Lt. Gen. Don Hoffman, the three-star in charge of U.S. Air Force budgeting, said Feb. 15 that although he will not speculate on the likelihood of a protest in the upcoming KC-X tanker award, the Air Force is prepared for any contingency with a $240 million Tanker Transfer Fund.
The fund has grown since November, when Congressional appropriators decided to provide the Air Force a $150 million cushion (DAILY, Nov. 11, 2007). “[The Tanker Transfer Fund] could be deployed in a protest,” Hoffman said. “If [the KC-X award] does end up in protest, we’ll support the Government Accountability Office’s outcome and process.”
Hoffman said he vehemently opposed the idea of a split buy, saying the contract has always been “winner take all. A split buy would take another 18 to 24 months of re-do.”
(Read more on this and other inside news on planes, copters and blimps from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com).
– Christian
Why not use the Blended Wing 797 superjet as next Gen Tanker.
Best bet for 900 mph subsonic tanker for USAF.
Or use a fleet of decomm Air Cargo 747s.
or 777 jets.
Very doable, Wash DC.
Think Blended Wing Tanker.
More jobs.
When this first shaped up and Northrop Grumman decided to stay in the competition, I thought it didn’t have a chance. I have to say that given the relative quality of the PR war going on in the end game, NG must have a pretty good shot at it. NG is talking about relative scores in the evaluation criteria used, and Boeing is talking ‘jobs’.
Yep, they’re going to need that fund the way things are going.
as a guess, I’d say that one of the main arguments against the 797 bwb superjet is that it doesn’t exist..
It’s a shame that the selection process is more political than it is about the technical aspects of the actual aircraft. Both are in use — the Aussies bought the Airbus and the Japanese and Italians bought the Boeing.
I still vote for the 767 — despite the larger size, the Airbus still only has one boom. Better to get a smaller, cheaper aircraft and more of them in order to get more booms in the sky. And it’s a waste to transfer much cargo with tankers — the airframes need to maintain a tanking mission for four decades, so putting hours on them for non-tanking missions is discouraged.
I would speculate NG’s odds are being supported by Boeing’s previous involvement in ‘tanker-gate’. However, simply slapping some NG subcomponent work into what is essentially an Airbus does NOT, IMHO, necessarily satisfy the ‘buy America’ mandate DoD is required to follow. If we start refueling our Air Force with European tankers…next thing you know we’ll be ferrying the President around in a European helicopter.…oh wait.…