Article

2010-03-20 Home Front: WoT

Boeing could face a foreign invasion in tanker bidding

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 Steve White 2010-03-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11124 views ] Top

#1 A Russian tanker for DoD?

Is it really April 1st today?

Posted by lex 2010-03-20 00:22|| 2010-03-20 00:22|| Front Page Top

#2 The only reason it's like this is because BOEING are a bunch of corrupt assholes who belong in prison. The last tanker deal didn't end 'correctly' so they're trying again.

Posted by gromky 2010-03-20 05:33|| 2010-03-20 05:33|| Front Page Top

#3 It may indeed be the case the Boeing is what you've said.

However, there's a legitimate debate going on inside USAF on the requirements for this tanker. The Airbus 330 simply does NOT fit onto the sort of runways we anticipate needing to use for many conflicts over the next decade+. The Boeing plane does but is older.

Neither plane offered in the last round met the specs as written. The specs were revised a bit and the solicitation re-opened.

Is there politics involved? Is the Pope Catholic?

Yes - BOTH bidders brought political pressure to bear on the source selection. Northrup/EADS aren't exactly victims here.

Posted by lotp 2010-03-20 06:45|| 2010-03-20 06:45|| Front Page Top

#4 The A330 has a nose down pitch while parked making it a total (*$!&%) to load pallets without special jacking equipment. Tell me how this makes sense in an operating environment with limited GSE.

Posted by tzsenator 2010-03-20 09:48|| 2010-03-20 09:48|| Front Page Top

#5 Aviation GSE = ground support equipment, ie, K-loaders, forktrucks, nose jacks, etc.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-03-20 09:55|| 2010-03-20 09:55|| Front Page Top

#6 I suppose I shall be heretical for a moment.

I like the idea of buying both the KC767 and the KC45 (A330).

Now I understand the argument against doing that; we'd have to train pilots and ground crews to service two planes, not one, keep spares for two, not one, etc.

Nonsense. The Air Force does that all the time anyway. We have multiple types of C, F and A types of aircraft, and the Air Force somehow manages to keep it all straight. We even have two types of K aircraft today (KC-135 and KC-10).

The reason for multiple types: each allows us to meet a need.

The KC767 is smaller, uses existing runways and ground equipment, and can be based closer to wherever the problem is. But it's smaller so it carries less fuel / cargo.

The KC45 is larger and so hauls more, but yes it requires longer runways, larger hangers and so on, so it won't ordinarily be brought close to the front.

We can use both. The Air Force needs to be close to the action and it needs to haul lots of stuff.

I'd buy both in a 2:1 split to the winner. Since this is the first of a planned three rounds of contract tenders, the loser of the current round has plenty of incentive to stick around for the next tender. That helps with costs, and if the Air Force decides in a subsequent tender that they need more of one type or the other they can adjust accordingly.

Politics is the art of the possible. It's possible to leave both sides happy enough (or at least minimally unhappy) by splitting the contract. That's what I would do.

Posted by Steve White 2010-03-20 10:39|| 2010-03-20 10:39|| Front Page Top

#7 OpenSourceIntel's report on the Russian potential bid

Posted by 3dc 2010-03-20 11:16|| 2010-03-20 11:16|| Front Page Top

#8 Just bidding is a cheap way for the Russians to delay delivery of planes that extend US reach into their near-abroad. They never need to deliver anything. Just delay, obstruct and confuse to process.

From their perspective, there is no need to defeat what doesn't arrive.

Procuring new tankers is a real need that should be addressed immediately with a directed procurement if necessary. Then we can follow-up with a competitive bid for the future tanker at leisure.

Posted by rammer 2010-03-20 13:04|| 2010-03-20 13:04|| Front Page Top

#9 "the process" duh

Posted by rammer 2010-03-20 13:08|| 2010-03-20 13:08|| Front Page Top

#10 I think #8 hits the nail on the head.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-03-20 13:54|| 2010-03-20 13:54|| Front Page Top

#11 Never happen. The Chinese will copy the design and underbid the Russians.

But it would rule out any protracted ops against any interest Putin and his successors deem not in their interest. No flying tankers, no extended air ops.

And America could have saved a fortune by buying MiG-23s instead of F-15s, T-72s, K-whatever subs, and those plutonium thingies that make earth shattering kabooms.

Or we could have gone home in 1945.

Posted by ed 2010-03-20 15:32|| 2010-03-20 15:32|| Front Page Top

#12 Re: the tanker and everything else.....

What happened to the grown ups? The children are not doing so well.

Posted by Kelly 2010-03-20 16:07|| 2010-03-20 16:07|| Front Page Top

23:31 BigEd
23:19 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Hellfish
23:05 Barbara Skolaut
22:35 newc
22:28 newc
22:28 newc
22:22 newc
22:08 Hotspur666
22:01 newc
21:56 Asymmetrical Triangulation
21:40 lotp
21:39 Hotspur666
21:37 Rambler in Virginia
21:28 ryuge
20:52 Grunter
20:24 abu do you love
20:17 Snash Sforza6070
20:17 phil_b
20:08 Besoeker
20:04 Besoeker
20:03 lex
19:58 Glenmore