This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
One interesting outcome of the U.S. Air Force tanker decision is the further shift in U.S. national strategic priorities that it indicates — toward the Pacific Ocean.
In choosing the Northrop Grumman/EADS proposal, Pentagon leaders have opted for an aircraft that can fly the longer distances, and carrying more people and cargo, required for rapid, trans-Pacific Ocean deployments.
Of relatively less importance is the traditional European, southwest Asia, South American and Middle Eastern missions that demand smaller, less-developed runways, as well as minimum footprint for accelerated through-put on less-developed forward airbases, and high-cycle rates for intense aerial combat. By contrast, the Pacific — nearly 156 million square kilometers, according to the CIA’s World FactBook — embodies the “tyranny of distance” that U.S. forces face in trying to respond or deploy to worldwide events.
About 16 months ago, the Air Force withdrew its tanker request-for-proposals — which included capabilities such as cargo, passengers and add-on mission like signals intelligence — to refocus it on the basic A-model task of in-flight refueling so that the primary mission would not be compromised.
When Northrop threatened to pull out of the competition altogether, U.S. officials again changed the competition to add features — including extra credit for cargo and passenger carrying capabilities that aren’t required for the refueling mission.
Those factors, which go toward providing the “more” as described by Gen. Arthur Lichte, Air Force Air Mobility Command chief, during the tanker-winner announcement, tipped the choice toward Northrop and EADS.
The Air Force’s move follows along with Army and Navy-Marine Corps build-ups in the Pacific as well, all of which followed the 2005/2006 Quadrennial Defense Review under Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon administration. That QDR announced a strategic shift from Atlantic to Pacific oceans, especially eyeing China, North Korea and potential hotspots triggered by Islamic extremists in Indonesia or The Philippines, for instance.
Although limited in overall fleet size, the Navy is moving and centering the bulk of its existing and planned forces in the Pacific. From aircraft carriers to submarines and Littoral Combat Ships, U.S. warships will become far more familiar with Pacific climes than in Cold War years…
Read more of this story, the gouge on TSAT, NRO troubles and BAMS delays from our Aviation Week partners on Military.com.
– Christian
Better to have mutiuse tanker for TransPac missions than none.
Need more anyway with base in Philppines??
Australia, Diego Garica, Baharain, Vietnam>?
Taiwan, Japan.
Or use B48 Blended flying Wing model.
If they wanted a LARGE tanker, they should have taken BOEING offer to bid the 777 airframe.
“Extra Credit”? WTF is that in Defense Contracting!?!?!
It is apparent that the Air Force has elected to short change the aerospace worker. By making the last minute changes and thus giving the contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS, the Air Force has elected to place this project ito the hands of a foreign contractorthat is co oped with an american company. The Air force had best be prepared for a shift in geopolitical events. For if there are changes, The Air force might not be able to get their precious tanker or the future parts and may have to go back and kiss butt to boeing to try to get a substitute aircraft. Boeing provided and aircraft based upon the specs that were originally submitted. By changing the rules, they pretty much ensured that boeing did not get this contract. The Air Force eventually set boeing up to ensure that they DID NOT GET THIS CONTRACT. And yes, I have grown up in the aerospace industry of southern california. I am just wondering, who did the EADS/ Northrop Grumman buy to ensure that theis deal went through.
Bates,
If you can believe it, John McCain had a big hand in it.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/beab3936-ebe8-11dc-9493-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
So why didn’t Boeing just offer its 777? It’s not like they didn’t know that the Air Force wanted bigger size.
Benjamin Fan,
Boeing did not bid the 777 because when they asked the USAF if they preferred the 767 or the 777, the USAF said that they did not want the 777 because it was too big. The KC-X is a replacement for the KC-135.
> If they wanted a LARGE tanker, they should have taken BOEING offer to bid the 777 airframe.
1. they didn’t originally want a large tanker, they originally thought a large tanker would have difficulty fulfilling the RFP. EADS/NG convinced them otherwise
2. the KC-777 wouldn’t have been ready in time alotted by the RFP
3. the KC-777 would have scored poorly in the risk section because they had no done no development work on it (unlike the 767)
4. the 777 would have been unaffordable
5. the 777 still would have had worse field performance than the KC-30
> “Extra Credit”? WTF is that in Defense Contracting!?!?!
the authors are mistaken, there was no ‘extra credit’
> By making the last minute changes and thus giving the contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS
there were no last minute changes that gave the contract to EADS/NG
> For if there are changes, The Air force might
> not be able to get their precious tanker or the
> future parts and may have to go back and kiss
> butt to boeing to try to get a substitute
> aircraft.
not an issue
1. no foreign country can force EADS to embargo anything
2. EADS wouldn’t want to embargo anything since that would permanently lock them out of the lucrative defense market
3. even if they did want to embargo something, they couldn’t
a) all critical systems (engines, avionics, boom, etc) are made in the US
b) the airframe is the same as thousands of commercial liners, there is no feasible way to embargo that
c) the US will get full blueprints/designs to all parts so they can make their own if necessary
> If you can believe it, John McCain had a big hand in it.
no, Boeing shot itself in the foot by BRIBING a public official
First off, the 777 was out for this round because it is much too big, even compared to the KC-45. When the USAF looks to replace its KC-10s, I’d expect to see the 777 revisisted.
Second, don’t forget that the prime contractor of the KC-30 is NG, not Airbus, and the engines are American. The current calculation is that Airbus’ take from the deal is less than 2% of their yearly revenue. Combined with the slow procurement rate, this isn’t much of a moneymaker.
Third, McCain killed the lease deal years ago because he smelled pork and uncovered the details of the deal, which were enough to cause the Boeing CEO to resign, and send the Boeing CFO to prison along with a Pentagon official. McCain was correct in determining that the deal was not in the interest of the taxpayers.
But don’t think I hate Boeing — I love the company and live in its shadow here in Everett. But I can tell you that the legacy of Condit and Stonecipher are not appreciated and that some cleaning was in order.
Irtusk,
Either you were on the procurement board of the USAF or you’re on EADS’s payroll. Boeing got shafted and the more news that leaks out about this contract the worse it sounds. Unless you can pull the official assessment out of a body orifice then you’re just putting out guesses. In the end this is A DEAD DEAL WALKING!
Oh and how can you say that the 777 is too big when it is slightly larger than the 330 while the 330 is MUCH larger than the 767? Face it cowboy, the Air Force made the same mistake on this contract that they did on the CSAR-X…like its been said here, they asked for a medium tanker and decided on a heavy one instead.
> or you’re on EADS’s payroll
which explains my support for the F-35 (LockMart) and Chinook (Boeing)
> Boeing got shafted
if you call losing to a superior bid with a superior product getting shafted
> and the more news that leaks out about this
> contract the worse it sounds
like what?
the only thing that’s ‘leaking’ is a few senators’ credibility as they continue to grandstand with no evidence to back them up
> Unless you can pull the official assessment out
> of a body orifice then you’re just putting out
> guesses
the superiority of the KC-30 is so blindingly obvious you don’t have to see the official assessment to realize the KC-767 never had and never will have a chance
> Oh and how can you say that the 777 is too big
> when it is slightly larger than the 330 while
> the 330 is MUCH larger than the 767?
i never said it was too big
i said
1. it was too expensive
2. it’s takeoff performance is too poor
> the Air Force made the same mistake on this
> contract that they did on the CSAR-X
the chinook was/is the correct choice
> they asked for a medium tanker and decided on a heavy one instead
FALSE
the RFP didn’t specify a size
“Grandjester” wrote: “If you can believe it, John McCain had a big hand in it.“
Trouble is: When a grand jester (exceptionally) says something serious… nobody takes him serious. But today his information hit the mainstream news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_air_force_tankers
And now I’m going to stay judiciously out of this whole air tanker deal discussion again… there’s something murky and smelly about it…
Can’t remember either when was the last time we made such a polemic about a single weapons deal here in Europe, not even during the specifications of the Tornado and Eurofighter programs. If the thing worked, was better than the rest and its costs didn’t exactly triple, we chose it, paid for it and that’s the end of the story. One time I win, one time you win. As a direct result, since 1945 our European Airforces were or are still half U.S. American (the planes), much of the older European Armour and Artillery also is and most of our land forces’ ammunition is entirely U.S. American in origin. Only our navies never felt much inspired by U.S. American warship designs, maybe because the Old World itself has a slight lead there. But I can’t think of ANY European company and its workers (?!) screaming with full lung-power like a hungry nursery or like a gipsy shouting-match against the irreversible facts of international economic COMPETITION and even less so against multi-national projects, like the E.A.D.S. / Northrop / Grumman air tanker cooperation for example. I think that right now nobody beats us Euros in successful multi-national projects, but if necessary each of us separately shops 100 % foreign (speak: U.S. American) again, and completely without complexes. Even European children know that YOU CAN’T ALWAYS WIN !
Freefallingbomb,
What arrogance…the French protected Dassault by not participating in the Eurofighter, again chose to make the Leclerc when the Leopard 2 was available…the British chose the Eurofighter when they could have been partners in the F-22 the story goes on and don’t brag about ship building when the US Navy has the worlds best LHAs and LPDs yet the European firms continue to protect their industries. Face it, European have a subsidized industry and yet when it comes to US projects the call is for fair trade. I agree but would add the word FAIR FREE TRADE…oh and the statement, how about an honest procurement process that results in the decision makers getting what they asked for.
> the French protected Dassault by not participating
> in the Eurofighter
it wasn’t to protect dassault, dassault was part of the EF consortium, it was because france didn’t agree with the direction the design was going
> the British chose the Eurofighter when they could
> have been partners in the F-22
ORLY?
1. um, no
2. they are partners in the F-35
i’m not going to say there isn’t protectionism, just not the examples you cite
here’s the key though:
jobs aren’t the main point of protectionism
strategic national capability is
the navy doles out contracts to keep 2 nuclear sub shipyards in business because they feel it’s a strategic national capability
the thing is, we lose ZERO strategic national capability by closing the 767 line
it is an obsolete, end-of-life plane and the company that makes it has moved on to newer and better things and needs exactly zero help from the government to stay in business
> how about an honest procurement process that
> results in the decision makers getting what they
> asked for.
i take it that you’re thrilled with tanker contest resulting in the decision makers getting all that they asked for and more
What Boeing is claiming — that they thought the USAF preferred a smaller plane — is baloney. The criteria for the USAF’s evaluation was known to both parties, ans since both the 767 and A300 are widely used commercial aircraft, both companies knew exactly what their competitor’s performance was. Put those two together and Boeing should have known they weren’t going to win the competition with the 767.
Hence either Boeing thought they could “fix” the contract as they did before but failed, or they weren’t able to offer a competitive plane because of commercial production commitments. The 777 is slightly too large, and can’t be produced in time because production slots are booked up for a while with Boeing’s commercial backlog, and 787 civil production is booked up solid for a long while due to its popularity, and there is absolutely no way Boeing could propose a 787 tanker and deliver. Boeing therefore put forward its 767 proposal and hoped that bias might win the contract.
Airbus on the other hand has the right size plane in the A300 and because it isn’t selling as well as the 787 or 777, it can offer production slots for the KC45 tanker on the timescale required.
Personally I don’t think Boeing is that bothered about losing this contract. They are only interested on foisting the 767 for which there are no commercial orders onto the USAF. They don’t want to sell a 787 or 777 tanker at this stage because they will have to cancel commercial sales in order to do so. What Boeing is trying to do is to put political pressure to either split the contract or to change the KC10 contract to favor Boeing, because at that time 777 production will be running down and 787 production may also have some slack in it.
God the son, Jesus Christ, prays to God the father for his children. Take a moment and visulize Jesus Christ praying for you. Picture for a moment your name coming off His lips. Perfect Love!
God Bless You!
God the son, Jesus Christ, prays to God the father for his children. Take a moment and visulize Jesus Christ praying for you. Picture for a moment your name coming off His lips. Perfect Love!
God Bless You!