flag waving than function. Let me tell your boat riding candy ass something: when you are in the shit, you don't care who made it or where it was made - you just need stuff to work. And that includes the logistics chain. As for the 777: The 777 is a more modern design air frame, lower cost to maintain, longer between main times, and will remain in production far longer than the 767, meaning we don pay a premium in the out years to get upgrades and parts. One of the good things to come from the protest and rebid is that it forced Boeing to rework the original inferior design. They did re-engine the 767, update the cockpit to glass, go with the FBW boom (cuts a lot of weight), and in doing so, they upgraded the cargo, lift, range and capacity of the 767 based design to something competitive with the NG/EADS design. FYI, the Assembly maint, etc was to be done in Alabama. I could go on. But I will not, the die is cast and idiots like you got their way, and as usual the troops pay. Go wave a flag and cheer that Boeing is getting the money. Like it will do any difference for the troops out on the pointy end of things. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-03-10 16:11 |
| #9 'We don't need fancy, we need hoses in the air.' Well said. |
| Posted by: Kelly 2010-03-10 15:37 |
| #8 Boeing is at least a US company, while EADS is not. I would not want to buy a plane built be committee; we tried that once ( think A-12 AvengerII) and that didn't work out so well. As to the union argument; look again at the EADS labor force, 35 hour work weeks. take a look at the EU regulations that go way beyond anything we can think up ( OSHA, EPA) they are really burendsome. as to the airframe itself; there is nothing wrong with a 767; agree that it is not the latest and greatest gee-whiz toy, but it is proven. funny i don't hear a lot of people putting down the C-130J (first flight 1954) in favor of the A400M (first flight 2007). i am glad that BMAC did not try to stretch the Screamliner into a tanker; it is not mature enough for that, IMHO. we don't need fancy, we need hoses in the air. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2010-03-10 14:50 |
| #7 Other than size, why would we prefer the 777 to the 767? Boeing claims they're going to update the 767 based tanker with 787 technology, so other than the fact that the 777 is considerably bigger (and more expensive), what's wrong with the 767? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-03-10 12:37 |
| #6 many of the components are made in Wichita which could use the employment since the President's attack on private business jets destroyed the market. Wichita is in flyover country called Kansas, and is not a blue state. |
| Posted by: bman 2010-03-10 11:49 |
| #5 Hmm I overlooked that: Boeing = union labor for the most part, NG/EADS = not nearly as much union, especially in major workign areas in Alabama and Texas. On the upside, at least they are FINALLY getting something to replace the superannuated KC135s (originally entered service in 1957). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-03-10 11:48 |
| #4 Boeing is headquartered in Chicago and the 767 production line in Washington state, bluest of the blue states. Northrop's version would have been built in Alabama, a truely red state. Politics over value? Surely not. |
| Posted by: rwv 2010-03-10 11:28 |
| #3 what a congress led wreck. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-03-10 10:31 |
| #2 767 is still the basis. THat means its nto a s good as the EADS/NG. It should have gone to the 777 for design, but ignorant flag-waving fools helped Boeings lobbyists push the process their way, so we ended up with the inferior 767, which Boeing was planning to shut down had this contract not come. The EADS/NG was not flawless, but it was better over-all, and had a lot more potential. Anyone that knows military aircraft knows that it usually takes a few years until the aircraft are tinkered with by the operations people and made better. But you cannot change fundamental limits involving the airframe and basic range/load capacity. Politicians pushed this one (Looking at you John "the Asshole" McCain). The EADS/NG tanker was newer airframe, easier to maintain, longer range and carried more load. The only thing it didn't have was Boeing's lobbyists and a lot of jingoistic morons who wanted a "made in the USA" plane (in spite of 20-30% of the components sourced overseas) instead of one that serves better (and was still 60% US). So congrats to Boeing, they saved their crappy old 767 assembly line at the possible cost to taxpayers of more money, and cost to military personnel of less capability and higher risk due to shorter range. And the latter part bothers me the most. This will have negative effects: the shorter legs require forward basing - meaning we have to entangle ourselves with other countries in order to base tankers there, instead of merely getting overflight. That also has strategic impact in that we now need to maintain bases for these aircraft in forward areas, and they will not be able to haul as much cargo as the other would (and yes, the tankers typically do haul cargo in addition to fuel). All in all, not a good day for the USAF or the nation. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-03-10 10:08 |
| #1 Golly geez. Think ya need one of dem buffalo when Bush is not Pres? Well, we needed three. So how, pardner will you give us THREE refuling planes? Will ya storm tha gates for em or just call em home? Dem refueling planes can be a tricky bunch when you are out in the brush without em... yep. Make you dream of sweet JP-8 all night long the day you find you could not fuel half of your fleet because you assholes in congress were playing money games with your your local gas station pump extorter's mechanics new flim flam device or prosthetic seem-a-like. Get three, yes 3 refueling planes or I will drop kick you in da eye. Hear me pardner? ;) |
| Posted by: newc 2010-03-10 01:13 |