What’s the real reason Boeing filed a GAO protest over the tanker award to Northrop Grumman? After all, the GAO rarely overturns such awards and the Air Force appears to have acted about as transparently as anyone could hope for.
Of course, it’s extremely difficult to get a good grip on just how strong — or weak — Boeing’s case might be since most of the information that would really make that clear is considered extremely sensitive proprietary data.
It looks as if Boeing has two main goals. The first and most easily understood is that Boeing wants to get paid back for the costs it incurred preparing its bid. The second goal is to give the company the 100 days to trumpet its various claims, spread money around Capitol Hill and advertise, advertise, advertise.
I spoke about all this with a lobbyist and a defense finance expert, both of whom have to remain very anonymous. Both have a tight grasp on defense acquisition battles and their dynamics. We concluded that Boeing doesn’t really care about the GAO protest, though the finance expert said Boeing may have a stronger case than first appears obvious. They both agreed that the company’s main object was to carve out a window to give it time to hammer lawmakers, their staff and the public about just fabulous their plane really is and to create so much white noise that Northrop Grumman/EADS is forced to either share the deal or, best of all, get Congress to award the contract to Boeing.
The lobbyist said he had used a similar strategy on a smaller program several years before and it worked like a charm.
The finance person said there are two financial reasons Boeing filed the protest. First, it stands a decent chance of getting back the cost of preparing its bid, which he estimated at around $20 million. But the biggest reason for Boeing’s actions may have little to do with its defense business, although $32 billion is not chump change even for one of the big three defense contractors. And the enormously cyclical nature of the civil aviation business may pose enormous long-term risks for the Chicago-based company.
So Boeing would like to guarantee revenue from its reliable government customer. Should the 787 Dreamliner face longer delays than it has already wracked up, our finance expert said the company faces penalties that reach as high as $20 billion.
[PHOTO: Boeing Co.]
– Colin Clark
{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }
Doesn’t really say much for Boeing does it? I bet whenever they win a contract they claim everything was above board and transparent and no one has anything to claim about.
Recently had a brief on Boeing’s supply chain issues and Boeing will screw their suppliers rather than work with them if they think that there is short term gain.
Hopefully NG/EADS will work hard to deliver a good product to the USAF.
I guess having both Airbus’s and Boeing’s Tankers would be a good compromise to settle the deal. It would cost more, but cost is not everything, and foreign affairs is part of the game.
Boeing’s at it again. As far as having two types of tankers; that would increase the price per copy, and vastly increase life cycle support costs. There’s no reason for two types of aircraft for one job, and there’s no reason for Boeing’s antics, other than to get money out of a contract they lost.
Posted by GP:”There’s no reason for two types of aircraft for one job”
The USAF has got 2 tanker, the KC135 and KC10 (who isn’t young too.)
The KC10 is important in the US transport isn’t it?
A mix between KC45 and KC767 is certainly good for the performance of USAF but not for their budget.^^
beoing is full of lying cheating bastards. before they tried to rip off the taxpayer by renting out the tankers to the air force at a huge profit. they they bribed a bunch of officials and got caught red handed. and now they are complaining about losing the competition like whiny brats.
Boeings attitude and response are not working with this member of the public. As more information has come out I have gone from donating cash to any politician who votes against boeing to a sense of disgust with the company. They offered inferior product, didn’t do the necessary work and now look like sore losers to boot. I think the supply of KC-EADS will be utterly reliable. NG and EADS will not allow anything to let Boeing back in.
Rix and SINTAX, you both sound like you work for EADS or NOC. Boeing did offer the better plane according to the original request by the Air Force. The original lease deal was actually something the air force wanted as a solution to the long wait an aquisition costs in time and money. They would have had the planes in the fleet as we speak. Mute point, Boeing execs and air force personnel went to jail.
I have a real problem having my tax dollars paying EU workers to build our military equip, as all americans should. Look at the failure of schedule and money on the Eurocopter deal…what a mess! John McCain messed with this proposal directed it every step of the way into EADS hands. Even as a staunch repuplican…I will NOT VOTE for him. did you also hear of the French deputy defence minister claiming they(governments of France,Spain,Germany,UK) would subsidize Airbus(EADS) and put Boeing out of business.
You should rethink your position….if your American…even if you do work for NOC/EADS
Allthough I understand your feelings JKO. I must comment on your statements. EADS is not your enemy. It’s also a deal with Northrop Grumman. So this deal will also create jobs in the US, lots of them. These days you cannot simply think that if it’s Boeing it’s US. Because it’s isn’t, This great projects are trully global. Even the KC 767, and so is the KC 330
In design, parts, supply and fabrication.
I wonder how the BAMS protest plays into this. Could it be that Lockheed decided to protest against Northrup because they believe Boeing has a chance at winning their protest against the same company?
And speaking of BAMS, I’d love to see a DT article covering whats going on with that protest.
How pathetic!
Boeing is protesting for the reasons it has stated, NOT for some conspiracy to recover bid costs or “steal” the contract through public (or Congressional) action.
Let’s face it. Boeing’s protesting because they can. It wasn’t that long ago that the losing US defense contractor wouldn’t dare antagonize its customer by dragging the customer through the time, expense, and political clashes protests bring. The western desert is full of great programs that were never built because the contract went to the other guy. When you combine the Beltway’s aversion to risk with the cost of litigation and protests there should be no doubt why programs like this cost so much, take so long, and arrive much later than the warfighters asked for it. Maybe someday we’ll turn this upside down process right side up again.
So, Boeing is dragging the Air Force through the mud for $20 Million and to try to get Congress to over turn a source selection. This is an interesting choice for a company which according to Jim McNerney’s April 27, 2006 Conference Board speech is trying to “Turning Ethics and Compliance Into A Competitive Advantage.”
Given their history of shady dealings one wonders if they(Boeing) shouldn’t be broken up. I know they make too much stuff to ban them from DOD contracts but it would be a nice example to the other contractors.
In fairness I’m a disgruntled former Boeing employee, ever since the merger with MDD they have been acting like pirates in Ft. Knox.
Just why is it that Boeing didn’t propose the B777 as a tanker? It would be a better platform than the current proposals. Curious.
Keith,
Boeing did consider offering a KC-777. The USAF said it did not want it. Maybe for the later KC-Y or KC-Z but not for the KC-X…
And for many of the same reasons why the USAF did/does not want a KC-777 are the same as to why it did/does not want the KC-30. ;)
Congress and the GAO ought to overturn this crappy contract with Airbus to make tankers. Boeing has and does make them better than those Eurotrash could ever hope to. Here’s to the KC-767 and maybe possibly the KC-777, instead of the P.O.S. A330 MRTT!
Americans deserve an AMERICAN tanker, not a Eurotrash flying deathtrap like Airbus!
Dear Kieth,
Why didn’t Boeing offer a KC-777? Because they couldn’t.
The USAF initially designed the KC-X acquisition around the KC-767 based on the 2002 lease deal work
If this deal forces Boeing to wake up and realize they don’t build better aircraft anymore, then nothing will. I fly a good bit for work, and I have to say that the flights on Airbus aircraft are more enjoyable than the Boeing ones. Part of that has to do with the airlines, but I have not been on a new Boeing aircraft recently since they are throwing everything into the 787. Anybody checked how many delays that program has lately? They are banking way to much on the past and they got sloppy. I am not happy about the USAF awarding the contract to the Northrop-Grumman/EADS partnership either, but our defense base needed a slap in the face to wake up.
Boeing needs to test its muscle with Congress and what better way to do so than in a contract where the status quo is a lost cause anywhere, so they have little or nothing to lose.
Usually, Republicans are allies of defense contractors, but John McCain more or less single handedly (and with good cause) did more harm to Boeing than any elected official in living memory, so the prospect of a GOP Presidential win brings Boeing no joy.
Obama and Clinton don’t have strong ties to the defense industry generally, or to Boeing in particular. Both have promised a more internationalist foreign policy that could be compromised by a dis to Airbus which has specially been given privileged status on a par with domestic competitors on this kind of contract (and quite possibly future contracts). They may be worried about looking weak on defense, but they aren’t worried about looking to pro-European.
If there are few glimmers of hope in a post-Bush White House for Boeing, it needs to know who its friends in Congress are for long and difficult fights to press its advantage and avoid the risk of open bids which, inevitably, one sometimes loses. This gambit helps Boeing identify those individuals for future legislative fights with a greater hope of success.
Ahh…one of our resident KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinkers chimes in to continue THEIR disinforamtion campaign.
Yes Boeing COULD have offered a KC-777 in time. The 1st production KC-X is not expected to be delivered until 2013! The majority of the “work” transfoming a commercial airliner (both development & actual physical transformaton) IS THE SAME reguardless of the airframe so a KC-777 would NOT take THAT much longer than the KC-767.
I also love the BS assertion that a stretched (-300 or -400) 767 would be more capable. Boeing did the research & found that the extra fuselage length was more of a liability than an asset.
At least the KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinker got ONE thing correct. That is that the KC-X program sought a replacement for and improvement upon the KC-135. The KEY being KC-135, not KC-10 (large strategic tanker), not C-17 (transport), but KC-135 (medium tanker)! Unfortunately for the KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinkers, for the PRIMARY purpose of a tanker the KC-767AT (when you base your evaluation on REAL WORLD data/conditions/scenarios) is SUPERIOR to the KC-30. And the RFP was quite vague as to the “transport” capability of the KC-X with NO specific requirements (THRESHOLD or OBJECTIVE) for transport capacity.
The KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinkers don’t like to talk about size (or when they do it is only the false “bigger is better” BS) because the fact of the matter is ther IS a “right” size for a KC-135 replacement & as was determined in 2002 (if not earlier) that the KC-30 is TOO BIG.
Boeing protesting the KC-X does NOTHING to support their commercial OR defense marketing (in fact it HURTS them). UNLESS the protest is successful & Boeing eventual gets the KC-X contract all it does is spend MORE money with ZERO return.
One more quick note, the KC-X evaluation committee INCREASED the Boeing bid by some $5.2 billion & DECREASED the NG/EADS bid by some $1.4 billion. That means that the Boeing bid was actually $6.6 billion LESS than the NG/EADS bid. ;)
Richard,
When Australia designs & builds its own military equipment THEN you can talk about Australia NOT procuring foreign (US or otherwise) military equipment.
Note that the KC-30 being a foreign tanker (don’t give me that BS that NG is the prime contractor & a US company or that the KC-30 is assembled in the US or that up to 58% of the KC-30 economic value is US – it is STILL a foreign tanker) is not a MAJOR issue for me. If the US did not have anything that filled the requirement or the KC-30 WERE that much better, I would be on board with the KC-30. But since NEITHER of those conditions are a reality, my support is to the MORE THAN CAPABLE (& arguably superior) US tanker.
Although I do agree that some people are going a bit overboard with the protectionist (not designed/built here) mentality. After all, the US HAS gotten quite a bit of GOOD foreign designed mililtary equipment.
If the Air Force acted “transparently” then why was it a surprise that airbus won?
Well, if my opinion counts for anything I think that the AF is doing the right thing in their bid acceptance of NG but, the antics of politics being what they are…. IMHO I think that NG/EADS should be the rightful winner in this case.
The decision to buy from EADS/NG will haunt the A/F for years to come. It will take a bit of time for the problems to arise and politics to cloud the R & M of this weapon system but it will happen. The A/F is so eager to get a replacement for the tired KC-135 that they are like a kid at Christmas, they THINK they would be happy with anything new. Little do they know there is no substitute for proven experience spanning over 50 years of air refueling design, maintainability and untold flight hours of being on station on time. The mindset of the A/F personnel will successfully meet it
I disagree with Zeus’s unsubstantiated assertion and assert that Airbus is not trash. However, that is not to say that Airbus is the right airplane for the KC-X.
Zeus: look further to the East to Tupolev and Ilyushin, Zeus, if you want “eurotrash”.
Pfcern has once again hit the nail on the head regarding reasons for protest and proving Boeing instead of Airbus is the right one for KC-X.
In this particular case (not all cases), the lobbyist and defense procurement expert strongly seem to be the conspiracy theorist brethren of Roy or his APOSTATE Elders of Zion.
Colin, I think you have much stronger potential and are higher caliber than this piece displays of you. I am still hopeful on your contributions and look forward to reading more of your work here.
Ok, I’m just a taxpayer. Help me understand the Boeing argument for narrowing the requirements to a smaller tanker, when the decision was made by the USAF to get a larger aircraft (KC-45) for the same cost as the smaller aircraft (KC-767)?
I’ve checked the burn rates. The 767 burns slightly less and carries a lot less. The burn rate improvement goes away when you require a package with multiple tankers.
I’ll give Boeing the smaller runway argument, but that strength isn’t a major distinction to me.
Maybe R&M is better? I don’t have that data. Perhaps the Boeing and NG fanatics can provide insight?
Pcfem believes that Boeing could have offered a KC-777 in the KC-X competition. I disagree. To deliver a production aircraft in 2013 required test articles to be designed, modified and flight tested through the Air Force’s 5 year system development and demonstration (SDD) phase. Designing a tanker is big job. Boeing did not have necessary three years to design their KC-777 test articles to enter SDD on a credible schedule. The physical transformation of the aircraft was not the pacing item.
Leland,
Boeing DID NOT argue for narrowing the requirements to a smaller tanker. It argued for not EXPANDING IT to something other than what the USAF wants/needs – a medium TANKER to replace old & tired KC-135s.
I (& I am sure both Boeing & the USAF) am all for a larger “multi-purpose tanker” later on to replace our KC-10As BUT what we need NOW/1st is a “basic medium tanker” to replace KC-135s. Note that the KC-30 is physically larger than the KC-10 yet carries 100,000 lbs LESS fuel so the KC-30A isn’t even a good KC-10A replacement.
Funny how you consider ~24.2% (~417 gal/2794 lbs per hour) less fuel burn “slightly less” yet you consider ~21.8% (~44,000 lbs) fuel capacity “a lot less”.
What Boeing smaller runway argument? BOTH the KC-767AT & KC-30 meet or exceeded the requirement. perhaps you are confusing the lie put force by the KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinkers that the KC-767AT has insufficient take-off performance.
You don’t know much about airfields if you don’t consider a ~77,000 lbs empty weight & ~100,000 lbs max take-off weight difference “a major distinction”.
RE:
It’s hard to beat what the SMSgt said, so I won’t.
I do have to scratch my head about this:
“What Boeing smaller runway argument? BOTH the KC-767AT & KC-30 meet or exceeded the requirement. perhaps you are confusing the lie put force by the KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinkers that the KC-767AT has insufficient take-off performance.”
Perhaps pfcem should layoff the kool-aid comments long enough to recognize that the ability to use a smaller runway is a positive for Boeing. It means more airports are available to handle tanker operations. But hey, I agree, both tankers met or exceeded the requirement. So like many other Boeing arguments, it’s a non-discriminator.
SMSgt Mac,
We have been through this before. The RFP DOES support my (& Boeing’s) position. Perhaps YOU should mind what the RFP (& the USAF prior to being FORCED to change its criteria JUST SO THERE COULD/WOULD BE ANOTHER COMPETITON) says.
You are a KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinker becuase you automatically assume anything pro-KC-767/Boeing or anti-KC-30/NG/EADS is Boeing PR AND you automatically assume anything pro-KC-30/NG/EADS or anti-KC-767/Boeing is not PR.
Note that I came to my position/conclusion BEFORE Boeing made any public annoucement that just so happens to be similar. Boeing (& other sources) have provided additional detail (although still not as much as I & others would like) but my position/conclusion is MINE, not Boeing’s (we just happen to agre on a lot of thinks concerning the KC-135 replacement program). And since Boeing is the one providing the pupblic with so much insite the this SUPPOSEDLY fair & transparent process (read what you will as to the relative silence from the USAF &/or NG/EADS) it only makes since that there is singificant publicly available support (though again not as much as I & others would like) for the Boeing posision compared to the NG/EADS position.
***
Leland,
Like I said, “What Boeing smaller runway argument?” Who has said the that the KC-767 can/does use a smaller runway? It CAN operate from smaller AIRFIELDS & in larger numbers from any given airfield (due to its smaller size & lower weight) BUT runway size/length is not the limiting factor for either the KC-767AT or the KC-30.
I understand the AF made the bid based on a specific sized tanker. Yet when they announced the winning bid for Airbus, the tanker was much larger. Boeing claims they didn
I am going to ask a very dumb question here because I honestly don’t know. But is this new Air Force tanker going to be built overseas or in the United States under contract like the UH-72 Lakota that the ARMY is building in the south under contract from Eurocopter of Germany If it ends up being built or assembled here in the United States would that not make it just as good as Good Ole Made in the USA
I am sure I will catch crap from this especially since I live in Boeing land ..
Gus
Hell, Boeing is the biggest bunch of con artists who ever lived. When the C-17 was orginally built there was a spec for a tanker version, but guess that would not get them more money.
Havig dealt with Boeing beore they are the biggest bunch of con artists alive – they hire mechanics, label them engineers and suck in more money. Don’t even try to deny it, I dealt with them on the C-17 and Boeing “experts” had to turn to the AF wrench turners to get the correct information.
BTW – before you start calling the Russian aircraft crap, you better have a better clue. They build their stuff simple by our standards but the fighters are pretty damn tough. Let’s see a Boeing C-17 constantly settle down on an unkept flightline – won’t happen.
I think it’s ironic that the last time there was a tanker competition, Boeing’s entry was larger (KC-747) and they lost to McDonnell Douglas’ smaller KC-10. Also, in both cases Boeing sold thier tanker to an overseas customer. Iran purchased several KC-747s while the Japanese & Italians have purchased the KC-767.
John,
The 2001 request was for a tanker of a specific size BECAUSE THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED but the later 2007 request was specifically vauge so that both the RIGHT SIZE KC-767 & the TOO BIG KC-30 appeared to meet the requirement (although there ARE some specifics to the 2007 request which still clearly indicate a preferense for the KC-767).
***
Gus,
The NG/EADS KC-30 will/would be A330-200 (most likely a yet to be fully developed A330-200F) airframes (not a complete flyable aircraft) built/manufactured by EADS/Airbus in Toulouse France (parts/pieces coming from a number of other locations in Europe) which will/would then be transported to Alabama where NG willwould “assemble/convert” them into KC-45 tankers.
Scott,
I suggest you do more research. The USAF had been studying/working on a KC-135 replacement since 1996 & had ALREADY more-or-less decided on a “KC-767″ even BEFORE 9/11/201. It is actually amazing how obvious it was that the “KC-767″ was what the USAF wanted.
The rewrite the official specifications was intended to keep costs down & to speed up the process so that the tankers could be delivered sooner rather than later (after all it was happening MUCH sooner that previously scheduled). The previous KC-135 recapitulation program was actually quite similar to the later KC-X, KC-Y, KC-Z programs. The “1st batch” (think the initial 100 lease tankers [later becoming 20 lease & 80 purchase] &/or KC-X) would be an “initial capability platform” to get the proces of replacing KC-135s started with a “basic A-spec MEDIUM tanker” with additional requirements/capabilities being met by later acquisitions (think after the initial 100 lease tankers &/or KC-Y & KC-X). When the USAF talks about “growth potential”, THAT is what they are eluding to – the desire to obtain additional requirements/capabilities through LATER procurement (& possibly upgrade) of the “basic A-spec MEDIUM tanker” knowing full well that some requirements/capabilities will require a larger tanker with greater capacity. BUT the USAF has enough experience with tankers to know that an all-big-tanker force is a BAD idea.
The KC-767 lease deal was a SWEETHEART deal for the USAF all along. It was getting the tanker it was already more-or-less (some would say MORE than LESS) moving towards, getting said tanker almost a decade earlier than previously scheduled (the higher post-9/11 tempo changed that) & at least under the initial all-lease deal, did not have to find procurement money to get it. It was ALWAYS intended that additional PROCURED tankers (likely with improvements learned from the operation of the intial leased tankers) would eventually fulfill ALL requirements – the initial batch of tankers were NEVER intended to meet ALL requirements. The lease deal was MUCH more about getting new tankers (at least similar to what they ultimately wanted) ASAP to replace aging KC-135Es which were becoming too expensive to maintain (a situation only made more appearant/worse with the higher tempo of the War on Terror).
For those of you REALLY interrested in what has REALLY gone on with the tanker recapitulation program, I recommend you read the following. It obviously does not cover EVERYTHING or provide much detail but if you actually READ it with the intent to understand what was actually going on it becomes clear that the USAF was going to eventually get the “KC-767″ even before 9/11/01 & that even with the problems with the lease deal it STILL intened on going through with aquiring KC-767s to replace its KC-135s.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/redacted_oig2004171_shaded.pdf
There are two major “issues/problems” that are at the root of everything.
1) The events of 9/11/01 “kick started” a process that was ALREADY underway (replacing the KC-135s with “KC-767s”) several years (nearly a decade) ahead of schedule. In the rush to “get the deal done” while funds were being made available to do so WITHOUT HAVING TO FIGHT CONGRESS FOR THEM & to avoid a possible capability gap created by the higher tempo of the War on terror, processes were rushed/skipped, mistakes were made & (as is more common than most people want to admit) some INDIVIDUALS took advantage of the situation for their own personal gain.
2) The DEMANDS by politicians for a new “fair competition” FORCED the USAF to change its requirements for its initial “basic A-spec MEDIUM tanker” into something else JUST SO THERE COULD/WOULD BE A COMPETITION since the only other realistic “competition” (an A330-200 based tanker) was/is not competative for a “basic A-spec MEDIUM tanker”. Sure the USAF wants a larger tanker with greater fuel & cargo capacity to SUPPLEMENT its “basic A-spec MEDIUM tankers” (thats what the KC-Y & KC-Z programs are for), not INSTEAD of its KC-X “basic A-spec MEDIUM tankers”. What this “fair competition” business & the changes that HAD to be made for it has done has caused (to use a term many like to use) “mission creep” to occure. Basically brining KC-Y & KC-Z requirements/capabilities into the KC-X (which is/was SUPPOSED to be “basic A-spec MEDIUM tankers”).
There are two basic facts which make it VERY clear why the KC-767 is the RIGHT tanker for the KC-X “basic A-spec MEDIUM tanker” & the KC-30 is not.
1) The number of booms in the air is as much IF NOT MORE important than the capacity of each individual tanker. The KC-135s need replaced not because of a lack of capacity, in fact even the KC-135s full capacity (fuel OR cargo) is often not utilized, but because they are getting too old & too expensive to maintain. Yes there are improvements that the USAF is looking for (such as superior runway performance so that tankers can operate from more bases closer to the action – which reduces required capacity) but much greater capacity is not one of them.
2) The KC-767 is a HUGE improvement over the KC-135 & meet or exceeded ALL KC-X performance requirements (something the KC-30 DID NOT DO). In the real world, the KC-30′s greater capacity does not necessarily translate into superior CAPABILITY and much of the time (likely MOST of the time) the KC-30′s greater capacity will/would not even be utilized. You will/would simply be burning 417 gal/2794 lbs MORE fuel per hour per aircraft performing the same missions unloading the same amout of fuel &/or transporting the same amount of cargo as you would with the KC-767. In fact it will/would be even worse than that since you can not operate as many KC-30 at any given base as you can KC-767 so you burn even more fuel operating from greater distances. Yes there will be instances where the greater capacity of the KC-30 will/would be utilized BUT more MUCH more often it won’t/wouldn’t.
You can go back to 1996 and the Air Force built the requirements on the 767 because that was the only commercial aircraft available at the time. The RAND AoA was the truly first “clean sheet” look at the Air Force requirements. From that the Air Force became interested in the multi-role tanker.
The Air Force assessed landing fields, boom availability, fuel load, etc. in their Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment (IFARA) and found the NGC offering 6% more effective — that’s equal to ten more tankers. They also evaluated life cycle cost and choose NGC.
I agree with pfcem when he suggested reading the IGs report on 2002 lease deal: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/redacted_oig2004171_shaded.pdf
I found page 127 particularly interesting … it reports that Boeing told Dr. Sambur that Boeing could not go any lower on price because of Boeing
Scott,
There was a greater variety of potential airiner airframes available in 1996-2001 than in 2001-2007. The USAF did not built the requirements around the 767 (not until the lease deal where everything “had” to happen sooner & MUCH more quickly), the 767 was the best fit for its requirements.
The USAF has always been interested in multi-role tankers. Even the KC-135s were multi-role tankers, just “specialized” 1st & foremost at being tankers. The greater size of the KC-10s allowed for more capacity for tanking & other roles BUT for every KC-10 there were more than 80 KC-135. And again the KC-X is/was SUPPOSED to be a “basic A-spec MEDIUM tanker” with additional multi-role capabilities being added with the KC-Y & KC-Z.
Did Boeing drop their unit price significantly from 2002 to 2007? What was the ACTUAL cost value of the aircraft in the 2002 bid? What was it in the 2007 bid? How about under the 20 lease/80 purchase agreement? Also keep in mind that in 2002, Boeing was to assume all developmental risks…
IFARA used a flawed model with unrealistic data.
pfcem,
Did Boeing drop their unit price significantly from 2002 to 2007? I would bet money on it. BTW in 2002, Boeing’s price included $1 Billion in development costs.
So, the Air Force’s IFARA model was flawed and used unrealistic data? Since this is Boeing’s position, you suggest that Boeing’s engineers are smarter and less biased than Air Force’s?
And, can you suggest why you think the Air Force had an anti-Boeing or a pro-Northrop Grumman/EADS bias on this award?
The lease payments were calculated based on a the purchase cost of the KC-767s at $131 million (plus $7.4 million in interest costs on Boeing
pfcem
Your comment “If Boeing sold up to 100 comparable aircraft during the term of the contract to another customer for a lower price than that agreed to by the Air Force, the government would receive an “equitable adjustment.” Seems inconsistent with Dr. Sambur’s email.
The 2002 $131M price includes $10M per aircraft in development cost. So, the unit price was $121M. Unless Boeing decides to make public its 2007 price we will have to wait and see their pricing. But my confidence is very high that if we were to see their pricing we would find it dropped significantly from 2002, when you factor in work scope changes and inflation.
So your theory is that the Air Force threw the competition to NGC, so the GAO would over rule it? So the DOD Red team who examined the evaluation results were in on this? The Air Force wanted this controversy? The Air Force wanted the competition delayed for a year or more? You think they want a debacle which could lead to them losing their acquisition authority, like what happen with their space programs?
Scott,
‘If Boeing sold up to 100 comparable aircraft during the term of the contract to another customer for a lower price than that agreed to by the Air Force, the government would receive an “equitable adjustment”.’ – Theose words are contained within Section 8159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 pertaining to the KC-767 lease…
Yes, my “theory” is that the USAF “threw” the competition in favor of the KC-30 due to INTENSE political pressure in the BELIEF that the GOA would overturn it & expose what “had” to be done simply in the interest of “fair competition”. No the USAF did not want this controversy, it wanted the KC-767 & was VERY pleased that it looked as though it would be getting them earlier than scheduled. My “theory” is that the USAF played out this debacle in order to REGAIN its acquisition authority that had been lost in the DEMANDS for a “fair competition” when in reality the correct choice was SO OBVIOUS that it wasn’t “fair” (& everyone knew it).
pfcem,
I was not referring to what was written in law by Congress. I was referring to what Boeing’s executives told Dr. Sambur about their most favored clause.
Your “theory” does not seem to square with this blog’s “Boeing and Air Force In Lovers Spat” report, unless every Air Force official Christian Lowe talked to was in the on the conspiracy.
If the KC-30 is so obviously inferior why did the Australia, England and UAE all select it over the KC-767?
Scott,
Where did Boeing’s executives tell Dr. Sambur that they would not lower there price to the USAF if its price to other customers was lowered? My understanding is the EXACT OPPOSITE – that lowering the USAF would require lowering everybody else’s price.
“Boeing and Air Force In Lovers Spat” actually ties in with my “theory” VERY MUCH. What the article was about was concerns that the TONE of the comments by BOTH Boeing & the USAF could hurt there relationship (making it more difficult for the USAF to eventually get the KC-767s it wants). Note that article referred to was written by Loren Thompson (a WELL KNOWN KC-30 supporter) & that he in fact wrote a follow-up article “correcting” the misrepresentation of it in the media. Mr. Thompson was most likely exaggerating for effect – I guarantee that if he could not find anyone inside the Air Force that thinks Boeing’s protest has any merit, then he was not looking or HE was avoiding those he thought might.
Australia, England & the UAE are not the USAF, they have different requirements (most notably MANY, MANY fewer aircraft). Don’t be fooled into thinking that politics & other factors not at all related to the capability/effectiveness of the tankers themselves did not have anything to do with their choice…
It’s a lovely assertion that NG is not the prime contractor, but it’s terribly factually incorrect. The assumption that prime contracting is the company which provides the physically biggest product under the umbrella of the partnership simply isn’t correct. A common assertion by seemingly few individuals is that Airbus is the prime contractor. Perhaps this is because it raises connotations of a French company performing the bulk work share. As repeatedly stated the components of the A-330 are not specifically majority French (the airframe alone), and many of the components themselves come from the U.S.A. It certainly does further Boeings propoganda to stress it’s an outsourcing of national security to the French, which is completely incorrect. It’s tiring to hear, especially as Airbus is a division of EADS. Regardless, all Military hard wear is installed by NG, who WAS responsible for the forming of the partnership, and it’s integration.
For the record the KC-45 is based on the A330-200 the shorter version. As soon as you stretch a version it’s range decreases – a stretched 767 wasn’t on the drawing boards.
Most critically and factually, A replacement of the KC-135 does not mean an aircraft of the same size or fuel load, the metrics for competition are derived off efficiency per metric tonne, per fuel burnt, per number of aircraft that can be refueled in a specific amount of time. You can cherry pick information regarding number of aircraft at an airfield, or takeoff stats using a deviously selected fuel load, or unsubstantiated labels like “Kool Aid Drinkers” But at the end of the day, your another partisan, protectionist lobbyist that believes in verbally assaulting men and women in a position of responsibility using conspiracy theories and defamation – whoose service record to the country well exceeds yours. Most of all, they have by and large kept quiet through it all.
The Justification for this? Probably because Boeing was a symbol of American Industrial Power in WW2 and the Cold war, and it pains you to see this collapsing, along with perhaps a special interest in seeing Boeing gain the contract.
Whatever it may be, clearly from the capability offered from the KC-45 and how it can relieve many scenarios that the KC 767 per unit price cannot, how it can compliment significantly the C-17 fleet etc, these wants and interests your promoting, clearly fail in promoting fiscal responsibility and Taxpayer responsibility. Such basic avoidance of the facts like a 6% greater fuel burn, but much bigger offload, or 50% greater cargo haul demonstrates that greatly.
You are going to have to realise that it’s a competitive world, and Boeing can no longer afford to sukkle off gimme contracts, like it did when it wrote it’s own RFP for the airforce and the resulting scandal.
Here’s how I see it.
Having worked in the aircraft manufacturing world for several years, I was treated to working with gypsies. That is contract employees who go where the work is. A number of them related to me that while doing heavy checks on airbus aircraft one thing came to light. They are flying corrosion traps. This is due to the use of non-clad aluminum where aluminum is used. They are not totally composite airframes. The phrase that vest said it was that upon pulling panels, one could bank on finding aluminum corrosion product. In rather significant amounts. How airbus manages to get a C of A on it’s aircraft is a mystery to me. It could be that airbuses are essentially consumable items.
My point on this is that I don’t want the aircrew who will be manning the new tanker(which ever) to be a problem, maintenance wise. Anyone who has been in Tailhook airplanes will understand.
Additionally, I live in Wichita, where the tanker wing is to be one that is going to receive the new aircraft. It won’t fit in the barn.
We should dual source the KC-767 to both Boeing & Northrop Grumman to build the new tankers based on Boeing 767, so the work is spread around to different USA vendors.
Northrop Grumman could also still build a plant in Mobile, Ala to build these planes so all of this $$ stays in the USA for a change.
The Boeing 767 should be the base plane for all US Air Force planes of this size, like AWACS, J-STARS. We must look at the real long term savings by having one type of aircraft that can be used in different roles.
a good web site to review more uses of 767
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/767%20mc2a.htm
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20070131.aspx
If the USAF really needs a bigger Tanker then build half the fleet with KC-777 & the other half with KC-767.
We as Americans need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing work offshore just to save a buck or two. In the long run it will cost the US tax payer more in all the hidden cost, like more unemployed workers lower skilled work force, while the rest of the work builds things we use to.
Just food for thought
Would it not be better for the USAF and the USA to build the first KC-767 tankers, while developing a new KC-777. The USAF could then, based on its needs have a mixed fleet of KC-767 & KC-777 at each base. So when a B52 or B1 needs a fillup they send up a KC-777, and when a F15 needs a fillup they send up the KC-767. We must also think of the cost to train pilots and mechanics for different aircraft types, so using boeings aicraft instead of a new KC-30 would be a huge cost saving in the long run.
I never hear anyone bring that hidden cost point up, I wonder why?
Tibia is free, and players are welcome to play free of charge for as long as they like. However, if you enjoy Tibia Gold, you may consider buying premium time to take Tibia coins even further.
I believe that everyone who like playing Requiem Game all know the Avenging Angel Preview of Requiem Lant is very good.
they often like to ask something about the players looks like, family, and in the game can earn how much 2moons gold, I do not know these people are playing the game or game play them
Look at the cabal alz; I think of many things, I very would like to return to the original place to say that in fact, I really love you very much.
do you really can forget me and forget the day s about we together to play and together to upgrade and together to earn the kamas, you really can forget
from fear the beginning of the BB I to the present personal danger of me. I spend not only the flyff money but also my feeling.
Do not because Archlord cheap than ignore your favorite, If you ignore your favorite, you will regret a lifetime. In the end I hope that we will not hurt the parents