| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 jhack |
GAO comes down on Boeing's side in tanker |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 101 (18-Jun-2008 20:45:48) |
The General Accounting Office found that there were improprieties in the tanker competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman and that Boeing has a case.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpiwvcT75vNwVSQXlmyFnca0O8jQ The KC-135 is going to be 100 years old before we replace it. |
||
|
pascaly |
|||
|
Posts: 1501 (19-Jun-2008 05:09:41) |
Having spent every day for the last 5 or so years surrounded by tenders, RFQs and market soundings (and all the other goodies large projects bring), if
Boeing felt there were improprieties in the evaluation and tender process, then they had the right to appeal. Since it now appears those fears were grounded,
then they rightly so should re-evaluate both bids.
|
||
 BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1799 (19-Jun-2008 05:19:18) |
I can see this being a split bid with Boeing and NG/EADS both being awarded between 85-100 aircraft just to shut everybody up.
|
||
|
Michael ODonnell |
|||
|
Posts: 1934 (19-Jun-2008 06:08:55) |
I can see this being a split bid with Boeing and NG/EADS both being awarded between 85-100 aircraft just to shut everybody up.Quite possibly, as there is little to choose between these aircraft. In the interim though, I can imagine the USAF tearing their hair out in frustration. All they want (or wanted, given the time for this entire project), was one type of tanker to replace the ageing KC-135Es. One type would do the job and keep the training, logistics and maintainence systems simple. Splitting the buy would complicate that, and it would also make the buy more expensive, and both companies would be bringing in their R&D and production start-up costs. At least it might mean that the USAF gets the aircraft it needs in the not-too-distant future. The likely future buys of more tankers to replace the KC-135Rs and the KC-10s would make this situation a little more palatable. Still, a split buy would make any future acquisitions in the US (and potentially other countries) interesting; does the losing bidder see that if they make enough noise for long enough, eventually they will be given something to shut them up regardless of the merit (or otherwise) of their proposal? |
||
|
jhack |
Split buy | ||
|
Posts: 102 (19-Jun-2008 08:28:45) |
We already use a split tanker fleet anyway. I can see the KC-767 replacing the KC-135 as the primary tanker and the Northrop Grumman-EADS Airbus replacing the
KC-10. We use the 135 primarily to carry fuel, so would the 767. The KC-10 was the original multi-role tanker transport and the A-330 is being marketed to
Australia and Europe as an MRTT.
|
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2996 (19-Jun-2008 21:05:35) |
I would go for the KC-767 to replace the KC-135Es and half the KC-135Rs, and KC-45s to replace the other half of the KC-135Rs and the KC-10s.
Production to be simultaneous, at a lower rate per type than originally planned... but a slightly higher combined rate. |
||
|
Michael ODonnell |
|||
|
Posts: 1935 (20-Jun-2008 05:19:29) |
While it is true that there are already 2 tankers in USAF service (3 if you include KC-130s), they perform fairly different roles. This is reflected by the
very different size and weights of the aircraft. But the Boeing B767 and the Airbus A330 are much closer in size and weight, which makes them less than ideal
for the different roles. I suppose one way might be to ask them to build for different ends of the specification. Logically, Boeing with the smaller B767-200
should aim for the tactical tanker role, with fuel offload the main priority, with probably only a secondary passenger capacity. Then Airbus might then be
persuaded to base their bid not on the A330-200 model but the longer A330-300 model for greater cargo capacity (with a cargo door and freight floor as proposed
for the A330-200 freighter), perhaps with a MTOW upgrade to 240 tonnes as they have studied. Still, a lot of messing around for what should have been a single
type replacement.
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
|||
|
Posts: 1533 (20-Jun-2008 05:55:52) |
That's the spirit - two tankers types instead of one.
Two production lines Two logistical pipelines Two Crew training pipelines Neither good for all tanker mission. so great career opportunities for planners trying to figure out how to deploy them. And, emphasize cargo carrying to compete with the pure cargo carrying types. Good Lord. |
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 3001 (20-Jun-2008 08:03:58) |
That's exactly what the USAF has right now!
And that's exactly what the USAF was planning all along for the future! The current competition is ONLY for the KC-135E replacement. There are additional, separate competitions planned for the KC-135R and KC-10 replacements. The KC-10 replacement, in particular, cannot be satisfied by any KC-767 variant (too small internally). This means that this, at least, will be a different aircraft from the KC-135 replacements... if the B-767 is chosen. If the KC-45 is actually produced, then (as Mike O'D speculated) a longer, higher-capacity variant might be produced... in which case there would really be only one model of jet tanker. This is extremely unlikely, as Congress would really put pressure on the USAF to choose a new Boeing tanker if the KC-45 is actually produced for the early competitions. |
||
|
jlyons97 |
|||
|
Posts: 1538 (20-Jun-2008 14:57:54) |
Fine.
It's still a stupid idea. Could get someone fired. |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4263 (21-Jun-2008 07:11:28) |
Including a cargo capacity in tankers doesn't "compete" with the airlifters, it supplements them. The Air Force already operates this way. The
KC-10s routinely carry passengers and palletized cargo when they are supporting the movement of deploying squadrons -- how else is the unit's support
personnel and equipment going to get in theater? Far better for them to ride along with the deployment tanker, which already has the room and the weight
capacity, than to add more burdens to the already overloaded airlift force. KC-135s also carry cargo, though less often than the KC-10s (mainly because they
tend to weight-out with fuel, a fault that a new KC-135 replacement should avoid if possible). In both cases, adding the cargo capacity doesn't really
affect the plane's tanker capability, but it comes in handy in specific operational situations.
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
|||
|
Posts: 1544 (21-Jun-2008 15:26:53) |
pascaly wrote: Everyone bidding on a DoD RFP should believe in the integrity of the system. What you're saying is, that it doesn't matter, the issuer of the RFP is free to change the rules to meet a political need (in this case, IHMO, to err of the side of favoring EADS less some else go to jail) Not good. And, my proposed rationale for cooking the evaluation leaves out the possibility of criminal activity.The Airbus is a good airplane; regrettably the USAF's RFP did not ask for that kind of airplane. That's the source of the protest and the GAO's evaluation of the process. Every bidder on such a contract gets to spend a lot of corporate funds putting the bid together. It is not a zero-risk game because if one loses, the sunk costs are never recovered. But if you as a orporation are going accept the risk, you at least need to believe the issuer of the RFP is not going to conspire against you. I left the Defense Contracting business because, inter alia, my employer was billing the government customer for hours spent preparing bids on other contracts. The government POC, an engineer, was uninterested in cost issues, did not monitor the spending, and was ultimately hired by the company when he retired from government service. Think this is uncommon? |
||
|
pascaly |
|||
|
Posts: 1502 (23-Jun-2008 03:12:46) |
jlyons97, sorry, don't get me wrong. Like I said, I've spent years working on large projects; I'm all for an equitable process that gets the best
solution, not the best kickback or best PR (seen that one a few times). My last comment was merely a flippant aside, venting some of my frustrations in
support of the OP's comment of the KC-135E being 100 years old when they're replaced.
I thought I'd made that clear by stating that Boeing had a right to protest if they thought there was a problem, and if there was, then the process was faulty and not to be trusted. Guess I wasn't as clear as I thought. |
||
|
jlyons97 |
|||
|
Posts: 1549 (23-Jun-2008 13:09:37) |
pascaly wrote: No apologies necessary - you were quite clear. I suppose my (now somewhat old) frustrations of being on both sides in that business have not yet been laid
to rest!. I really don't see a clear way to a faster procurement in this mess.
|
||
|
Ichigo Kurosaki |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 40 (24-Jun-2008 11:27:12) |
I find it hard to believe that EADS could build a tanker from scratch. At least Boeing has the practical experience. EADS doesn't even have a working
prototype. Just drawings and some first-gen blueprints.
I will NEVER give up!!
|
||
|
pascaly |
|||
|
Posts: 1503 (24-Jun-2008 12:55:25) |
Mate, you're just getting better and better. So, you know how to fly an Su-37, you know how to fly the YF-23.....but you don't know that EADS has two
boom equipped tankers flying (the first RAAF KC-30B and an A310 test-bed) and at least four hose-and-drouges (2 CC-150 Polaris and 2 Luftewaffe models, there
could be more, that's all off the top of my head).
I, like others, are calling shenanigans. Stop ruining decent, interesting posts with this high-school rubbish. |
||
|
jlyons97 |
EADS has two boom equipped tankers flying | ||
|
Posts: 1553 (24-Jun-2008 16:54:07) |
pascaly wrote: Has not EADS and Boeing already (non-USAF) gone head to head on tankers? I forget the numbers and they are not large, but do I also remember EADS won all of these competitions? |
||
|
Ichigo Kurosaki |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 43 (24-Jun-2008 20:29:49) |
According to the info I've read, only the airframes have flown. The EADS/Northrop tanker boom is still under development. They may have had used older
booms or mock-ups on the testbed, but from what I gather, the working boom that EADS had been boasting of is still being developed and has not been built or
tested, though that's supposed to happen later this year. Maybe Jane's got it wrong, but I doubt it.
I will NEVER give up!!
|
||
|
Gernsback |
|||
|
Posts: 278 (24-Jun-2008 20:48:05) |
Your info is years out of date then, it's already passed fuel in flight. Boeing's Gen6 design has not done so and is slower than the EADS design actually.
Last Boeing tanker was the KC-135, last produced in 1965. Rather doubt they've got any experience left from that one. Even if you add in the KC-10 from McDonnell Douglas, that was over 20 years ago. |
||
|
PK |
KC-767 vs A330 MRTT | ||
|
Posts: 708 (24-Jun-2008 23:30:52) |
Customers so far for A330-200 with Centerline Boom and Hose&Drogue Pods in the wings:
- UK government insists on a PFI concept (private financing initiative) and signed a contract with the Airtanker Consortium for 14 aircraft. - Australia 5 - Saudi Arabia 3 - UAE 3 A310 MRTT with Hose&Drogue Pods in the wings: - Germany 4 - Canada 2 KC-767 was selected by - Italy 4 - Japan 4 |
||
|
jhack |
|||
|
Posts: 108 (30-Aug-1999 21:14:52) |
We just had to ground all our F-15 A-C models because of structural problems. Fortunately we had the F-16 to cover our assets. Two tanker types does not sound
all that bad with that in mind.
|
||
