Posted on 03/31/2008 7:01:46 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Can Five Air Forces All Be Wrong? by Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney
Jed Babbin announced recently that he is opposing the USAF's decision to buy the KC-45A air refueling tanker from Northrop Grumman and its European partner, EADS. He bases this on two main points: "First, the warfighters need a tanker that isn't so big and heavy that is unable to deploy on many of the world's airfields; and second, the Air Force is taking an unreasonably high risk on the NG-EADS aircraft." Jed who is a respected friend and colleague has been gracious in allowing me to respond in HUMAN EVENTS with an opposing opinion. HUMAN EVENTS is truly fair and balanced.
These points are very similar to those made by the Boeing Corporation, which lost the tanker competition. And I would suggest that readers consider who to believe-the men and women of the US Air Force, who analyzed both aircraft in excruciating detail and will fly the new tanker in harm's way for the next 50 years, or the Boeing Corporation, whose job is sell KC-767s. As a retired Air Force officer with combat experience, I side with the people who need to put their lives, not just their wallets, on the line. In fact, in the last five tanker competitions (Australia, UK, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and now the US), the KC-45 beat out the KC-767. Can all five air forces be wrong and Boeing be right? By the way Boeing did not protest any of the previous loses which begs the question, Why Now?
In terms of airfield access, Jed estimates that the KC-45 "will be unable to operate out of 20% of the airfields that could accommodate the right-sized Boeing tanker." Actually, out of the 1700 or so airfields in the Air Mobility Command data base (measuring 7,000 feet or longer in length), both the KC-767 and KC-45 can operate from about 75% of them. The KC-45, which has better takeoff performance and carries 20% more fuel, can launch from these airfields with a larger average fuel load.
But debates over airfield numbers and "bare base operations" are of little relevance to Air Force tanker concepts of operations. The tanker mission is to deliver fuel to receivers and suitable bases must have large stocks of fuel. Over the past two decades, Air Mobility Command has used about 70 airfields worldwide that meet its tanker basing requirements. Both the KC-767 and KC-45 can operate from all these airfields, but the KC-45 can launch with 20% more fuel. Launching with more fuel means it can fly farther (thus increasing base availability), stay on station longer, and refuel more receivers per sortie. That is what a tanker does. It is critical to mission success. That's why the Air Force and four other air forces chose the KC-45.
Boeing believes that critical assumptions were changed "mid-stream" to favor the larger KC-45. Based on my discussions with the Air Force, this is not true. No assumptions were changed after the final RFP was released. The Air Force released a series of draft assumptions before the final Request for Proposal and solicited input. For the final RFP, the Air Force elected to use realistic warfighting assumptions for parking and fuel loads (since these would be used in combat). To my mind, using combat planning factors to evaluate combat performance seems quite reasonable.
Both the KC-767 and KC-45 are multi-mission, medium-sized aircraft that can execute both aerial refueling and airlift missions. For the primary refueling mission, the Air Force concluded that the KC-45, offering better takeoff performance, greater offload, better fuel efficiency, and longer range, was superior to the KC-767. And when needed as an airlifter, the KC-45 offered significantly greater capacity. In December 2007, General Nortie Schwartz, the TRANSCOM commander, stated that he planned to use the KC-X in both refueling and airlift roles, noting that the new tanker's flexibility would make it "the game changer over time."
In terms of risk, Boeing management bears the responsibility for their poor score. The aircraft Boeing proposed to the Air Force-the KC-767AT -- is not the same jet it sold to Japan and Italy, which remain two and five years behind schedule respectively. The foreign KC-767s carry only 160K lbs of fuel, which is 20% less than the current KC-135. The proposed KC-767AT combines the wing, fuselage, and landing gear from different KC-767 models and has never been built, flown, tested, or certified. It uses a new engine never used on a B767 before. Boeing proposed integrating a digital cockpit with the old hydraulic flight control system, which historically has led to problems. Not to mention that they had not started boom development and continue to have problems with their drogue pods. The AF concluded that Boeing's proposed development plan posed greater risks in contrast to Boeing's assessment that their offering reflected "inherent manufacturing genius."
In contrast, Northrop had already built and tested the first Air Force tanker on its own nickel. That aircraft stands ready for final modification. Northrop's boom has been tested and passed fuel. The KC-45 Final Assembly Line (FAL) will be located in Mobile, Alabama. The KC-45 team has a core competency in designing, building, and operating FALs-and has conducted 12 successful FAL stand-ups to date. The Mobile FAL stand-up schedule is based on lead times experienced on these previous FALs and includes additional schedule margin. The warfighter will not be affected should any delays occur due to the availability of a duplicate aircraft production line. Northrop's plan was viewed by the Air Force-correctly in my opinion -- as less risky in terms of delivering warfighting capability on schedule.
Finally, Northrop came in cheaper than the Boeing design. Maybe the company was hungrier for the business and was willing to take a lower profit than Boeing. Basically, Northrop offered a more capable, lower cost system at lower risk than Boeing. That's why they won.
That's just not my view -- that's the view of men and women from five different air forces who decide what type of aircraft they want to take into combat. I'll defer to the warfighter's judgment.
[Editor's Note: Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerny, (USAF, Ret.) is a consultant to the Northrop Grumman Corporation on the KC-45 tanker program.]
Retired Lt. Gen. McInerney is a Fox News Military Analysts and co-author of Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror (Regnery Publishing, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company). He also runs his own consulting firm and consults for Northrop Grumman on the KC 45 program.
Powerful words, sorta nips it in the bud, no?
Economic reasons?
It says in your article:
“Finally, Northrop came in cheaper than the Boeing design. Maybe the company was hungrier for the business and was willing to take a lower profit than Boeing. Basically, Northrop offered a more capable, lower cost system at lower risk than Boeing. That’s why they won.”
This whole issue is getting convoluted. Perhaps Boeing shouldn’t have tried to screw the american taxpayer by leasing them, huh? It’s hard for me to have any sympathy for those bastards.
The NGC design is a higher perfomring tanker with lower costs and much lower risk. Its 60% US as well.
The BOeing plan is a frankenbird with higher risk. No one should believe th 85% domestic number, since Boeing is rapidly offshoring its manufacturing
What economic argument is there?
—What economic argument is there?—
IF the 85 percent domestic number is true (you say it is not) then job creation and preservation of a legendary US aircraft manufacturer is an excellent reason. If you are right, and Boeing is offshoring its manufacturing, then, like all US business that offshore (”offshore” is verb, too, I guess), then it is committing “economic treason.”
Being an estimator in the proposal department of a medium size corporation, i would conclude that the boeing people were basically lazy, thought they had it in the bag, padded the numbers to make more cash, and got burned. Happens every day to those that are not careful. As for job creation, boeing has been out-selling airbus in the commercial aircraft field for years. In my opinion, the entire staff of the tanker proposal team needs to be deep sixed, they blew it.....best product for best price wins everytime it is tried....
More jobs dollars are ‘in-sourced’ to the U.S. by foreign corporations than are ‘outsourced’ by U.S. corporations.
Either we structure our taxes and laws so that it makes more sense to keep it in the U.S.A.; or we cry out against traitors. Which makes more sense?
Um...just one question here....
Why is it that we can’t purchase tankers from both suppliers? Why do we have to put all the eggs in one basket?
Because then you would have to have two separate logistics and traning systems to maintain the planes and train the crews.
—In my opinion, the entire staff of the tanker proposal team needs to be deep sixed, they blew it.....best product for best price wins everytime it is tried....—
You have a point (actually several). Defense contractors have been known to “pad” (there’s a newsflash!); I’m no aircraft designer, but how hard can it be to design a decent tanker. Tankers are usually based on an airliner airframe(something Boeing has long experience with), and they’re basically an airliner/cargo plane full of fuel . How on earth could Boeing fudge that up? (answer, I guess they *were* overconfident and lazy).
Why is it that we can’t purchase tankers from both suppliers? Why do we have to put all the eggs in one basket?”
Basically.. Costs.. Because your talking about the purchase of new aircraft, spare parts, training doctrine and materials including simulators. etc.
Its all set by congress in the end but if you can convince the Senate and House to fund a split purchase of both aircraft.. then it would work. But with the Democrats in the drivers seat.. highly doubtful
In contrast, Northrop had already built and tested the first Air Force tanker on its own nickel. That aircraft stands ready for final modification. Northrop's boom has been tested and passed fuel. The KC-45 Final Assembly Line (FAL) will be located in Mobile, Alabama. The KC-45 team has a core competency in designing, building, and operating FALs-and has conducted 12 successful FAL stand-ups to date. The Mobile FAL stand-up schedule is based on lead times experienced on these previous FALs and includes additional schedule margin. The warfighter will not be affected should any delays occur due to the availability of a duplicate aircraft production line. Northrop's plan was viewed by the Air Force-correctly in my opinion -- as less risky in terms of delivering warfighting capability on schedule."
If this info is true, this is a no-brainer. Boeing is not above criticism. They tried to "cheap" their way to a contract win. They lost.
I'm thinking of the laptop/PC business as an example. Sony, Dell, IBM etc. have their own designs/specs, then farm out the assembly.
Boeing was hoping to use the tanker deal to fund the development of the 767-200 Long Range Freighter. (not yet developed, no orders)
EADS already has orders for its 330-200F freighter. Those aircraft are going to be built somewhere.
Because Northrop-Grumman won the tanker contract EADS looks like moving the entire 330-200F line to Alabama rather than Europe.
So the commercial side is 60% of something vrs 80% of nothing
I'd rather see our military get the most capable, reliable and cost-effective tool for the job than see military procurement used to distribute corporate welfare. Besides which, Northrop Grumman has a pretty outstanding history as a military contractor in its own right.
Bing, we have a winner, esp. in view of the next post:
The NGC design is a higher perfomring tanker with lower costs and much lower risk. Its 60% US as well.
The Boeing plan[e] is a frankenbird with higher risk. No one should believe th 85% domestic number, since Boeing is rapidly offshoring its manufacturing
What economic argument is there?
Bing again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.