Boeing KC-46A Tanker/Transport

[Woody]

If the Pentagon sticks to to it's current request - the one that gives no extra credit for the KC-30's greater capacity and simply awards the cheapest enterant that can do the KC-135's job, they'd have to award Antonov. For Boeing to win now, they'd have bid even lower or get the rules changed once more until they favour them again, like they thought they'd done last time.

Makes me wonder if Antonov had any European encouragement.

Cheers, Woody

 

[Woody]

"Certain air force personnel may have intentionally delayed the messenger from delivering our proposal to create a pretext for refusing to consider it because they have political issues with our eastern European supplier," US Aerospace says in the filing.

The GAO bid docket website shows that the USAF's response to US Aerospace's claims is not due until 10 November, which is two days before the KC-X contract is scheduled to be awarded.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/05/345811/us-aerospace-appeals-against-kc-x-exclusion-blames-usaf.html

Oh well that's one way to deal with it - nice one Boeing.

Cheers, Woody

 

[AeroFranz]

I have to say, it is a little bit amateur-ish to send the bid with only 30 minutes to spare...
But then I also understand that they were working on the bid until the last minute.

 

[Triton]

On March 19, 2010 edition, the Wall Street Journal published a story stating that United Aircraft Corporation intended to bid on the United States Air Force KC-X tanker contract with the Ilyushin Il-98. UAC was going to partner with an undisclosed small US defense contractor who was going to be renamed United Aircraft Corporation America, Inc. Curiously enough, the attorney who represented United Aircraft Corporation was present at the signing of the recent Strategic Agreement between Antonov and US Aerospace who submitted a bid on the KC-X contract.

Source:
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2010/03/russian-uac-ilyushin-il-96il-98-kc-x.html

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWUMsAwTFRY


Artist's impression of Boeing NewGen Tanker.

Source: http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/photos

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing NewGen Tanker.

Sources:
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/photos
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/Action/Sticker

 

[AeroFranz]

Regardless of which side you are on, the renderings are just that, RENDERINGS (sorry, don't mean to rag on kindly posted pictures!). There is no Boeing KC-X tanker flying today. That is a fact. All the pretty solid models in the world will not change that. I am sick of all the B.S. going back and forth between EADS and Boeing on jobs creation, price, performance figures pulled out one's derriere. Have you picked an AvWeek lately? It's a mud-slinging party of lies crafted by the marketing pukes of both sides which bear no relation to reality.

Ok, end of rant. i had to get it out of my system.

 

[Triton]

The initial contract of the KC-X program is for 179-aircraft. Does anyone have an estimate of the total number of aircraft that may be built over the life of the program? Is it just intended as a replacement of the Boeing KC-135 Statotanker aircraft in USAF service or will the program also replace the McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender tankers in USAF service? Something in the 700-plus aircraft range might be built over the life of the program?

 

[F-14D]

The initial contract of the KC-X program is for 179-aircraft. Does anyone have an estimate of the total number of aircraft that will be built over the life of the program? Is it just a replacement of the Boeing KC-135 Statotanker or will the program also replace the McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender tankers in USAF service? Something in the 700 plus range?

KC-X is strictly replacing part of the KC-135 fleet. Theoretically, KC-Y and Z(which may be folded into KC-Y) address the rest of the tanker requirement

 

[F-14D]

"Certain air force personnel may have intentionally delayed the messenger from delivering our proposal to create a pretext for refusing to consider it because they have political issues with our eastern European supplier," US Aerospace says in the filing.

The GAO bid docket website shows that the USAF's response to US Aerospace's claims is not due until 10 November, which is two days before the KC-X contract is scheduled to be awarded.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/05/345811/us-aerospace-appeals-against-kc-x-exclusion-blames-usaf.html

Oh well that's one way to deal with it - nice one Boeing.

Cheers, Woody

Sorry, Woody, but you're being unfair if you seriously think this is Boeing's doing. Ignoring the somewhat bizarre nature of their proposal (as Bill Sweetman and others have so eloquently detailed), we find that US Aerospace:

1. Requested a delay in the bid date because they messed up requesting the restricted data of the RFP and subsequently had less time to put their proposal together.

2. Publicly opined that their proposal might not all the required criteria.

3. Waited until the last minute and then sent a messenger (for a $35 billion contract one of them couldn't go themselves?) to deliver the bid only arriving at the base 30 min. before the deadline.

5. Sent a messenger who did not have the proper documentation to enter the base.

6. No one had bothered to find out how to get to the reception location. Wright-Patt is a big base, you'd think for $35 BILLION dollars, you might want to have a map. If you've ever been to a big base you'll know that the gate guards do not necessarily know where everything is. You'll need to go to the HQ or Security Police main office to find that out.

7. After the messenger wandered around aimlessly for a while , USAF eventually sent someone to lead them to take them to the location, something USAF was not required to do.

8. Through their own fault, they got there too late.

These are amateurish mistakes. One has to wonder if they ever seriously intended to try and win on merit.

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

The initial contract of the KC-X program is for 179-aircraft. Does anyone have an estimate of the total number of aircraft that will be built over the life of the program? Is it just a replacement of the Boeing KC-135 Statotanker or will the program also replace the McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender tankers in USAF service? Something in the 700 plus range?

KC-X is strictly replacing part of the KC-135 fleet. Theoretically, KC-Y and Z(which may be folded into KC-Y) address the rest of the tanker requirement

There's a KC-Y & Z?? ???

 

[Steve Pace]

Don't forget the DARPA/Northrop Grumman KQ-X program.

 

[Triton]

It is a shame that Lockheed Martin chose not to submit its Advanced Mobility Aircraft (AMA) program KC-X box wing tanker/transport concept in the KC-X competition. The KC-X box wing concept was equipped with two refueling booms and two drogue refueling systems. Hopefully, we might see the concept appear in the KC-Y and KC-Z competitions.

 

[Triton]

Regardless of which side you are on, the renderings are just that, RENDERINGS (sorry, don't mean to rag on kindly posted pictures!). There is no Boeing KC-X tanker flying today. That is a fact. All the pretty solid models in the world will not change that. I am sick of all the B.S. going back and forth between EADS and Boeing on jobs creation, price, performance figures pulled out one's derriere. Have you picked an AvWeek lately? It's a mud-slinging party of lies crafted by the marketing pukes of both sides which bear no relation to reality.

Ok, end of rant. i had to get it out of my system.

Is the Boeing NewGen Tanker really going to be that much better than the KC-767A/KC-767J? Although the Boeing NewGen Tanker may not be flying today, it is still a tanker/transport based on the Boeing 767 airliner. Would the performance of the KC-767A/KC-767J programs for the Italian Air Force and the Japan Self Defense Force be a good indicator of how the Boeing NewGen Tanker will perform for the United States Air Force? What does Boeing mean by the "sixth generation" boom and will it be much of an improvement over the boom that is currently in use on the KC-767A/KC-767J?

 

[AeroFranz]

Would the performance of the KC-767A/KC-767J programs for the Italian Air Force and the Japan Self Defense Force be a good indicator of how the Boeing NewGen Tanker will perform for the United States Air Force? What does Boeing mean by the "sixth generation" boom and will it be much of an improvement over the boom that is currently in use on the KC-767A/KC-767J?

You could argue that the KC-X offering has a mix-and-match set of parts (hence the term "Frankentanker") that make it different from the Italian and Japanese planes, but it's not a couple of feet of extra span or a different dash of the engine that will make a big difference IMHO...So yeah, that's actually a pretty good reference point to look at.
As for the boom, i bet "sixth generation" means whatever the marketing guys want it to mean. Maybe there is an option for pouring non-fat-decaf-mocha-with-whip instead of Jet-A...

 

[Triton]

I thought that this was an interesting article from The DEW Line discussing a Boeing KC-787:

Trimble, Stephen. "Should Boeing offer the KC-787?" The DEW Line. August 28, 2008.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/06/should-boeing-offer-the-kc787.html

 

[Steve Pace]

I thought that this was an interesting article from The DEW Line:

Trimble, Stephen. "Should Boeing offer the KC-787?" The DEW Line. August 28, 2008.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/06/should-boeing-offer-the-kc787.html

Doubtful. Boeing can't even deliver its 787s to airlines yet. No telling how long the USAF would have to wait... SP

 

[Triton]

Boeing also considered a 777-based tanker for the KC-X competition in 2006.

Sources:

Wallace, James. "Aerospace Notebook: Boeing now offers the 777 as a tanker". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. September 27, 2006.
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/286578_air27.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-777-pics.htm

 

[Triton]

Doubtful. Boeing can't even deliver its 787s to airlines yet. No telling how long the USAF would have to wait... SP

I agree. The freighter version of the Boeing 787, the 787F, is predicted to be available in the 2019-2024 timeframe, based on the historical timeframe of Boeing freighter programs. A KC-787 might be a proposal for the KC-Y or KC-Z competitions, depending on the timing.

Source:
Ostrower, John. "Boeing: We're ready for a 787 Freighter." Flight Blogger. May 22, 2008
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/05/boeing-were-ready-for-a-787-fr.html

 

[Triton]

Boeing tanker briefing at the Air Force Association’s 2009 Air & Space Conference.

Source:
http://taylorempireairways.com/2009/09/boeing-promotes-7a7/

 

[AeroFranz]

Thanks for the link. Interesting charts that I am definitely saving. I am still not impressed with claims made by either side's PR departments, though. In Homer Simpson's words:

"People make up statistics to prove anything. 40% of the people know that." ;D

 

[Triton]

From theworacle via YouTube:

Boeing video animation of its 767-based NewGen Tanker proposal for the US Air Force's 179-aircraft KC-X competition to replace KC-135 aerial refueling tankers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJgyO5hIXAw

 

[Steve Pace]

No KC-X Selection This Year: The Air Force will not be in the position to award the KC-X tanker contract until early 2011, putting off the selection of either Boeing or EADS North America as the tanker supplier that USAF and Pentagon officials expected to make this fall. "Certain aspects of the source selection have taken longer than we originally anticipated," said USAF spokesman Col. Les Kodlick, reported AFP. He added, "So right now we expect an award to occur early next year." Coinciding with this announcement came word that earlier this month the Air Force mistakenly sent Boeing confidential documents meant for EADS and visa versa due to "an unfortunate clerical error," Kodlick told The Seattle Times (see report). These documents were technical assessments of each company's bid and reportedly included confidential pricing data. Kodlick said this gaffe is not the cause of the source-selection delay. (See also AFP report, Associated Press report via The Seattle Times, The Press-Register of Mobile, Ala., report, and Reuters report) From Air Force Magazine -SP

 

[F-14D]

No KC-X Selection This Year: The Air Force will not be in the position to award the KC-X tanker contract until early 2011, putting off the selection of either Boeing or EADS North America as the tanker supplier that USAF and Pentagon officials expected to make this fall. "Certain aspects of the source selection have taken longer than we originally anticipated," said USAF spokesman Col. Les Kodlick, reported AFP. He added, "So right now we expect an award to occur early next year." Coinciding with this announcement came word that earlier this month the Air Force mistakenly sent Boeing confidential documents meant for EADS and visa versa due to "an unfortunate clerical error," Kodlick told The Seattle Times (see report). These documents were technical assessments of each company's bid and reportedly included confidential pricing data. Kodlick said this gaffe is not the cause of the source-selection delay. (See also AFP report, Associated Press report via The Seattle Times, The Press-Register of Mobile, Ala., report, and Reuters report) From Air Force Magazine -SP

And we thought the A-12 procurement was the most screwed up possible? It seems that after the Air Force shoots itself in the foot, it then reloads!

 

[Stargazer]

No KC-X Selection This Year: The Air Force will not be in the position to award the KC-X tanker contract until early 2011, putting off the selection of either Boeing or EADS North America as the tanker supplier that USAF and Pentagon officials expected to make this fall. "Certain aspects of the source selection have taken longer than we originally anticipated," said USAF spokesman Col. Les Kodlick, reported AFP.

Can anyone on this forum give me the name of one single Air Force program of the past 30 years that didn't take longer than anticipated and/or didn't cost a lot more than expected??

Makes you wonder how they recruit the decision-makers, and how they can stay there for so long!

 

[Matej]

Can anyone on this forum give me the name of one single Air Force program of the past 30 years that didn't take longer than anticipated and/or didn't cost a lot more than expected??

Children's day

Makes you wonder how they recruit the decision-makers, and how they can stay there for so long!

Its not about the decision itself. Its political and industrial lobby, so typical for the government sector. Its not very positive but I realized during the last 15 years that it is almost the duty of all unsuccessful firms to made some kind of protest, after they loose government contract.

 

[Steve Pace]

No KC-X Selection This Year: The Air Force will not be in the position to award the KC-X tanker contract until early 2011, putting off the selection of either Boeing or EADS North America as the tanker supplier that USAF and Pentagon officials expected to make this fall. "Certain aspects of the source selection have taken longer than we originally anticipated," said USAF spokesman Col. Les Kodlick, reported AFP.

Can anyone on this forum give me the name of one single Air Force program of the past 30 years that didn't take longer than anticipated and/or didn't cost a lot more than expected??

Makes you wonder how they recruit the decision-makers, and how they can stay there for so long!

As I recall, here in the US, the last USAF program that moved well was the LWF program that created the YF-16 and YF-17. Since then, nada. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

Two other programs comes to mind - the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler programs. -SP

 

[SOC]

Ah, but the latter two moved along well (apart from failing to design suitable weapons pylons) in large part because there were no other options on the table.

And you never blame the decision makers, you blame the idiots who put them in power in the first place.

 

[Deino]

Seems as tomorrow is the day !!!!!


http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/recapping-the-kc-x-contest/
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/tanker-decision-expected-thursday-feb-24-5pm-est

It now appears the USAF will announce the tanker contract Thursday, Feb. 24, at 5pm EST. Expectations are that EADS will be awarded the contract, but there have been so many twists and turns that we’re not predicting the outcome.

. . .

Here is the timeline of what happens next:

* The announcement is made.
* The Department of the Air Force has 10 calendar days to brief the losing side.
* The losing side can request an accelerated debrief.
* The losing competitor then has 10 calendar days from the time of the debrief to file the actual protest with the GAO.
* The GAO then has up to 100 calendar days to rule on the protest (they may take less time).
* The results can be: 1.) GAO finds no merit and throws out the entire protest; 2.) GAO sustains part of the protest; 3.) GAO sustains all of the protest.
* The GAO does not rule on whether or not the Department chose the right aircraft, which aircraft was better, etc. It only rules on whether the proper process was followed during the source selection.
* The Department can then accept the ruling and provide a timeline for how they will address the issues the GAO ruled on and determine whether and how it impacts the outcome. Or, they can note the GAO ruling but proceed as originally planned.

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/tanker-award-will-be-announced-thursday?a=1&c=1171

The Air Force will announce the winner of the $35 billion KC-X tanker contract on Thursday, February 24 after financial markets close. Judging from the frequency with which Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter has been talking up the notion of a "globalized" defense market recently, European aerospace giant EADS is the winner.

. . .

EADS is already acting like it has won, which isn't surprising since it knows its plane received a higher warfighting effectiveness rating. Boeing could challenge the rating methodology and several other facets of the selection process, but since price is the key discriminator in the outcome, it is more likely to pursue a political strategy focusing on EADS use of prohibited trade subsidies in developing and marketing its planes.

 

[Deino]

BOEING !!!

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/x-day-part-2-and-the-winner-is-boeing/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25tanker.html?_r=2&hp

I have to admit I'm not surprised but a bit disappointed ...
Deino

 

[Steve Pace]

Boeing, Boeing, Boeing
KC-46A goes to EMD phase

 

[fightingirish]

Like my fellow countryman Deino, I'm not surprised but a bit disappointed.

And my congratulations do not go mainly to Boeing, but more to the young men and women in the USAF, who will hopefully fly and mantian the Boeing KC-46A asap!

 

[Deino]

....
And my congratulations do not go mainly to Boeing, but more to the young men and women in the USAF, who will hopefully fly and mantian the Boeing KC-46A asap!

AMEN !!!

... when should the first KC-46A be ready ?? 2017 ! So let's go.

Deino

 

[Stargazer]

I'm extremely disappointed, to say the least. Once again, politics and influence have won over technological edge.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's some recent images depicting what the KC-46A might look like. -SP

 

[unclejim]

Are we going to call this C-46 the Commando II, or perhaps the Stratocommando?

 

[batigol]

Once again, politics and influence have won over technological edge.

Money is always the ultimate factor.

 

[Steve Pace]

Are we going to call this C-46 the Commando II, or perhaps the Stratocommando?

How about Stratotanker II? -SP

 

[John21]

As previous posters have said before, I am not really surprised. Politics has trumped common sense once again. Sigh, here is to hoping the development and eventual entry into service goes smoothly. Even if it is second best.

I am just ticked off that it takes so loooooong to get stuff into service now a days. Why can't we go back to the old days where development to first production would only take a couple of years at most instead of 10-15.