Boeing KC-46A Tanker/Transport

[Sundog]

website is up.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's Boeing's latest KC-X offering. Go to Boeing.com and click-on news for all the details...

 

[blackkite]

Beautiful Tanker! It's B767 variant. Our B767(JAL/ANA) has no winglet.
Why don't you use B777 or B787? ;D

 

[F-14D]

Beautiful Tanker! It's B767 variant. Our B767(JAL/ANA) has no winglet.
Why don't you use B777 or B787? ;D

Primarily because the KC-X competition looks like it's going to be decided on price. Boeing feels that the KC-767 can meet all of the mandatory requirements for KC-X. While KC-777 offers more payload, range, and other features, the way the competition is set up, they will get little or no credit for those extra capabilities, and that KC-777 would cost more. Regarding a KC-787, the Dreamliner is too early in its development. Especially given, the delays in getting it airborne, it would be perceived as way too risky.

Don't forget, there's a KC-Y competition down the road, and the extra capabilities of a KC-777 may fit more nicely in that one. Who knows, maybe that one or its follow-on will have us witnessing KC-787 vs KC-350...

 

[blackkite]

Thanks a lot.I understand.

 

[Stargazer]

There had already been a winner, that was the Airbus as marketed by Northrop Grumman. Some politicians were pissed that this was not a US design and got the whole selection process invalidated...

 

[F-14D]

There had already been a winner, that was the Airbus as marketed by Northrop Grumman. Some politicians were pissed that this was not a US design and got the whole selection process invalidated...

[this has been going around for so long...]

Once again: What happened was that USAF awarded to NG/EADS. There was a protest. It was sustained on the grounds that while USAF may have decided that NG/EADS produced a bid that they wanted more, by their own rules, what they had asked for and the way they handled the competition, they couldn't make the award they did. If they really decided the scenarios had changed and this was the best plane, then they needed to go back out and solicit for what they actually wanted. Some politicians were happy, some were pissed, but if you look at what happened, USAF really blew it.

 

[SOC]

Is this going to be an outright buy this time? There was talk of a weird leasing arrangement the first time around, which would have been a massive mistake.

 

[Just call me Ray]

Once again: What happened was that USAF awarded to NG/EADS. There was a protest. It was sustained on the grounds that while USAF may have decided that NG/EADS produced a bid that they wanted more, by their own rules, what they had asked for and the way they handled the competition, they couldn't make the award they did. If they really decided the scenarios had changed and this was the best plane, then they needed to go back out and solicit for what they actually wanted. Some politicians were happy, some were pissed, but if you look at what happened, USAF really blew it.

If they had included a clause or at least some language along the lines of "we have the right to judge the entrants on additional criteria other than minimum listed" they may have avoided this. I imagine some sort of language like this is going to appear in the new RFP, if just to be on the safe side this time.

 

[F-14D]

Once again: What happened was that USAF awarded to NG/EADS. There was a protest. It was sustained on the grounds that while USAF may have decided that NG/EADS produced a bid that they wanted more, by their own rules, what they had asked for and the way they handled the competition, they couldn't make the award they did. If they really decided the scenarios had changed and this was the best plane, then they needed to go back out and solicit for what they actually wanted. Some politicians were happy, some were pissed, but if you look at what happened, USAF really blew it.

If they had included a clause or at least some language along the lines of "we have the right to judge the entrants on additional criteria other than minimum listed" they may have avoided this. I imagine some sort of language like this is going to appear in the new RFP, if just to be on the safe side this time.

If they had a clause like that, no one would have bid. The original solicitation on that go-round did have something similar to that, although not as explicit. Essentially it said, "Here's what we want, and here's what and how we're going to evaluate you. Price is a factor, but you must also do these basic things to be viable. If you met the basics, we will also give extra credits of this much for these extra capabilities, also weighing in what it will cost to get them. So, make your proposals relative to what we say here". Problem was, for whatever reason you care to speculate, USAF proceeded to not follow their own rules, change criteria in mid stream, play fast and loose with certain procedures and basically not do what they said they'd do when they told the bidders what the competition was about.

This time, what they seem to be saying is, "We're gong to award o price. Here are the things you must be able to do to be considered. We'd appreciate it if you'd give us more, but you won't get credit for anything above the requirements unless the bids are within 1 % of each other. If they are, then we'll credit those extra capabilities up to 1% of the price of the bid. We'll then select on lowest adjusted price". An award on price is usually unprotestable unless the loser can show that the other bidder did not meet the minimum or their price was incomplete (say, the price bid by the rival didn't include wings).

 

[F-14D]

Is this going to be an outright buy this time? There was talk of a weird leasing arrangement the first time around, which would have been a massive mistake.

The lease came about because Congress was not willing to provide the necessary annual funding to buy the tankers outright. So, a lease was the only way to get the tankers Congress wanted USAF to have within the funding Congress was willing to provide. A lease-buy is always more expensive in the long run than an outright buy, but Congress claimed to be, "... shocked; Shocked, I say!" when the numbers worked out the way everyone knew they'd have to work out.

This contract, like the one that collapsed so controversially, is an outright buy.

 

[Skybolt]

Absolutely agreed with F-14D. The time has long past since USAF and Navy could tweak the requirements en route to fit something they wanted or simply to fit the proposal they liked the most (see what happened with the B-52 competition). If you look at the KC-767 and the Airbus 330 side-by-side it is difficult to deduce that they were bidded for the same competition. Tankers must contain a specified amount of fuel, they are envelopes with a standard load inside, and the two planes are structurally the same. You cannot even appeal to the structural breakthroughs that made the different contenders in some competitions so diverse in the '50s and early '60s.

 

[Triton]

I cannot say that I am unbiased in the KC-X tanker competition. If Boeing is chosen and the KC-767 is built in Everett, my local economy will be benefited since I live in the Puget Sound region.

 

[Steve Pace]

I cannot say that I am unbiased in the KC-X tanker competition. If Boeing is chosen and the KC-767 is built in Everett, my local economy will be benefited since I live in the Puget Sound region.

Right on... Steve in Tacoma

 

[sublight]

If the pitot tube on the airbus tanker gets frozen will it shut down all the flight computers? That's the marketing angle Boeing should take.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,679980,00.html

 

[Triton]

Right on... Steve in Tacoma

Donald in Jet City aka Seattle.

 

[SOC]

The lease came about because Congress was not willing to provide the necessary annual funding to buy the tankers outright. So, a lease was the only way to get the tankers Congress wanted USAF to have within the funding Congress was willing to provide. A lease-buy is always more expensive in the long run than an outright buy, but Congress claimed to be, "... shocked; Shocked, I say!" when the numbers worked out the way everyone knew they'd have to work out.

This contract, like the one that collapsed so controversially, is an outright buy.

Noted, but the problem the first time around, from an operational standpoint, had nothing to do with financing. Apparently there was talk of a serious problem with the lease issue, insofar as it would've restricted the amount of changes that the USAF could make to the airplane. I had this discussion with a few wing-level officers in a KC-135R unit. That would've basically invalidated the use of the new tanker in a number of missions.

 

[SOC]

It's over, Boeing will win by default. Northrop Grumman has withdrawn from the competition:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/northrop-drops-competition-pentagon-tanker-contract/

 

[F-14D]

The lease came about because Congress was not willing to provide the necessary annual funding to buy the tankers outright. So, a lease was the only way to get the tankers Congress wanted USAF to have within the funding Congress was willing to provide. A lease-buy is always more expensive in the long run than an outright buy, but Congress claimed to be, "... shocked; Shocked, I say!" when the numbers worked out the way everyone knew they'd have to work out.

This contract, like the one that collapsed so controversially, is an outright buy.

Noted, but the problem the first time around, from an operational standpoint, had nothing to do with financing. Apparently there was talk of a serious problem with the lease issue, insofar as it would've restricted the amount of changes that the USAF could make to the airplane. I had this discussion with a few wing-level officers in a KC-135R unit. That would've basically invalidated the use of the new tanker in a number of missions.

I have no doubt that the operational issue is true. However, the reason for the lease was that Congress would not provide enough money to carry out their wishes (not the first or last time that has happened). If you read contemporus accounts of what happened, including the words of Congresscritters themselves, you will also see that they then complained loudly because the lease-buy was going to cost more than just buying them outright. Congres is famous for this kind of stuff. For example, some years back Congress authorized a Mars probe, to take advantage of a launch window when Mars was particularly close to Earth. But then, they decided to defer providing the funding, until it no longer was possible to use that window. Once they finally got around to providing the funding, a later window had to be used. Mars would be further away this times, so the probe would have to be modified to withstand a longer time in transit. This resulted in a more expensive mission. Congress got upset because they said they had authorized a mission at a particular cost, and now the scientist wanted more money. That fact that Mars doesn't particularly pay attention to what is published in the Congressional Record was lost on them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It's over, Boeing will win by default. Northrop Grumman has withdrawn from the competition:

I'd wait to the tenders are in. Someone else may think its worth spending the $$$ for a compliant tender and there are other platforms out there.

 

[SOC]

Who else could conceivably offer that type of aircraft? Tupolev or Ilyushin could, but yeah, no chance. McDonnell Douglas could...er wait...bought by Boeing ages ago. Lockheed Martin could probably come up with something interesting, but then you have to push everything back too far to develop and test a whole new airframe. What other airframe is in the 767/A330 category? The only really serious option would be for Lockheed to jump all over EADS in a partnership agreement. Otherwise, all the politicians and their voters will have gotten their way, basically influencing a competition that was supposed to have moved beyond that this time.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The A310 MRTT is a more direct capability competitor with the KC-767 and the tooling is gathering dust. EADS could partner with a range of other non-aircraft building US primes. L-3, Raytheon, etc.

 

[SOC]

Can somebody like that seriously come up with a partnership agreement and a complete proposal by May, for a contract award in September? Boeing's proposal will be turned in sometime in May, so I imagine that the deadline is somewhere around there. The timelines may have been compressed because the two bidders already had thought things out previously. Raytheon-they've dealt with aviation in the past, and could be a very outside-the-box option, but L3 hasn't, as far as I know (at least in terms of making airframes). I think if you want a serious contender it almost has to be Lockheed. Of course, if they beat Boeing, it could be the C-5 bickering all over again!

 

[Michel Van]

It's over, Boeing will win by default. Northrop Grumman has withdrawn from the competition:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/northrop-drops-competition-pentagon-tanker-contract/

if you don't know it
Boeing and USAF are pair of lovers since 1947...

 

[Skybolt]

Lovers, mmmmmm well... Apart B-52 and KC-135s, I cannot remember really great bias from USAF part. Just to remember a few: B-58, B-68, B-70. Atomic Bomber, TFX, C-5, CX, AMSA, ATF, ATB, KC-10... Ok for the Air Force One and assorted electronic vehicles (Jstars, AWACS), but really I can't see any real love. Ok, add Minuteman and Dyna Soar. Still, only occasional dating.

 

[Stargazer]

Lockheed Martin could probably come up with something interesting, but then you have to push everything back too far to develop and test a whole new airframe.

Not necessarily... I guess a TriStar could have made a really nice tanker... except the airframes may be a bit old now for such reconditioning.

 

[SOC]

I meant Lockheed could conceivably have come up with a brand new design, not a conversion of something existing.

 

[Steve Pace]

Lovers, mmmmmm well... Apart B-52 and KC-135s, I cannot remember really great bias from USAF part. Just to remember a few: B-58, B-68, B-70. Atomic Bomber, TFX, C-5, CX, AMSA, ATF, ATB, KC-10... Ok for the Air Force One and assorted electronic vehicles (Jstars, AWACS), but really I can't see any real love. Ok, add Minuteman and Dyna Soar. Still, only occasional dating.

Don't forget the B-17, B-29, B-47, B-50, BoMarc and C/KC-97...

 

[Stargazer]

I don't think the list given refered to Boeing winners, but rather to programs in which Boeing had bid unsuccessfully. Indeed, TFX (F-111) was won by GD, C-5 (CX-HLS) by Lockheed, AMSA (B-1) by Rockwell, KC-10 by MDD...

It is not because many of these companies are now part of Boeing that they were Boeing at the time. Quite the contrary, they often competed with the company that later acquired them! Boeing makes it sound on their website like it's all part of the company's history (and I tip my hat to their historians for at least not letting all the heritage of these companies disappear), but it's not the case! Boeing owns the remains of North American Rockwell, McDonnell, Douglas, Curtiss-Wright and many more... but let's not call all these past aircraft "Boeing", please!

 

[AeroFranz]

brrrr....I shudder to think that someone might refer to the Boeing DC-3...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Boeing makes it sound on their website like it's all part of the company's history (and I tip my hat to their historians for at least not letting all the heritage of these companies disappear), but it's not the case! Boeing owns the remains of North American Rockwell, McDonnell, Douglas, Curtiss-Wright and many more... but let's not call all these past aircraft "Boeing", please!

Not quite. In many cases Boeing did not 'acquire' these firms but the companies were merged. The formation of modern Boeing was by merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Since the "Boeing" fighter business remains at St. Louis they are far more McAir than Big B. The same goes fo Boeing North American and so on. The key thing in understanding these corporate dynamics is not the one page summary you may read in a book 10 years after the event but the actual event for the workers and worksite. If the acquisition of another company means everyone is fired, the factory closed down, the files moved to another site, etc then that history would be dead. But since what happens is the workforce stays on but with a new header on their pay slips the history and culture lives on.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for clarifying this, Abraham.

 

[turbi]

The KC-X program just received an unexpected bid from <<US Aerospace Inc>> feat three different Antonov offers in one:

-- An-112 KC a presumed twin turbo prop variant of An 12
-- An-122 KC a twin fan variant of an-124
-- An-124 KC a variant of an-124

The offer sounds technically odd. They also want to assembly the involved airframes in Ukraine. With such program, I guess they currently dont have any chance to win it.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/02/343992/us-company-partners-with-antonov-in-surprise-kc-x-bid.html

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

an-124 kc. makes me think of a flying oil tanker with that size

 

[Colonial-Marine]

You gotta respect Antonov for actually submitting a bid in this mess, but I can't imagine their bid will be taken seriously. Assembly in the Ukraine? Perhaps it is more of a publicity move on their part?

 

[Matej]

...or the argument for the Boeing: We didn't get the contract directly, there was the competition, we had the competitor!

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Matej I think the current round of the never-ending-tanker-battle-extraordinaire will rest on the jobs argument. Even if Antonov was practically giving AN-124 tankers away, I don't think they would stand much of a chance for that reason alone.

Plus even though they are a Ukranian company these days, I imagine the NIH factor is a bit higher due to the Soviet/Russian connection.

 

[Grey Havoc]

There has been some speculation that the An-112 design is actually a jet powered derivative of the An-70.

 

[fightingirish]

US Aerospace Inc. has released a sales brochure revealing the Antonov An-112KC as a new version of the An-70 airlifter with twin, GE90-class GEnx-class engines and an extended wing. [Strike-through explanation: Arnold told me the engines were GE90-class, but the brochure says they are at the top-end of the GEnx-class -- actually, the same engines powering the 787-9.]
Although the company asked for a 60-day extension, US Aerospace submitted a proposal for the KC-X contract by the 2pm deadline yesterday.
Amazingly, the company delivered the proposal despite receiving the actual forms from the US Air Force less than six hours before the deadline, says company adviser Chuck Arnold.
The sales brochure also appears to be a rush-job. Apparently to illustrate the An-70's austere landing capabilities, US Aerospace showed off a photo of the aircraft parked in a snow-covered field (slide 8). The image, however, appears be a benignly-framed view of the An-70 that crashed in Omsk in January 2001 after two engines failed on takeoff. Sales brochures are allowed to slightly stretch the truth, but that's going a bit far.

Source and sales brochure:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/finally-the-an-112kc-revealed.html
http://www.slideshare.net/TheDEWLine/an-112-kc?from=ss_embed

 

[TomS]

Interestingly, the DEW Line blog on the An-70/An-112KC design is now gone and the briefing has been made private. Someone violate some disclosure rules, perhaps?