Article

2008-06-19 Home Front Economy

Boeing Wins Protest of Northrop Aerial-Tanker Award

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-06-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Bottom line on the appeal is that the USAF screwed this up.

If the bids stay substantially the same, NG/EADS (NG is the lead contractor) will still win it because they have the newer designed airframe, better cargo capacity and longer range. In short, the better aircraft for the mission.

Boeing is out of their mind if they think that shorter range, less cargo capacity and forward basing are part of the USAF strategic plans. Plus Boeing was unable to deliver as many aircraft as quickly as NG/EADS (Boeing would have taken years longer to do the full replacement and would have been very slow in the initial ramp up and volume of early deliveries compared to NG/EADS).

The bad thing is that this will further delay production, add to costs, and worse, force the USAF to continue to use worn out old tankers for years more while Boeing tries to wrangle a new bid.

No wonder those generals got fired - this is a mess, and it hurts the US strategically.

If the laws would allow it, I'd say screw the GAO review (its not about the better aircraft its about USAF management)and build the more capable aircraft from NG/EADS, and get cracking on it NOW.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-19 09:21|| 2008-06-19 09:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Boeing claims that the Air Force misled it into bidding with a smaller airframe (the 767), because according to the Air Force's own requirements, a larger size airframe than what they asked for would not get more points in the competition. The Boeing IDS president has previously stated that if the Air Force communicated to Boeing that it wanted a larger airplane, Boeing would have gladly offered a 777 tanker (which would trump an Airbus 330 based tanker).
If this goes back to a rebid, I bet the airplanes offered will not be the same as before. NG/EADS would have to compensate f Boeing does offer a 777.
It would be an odd twist if the Air Force does end up getting an even better airplane as a result of this. But yes, like OldSpook said, any further delays will be painful for the warfighter.

Posted by sludge 2008-06-19 09:42|| 2008-06-19 09:42|| Front Page Top

#3 I will be impressed when I see a design with an option for multiple booms able to handle groups of UAVS all at once.

Should have seen the Wichita news this morning - the montage storyline was that it was the common workers who rose up and sent petitions to Senators clinton and obama, forcing the issue and saving the day. Power to the People! Power to the Workers!

Also, Senator roberts gave his speech but didn't get mentioned as a (new wave) republican.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-06-19 12:32|| 2008-06-19 12:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Either design had multiple booms; the problem with UAVS is qualifying them to perform the operations. Airflow around the tanker can make handling tricky, and qualification tests for various UAVS are underway.
Will not argue OS's position, but the key to the protest was that the AF screwed the pooch on this and got caught.
McCain needs to learn to shut up as today he is reported to still be railing against this. he is going to lose more votes than he gains with this anti-boeing tirade.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-06-19 14:57|| 2008-06-19 14:57|| Front Page Top

#5 I have no objection to Boing winning a rebid, especially if they do it with a 777 airframe - probably far more durable, more capacity, and more of it here in the US. I'd rather see NG run the project but use Boeing engineers, etc. (Personally was on a project that was set up exactly that way, and it was one of the best Ive been on)

The USAF really screwed their own people with this.

I almost see the need for a nozzle and drogue system like the Navy uses, instead of the flying boom, at least in the case of UAVs.

A cursory look makes me think it gives the option of a longer gas hose, putting the UAV in an area further away from the tanker, resulting in better collision safety for the tanker and less turbulence for the UAV if its far enough.

Refueling UAVs (both remote piloted and self guided) qualifies as a tough technological problem - sounds like they should have let that part of the contract independently. NG makes a lot of Predators, and has considerable expertise in the field - they and they GlobalHawk team could probably come up with a refueling system that would work given basic parameters for how its attached to the tanker airframe.

I betcha you could load up an A-10 with buddy attachments on the wingtips and rig a system out pretty fast. The Hawg can fly low and slow, has a decent lift capacity, and I bet it presents a far more favorable profile in terms of turbulence. And it can refuel itself off the big tanker to "relay" fuel to large/long-range UAVs. A-10 in theater, tankers fly in, it gasses up its tanks, then gasses up the UAVs, then goes into an OAV-10 mission profile to spot for the UAV, and deliver GAU-8 fire as needed.

Just a thought - if anyone in the USAF manages to think outside the doggone box they might see this to be a pretty efficient solution.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-19 15:45|| 2008-06-19 15:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Hoses over booms, makes sense. Wonder if that test they just did with the scale F-18 would be able to be used to help with turbulence. Now I'm wondering about spirit airflow.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-06-19 16:49|| 2008-06-19 16:49|| Front Page Top

#7 Only problem we (USN) ever saw with hoses was the 'sine wave whip' when excess closure rate on the part of the receiver hit the drogue (basket) too hard. if we were lucky we only had the basket separate and the receiver would carry it home. Made for interesting flight deck ops when it came off the probe. A flying boom might be easier for UAVs since the Boomer would be able to drive the plug into the receptacle.
Scale tests with the Hornet and other aircraft show good flying qualities when up close and personal with the tanker.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-06-19 17:29|| 2008-06-19 17:29|| Front Page Top

#8 "Just a thought - if anyone in the USAF manages to think outside the doggone box they might see this to be a pretty efficient solution."

Oldspook, your idea about the KOA-10 is indeed excellent. I'm sure it's not needed, however. I'm sure that the Air Force is already considering ways to task the F-22 to this mission.

We need more F-22s you know.

Posted by Snineting Tojo5324 2008-06-19 18:10|| 2008-06-19 18:10|| Front Page Top

23:41 JosephMendiola
23:15 trailing wife
23:12 Abdominal Snowman
23:10 mojo
23:08 Frank G
23:05 Greamble the Kid6252
22:54 trailing wife
22:53 DMFD
22:51 trailing wife
22:48 FOTSGreg
22:44 FOTSGreg
22:41 trailing wife
22:39 Frank G
22:36 Eric Jablow
22:32 RD
22:30 Angie Schultz
22:25 trailing wife
22:24 RD
22:23 Redneck Jim
22:21 Beavis
22:20 Redneck Jim
22:12 crosspatch
22:11 crosspatch
22:06 Besoeker