USAF Tanker Deal "To be reviewed"

[Steel_Tomb]

Well this gets better by the second, as if it wasn't controversial enough the deal supposedly has "significant errors" and is being put forward for review. It was a big surprise when the result was annouced, I wonder what people will think of this turn of events.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080619/tbs-us-aerospace-military-company-airbus-8cc5291.html

[Tchocky]

Hmm, I wonder how this one will pan out.

On paper the A330 seems to be the better aircraft. Sydney Camm said that every aircraft has 4 dimensions; length, breadth, height and politics.

[SUBMAN1]

Told you a long time ago how this was going to play out. Everyone shot me down back then.

Besides, EADS has no experience trying to build a tanker in the first place. Guaranteed to be hit with costs overruns, the works!

Couple that to Boeing's version is pretty much built and ready to go. It is being procured by Japan as we speak.

Its just dumb to go with the EADS version. Besides, it costs more to operate, regardless if it holds little more fuel, and it has no real defenses when the Boeing version does! That is another sticking point that Boeing has brought up. The EADS version is a sitting duck!

Better on paper? hardly.

-S

[Skybird]

Wasn't it to be expected that Boeing would try to raise support for putting the deal into question? I for sure expected it, and if the deal would have gone to Boeing in the first, the same concerns that are being referred to now wouldn't have made anyone raising a single eyebrow. For Boeing it is about money lost, for the rest it is about national pride. Rational arguments or the given or lacking quality of the Airbus have nothing to do with it. I'm sure that it will end up with the deal being given to Boeing, no matter how. as Tchocky said: politics.

Man, this real time typo- and spellchecking of Firefox works fantastic! :lol: Tchocky, you spell your name wrong, it says!

[SUBMAN1]

Wasn't it to be expected that Boeing would try to raise support for putting the deal into question? I for sure expected it, and if the deal would have gone to Boeing in the first, the same concerns that are being referred to now wouldn't have made anyone raising a single eyebrow. For Boeing it is about money lost, for the rest it is about national pride. Rational arguments or the given or lacking quality of the Airbus have nothing to do with it. I'm sure that it will end up with the deal being given to Boeing, no matter how. as Tchocky said: politics.

Man, this real time typo- and spellchecking of Firefox works fantastic! :lol: Tchocky, you spell your name wrong, it says!You are right about the politics - I think the deal awarded to EADS was a black eye for Boeing from screwing around with the first deal! EADS would never have been in the picture if Boeing didn't rig the first award in 2003.

It is totally political.

-S

[Tchocky]

Besides, EADS has no experience trying to build a tanker in the first place. I guess the German and Canadian tankers don't count, then? EADS have been building tankers for a while.

Couple that to Boeing's version is pretty much built and ready to go. It is being procured by Japan as we speak. Japan and Italy are buying the KC-767, the A330 MRTT is being purchased by Australia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and UK. The Boeing model is further along in flight testing than the A330.

Its just dumb to go with the EADS version. Besides, it costs more to operate, regardless if it holds little more fuel, and it has no real defenses when the Boeing version does! That is another sticking point that Boeing has brought up. The EADS version is a sitting duck! Can you link to the defences, I can't find anything.
More than a little more fuel, 27% more.

[rifleman13]

If the deal with EADS comes through, it will be like the A380 all over again.:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Boeing today said the U.S. Air Force’s decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the Northrop/EADS team’s KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker. The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators found the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability discriminators as its competitor. Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group (ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker. “When I saw the Air Force’s assessment of both candidate aircraft in the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker,” Fogleman told the ARSAG audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing’s tanker effort. “To be survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack. The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats.”That pretty much explains it all.

Why is it that I'm always called upon to provide sources, yet other people never provide anything, yet these same people make claims of their own constantly? Crud!

Anyway, read it all here - http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS156228+11-Apr-2008+PRN20080411

-S

PS. Some additional data:

-- More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
-- Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable flight
crews to better see and assess the threat environment
-- Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is better
able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
-- Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the flight crew
to avoid threats once they are detected
-- Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and critical
aircraft systems
-- Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.

PPS. All these things add up to less fuel carried. Hence the 330's fuel advantage.

[Lurchi]

Survivability of a tanker?!?!
Armour-protection? Do they want to use it as a ground attack plane or what? LOL

If such a plane meets a fighter or an even half-sophisticated SAM systems it is dead, regardless if it is a Boeing or an Airbus. A fighter wouldn't even waste a missile on it and gun this fat bird down within seconds. Capacity of fuel and range are all that matters. It also seems that the Airbus - despite a heavier fuel load - can take-off and land on a shorter runway than the Boeing and that this was one of the major Pro-Airbus arguments.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Boeing will win because they are the home team, not because they have the better product. They just have enough legislators in their pocket. Maybe if they hadn't been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar the first time they could have won it fair and square.

I really, really, really would love for the FBI to put people involved in defense deals under surveillance for 6 months before and after. Our military procurement system is fu$ked beyond repair.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

The tanker is sent into an area of war. bullets are flying, SAM's are flying, its a bloody mess. An unsurvivable tanker has no chance. What they mean by survivable is that the Airbus is 5x more likely to be knocked out in time of war. If a missile hits the KC-767, it is designed to take the hit and possibly fly home. Kind of important in my book, especially in an age where stealth is near mandatory.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

The tanker is sent into an area of war. bullets are flying, SAM's are flying, its a bloody mess. An unsurvivable tanker has no chance. What they mean by survivable is that the Airbus is 5x more likely to be knocked out in time of war. If a missile hits the KC-767, it is designed to take the hit and possibly fly home. Kind of important in my book, especially in an age where stealth is near mandatory.

-S
That's an exaggeration. Tankers are always kept back, and always escorted. Tankers _by their very nature_ are unsurvivable if it's being shot at.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

The tanker is sent into an area of war. bullets are flying, SAM's are flying, its a bloody mess. An unsurvivable tanker has no chance. What they mean by survivable is that the Airbus is 5x more likely to be knocked out in time of war. If a missile hits the KC-767, it is designed to take the hit and possibly fly home. Kind of important in my book, especially in an age where stealth is near mandatory.

-S That's an exaggeration. Tankers are always kept back, and always escorted. Tankers _by their very nature_ are unsurvivable if it's being shot at.

PDNot modern ones.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The tanker is sent into an area of war. bullets are flying, SAM's are flying, its a bloody mess. An unsurvivable tanker has no chance. What they mean by survivable is that the Airbus is 5x more likely to be knocked out in time of war. If a missile hits the KC-767, it is designed to take the hit and possibly fly home. Kind of important in my book, especially in an age where stealth is near mandatory.

-S That's an exaggeration. Tankers are always kept back, and always escorted. Tankers _by their very nature_ are unsurvivable if it's being shot at.

PDNot modern ones.

Come on, it's loaded with 160K pounds of _jet fuel_. If air to air missiles are hitting it, the fact is it isn't a tank.

And they didn't seem to think "survivability" was an issue the first time the 767 was selected?
http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335

PD

[SUBMAN1]

The tanker is sent into an area of war. bullets are flying, SAM's are flying, its a bloody mess. An unsurvivable tanker has no chance. What they mean by survivable is that the Airbus is 5x more likely to be knocked out in time of war. If a missile hits the KC-767, it is designed to take the hit and possibly fly home. Kind of important in my book, especially in an age where stealth is near mandatory.

-S That's an exaggeration. Tankers are always kept back, and always escorted. Tankers _by their very nature_ are unsurvivable if it's being shot at.

PDNot modern ones.
Come on, it's loaded with 160K pounds of _jet fuel_. If air to air missiles are hitting it, the fact is it isn't a tank.

And they didn't seem to think "survivability" was an issue the first time the 767 was selected?
http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335

PDThe tanks themselves are re-sealing - no explosion possible if it maintains integrety. This is something lacking on the Airbus - It will blow up!

See the quote:

-- Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.
-S

PS. More info:

Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767 also includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the tanker crew.

PPS. i think the keyword there is unrestricted.

[Tchocky]

With all respect, that's lifted straight from boeing.com, and they're not going to be saying anything else.

[PeriscopeDepth]

If Boeing can sell you on "unrestricted" operations with a flying gas tank...

PD

[SUBMAN1]

With all respect, that's lifted straight from boeing.com, and they're not going to be saying anything else.Typical response, but not all the information as presented by Rueters is to be found on Boeing's site.

If Boeing knows that they have an advantage, then that is what they have since the Air Force doesn't believe BS.

This is like saying that Airbus says they have an advatage in fuel capacity, but you discount it based on the fact that Airbus has it listed on their website?

Tchocky!!! Hello? Anybody home!!!??? :D:D:D

You do crack me up though!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

By the way, just looked - The Air Force is the one that said it's 5x more survivable. But I guess you'll doscount that too because its the Air Force saying that!

Hahahahahaha! :p :lol:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Found some more advatages of the Boeing plane:

--The ability to refuel multiple types of aircraft, including the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft
--Ability to isolate, transport and off-load multiple fuel types
--Less fuel burned, less foreign bases required and less sensitive to geo-political base denials in operational scenarios
--Fuel tank and ballistic threat protection
--Aerial refueling operator station
--Ability to carry higher weight cargo on the main deck
--Ability to carry hazardous material on the main deck
--Aeromedical crew displays and the ability to generate therapeutic patient oxygen
--Advanced communication and navigation capabilities and future growth potential
And this was pretty important too:

...the KC-767 obtained 24 positive discriminators in the critical survivability category, including 11 described as "major", outranking the KC-30 which reportedly scored five, none of which were major....
Carrying more gas doesn't make the airplane.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

By the way, just looked - The Air Force is the one that said it's 5x more survivable. But I guess you'll doscount that too because its the Air Force saying that!

Hahahahahaha! :p :lol:

-S
The USAF will say whatever their political masters tell them to. Or they'll (the leadership) go ahead and say they need more Raptors than they have and get canned.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088929
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135668+18-Feb-2008+PNW20080218

Where'd you find the USAF saying it's more survivable? All I could find is this:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103415

PD

[Steel_Tomb]

Err... I seem to have opened a right can of worms with this one lol:rotfl: keep it going gents. :up:

[SUBMAN1]

The USAF will say whatever their political masters tell them to. Or they'll (the leadership) go ahead and say they need more Raptors than they have and get canned.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088929
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135668+18-Feb-2008+PNW20080218

Where'd you find the USAF saying it's more survivable? All I could find is this:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103415

PDYou missed this - http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS156228+11-Apr-2008+PRN20080411

As you missed the other link I thought I posted that had the Osprey info. Crud. Closed.

-S

PS. I don't buy the leadership told us to say this BS. Thats a copout.

[SUBMAN1]

Found another article on it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1234210220080612

This part is interesting:

The U.S. Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co's proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winning plane offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and its European subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest against the Air Force decision.
-S

[SUBMAN1]

I told you the KC-767 is ready to go.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/MSG07-095774_TEC_5.pdf

That was last year!

Japan also has been testing its KC-767.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/MSG07-095774_TEC_4.pdf


The KC-45 doesn't even exist yet either! The KC-767 is already developed and about ready for the flight line in militaries around the world!

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/MSG07-095774_TEC_6.pdf

But no - lets build something completely brand new and hardly more capable, and completely less survivable, and way less flexable! Lets put it on a A330 frame that uses 81% greater footprint over a KC-135! Of course we need the infrastructure to support such a large aircraft - nice. The KC-767 holds nearly as much fuel, and only has a 21% greater footprint than the KC-135, and on top of that, should save us $8 Billion in fuel savings simply to fly the damn thing! Yes - politics doesn't always pick the best winner since we clearly have an inferior product with the selected KC-45. Nice.

-S

PS. Can you tell the more i read about this the more I get ticked off? I didn't realize how big a cockup this all was! :x

PPS. Found another link on it with Gates this time - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2008_May_22/ai_n25451990

[PeriscopeDepth]

You are naieve thinking this is about getting our troops the best gear. This is about Boeing owning more of Congress than Northrop Grumman. The decision to reverse came through Congress's research office, not the USAF. Even if the Boeing plane was clearly less capable this would be happening. As has already been said, politics.

The USAF is, unfortunately, a service with no future vision other than snagging funding and keeping things as status quo as possible. And they have shown they are completely incapable of managing a large program too many times lately.

A blog I frequently read had a picture to describe Congress killing the F-22 in favor of funding F-35 and Congress reversing the tanker decision. It was a still from the tape of Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD, Rodney being the USAF here. :shifty:

PD

[SUBMAN1]

You are naieve thinking this is about getting our troops the best gear. This is about Boeing owning more of Congress than Northrop Grumman. The decision to reverse came through Congress's research office, not the USAF. Even if the Boeing plane was clearly less capable this would be happening. As has already been said, politics.

The USAF is, unfortunately, a service with no future vision other than snagging funding and keeping things as status quo as possible. And they have shown they are completely incapable of managing a large program too many times lately.

A blog I frequently read had a picture to describe Congress killing the F-22 in favor of funding F-35 and Congress reversing the tanker decision. It was a still from the tape of Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD, Rodney being the USAF here. :shifty:

PDI don't agree, but I'll leave it at that.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

You are naieve thinking this is about getting our troops the best gear. This is about Boeing owning more of Congress than Northrop Grumman. The decision to reverse came through Congress's research office, not the USAF. Even if the Boeing plane was clearly less capable this would be happening. As has already been said, politics.

The USAF is, unfortunately, a service with no future vision other than snagging funding and keeping things as status quo as possible. And they have shown they are completely incapable of managing a large program too many times lately.

A blog I frequently read had a picture to describe Congress killing the F-22 in favor of funding F-35 and Congress reversing the tanker decision. It was a still from the tape of Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD, Rodney being the USAF here. :shifty:

PDI don't agree, but I'll leave it at that.

-S

Deal. :)

PD

[MothBalls]

So much for the Buy American Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_American_Act


I saw a bumper sticker once that summed up America's problems in 10 words.


"Buy American. The job you save may be your own"

[bookworm_020]

Airbus has had experience in building tanker aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT

Australia had similar demands to the USAF in seeking a tanker replacement. It selected the A330 MRTT.

It can carry more fuel further, with a larger cargo space as well. Yes it is more expensive but it suits Australia's needs better as there are less airports to land at in Australia (have a look on a map and you will see a lot of nothing!) and a long distance to anywhere outside Australia

[Platapus]

The nice thing about the Northrop Grumman bid is that is was not Boeing. Boeing does not exactly have a stellar reputation with the government these days. They have been prime on some ISR projects that ended up costing the taxpayers bunches of cashola and ended up not working.

Boeing used to be a pretty reliable company and I hope they can re-earn their reputation. I know this tanker deal was very important to them.

These days it is almost impossible to "buy American" as components of practically everything is made overseas.

[SUBMAN1]

The nice thing about the Northrop Grumman bid is that is was not Boeing. Boeing does not exactly have a stellar reputation with the government these days. They have been prime on some ISR projects that ended up costing the taxpayers bunches of cashola and ended up not working.

Boeing used to be a pretty reliable company and I hope they can re-earn their reputation. I know this tanker deal was very important to them.

These days it is almost impossible to "buy American" as components of practically everything is made overseas.KC-767 is already flying. No real need for the development time. Its already been done.

-S

[Platapus]

Well let's all just hope that the review is conducted fairly and completely...and quickly.

One way or the other, we really need to decide this and press on.

[Lurchi]

Maybe the USAF should really select the Boeing.
If this thing is able to survive in hostile airspace, fill up some planes and eat some missiles it must be a flying wonder.

With all this it can replace not only the KC-135 but also the B-2 and (equipped with a big gun) ...

... even the A-10! ;)

[SUBMAN1]

Maybe the USAF should really select the Boeing.
If this thing is able to survive in hostile airspace, fill up some planes and eat some missiles it must be a flying wonder.

With all this it can replace not only the KC-135 but also the B-2 and (equipped with a big gun) ...

... even the A-10! ;)Nobody said anything about sustained fire. The idea is to take on the shot, and make it fail, and if it hits, then the idea is to get the thing home instead of becoming a flaming lawn dart in someones backyard! That is the idea. The enemy will always get a lucky shot off on occasion. What you want is for that lucky shot to have minimal effect. That is the idea.

-S

[Lurchi]

A tanker must be kept out of harms way in any case. I can't imagine an easier target for a modern SAM than a fuel-loaded unmaneuverable tanker plane - and a fighter eats it for lunch. Armour for a tanker plane? What a waste of resources, money and especially weight which could be better used for fuel.

The USAF seems to think the same - that's why they chose the Airbus. Personally i think they don't want to make themselves too much dependent from one single supplier like Boeing.

Besides ... the british would profit the most of this deal, why do you pi$$ on them who buy american JSFs in exchange???

[PeriscopeDepth]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/air-force-tanker-mishap-highlights/story.aspx?guid=%7BA366A9A2-D241-4D9A-9FE0-ABF84D89E24E%7D&dist=msr_1

PD