Testing Gates - Tanker re-bid.

National Review Online ^ | August 08, 2008 | Merrill Cook

[neverdem]

---

---

August 08, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

Testing Gates
Tanker re-bid.

By Merrill Cook

A recent report by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) devastatingly critiques one of the Pentagon’s critical procurement processes. The July 2008 report demonstrates that the government botched contracts for an urgently needed new generation of aerial refueling tankers not just once, but twice.

With years of delay and billions in budget overruns in many of the Department of Defense’s top programs, many observers are asking just how deep the Pentagon’s procurement problems run. They want to know what the Pentagon’s new chief, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will do about it.

The problems have been building for years. DOD has allowed squabbles between defense contractors to maroon several key acquisition priorities into a bureaucratic no-man’s land. This at a time the armed forces are in great need of quick turnarounds on life-saving systems like the armored MRAP vehicles for troops patrolling dangerous streets in Iraq.

Unfortunately, few in Washington seem to have learned the lessons of past procurement mistakes. Exhibit A: The Pentagon is trying for the third time to complete a fair competition for a $35 billion contract to replace our fleet of tanker-refueling aircraft. These are the oldest aircraft still flying, and some date back to the Eisenhower administration. Few question that they pose a serious safety threat to pilots. Woeful mismanagement of a sole-source contract hamstrung the first control, while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) rejected the second as an obsequious effort to award Northrop Grumman and EADS — a subsidized European contractor under criminal investigation — a lucrative defense contract for a more expensive and less capable tanker aircraft.

Now under the gun from Congress to produce quick results, Gates has promised that he and his deputy, Undersecretary John Young, will personally oversee the new tanker competition. But instead of simply re-evaluating the previous competition’s bids according to the rules, the Defense Department seems to be engaging smoke-and-mirrors tactics. Undersecretary Young hinted that the Pentagon may now ignore the specifications originally laid out in the contract — specifications that flowed from studies by RAND and Defense Department experts — and jerry-rig new specifications in the contract so that the Pentagon can once again throw the deal to the more expensive, less experienced, foreign contractor. The new version of the contract would give extra credit for a larger tanker aircraft, an action that the GAO report specifically highlighted as a critical flaw of the earlier tanker competition. This is a mistake. For starters, the expert analyses, which defense planners traditionally rely on, all show decisive disadvantages for larger tanker aircraft. They are less efficient, can land at fewer bases, and therefore can service fewer in-flight fighters and cargo planes simultaneously. In fact, the main advantage of larger craft — that they carry more fuel — is rarely an advantage in real-world missions, since the smaller tanker aircraft rarely offload more than 50 percent of the fuel they carry.

Boeing’s KC-767 fits the requirements of a medium-sized tanker much better than the foreign competition’s offerings do. According to several independent reports, Boeing KC-767s could save taxpayers as much as $50 billion, can deliver more fuel to more of our fighter and carrier aircraft, can land on more runways, and are less vulnerable to attack. An award to Boeing would support 44,000 jobs.

Most experts believe that the only way defense bureaucrats can commandeer this deal for EADS and Northrop is to give their KC-30’s larger size a decisive advantage in a slap-dash list of new contract specification. The GAO found nothing at all wrong with the basic integrity of the original contract specifications. Rather, the GAO gave these Pentagon officials reprobate status because they failed to abide by the specifications when they bent over backwards to effectively sole-source the contract to EADS and Northrop.

If Gates and the Defense Department now decide to ignore the clear reasoning of the GAO decision and, instead, concoct a new rationale to sole-source this contract to the foreign vendor by quixotically favoring a larger aircraft, the Bush administration should prepare for a bipartisan revolt.

— Merrill Cook is a former Republican congressman from Utah.

---

- font>

[neverdem]

In fact, the main advantage of larger craft — that they carry more fuel — is rarely an advantage in real-world missions, since the smaller tanker aircraft rarely offload more than 50 percent of the fuel they carry.

This claim needs to be verified.

[donmeaker]

If you count peacetime training, that may be true.

In wartime KC-135 tankers take on fuel from each other, so that they can stay on station, and fuel swarms of fighters.

Recommended reading: Jack Broughton’s “Thud Ridge”.

[driftdiver]

Regardless the ability to land at more runways and use existing facilities is a huge issue.

[17th Miss Regt]

Woeful mismanagement of a sole-source contract hamstrung the first control, while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) rejected the second as an obsequious effort to award Northrop Grumman and EADS — a subsidized European contractor under criminal investigation — a lucrative defense contract for a more expensive and less capable tanker aircraft.

Just a bit of bias here. The word should be corruption, not mismanagement. The rest of the sentence is a contemptible characterization of the process.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

The bottom line is, which one is a better replacement for the KC135?

—Will both aircraft operate from the same runways as the KC135? If not, this should be a show stopper and we should find an aircraft that does.

—Do both aircraft have range and loiter times that are comparable to the KC135? If so, which is best?

—Do both aircraft have breakaway acceleration in abort situations that are similar to the KC135? This is an important safety consideration.

—Does either aircraft have the capability to carry enough dry cargo distract from their crucial primary role? If so, this may be a liability.

—Which aircraft will be easiest to maintain and have the best in service rate?

When I was 8 years old we took a school field trip to Beale AFB for their open house. “Open house” was a relative concept at a SAC base in 1964. Most of the planes on display were loaners - F100s, F101s and T33s from the California Air National Guard and F102s and brand new F4Cs from one of the TAC bases in the Central VAlley.

I especially wanted to get a good look at a small black airplane I had seen crossing the moon over my house as it climbed for altitude while making a high pitched whistling noise. We never saw them in the day time and some of my friends thought I was making it up. Unfortunately it wasn’t on display.

About the only SAC aircraft on display were the KC135s. At 8 walking around under them they looked HUGE! Inside we got to see all the controls and dials in the cockpit and in the back they let us crawl back in the tail where the boomer worked. Being a boomer seemed like a really cool job. It’s going to be a sad day for me when the last KC135 is retired but its time is past and we need to move on to a new aircraft.

[Erik Latranyi]

You ask good questions, but replacing the KC135 with something of the same specs may not be the best idea.

The people who know what is really needed are probably not the ones outlining the bid specifications.

This is normal for military contracts.

The M16 was the result of non-shooting, think-tank youths under McNamara coming up with specifications for a new battle rifle.

It seems someone has their hearts set on Northrop/Airbus.

[SJSAMPLE]

The M-16 (AR-15, Armalite, etc.) was actually developed independently of any government agency or contract. Only after Eugene Stoner had working rifles, did he approach the US Army, but ultimately took it to the USAF for acceptance.

It continues to be the longest-serving rifle in US military history and is still favored by many nations, even replacing the AK-47 whenever the opportunity arises.

I will say however, that McNamara and his wonderkids FUBAR’d the initial deployment and ammunition procurement.

[ops33]

I have never heard of KC-135’s refueling other KC-135’s. In my career I saw many, many KC-135’s and I never saw one with a refueling port. Can you provide a source?

[Oztrich Boy]

The bottom line is, which one is a better replacement for the KC135?

The closest specifications replacement to a KC-135 would actually be the Airbus310MRTT - but that production line is closed down.

Both the KC-767AT and KC-30A have more capability than the KC-135. The Question is go a somewhat better or even more better?

—Will both aircraft operate from the same runways as the KC135? If not, this should be a show stopper and we should find an aircraft that does.

Depends who you listen to. The EADS plane operates off shorter runways because of the big wing. But the Boeing claim is that that same wing makes it less compatible with legacy hangers and parking spots.

—Do both aircraft have range and loiter times that are comparable to the KC135? If so, which is best?

KC-30 wins here

—Do both aircraft have breakaway acceleration in abort situations that are similar to the KC135? This is an important safety consideration.

Boeing is claiming better breakaway characteristics.

OTOH The EADS boom has a greater aerodynamic envelope and a faster retraction speed, so breakaway acceleration would be less critical.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Thanks, good info. According to the chart the KC30 is the clear winner. If that’s the case what’s the argument?

On the other hand, did “ISER-CAS inc.” produce the chart for Northrop Grumman?

Way back in the late ‘70s I wrote technical manuals for airframe changes to the Douglas EKA3 Skywarrior - an obsolete aircraft that did nothing exceptionally well but take up deck space but that hung around in Navy inventory longer than a left handed reliever in the National League because of it’s “multi-role” capability. 226 passengers and 32 pallet positions for the KC30 is not exactly a recommendation to me. A tanker should be a tanker, an EW bird should be an EW bird and a cargo plane should be a C130 (though I’m starting to warm to the C17).

[afnamvet]

I was stationed at Beale AFB 66-67. I was assigned to the 456th Bomb Wing supporting B52 and KC135 aircraft. I worked in the Avionics and Electronics Maint. Squadron. Loved the KC 135..great aircraft.

I was asked to go TDY to the 9th Strategic Recon Wing (Sr-71 Blackbird) for about two months for Comm/NAV box change outs. Can't say too much about it though ...classified.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

One of my cousins married a SAC AP at Beale at about that time (poor b@$t@rd) hope is wasn’t you. :o)

The SR71 entered squadron service, if memory serves, in the fall of ‘66 - during lunch recess. We saw 12 of them rolling in and stopped playing football instantly. We mistakenly identified them as YF12As as either Revel or Monogram had a model kit for the YF12 out at that time. They practically had to drag the male portion of the student body back to class.

This was the only time we ever saw more than one at a time and the only time we ever saw them in broad daylight.

I grew up about 15 miles from Beale. I’m familiar with SAC memory loss condition. It’s amazing how little people who work around an aircraft every day know about it.

[donmeaker]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob-the-org/2592443621/sizes/o/

And again, it is mentioned in Jack Broughton’s book “Thud Ridge”.

[We Dare Defend Our Rights]

Are members of the Boeing Bribe Machine, please start posting your crap now. You were paid to be a strong advocate.

[ops33]

I think maybe the author was taking of little creative freedom in his writing. While I am not an expert on the KC-135 I have never seen nor heard of a tanker refueling another tanker. Neither have I seen a tanker with a refueling port on the nose. I also could not find a photo of a tanker with a refueling port. I could be wrong but I would still like to see some authoritive source.

[donmeaker]

The tankers which have receivers are special operations birds. They can stay on station longer, which is often necessary for them.

If you aren’t in the club, you don’t get to play.

[MHalblaub]

I have never seen nor heard of a tanker refueling another tanker.

I think there are about 8 former EC-135 operating nowadays as tankers. The ECs could be refueled. This option is still available after conversion to tanker version. All KC-10 can be refueled.

[dread78645]

I have never heard of KC-135’s refueling other KC-135’s. In my career I saw many, many KC-135’s and I never saw one with a refueling port. Can you provide a source?

It was a Air Force requirement (click here for the PDF).
So both the NG/EADS and the KC-767AT needed the capability to be refueled by another aircraft.

"In publishing its Request For Proposal (RFP) for America's next generation of aerial refueling tankers, the Air Force made clear that it was placing a priority on superior refueling capacity, even as it was looking for a more versatile aircraft. In the document in which it explained to both companies why Northrop Grumman's aircraft was superior, the Air Force concluded that Northrop Grumman was better able to pump fuel onto other aircraft - and receive fuel from another aircraft - than Boeing, earning a clear win in this vital evaluation category."

-- NG - Why We Won

"The KC-767 will be the world's newest and most advanced tanker. It can offload 20 percent more gas than the KC-135E and unlike the E-model, can itself be refueled in flight."

-- The Boeing Company (A cheerleader site - turn off your speakers)

[ops33]

Thanks for the info!

[ops33]

Thanks for the info!

[ops33]

Thanks for the info!

[cmdr straker]

In wartime KC-135 tankers take on fuel from each other, so that they can stay on station, and fuel swarms of fighters

KC-135’s Cannot refuel each other. KC-10’s Can

[MHalblaub]

KC-135’s Cannot refuel each other. KC-10’s Can

A few KC-135 can.

[cmdr straker]

A few KC-135 can

No those are EC’s not kc’s

[cmdr straker]

A few KC-135 can.

No those are EC’s not kc’s

Correction They are Converted EC-135’s to R models..

there are or were 8 only. Not sure if they are still working UARSSI’s in them. But they started life as EC’s..