We’re covering the Pentagon presser today at 3pm on the new tanker RFP. Here’s a bit of what Colin has reported over at DoD Buzz.
A few items of interest, for perspective. former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne and I spoke recently about the options the Pentagon has. They are very few if John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, stuck with what he said he would stick with. First, the requirements would not change. So the Northrop Grumman team would seem to come out ahead on this score since all the OSD and Air Force personnel who have talked about this agree that Northrop does the best job overall of meeting or exceeding the requirements..
Second, Wynne agreed that since Young made clear a dual buy would just be too expensive that also tips things in Northrops favor. Young said several times after the GAO ruling that buying tankers from both companies would add substantial costs, costs the Pentagon was not willing to shoulder.
Still, Wynne professed to like the idea of a dual buy. But I think thats because he believes Boeing couldnt get enough planes in the air and certified quickly enough and believes it would, in the long run, just strengthen Northrops position.
Finally, while it may not be factual, the swagger of senior EADS personnel before and during the Farnborough Air Show was palpable. They have little doubt they will not lose to Boeing, amended RFP or not. Boeing personnel, on the other hand, were clearly on the defensive during Farnborough. More after the briefing.
We did just receive a note from the office of Rep. Norm Dicks who’s already crying foul about the new RFP…
Note that there is an obvious change inserted into the System Requirements Document in the revised tanker RFP that clearly favors the larger aircraft even though it is not necessarily connected to any real-world use of tanker. The original RFP said no extra credit beyond threshold requirement, which both planes had met and exceeded in the first competition. New RFP says there is value in exceeding. Is this a competition for a KC-10 replacement or a KC-135 replacement?
So, the Air Force shouldn’t get what it wants, right Mr. Dicks? Seems to me if they’re asking for more fuel capability then they should be able to buy the tanker that gives it to them. Boeing asked for this rebid, they’ve gotten it, and now its backers are already complaining that it’s unfair?
Is there anyone out there that believes this will be a “fair” process anymore?
Stay tuned here, to DoD Buzz and to Military.com for further updates.
– Christian
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
If the new RFP has a bonus given to a tanker with more capacity why doesn’t boeing just bid a new tanker? I was fairly neutral on the first go around but if Boeing whines about the RFP again it’s just as well that NG wins and the customer gets some freaking tankers.
thanks.
I suppose that Boeing has not a different tanker right now… has invested on the 767 and started the production on the idea that winning was just a natural step.
Anyway… competition should be always good.
PFCEM should be here any minute now to cry his little eyes out.
Let me get this straight, Having “MORE” fuel is not a “real world Tanker requirement”.
But I think that
Look, please toss Norm Dicks into Lake Washington and get us some dang tankers. Afer all this BS they put us through I don’t think I want a Boeing tanker or anything else anymore.
Alex
Fairchild AFB
You also forgot that Mr. Dicks seems to think its okay to insert language in the new proposal considering industrial base which would favor Boeing, but tht’s okay right? but If I understand correctly it’s not okay for the Air Force to insert language re: larger fuel,cargo,passenger loads which Northrop tops the Boeing tanker, But tht’s not okay Mr. Dicks, that is considered bias right? What a complete Moron this guy is. Our wonderful congress is run by clowns ladies & gentlemen, nothing more, nothing less
Oh this is good, it sounds like the pentagon is willing to spend unnecessary money on this project. Its just funny that the F-22 Raptor is too expensive but they are willing to spend more money on the tanker program.
Note how all the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers who have no substance to their arguments resort to ad hominem attackes. At least some of said attacks are now directed to someone other than the thousands of Boeing workers who are doing nothing but what they can & SHOULD DO to get the the USAF the tanker it asked for & CLEARLY best fits the requirements it spent so much time & effort on.
Also note how scared they are that the solicitation may actually be concucted in accordance with the law (including those which were waived so that EADS would compete with an otherwise noncompetative tanker) &/or assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation rules & criteria identified in the solicitation AND how they say that doing so favors Boeing? LOL Sounds an awful lot to me as though even they know (& have let is slip) that the KC-30 is the wrong choice & that the KC-767AT is the right choice but for whatever reasons just can’t seem to bring themselves to accept it. :)
And yes, when so much time & effort went into determining the right fuel/cargo/passenger loads (that most/everyone agreed with) changing them to better fit an otherwise noncompetative tanker & (as the DOD may or may not do) not weighing greater fuel/cargo/passenger loads with the costs (& not just monetary cost) of obtaining said loads OR even justifying the requirement (or real world benefit) for greater fuel/cargo/passenger loads shows clear & unjustified bias in CHANGING the requirements to fit a specific tanker rather than setting the needed/desired requirements & selecting the tanker which best fits/meets said requirements.
All the House has done is stress that no funds for the KC-X shall be provided if the selection in not made in accordance with the GAO ruling & REINSTATING a law which it had previously waived.
PFCEM-Note how all the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers who have no substance to their arguments resort to ad hominem attackes
-And the irony of the above statement is that this is coming from someone who repeatedly attacks others who do not aggree with him and his Boeing Propaganda
Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a competition for a mid-sized tanker, hence Norm Dicks’ understandable concern about the shifting goalposts.
Nevertheless, now that this is in the clear and open, Boeing may be behind the 8-ball, but they at least have an underdog’s chance of putting together an proposal that matches what the customer REALLY wants as opposed to what they had said they want in the past.
RE:”Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a competition for a mid-sized tanker, hence Norm Dicks’ understandable concern about the shifting goalposts.”
The Boeing mantra on “medium tankers” won’t ever be true no matter how often they repeat it.
This is a competition to replace the capability of an aged tanker fleet. If it was feasible to replace the fleet capabilities with one gargantuan tanker at the right price it would have met the criteria for the competition. Let me also add for the uninitiated: both aircraft in the competition are considered ‘medium’ and they always have been. They also compete head to head in the airline market. Guess who’s been winning that market as well? (hint: it is bigger and newer plane.)
Been gone overseas for a while… ironic where to as it pertains so much to this string.
PFCEM said; “LCN is an OPERATIONS tempo limiting factor. It DOES NOT limit what airfields a particular aircraft CAN operate from. As I said, size/weight (ACN) is the limiting factor to what airfields & how many aircraft per airfield you CAN operate from. LCN would be used to determine where best to operate from WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WHERE YOU CAN OPERATE FROM.” I ask how does this limit tempo? If the LCN limits operations, then why am I going there in the first place? There will not be any “tempo”! I would reject the airfield out of hand and move on to those which can support operations. Like I said before, there was a number of higher priority planning factors we had to look at first before we did a ramp/space/weight calculation. We had a ramp space calculator which would give us how many KC-135s/KC-10s we could put at an airfield. Some one with way to much time on their hands and mad-skills with Microsoft Excel built the calculator for all of the Middle East airfields. It gave us only a rough number though. But you still have to remember, other Combatant Commander’s areas of operations are going to factor in. The B-2s were going through four regional combatant commander’s areas of responsibility. We must consider command and control (“can we TALK” as Joan Rivers would say), flight times (which directly affected fuel offload… you should have seen the look on several fighter planners faces when we told them we can put tankers in Iraqi airspace but it will reduce your offloads…they didn’t understand we used the gas in all the tanks to fly to the anchors in Iraq… We were flying FARTHER), and as Sun Tzu so aptly states in chapter one of his book with his the five constants; two of which are “Heaven” (the weather) and “Earth”, the terrain. We had to reject some airfields because they would not support fuel offloads needed. We had to send all KC-135Es out of the theater by March as it was to hot. We could not put tankers at airfields with high pressure altitudes because of takeoff performance. Fuel storage and resupply was our number one issue at almost all bases. That is the reason you are there if performing strictly an air refueling mission. The USAF Air mobility Doctrine pub goes into more detail. The governments of three nations told us no out-right for a couple of prime locations and we adapted… as the US Marines say: “Semper Gumby”… Always Flexible.
We knew even in the Middle East (and every where in the world you will operate tankers out of) we were only going to be able to operate from International airports (Jeddah would have been ideal with its “unlimited” fuel resupply… it has its own refinery south of the airfield and three runways) or a prepared MILITARY airfield like Prince Sultan Air Base. But even at Prince Sultan, we paid a lot of money to the Saudis to upgrade its infrastructure. We paid for it in other ways as there was a runway event at Prince Sultan’s SINGLE runway every 90 seconds (a landing or takeoff every 90 seconds… 24/7 through the entire war) We had 38 KC-135s, 7 KC-10s and 9 VC-10s on the ramp at Prince Sultan during Iraqi Freedom. Not to mention the whole host of other airplanes there. It was an aviation photographer’s dream comes true (I went through 138 rolls of 36 frames!)
PFCEM said:
A few more here…
PFCEM said: “Operating just from large airfields farther away is going to drain your theater wide fuel supplies faster than operating from smaller airfields closer to the operations -PARTICULARLY in the opening stages of combat operations when the operations tempo is likely to be at its highest.”
“Particularly in the opening stages…” Patently false. The opening night of the shock and awe campaign was not creating the highest fuel offloads. Not even close. Supporting the ground war with troops moving near Baghdad starting on about day 13-18 were our highest offloads. And will always be the highest. Efficiency goes out the window when supporting the troops on the ground. The operational environment becomes so fluid and dynamic it is hard to predict. None of us planned on having to go to a hospital and rescue Pvt Jessica Lynch. You stick to the Joint Air Operations Plan/Air Operations Directive and implement Semper Gumby. We did just a little less than 18 million pounds about two days before 3ID went through the Karbala Gap. Reason? Republican Guard repositioned in the sandstorm and were left out in the open when the sandstorm subsided. We offloaded more fuel during the time period the 3rd ID and I MEF were engaged nearing Baghdad than at any other time. We were averaging 16 million pounds a day during the run to Baghdad and Thunder Runs into the city. 3rd ID’s Thunder Runs were flexes to the plan and we adjusted accordingly. Pretty daring so we had maximum effort on strike sorties. You do not know where they are going to be needed and we did another Leadership time sensitive strike on Saddam between 3rd ID’s Thunder Runs. A lot going on in our world. Not to mention the 173rd Airborne airdrop into Iraq. The opening night of Shock and Awe was in the 9 million pounds offloaded area for that Air Tasking Order period.
“Farther…Faster” vs “Smaller…closer”. Your argument does not work. Even if you include bedding down tankers closer with strike assets. The smaller airfiled will also have the reduced fuel storage capacity and if the strike assets are there then you trade space in fuel storage for weapons storage. A logistician would know he has trade offs depending on requirements. We worked closley with the J4 (Logistics) Colonel on fuel storage and resupply. We knew where the challenges were going to be and we planned for those. Bases father away were resupplied FASTER than bases close to the fight as they went through fuel faster. You stop to get gas when you needed it in your car… we do the same thing when applying logistics principles to warfare. Remember, smart men study tactics but brilliant men study logistics.
PFCEM said; “Where have General Norton Schwartz and General Michael Moseley stated they the KC-30 is the right choice? The only thing I have hear or read them comment about is the desire for greater airlift capability than the KC-135 (which the KC-767AT does).” Now that times have certainly changed, and General McNabb, the former USAF Vice Commander is the TRANSCOM commander, it would do us all well to watch the 29 Feb footage of the announcement from the DoD on the KC-X contract award. Gen Lichte, the Air Mobility Command Commander also spoke at that briefing. A good indication of what the Air Force is thinking can be gleaned from that press brief. Look up both of their bios on the Air Force website (http://www.af.mil) to see what General McNabb and Gen Lichte’s credentials are.