Boeing wins key round in Air Force tanker protest

Why win tenders when you can just sue?

Boeing didn't sue. They used the administrative in-channel objection process to appeal an executive branch process.

But if you want to debate it, they probably in fact did win, but were trumped by bribes:

According to a host of expert analyses and the Department of Defense (DOD) itself, the KC-767 offers key advantages over the KC-30 because of its size, efficiency, and tested technologies. E.g., chew on this:

According to the Air Force’s analysis of capabilities Boeing’s KC-767 had 98 strengths compared to 30 for EADS/Northrop Grumman’s KC-30:
More Aircraft in the Air – The number of tankers or “booms” in the air is far more important to the warfighter than the size of the tanker, since a tanker rarely offloads all of its fuel (the average offload is 60,000 pounds of fuel, a figure far less than the capacity of either the KC-767 or the KC-30). The KC-767 has a 30 percent smaller footprint than the KC-30, allowing the Air Force to park and subsequently launch nearly twice as many KC-767s into action as KC-30s at a military base.
• More Fuel Offloaded From More Bases – The KC-767’s lighter weight and smaller pavement footprint allow it to offload more fuel at 1,000 nm from more worldwide bases than the KC-30.
• A Quantum Leap in Cargo and Passenger Capacity – The KC-767 offers 300 percent more cargo, passenger and patient capacity than the retiring KC-135’s. Although EADS’ KC-30 offers even more extra cargo space, it isn’t as structurally sound as the KC-767 and can only carry about the same gross tonnage in cargo. Moreover, the extra capacity is unnecessary for the vast majority of missions (tankers carry less than 1% of all cargo carried by Air Mobility Command aircraft), and comes at the cost of its refueling capabilities in major military operations and tens of billions more in extra fuel and infrastructure costs.
More Survivable – Survivability is critical given that the USAF intends to operate the aircraft in more hostile (medium threat) environments compared to the current tanker fleet. The Air Force rated Boeing’s KC-767 as far more capable of avoiding and mitigating an attack in a combat zone, with five times as many strengths as EADS’ KC-30:

• Superior surface-to-air missile defensive and superior situational awareness through cockpit displays;
• Better armor protection for the flight crew and critical aircraft systems;
• Better fuel tank explosion protection through integrated ballistic threat protection features;
• Better Electromagentic Pulse (EMP) hardening to allow operations in an EMP environment;
• More robust Large Aircraft Infrared Counter Measure (LAIRCM) system for increased Protection compared to the KC-30.

And Boeing's plane was cheaper! Even the USAF procurement "team" is ADMITTING it, belatedly. Why so tardy? Because the "fix" was in. They only started telling the truth after the concealed facts were revealed. Boeing's bid was cheaper by BILLIONS before the "Procurement Team" lyingly covered it up...

Exactly, the USAF scoring the NG/EADS bid less expensive had a lot of ramifications. I found it very odd that two highly complex $100B+ proposals could emerge from the USAF number crunching machine only $34M apart, with the slight advantage to NG/EADS. The Boeing submittal was increased by $5.1B by the USAF for its commercial 767 platform, because the USAF wouldn’t classify as a commercial item, a clear violation of federal procurement law. The GAO nailed them on that. The number cruncher who added $5.1B must be kicking himself, if he had only made it $5.2B then the $100M or so of spreadsheet errors would not changed NG/EADS as the low cost offerer.

By law if the USAG selects the higher cost proposal it must do a study to determine if the higher cost is justified by added capabilities. That was not performed on the NG/EADS proposal because it was erroneously classified originally as the lower cost.

The F-16 that’s flying in many countries isn’t exactly US-made.

The F-16 has been locally assembled, with many locally made components, for decades.

Denmark assembles its own, IIRC.
Japan turned the F-16 in the FSX/F-2.
Israel has the F-16I which is heavily Israeli.

No country is going to buy a big ticket item that’s 100% outsourced. Not anymore.

And the Brits are a strategic partner.
You may recal that they gave us radar in the first place.
The real risk is with Israel, who wants on-board both the F-35 and F-22 but has a very poor history with technology transfers. And then there’s the Japanese record (Toshiba, propellers, etc.).

I think we all can agree that this was no accidental coincidence. They knew they could not so justify their choice then.

I am disinclined to suppose that this was the result of USAF incompetence per se, but instead put the best face on it, that these officers were merely doing what they were told by their bosses, who in this case, were the political appointees...and the results clearly reek of a political "fix."

In the early 80's I worked on an Air Force project that was highly controversial. The GAO auditors came out and interviewed AF personnel several times. We discovered that Senator David Pryor kept sending them back until they gave a report that said what he wanted them to say.

The hard left politicians from Washington State (Murray, Cantwell, et al) are just as likely to do that same thing. This just screws the Air Force as far as getting a tanker they desperately need.

The F-16 that’s flying in many countries isn’t exactly US-made.

In most cases its mostly.

The F-16 has been locally assembled, with many locally made components, for decades.

But not the arsenal...and the plane itself is the U.S. design and engineering. The missiles, etc are U.S., with the exception perhaps of Israel and Japan.

Denmark assembles its own, IIRC.

Assembly is not equivalent to the more critical subcomponent fabrication.

Japan turned the F-16 into the FSX/F-2. Israel has the F-16I which is heavily Israeli.

Yes. So? This is what was the genesis of the F-35 sales pitch. One that I found less than persuasive then. This should be about US security first and foremost. Not our allies porkbarrel.

No country is going to buy a big ticket item that’s 100% outsourced. Not anymore.

Well, that's tough then if they want F-22s. I don't think we should let any of that out of the country. No matter who the "ally" is. Period.

And the Brits are a strategic partner.

One now with no blue water navy. Down to 22 ships. And two of them have had their air defenses stripped because of the expense. No wonder they gave up Hong Kong without a fight.

You may recal that they gave us radar in the first place.

When they were still a relevant power. They no longer are. The outsourcing and liberalism has eroded their greatness beyond that point. So a hardboiled question: What exactly can they do for us in a titannic clash with say, China? Not much evidently. I would put it less than likely that we should thence be risking any key technology that compromise that prospective clash. Now granted, they likely are more sturdy in security than Israel...which has shown itself to be "conflicted" at high levels.

The real risk is with Israel, who wants on-board both the F-35 and F-22 but has a very poor history with technology transfers.

I would agree...particularly vis a vis China...our biggest threat.

And then there’s the Japanese record (Toshiba, propellers, etc.).

Yep. I agree. Fortunately, Japan has now shown itself to be more wary of its own security lapses...and MITA appears to be policing its industry better.

Each of those countries got at least SOME of the manufacturing benefit, and that's the point. Larger, first world coutries like Britain have options. Sure, most of the major components and the higher-tech assemblies of the JSF are built and assembled in the US, but the local economies get a piece of the pie. Not a bad tradeoff in order to get the sale.

The Brits assemble their own Apaches with upgraded engines, keeping even more of their defense dollars local.

The F-35 wouldn't even be on the board if we didn't have allies to support its manufacture. As a multi-role fighter, it isn't as critical as the F-22. We could've picked up the F/A-18E/F for the USAF instead. The only reason it's moving along is because enough countries have partnered-up and in enough volume. And the only reason those countries partnered-up is because they are a manufacturing partner. The have options that are cheaper.

It's a sure bet that the next major conflict will be fought first by US allies, flying US designed aircraft with locally built components. Still not a bad option if you trust your allies.

You say it should be about US security "first and foremost", but you're deferring to our own porkbarrel politics for the contracts. I find it curious that our congresscritters were up in arms before the USAF decision was even analyzed. That's enough of a sign that porkbarrel politics are involved here.

The US should always get the best equipment at the best cost, but we can't play a one-sided defense contracting game and expect our allies not to do the same.

We buy Canadian-made Strykers for The US Army. Should we ditch those and add the expense to bring it to the US?

We discovered that Senator David Pryor kept sending them back until they gave a report that said what he wanted them to say.

Not surprising. But this influence is not only on the GAO, but the US DOD too...as your point merely confirms. And it sounds suspiciously like what John McCain accomplished here with his constant harping on the USAF to have a "competitive" bid.

The hard left politicians from Washington State (Murray, Cantwell, et al) are just as likely to do that same thing.

Agreed. But that isn't what happened here. The USAF was busted basically double-dealing against Boeing. So much for fair, open and transparent.

This just screws the Air Force as far as getting a tanker they desperately need.

They don't need the Airbus.

(a) It's not the right plane. Its not survivable. Its too big and expensive to operate.
(b) Its not a better price...as the USAF now admits. It lost the price competition.
(c) And EADs is significantly LESS honest and trustworthy a company...still acting as if they can deduct Bribes.
To wit: They proliferate in Iran, China, etc. AND we shouldn't be subsidizing the European subsidy porkbarrel/bribe machine.
You should know better.

The US should always get the best equipment at the best cost, but we can't play a one-sided defense contracting game and expect our allies not to do the same.

So the US taxpayer takes the expense of the R&D in the chops, and we are supposed to hand over the production to foreign entities gratis.

With friends like the "see no US border" free traders....who needs enemies of the US taxpayer?

We buy Canadian-made Strykers for The US Army.

Why. Whose bright idea again?

Should we ditch those and add the expense to bring it to the US?

Maybe we should. Anyways, with the collapse of the US Dollar it may soon be evident that that is the cheaper option. All this outsourcing was done on the blue sky, high steady value of the dollar...which is now clearly on its way south...

R&D expenses are paid for by actually selling fighters. Who’da thunk?
If we don’t sell enough fighters, we don’t pay for the R&D and production costs.
Local production ONLY will guarantee that fighters aren’t sold and the R&D costs aren’t paid for. This was known and planned for FROM THE START.
It’s self-defeating.

And don’t confuse partner projects with the “open border” concept. Not gonna fly. Partnering with experienced defense contractors in our partner nations is not the same as sending Westinghouse ovens to Mexico.

I don’t see you bitching when the Canadians buy F/A-18s or C-17s or other US-made equipment? Maybe the Canadians put their security first and decided the flying the US-made Hornet was better than flying a Canadian Bombardier?

Is that in the GAO report or just your opinion?

Actually it was the USAF Opinion...just not this little "procurement team".

I don't hear any AF guys saying it is not the right plane.

Then you aren't listening very hard. You claiming Jed Babbin wasn't AirForce? [Not to mention almost as solid a conservative as me!] And how about the reports by the US Airforce Association?:

If Boeing was listening to senior serving generals, its notions about size were probably reinforced. Privately, top USAF officers frequently said they were looking for an ability to put many tankers on forward runways at once, since strike packages involve many airplanes, and each tanker can only refuel one other boom-receptacle airplane at a time. (Both the KC-30 and KC-767 can simultaneously refuel two other aircraft if the receiving airplanes are equippe d with probe-and-drogue type refueling gear). However, those generals were quick to point out that they had no say in the acquisition process, and the outcome of the competition bore that out.

Where is some of the data on your quotes about survivability, 98 vs 30, etc?

Boeing's Complaint (Now Vindicated). And also Tanker War Blog... which is moderated by Mike Reilly and a bipartisan group of legislative assistants. Mike spends his days at the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney. A group whose contributers were both EADS/NG and Boeing. Apparently NG/EADs used to be the bigger contributer before EADS was blasted by Gaffney for its conspicuous ongoing corruption.

Just goes to show that filthy lucre was never the influencing factor.

Then you aren't listening very hard. You claiming Jed Babbin wasn't AirForce? [Not to mention almost as solid a conservative as me!] And how about the reports by the US Airforce Association?:

I just went to and read both Mr. Babbin's article and the editorial from the Air Force Association (I am a member). Here are a couple of quotes from Mr. Babbin's article:

Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper (who has consulted for Northrop Grumman on other programs) told me that he believed the tanker procurement was “squeaky clean” and that the warfighters would get what they need from the NG-EADS aircraft because it met all the requirements set by the Air Force.

The NG-EADS Airbus 330 tanker’s max weight is 507,000 pounds. It is 192 feet long and has a 197-foot wingspan.

This is from the af.mil fact sheet on the KC-10

Length: 181 feet, 7 inches (54.4 meters) Height: 58 feet, 1 inch (17.4 meters) Wingspan: 165 feet, 4.5 inches (50 meters) Maximum Takeoff Weight: 590,000 pounds (265,500 kilograms)

I know you will say, "we are not talking about KC-10's", but if the EADS plane is too big, then why hasn't the AF scrapped the KC-10? That would be a good question to ask the expert Mr. Babbin.

My best scientific wild guess is that the NG-EADS aircraft will be unable to operate out of at least 20% of the airfields that could accommodate the right-sized Boeing tanker.

One senior retired officer who requested anonymity told me that when the changes were revealed he called several officers high in the chain of command and they all reacted by asking “what are you talking about?” Now they know.

I know for a fact that there are formal "need documents required to establish the basic objectives for a new program." It used to be a Mission Need Statement. It is something else now to allow more flexibility. I am presently working on a program that uses a form 1067 to define the basic requirements. In that form is a threshold and an objective.

I went to the Air Force association site you referenced and did not see anywhere they disapproved of the EADS NG decision. What they discussed was what could happen depending upon the GAO's decision.

I personally think you guys for Boeing are not being objective due to personal biases. You are also mis-reading the intent of some of the things you quote.

If EADs or the AF really did screw up, then there should be a rebid. However, I take retired General Jumper's quote as correct. If you think the AF would deliberately slant a competition after the lease deal, you are crazy.

More Aircraft in the Air – The number of tankers or “booms” in the air is far more important to the warfighter than the size of the tanker, since a tanker rarely offloads all of its fuel (the average offload is 60,000 pounds of fuel, a figure far less than the capacity of either the KC-767 or the KC-30). The KC-767 has a 30 percent smaller footprint than the KC-30, allowing the Air Force to park and subsequently launch nearly twice as many KC-767s into action as KC-30s at a military base.

You still try to mix up offload capability with total fuel capacity. Also your math is excellent. 30 % is nearly half and therefore you double number of KC-767.

It's not about booms or aircrafts in the air. It's about booms on station. A KC-45 can stay much longer on station.

More Fuel Offloaded From More Bases – The KC-767’s lighter weight and smaller pavement footprint allow it to offload more fuel at 1,000 nm from more worldwide bases than the KC-30.

Can you provide a link to support your math? As I read a KC-45 can operate out of nearly twice as much bases as a KC-767 can. Also a KC-45 can provide nearly 50 % more fuel at 1,000 nm range.

• A Quantum Leap in Cargo and Passenger Capacity – The KC-767 offers 300 percent more cargo, passenger and patient capacity than the retiring KC-135’s. Although EADS’ KC-30 offers even more extra cargo space, it isn’t as structurally sound as the KC-767 and can only carry about the same gross tonnage in cargo. Moreover, the extra capacity is unnecessary for the vast majority of missions (tankers carry less than 1% of all cargo carried by Air Mobility Command aircraft), and comes at the cost of its refueling capabilities in major military operations and tens of billions more in extra fuel and infrastructure costs.

Still the same irrelevant claims. “tankers carry less than 1% of all cargo carried by Air Mobility Command aircraft”.
AMC wants to increase this capacity to relief the C-17.

And sometimes 50 % are nothing: “it isn’t as structurally sound as the KC-767 and can only carry about the same gross tonnage in cargo.” Look at the offload capability at 1,000 nm range. 50 % more. Same for cargo. For bulk cargo you often need much space.

KC-767A and KC-135 got same fuel capacity. How can a KC-767A offer 300 % more cargo or passanger capacity than a KC-135? Just more space.

More Survivable – Survivability is critical given that the USAF intends to operate the aircraft in more hostile (medium threat) environments compared to the current tanker fleet. The Air Force rated Boeing’s KC-767 as far more capable of avoiding and mitigating an attack in a combat zone, with five times as many strengths as EADS’ KC-30:

Five times as many? I only read better. How much better? I won't think 5 times. Like the 98 strengths? One strength was more sockets. Maybe 98 sockets more?
You know Boeing claiming to build a virtual fence.
I trust the capabilities of NG to build what they had proposed.

Still the same irrelevant claims. “tankers carry less than 1% of all cargo carried by Air Mobility Command aircraft”.
AMC wants to increase this capacity to relief the C-17.

thats why we need more C-17’s faster to load and unload compared to a tanker. How many deployments have you been on wear a tanker carries that much cargo. they may send cargo to the forward base but after that they pass gas. Big waist to have all that space that cannot operate at 20% of current bases.

I trust the capabilities of NG to build what they had proposed.

They will put together a RENAULT that is not even close to the BOEING. Lets see maint capable rates of a BOEING compared to scarebus big difference. SCAREBUS breaks must wait for frog parts to show if they feel like working more than 30 hours a week. Supply problems will exist from eads.

arm chair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen compared to those who play the game.

it puts the lotion on and drinks the EADS KOOL AID

Big waist to have all that space that cannot operate at 20% of current bases.

Try to find one base a KC-135, KC-767 or a C-17 can operate and a KC-45 won't.

thats why we need more C-17’s faster to load and unload compared to a tanker.

Did Air Force need these fast turn around times today? I would say no. At the moment Air Force operates to Baghdad or somewhere else in the world like a normal cargo airline. When Air Force need the C-17 they'll be worn out due to daily business a KC-45 could have handled.

SCAREBUS breaks must wait for frog parts to show if they feel like working more than 30 hours a week. Supply problems will exist from eads.

You know that KC-135R CFM56 engines are half France made? That never scared Air Force.

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.