USAF KC-46A Tanker Update

[tva2]

Info Credit & Copyright (c) 2008
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ker26.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..."By ERIC ROSENBERG AND JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force could announce the winner of a multibillion-dollar contract to build a new fleet of tanker jets as early as Tuesday, after a high-level Pentagon meeting Monday afternoon.

Two teams have been vying for the contract to build the tanker, dubbed the KC-X.

The Boeing Co. has proposed new aerial tanker jets that would be based on the company's 767 commercial airliner.

A rival team of Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp. modeled its design on Airbus' commercial A330 commercial airliner.

The Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board -- which is responsible for signing off on the plan to buy 179 new aerial tankers -- met Monday to weigh the decision, said Cheryl Irwin, a spokeswoman for John Young, the panel's chairman. As the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, Young is the top weapons procurement official in the Pentagon.

Irwin said Young was briefed on the program to replace the Air Force's refueling tankers but had not yet approved the program moving forward.

Such a decision, which could be made as early as Tuesday, would give the green light to Pentagon officials to award the tanker contract.

Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman, said she did not know when the contract award would be announced.

Previously, Pentagon officials have said an announcement would be made before the end of February. The acquisition board's meeting was viewed as the last remaining bureaucratic hurdle for the contract, potentially worth more than $100 billion.

The initial contract for 179 tankers is expected to be worth as much as $40 billion. With the addition of possible future tanker orders, the program could eventually top $100 billion.

The Air Force said its selection would be based on which tanker proposal better met five criteria: mission capability, proposal risk, cost and price, past performance and aircraft design characteristics such as tanker fuel capacity, takeoff performance and fuel consumption.

The Air Force has given less weight to cost in order to prevent the bidders from lowballing their estimated cost upfront, only to sock the government later with cost overruns.

The Air Force hopes to dissuade the loser from protesting the loss to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

A protest would delay the program while the GAO investigated the Air Force process that led to selecting the winning bidder...."

[SquAdmin]

According to officials who are involved, the announcement of the winner may not come before Friday.

[Bjorn320]

the winner will offcourse be the american B767, although reading an older artical in the AFM about tankers, the A330 out performs the 767 on every front about range, payload and fuel capacity..

[ehusmann]

Although I agree with Bjorn that Boeing somewhat is the favourite, these two remarks might lead to another decision:

The Air Force has given less weight to cost in order to prevent the bidders from lowballing their estimated cost upfront, only to sock the government later with cost overruns.

The Air Force hopes to dissuade the loser from protesting the loss to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The B767 is clearly cheaper than the A330, but the A330 outperforms the B767 on most of the criterias mentioned. If the best plane (A330) still is beaten, you might anticipate a big protest! So.......

.....w´ll have to wait and see!

Erwin

[tva2]

I second that both with Bjorn and ehusmann.

EADS/Airbus receives a significant amount of subsidies from the European governments that have helped to some extent distort the market for commercial airplanes. Nonetheless the U.S. Congress is going to be very disturbed or apprehensive about EADS/Airbus. They certainly do not intend to allocate this massive order to Airbus with a lot of U.S. tax money when the company is having its aircraft subsidized by the European government.

[Coati]

Well, the US also subsidize it's aircraft manufactors by means of the enormous defense budgets allocated to the builders. With this moneyflow the manufactor has a continuum in income and is less depended of commercial sales. This is common practice and subject of a long fight between Airbus and Boeing.

Not a very strong point I guess and also maybe a bit of topic. Also, when this is the point of view, Airbus shouldn't have joint the competition anyway, but they did. So probably they have a chance of winning it.

Let's wait and see what the decision will be.

[Richard from Rotterdam]

They certainly do not intend to allocate this massive order to Airbus with a lot of U.S. tax money when the company is having its aircraft subsidized by the European government.

That would mean an even better deal for the Americans then!! And built by American labour!

[tva2]

Not a very strong point I guess and also maybe a bit of topic. Also, when this is the point of view, Airbus shouldn't have joint the competition anyway, but they did. So probably they have a chance of winning it.

Let's wait and see what the decision will be.

Indeed Coati,


Although both KC-X airframes (either Boeing or EADS) will be build in the US, the EADS proposal carries a significant number of benefits compared the B767 tanker derivative. You have to factor in the specs on range, payload, etc and of course economics. So buying "american" or 'european" does not constitute the definitive factor for either choosing Boeing or Airbus. But it does have 'weight' in the procurement process.
Both competing companies have lobbied heavily and have spend a large amount of money for contributions. But it is difficult to check the influence contributions and lobbying have in this tanker deal.
The defense procurement system should be objective but both sure think it isn't , or they would not invest that kind of money.

Remember the decision to procure the new Marine One by the Lockheed-Martin/Agusta-Westland - team. A 'european' helicopter for the president. ..

we'll wait and see the outcome of this all...

[ehusmann]

The defense procurement system should be objective but both sure think it isn't , or they would not invest that kind of money.

Remember the decision to procure the new Marine One by the Lockheed-Martin/Agusta-Westland - team. A 'european' helicopter for the president. ..

Don´t forget the first decision taken in this procurement. Already one time the B767 was selected and had to be cancelled. the lobbying went a little too far and the decision wasn´t very ´objective´. So again I say, the A330 hasn´t lost it yet. I for one wouldn´t be surprised if it comes out on top...... but yes, let us wait and see, only one more day

Erwin

[SquAdmin]

only one more day

Maybe two, they will probably announce it after the stock markets have closed.

[SquAdmin]

Latest news: announcement could be postponed with a week.

According to this article (thanks Alert5.com) we could expect some protests, as the criteria have suddenly been changed in the last few weeks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndu ... 0520080228" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ehusmann]

This makes me even more sure we are all right:

WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Weeks before making a final decision, the U.S. Air Force changed criteria used to assess rival bids from Boeing Co and Northrop Grumman Corp for new refueling tankers, resulting in a lower score for Northrop, people familiar with the changes said on Thursday.

I read this as: Airbus/Northrop was the best offer, so they changed the specs to make Boeing more interesting.

I would hate it if true, but I am afraid of the outcome now.....

Erwin

[Thermal]

Oh come one guys who are we kidding.

Think the outcome is very obvious. The 767 would provide much more US workers with work then the A330 (despite the involvement of Northrop Grumman). And especially in these times, the US economy can use a boost.

To think that an aircraft is always chosen for it´s performance instead of it´s local economical value is sadly a myth.

[SquAdmin]

The 767 would provide much more US workers with work then the A330 (despite the involvement of Northrop Grumman).

I sincerely doubt that. The A330's are to be manufactured in the US, just like hundreds of Pilatus/Beech T-6's and Eurocopter UH-72's. As for now, we know nothing for sure so let's wait until the decision has been made public.

[Richard from Rotterdam]

That is true. Actually the Airbus project would be very beneficial for the Deep South of the US, where the factory would be built. This poverty stricken part of the US can really use the establishment of this factory.

But all in all, some people within the airforce apparently want a Boeing plane, otherwise you wouldn't change the criteria at such a late stage. Remember this programme has run for many years already.