Boeing KC-46A Tanker/Transport

[F-14D]

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

Folks,

Whether this was the "right" choice or not, the rules were pretty straightforward, this go-round. This is partly a reaction to how USAF kept screwing up the process lo these many years. There were certain minimum criteria that had to be met. Both a/c did. No credit would be given for exceeding the requirements unless the two bids were within 1% of each other. If so, 92 other factors would then be considered and USAF would then "adjust" the bid prices for the purposes of calculating the winner. Boeing's bid was more than 1% less that EADS'. Therefore, no adjustment, and they awarded strictly on price.

 

[Steve Pace]

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.

By contract the first 18 combat-ready KC-46As will be delivered by 2017. -SP

 

[Jemiba]

Money is always the ultimate factor.

Principally correct, but for such projects the sum of money needed depends on the
way, calculations are made. And this way is a part of politics, not just of economics !
Honi soit qui mal y pense ... :-\

 

[mkellytx]

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

Not necessarily. I've flown tankers, I know people who were on both source selections and my politics are probably closer to the the types complaining about the politics of picking Boeing. The biggest probelm, me and the other KC-135 guys had with the KC-45 was that you had an airplane bigger than the KC-10 that offloaded less fuel and flew shorter distances (than KC-10) competing to replace KC-135's. When you consider the current KC-135's aren't using all of their capacity, why should you pay all the extra money to fly all that extra metal around the sky in a tanker filled to less than capacity? In terms of life cycle costs, the airplane burning less gas will have a big advantage. Back on the Key forums I ran some numbers on the A330 from the POH and posted them, you don't get all that much extra time on station from the bigger airplane (going from memory here, not enough extra time on station to offset the fewer aircraft you can fit on the ramp).

Really what I think this came down to was, who's requirements were king? What do I mean by this, namely who drove the decision, the fighter guys or the transport guys. Most of the tankers are owned by AMC, but most of the users are the fighter types. What was so attractive about KC-45 to the AMC community was all of that extra cargo capability at a lower up front price. Since, their C-17's are in very high demand, they saw KC-X as an opportunity to take some pressure off of Barney. The fighter guys really don't care about the trash hauling, they just want booms in the air. The smaller size of the 767, means more planes on the ramp, more booms in the air and the lower fuel burn means more money for the really important stuff, fighters.

Again, all IMHO, as more comes out on the source selection (especially if there's a protest) it should become more clear why the decision was made. For the record, I do work in the acquisition community (not in manned flight!) and have at least a little knowledge on some of this stuff.

Cheers.

 

[Deino]

Folks,

Whether this was the "right" choice or not, the rules were pretty straightforward, this go-round. This is partly a reaction to how USAF kept screwing up the process lo these many years. There were certain minimum criteria that had to be met. Both a/c did. No credit would be given for exceeding the requirements unless the two bids were within 1% of each other. If so, 92 other factors would then be considered and USAF would then "adjust" the bid prices for the purposes of calculating the winner. Boeing's bid was more than 1% less that EADS'. Therefore, no adjustment, and they awarded strictly on price.

Thanks for that since I wasn't aware of that ! ... but then - maybe I'm wrong or using twisted logic ??? - I don't understand.

If I need to buy something and I have two products with both products are along my RFP and one is for 4,50€ and the other one for 4,52€ !

IMO it would be logic then to check which one of both is exceeding the requirements especially when within 1% and then I would maybe buy the "better" one which offers more performance to a relative minor increased price.
If one would cost 4,50€ and the other one 5,20€ ... and I also have to buy some other things, then I agree to take the cheaper one since it actually fullfills my requirements.

 

[Stargazer]

Anyone know why "KC-45A" has become KC-46A?

And what has the "45" slot been allocated to, then?

 

[Deino]

I think simply not to confuse with the A330MMRT, which is known as the KC-45.

Deino

 

[fightingirish]

Yep, I like the designation "Boeing KC-46A Commando II" so far.


Best way to forget the name "Frankentanker"

 

[AeroFranz]

Well, i hope they get their planes ready in time. God only knows Boing-Boing took its sweet time fixing a minor flutter problem on Italy's tankers...and these were standard run-of-the-mill 767s, not Frankentankers.

 

[Steve Pace]

Anyone know why "KC-45A" has become KC-46A?

And what has the "45" slot been allocated to, then?

I suspect that the designation KC-46A was applied as to not give EADS a slap in the face. Since EADS' entry had been designated KC-45A, it would have come across rather strange that Boeing's winner offering was also designated KC-45A. My opinion. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

Yep, I like the designation "Boeing KC-46A Commando II".


Best way to forget the name "Frankentanker"

Commando II is too Curtiss-ish whereas Stratotanker II is Boeing-ish. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's some KC-46A data - see attached pdf. -SP

 

[Stargazer]

Anyone know why "KC-45A" has become KC-46A?

And what has the "45" slot been allocated to, then?

I suspect that the designation KC-46A was applied as to not give EADS a slap in the face. Since EADS' entry had been designated KC-45A, it would have come across rather strange that Boeing's winner offering was also designated KC-45A. My opinion. -SP

Proof that DoD no longer goes by its own rules. Remember the FX competition? At the time, there was a McDonnell Douglas F-15, a Rockwell F-15 and a Fairchild-Republic F-15. "F-15" was the designation allocated in advance to whatever design won the game. By skipping "T-50", "C-30" or "C-45", they are sending manufacturers the message that their commercial fake designations have some sort of significance, while THEY should allocate the designations in advance for manufacturers to follow.

 

[Triton]

Anyone know why "KC-45A" has become KC-46A?

And what has the "45" slot been allocated to, then?

I suspect that the designation KC-46A was applied as to not give EADS a slap in the face. Since EADS' entry had been designated KC-45A, it would have come across rather strange that Boeing's winner offering was also designated KC-45A. My opinion. -SP

Proof that DoD no longer goes by its own rules. Remember the FX competition? At the time, there was a McDonnell Douglas F-15, a Rockwell F-15 and a Fairchild-Republic F-15. "F-15" was the designation allocated in advance to whatever design won the game. By skipping "T-50", "C-30" or "C-45", they are sending manufacturers the message that their commercial fake designations have some sort of significance, while THEY should allocate the designations in advance for manufacturers to follow.

If the Department of Defense was sending manufacturers the message that their commercial fake designations have sort of significance then the Boeing KC-X would have been designated the KC-767, or KC-767A, by the Department of Defense.

I don't agree with you, Stargazer2006. The designation KC-45 was given to the Northrop Grumman/Airbus "KC-30" when it was selected on February 29, 2008. The Department of Defense ordered 179 KC-45As. The contest was re-opened in March 2008 after Boeing's successful protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) effectively canceling this order. The KC-45 and KC-45A designations had already been given to the Northrop Grumman/Airbus aircraft and through usage the KC-45 designation was synonymous with this aircraft. Therefore, I don't agree that the Department of Defense erred in designating the Boeing KC-X as the KC-46 and KC-46A when it was selected on February 24, 2011.

 

[F-14D]

Folks,

Whether this was the "right" choice or not, the rules were pretty straightforward, this go-round. This is partly a reaction to how USAF kept screwing up the process lo these many years. There were certain minimum criteria that had to be met. Both a/c did. No credit would be given for exceeding the requirements unless the two bids were within 1% of each other. If so, 92 other factors would then be considered and USAF would then "adjust" the bid prices for the purposes of calculating the winner. Boeing's bid was more than 1% less that EADS'. Therefore, no adjustment, and they awarded strictly on price.

Thanks for that since I wasn't aware of that ! ... but then - maybe I'm wrong or using twisted logic ??? - I don't understand.

If I need to buy something and I have two products with both products are along my RFP and one is for 4,50€ and the other one for 4,52€ !

IMO it would be logic then to check which one of both is exceeding the requirements especially when within 1% and then I would maybe buy the "better" one which offers more performance to a relative minor increased price.
If one would cost 4,50€ and the other one 5,20€ ... and I also have to buy some other things, then I agree to take the cheaper one since it actually fullfills my requirements.

Again, you've got to look at what was going on. AF's first award got shot down because they didn't follow their own rules. The second attempt didn't get very far because it really, really looked like they were stacking the deck. So, to avoid this one blowing up, and to minimize the likelihood of protests, they made this a price competition.

Again, if they both meet or exceed the base requirements (and they both did), the price of the proposals is examined, including total cost. If they were within 1 % of each other, only then are other non-price factors evaluated, which might offset the higher price of one. Boeing claims the total cost of the KC-767 would be $35 billion less over the life of the program. EADS maintains the difference would be nowhere near that much, but they apparently don't dispute that it would be cheaper. Since both proposals met the baseline requirements and the difference between the two bids was more than 1%, by the rules set down in the solicitation the award has to be made on price. So, Boeing wins.

 

[F-14D]

Yep, I like the designation "Boeing KC-46A Commando II".


Best way to forget the name "Frankentanker"

Commando II is too Curtiss-ish whereas Stratotanker II is Boeing-ish. -SP

How about "Stratopumper"? ;D

 

[F-14D]

Anyone know why "KC-45A" has become KC-46A?

And what has the "45" slot been allocated to, then?

I suspect that the designation KC-46A was applied as to not give EADS a slap in the face. Since EADS' entry had been designated KC-45A, it would have come across rather strange that Boeing's winner offering was also designated KC-45A. My opinion. -SP

Proof that DoD no longer goes by its own rules. Remember the FX competition? At the time, there was a McDonnell Douglas F-15, a Rockwell F-15 and a Fairchild-Republic F-15. "F-15" was the designation allocated in advance to whatever design won the game. By skipping "T-50", "C-30" or "C-45", they are sending manufacturers the message that their commercial fake designations have some sort of significance, while THEY should allocate the designations in advance for manufacturers to follow.

It might not actually be that complex. KC-45 was actually assigned to an aircraft, the KC-330. As it turns out we didn't buy any of them, but that doesn't change the fact that it was formally assigned to a real aircraft. Therefore, the next "available" number is KC-46

 

[Maveric]

The whole competition was a joke. B)

 

[Triton]

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

Really? How is the EADS North America KC-45 technologically superior to, or have a technological edge over, the Boeing KC-46 NewGen Tanker? The modernized NewGen KC-10 boom not advanced enough compared to the KC-45? The use of the advanced digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays not advanced enough compared to the KC-45?

 

[Stargazer]

I don't agree with you, Stargazer2006. The designation KC-45 was given to the Northrop Grumman/Airbus "KC-30" when it was selected on February 29, 2008. The Department of Defense ordered 179 KC-45As. The contest was re-opened in March 2008 after Boeing's successful protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) effectively canceling this order. The KC-45 and KC-45A designations had already been given to the Northrop Grumman/Airbus aircraft and through usage the KC-45 designation was synonymous with this aircraft. Therefore, I don't agree that the Department of Defense erred in designating the Boeing KC-X as the KC-46 and KC-46A when it was selected on February 24, 2011.

I understand, and to a certain extent it makes sense. But... supposing EADS appeals and gets the whole decision nulled... and supposing EADS wins, will it be the C-45 again, or the C-47?

 

[circle-5]

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

Really? How is the EADS North America KC-45 technologically superior to, or have a technological edge over, the Boeing KC-46 NewGen Tanker? The modernized NewGen KC-10 boom not advanced enough compared to the KC-45? The use of the advanced digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays not advanced enough compared to the KC-45?

I agree with Triton, Jemiba and others who understand the Boeing KC-46 is the best airplane for the job. The EADS product was unnecessarily large and expensive to purchase and operate. While its extra airlift capability was real, the Air Force will be better served by using the money saved to procure additional C-17s, for example. Either way, there will always be sore losers, blaming politics, rigged selection processes or whatever else comes to mind. Boeing won. End of story.

 

[F-14D]

I don't agree with you, Stargazer2006. The designation KC-45 was given to the Northrop Grumman/Airbus "KC-30" when it was selected on February 29, 2008. The Department of Defense ordered 179 KC-45As. The contest was re-opened in March 2008 after Boeing's successful protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) effectively canceling this order. The KC-45 and KC-45A designations had already been given to the Northrop Grumman/Airbus aircraft and through usage the KC-45 designation was synonymous with this aircraft. Therefore, I don't agree that the Department of Defense erred in designating the Boeing KC-X as the KC-46 and KC-46A when it was selected on February 24, 2011.

I understand, and to a certain extent it makes sense. But... supposing EADS appeals and gets the whole decision nulled... and supposing EADS wins, will it be the C-45 again, or the C-47?

If it's the same, or virtually the same KC-330, it'd be the KC-45. Of course, one of the reasons USAF went to a price competition is that they're really hard to protest. Basically, EADS would have to show that using the analysis USAF said it was using, they were actually cheaper, or within 1% of Boeing. If the latter case applies, then the extra factors kick in, and they'd have to show that they'd come out on top there.

Keep something else in mind: Even if the above happened, the extra factors only permit a limited adjustment or credit of the bid price. They probably aren't going to release any pricing info until after the debrief, but let's say for the sake of argument that Boeing's price was 7% lower. Even if every one of the extra factors went EADS' way, the permitted adjustment under the competition rules (that everyone agreed to) would not be enough to offset Boeing's lower price. And in this competition, price rules.

 

[circle-5]

Anyone know why "KC-45A" has become KC-46A?

And what has the "45" slot been allocated to, then?

I suspect that the designation KC-46A was applied as to not give EADS a slap in the face. Since EADS' entry had been designated KC-45A, it would have come across rather strange that Boeing's winner offering was also designated KC-45A. My opinion. -SP

Proof that DoD no longer goes by its own rules. Remember the FX competition? At the time, there was a McDonnell Douglas F-15, a Rockwell F-15 and a Fairchild-Republic F-15. "F-15" was the designation allocated in advance to whatever design won the game. By skipping "T-50", "C-30" or "C-45", they are sending manufacturers the message that their commercial fake designations have some sort of significance, while THEY should allocate the designations in advance for manufacturers to follow.

What are those "rules"? Didn't the F-22 win over the F-23? Wasn't there a YC-14 and a YC-15? Yet all C-X entries were after the single C-17 designation, as were CX-HLS competitors, back in the 1960s. There are countless examples going both ways. Each competition is different and the "rules" change accordingly.

 

[Stargazer]

Didn't the F-22 win over the F-23? Wasn't there a YC-14 and a YC-15? Yet all C-X entries were after the single C-17 designation, as were CX-HLS competitors, back in the 1960s. There are countless examples going both ways. Each competition is different and the "rules" change accordingly.

Very true. But these examples relate to competitions for which a pair of finalists had already been selected (A-9 vs. A-10, F-16 vs. F-17 also come to mind). There are other types of competitions when no designation is applied until the winner is chosen (and that leaves room for the companies to come up with those fanciful fake designations); finally there are others still when the final designation is known from the start, and whichever contender wins will see its aircraft use it. What we have here with the C-45/C-46 follows neither of these three patterns. I can't think of any prior example when a winning design gets a designation that gets canceled, and the new winner takes the next available slot.

 

[Stargazer]

Given the company that has won, the history that it has with the C-135 (and indirectly with the KC-10), and the fact it is supposed to replace it, Stratotanker II is the most likely choice. I don't think Extender II would be a good idea since the "I" is still in active service and will be for some years still.

 

[Triton]

If the increased maximum fuel load, increased cargo capacity, or increased passenger capacity of the EADS North America KC-45 were important selection criteria according to the United States Air Force RFP, then Boeing would have bid a variant of its 777 airliner, the KC-777, rather than the KC-767 in this round of the KC-X competition. Instead, Boeing again submitted a KC-767-based solution based on the 767-200LRF (Long Range Freighter) to the United States Air Force.

We're discussing an aerial refueling platform here, not a fifth-generation stealth air superiority fighter. How much better does the replacement KC-X have to be to the existing Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker? The Boeing KC-46A as proposed seems to do the job nicely for which it is intended.

Or is this yet another discussion about the Boeing and Airbus rivalry? Really about disappointment that EADS North America will not be investing $600 million in new assembly plants adjacent to one another in the Brookley Complex in Mobile, Alabama to build the KC-45, move production of the A330 commercial freighter to Mobile, or provide 48,000 new jobs in support of the KC-45 program? And instead that 50,000 workers will be employed supporting the KC-46A production line at the Boeing assembly plant in Everett, WA?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Very true. But these examples relate to competitions for which a pair of finalists had already been selected (A-9 vs. A-10, F-16 vs. F-17 also come to mind). There are other types of competitions when no designation is applied until the winner is chosen (and that leaves room for the companies to come up with those fanciful fake designations); finally there are others still when the final designation is known from the start, and whichever contender wins will see its aircraft use it. What we have here with the C-45/C-46 follows neither of these three patterns. I can't think of any prior example when a winning design gets a designation that gets canceled, and the new winner takes the next available slot.

Come on - for once the USAF almost perfectly follows the regulations for assignment of aircraft designations, and you still have to nitpick ?

It's totally fine to allocate a single designation to a program with multiple competitors, when it is clear that in the end only a single design will be actually built for the US military. As soon as the winner of the competition is announced and a procurement contract signed, the designation refers to that specific design. In the case of the first KC-X competition, the KC-45A designation applied only to the EADS aircraft after it was selected as winner of the competition. That the contract was cancelled afterwards doesn't change this fact - after all, lots of programs have been cancelled before the first aircraft was delivered, and the designations are never reused. The new KC-X competition was technically and legally different from the old one, so it is entirely logical to assign a new designation to it and its eventual winner. If EADS had won again, they could have reused the KC-45 designation, if the design was essentially the same as the one entered in the earlier competition. But since Boeing won, it wouldn't have made any sense to reuse KC-45.

 

[fightingirish]

Yep, I like the designation "Boeing KC-46A Commando II" so far.

Commando II is too Curtiss-ish whereas Stratotanker II is Boeing-ish. -SP

Yes,I know. But you can argue, that the Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane Division was sold to North American Aviation, which is now part of Boeing.

 

[flateric]

just in case I have 125 Mb of lost KC-45 media files archived

 

[Triton]

just in case I have 125 Mb of lost KC-45 media files archived

In case of what? An overturn of the contract award to Boeing?

 

[Triton]

Will EADS North America protest the contract award to Boeing?

EADS North America statement concerning U.S. Air Force Tanker selection

Arlington, Virginia, February 24, 2011 – EADS North America officials today expressed disappointment and concern over the announcement by the U.S. Air Force that it had selected a high-risk, concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45 for the nation's next aerial refueling tanker.

"This is certainly a disappointing turn of events, and we look forward to discussing with the Air Force how it arrived at this conclusion," said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. "For seven years our goal has been to provide the greatest capability to our men and women in uniform, and to create American jobs by building the KC-45 here in the U.S. We remain committed to those objectives."

If selected, EADS North America had committed to build the KC-45 at a new production facility in Mobile, Alabama, with a U.S. supplier base of nearly a thousand American companies.

"With a program of such complexity, our review of today's decision will take some time," Crosby said. "There are more than 48,000 Americans who are eager to build the KC-45 here in the U.S., and we owe it to them to conduct a thorough analysis."

"Though we had hoped for a different outcome, it's important to remember that this is one business opportunity among many for EADS in the United States," said Sean O'Keefe, CEO of EADS North America. "We have exceptional technology and highly capable platforms that will be invaluable to U.S. military forces, now and in the future. We have learned much through this process, developed a world-class organization in the U.S. and have earned the respect of the Department of Defense. Our commitment to our U.S. customers is stronger than ever."

About EADS North America
EADS North America is the North American operation of EADS, a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. As a leader in all sectors of defense and homeland security, EADS North America and its parent company, EADS, contribute over $11 billion to the U.S. economy annually and support more than 200,000 American jobs through its network of suppliers and services. Operating in 17 states, EADS North America offers a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets.

About EADS
EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. In 2009, the Group - comprising Airbus, Astrium, Cassidian and Eurocopter – generated revenues of € 42.8 billion and employed a workforce of more than 119,000.

Souce:
http://www.kc45now.com/news-press-releases/2-24-2011.asp

If the prime contractor is EADS North America, a United States-based holding company, and the aircraft would have been manufactured in Mobile, Alabama, can anyone really claim that the procurement decision was made with an anti-foreign contractor bias?

Further, what about the comments of Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush that the "revised source-selection methodology for this KC-X – the last award was terminated after a Boeing protest turned up procurement missteps – 'clearly favors the smaller tanker,' which is Boeing’s 767-based proposal. Northrop/EADS was planning to offer a version of the Airbus A330, which won in the 2008 competition. 'Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly.'"

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/03/08/awx_03_08_2010_p0-210276.xml

On March 8, 2010, Northrop Grumman announced it was abandoning its bid for the new KC-X contract.

Was the United States Air Force RFP written in a biased manner in favor of the Boeing 767-based solution?

 

[TinWing]

The topic has been temporarily locked due to the controversial nature of recent posts. In the meantime, enjoy the following link:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/02/25/boeing-wins-35b-air-force-tanker-contract/

 

[Deino]

Just a short note ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/03/usa-tanker-idUSN039593020110303

... and just this news at the German NTV as confirmed ... EADS won't protest !

 

[Triton]

Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker data sheet found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/KC-767-ADVANCED-TANKER-FROM-BOEING-DATA-SHEET-/360346447927?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53e6527037