Posted on 06/19/2008 5:26:15 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Too Big, Too Heavy
by Jed Babbin, Human Events
Posted: 03/24/2008
The mission of the US Air Force is to fly and to fight. Everyone in the Air Force’s job falls into one of three categories: to do the flying and fighting, to command those who do, or to support them. Part of supporting the warriors is to buy the best aircraft to accomplish the mission at lowest risk. Which is why the Air Force’s decision to buy urgently-needed tanker aircraft from the Northrop Grumman – EADS consortium must be reversed.
That decision -- announced on February 29 -- could not be judged quickly or without consulting with experts on both sides of the controversy. Air mobility experts, two former chiefs of staff of the Air Force and other experienced warfighters gave me very different opinions.
My reluctant conclusion is that the Air Force’s decision is profoundly wrong. I base it on two facts: first, the warfighters need a tanker that isn’t so big and heavy that it 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.
Congressional whiners and populist pundits are suffering a case of the vapors over the decision to award the contract (for an estimated $40 billion) to NG-EADS because American jobs will be exported to France. To be sure, US jobs and tax dollars will go to the subsidized French Airbus company -- a subsidiary of EADS -- whose A-330 will be modified into the tankers. But it was Congress that imposed a procurement system under which the Air Force was required to have competition for the sole US company capable of building the tanker -- Boeing -- and it is Congress that enabled foreign companies to compete.
Tankers aren’t glamorous. They are big, heavy and drab. But without them, America would not be a superpower. There are not that many places in the world in which American combat aircraft can land to refuel. Without tankers showing up in the right places at the right times, fighters can’t fight, bombers can’t bomb and transport aircraft can’t deliver troops, supplies, or disaster relief to far corners of the world in a matter of hours.
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.
Air mobility experts point out that we don’t run out of bulk cargo and passenger-carrying capacity. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet -- civilian airliners and cargo aircraft that can be called into service by the Air Force in a crisis -- provide tremendous capacity to carry people and cargo, but not jet fuel. But our warfighting ability is limited by the number of tankers and how and where they can be deployed.
Deployability is critical because tankers are bad tenants. Most runways can’t handle their weight and their size limits the number that can be stationed on any airfield. The bigger and heavier the tankers are, the fewer airfields can accommodate them.
The Boeing tanker, a version of the 767 jetliner, has a maximum takeoff weight of 395,000 pounds. It’s 159 feet long and has a wingspan of 156 feet. The NG-EADS Airbus 330 tanker’s max weight is 507,000 pounds. It is 192 feet long and has a 197-foot wingspan. 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.
How the Air Force allowed this to happen is nothing short of bizarre. The warfighters are supposed to control the “requirements” -- the criteria the aircraft must meet -- and the procurement pukes are supposed to apply those criteria to choose which aircraft will be bought. But somehow, in mid-stream, the criteria were changed without the warfighters’ knowing about it. Critical criteria including maximum takeoff weight and clearance between wingtips while parked were changed to skew the competition to favor the larger Airbus.
Gen. Ronald Fogelman -- former Air Force chief of staff (and before that, commander of what is now Air Mobility Command which operates the tankers) is a Boeing consultant. He disputed that idea: “Anybody who thinks that somehow they’re going to dual-use these airplanes in a crisis and get benefit from both tanker and cargo-carrying capacity just doesn’t understand the way these things get used.”
Fogelman’s point is well-taken. For every hour a tanker is diverted to other purposes, every other aircraft that depends on the tankers has one less hour to fly.
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.
The other huge problem is the risk inherent in the winner’s inexperience and plan to build the aircraft. Boeing tankers have been delivering fuel in flight for over 50 years. NG-EADS has delivered fuel to an aircraft in flight through a “boom”, the crane-like device that is extended from the back of a tanker and through which fuel is delivered, precisely once. And NG-EADS promises to assemble the aircraft in a new plant in Alabama that isn’t built, using a new workforce that hasn’t ever built a tanker.
I’ve been down this path before.
Seventeen years ago, I sat in my Pentagon office wondering what went wrong and how to fix it. A top-secret Navy attack aircraft program (which we know now was the A-12) had turned into a disaster. I hadn’t been cleared into the program, so despite my fancy security clearances and title I couldn’t even find out what had happened far less try to fix it. My boss had done a bad job of judging how the program was doing and had told the Secretary of Defense (a gent named Cheney) that all was well when it wasn’t. The big boss had passed that opinion on to Congress with embarrassing results.
My puzzlement ended when a familiar large head leaned into my office. Its owner smiled and asked, “Jed, you got a minute?” This friend, whom I count among my mentors, was a retired Air Force four-star general and had been commander of Air Force Systems Command. AFSC ran all aircraft procurement for USAF, so he knew a thing or two about building airplanes.
The explanation he gave was horribly simple. My boss had been shown an empty factory floor by the CEO of General Dynamics (now a part of Northrop Grumman), on which chalk rectangles marked the spots where specialized machinery would be placed to produce the A-12. And the CEO told my boss that they’d be turning out aircraft in 18 months or less.
Which sounded perfectly reasonable to my boss, whose previous career had been in the automobile industry. He was used to retooling factories and retraining workers every year to build new cars. He didn’t know you can’t do that for complex aircraft. It takes 18-24 months just to get the special tooling and test equipment (known in the aerospace biz as “STTE”) you need, and only then can you train your workforce to use it. My boss fell for the CEO’s yarn and the A-12 program produced a lawsuit but no aircraft.
NG-EADS promises to deliver about fifty tankers in the next five years. The component sections will be built in European plants and shipped to Mobile, Alabama to be assembled. But they haven’t broken ground for the Mobile factory yet. Whatever empty lot is chosen can’t be turned into the KC-45 plant for at least two years. Then -- if you make the false assumption that you know exactly what STTE you need now, and order it today -- you still have to install it, hire and train your workforce and organize to assemble and test-fly the aircraft.
If they can deliver fifty aircraft from Mobile in five years I’ll parachute from the 50th at 20,000 feet wearing my tuxedo. The risk inherent in this scheme is enormous, and it means that the NG-EADS aircraft is a huge mission risk measured in time. They will be years late in producing the aircraft, the costs will increase greatly, and tankers won’t be where we need them when we do.
The Government Accountability Office will rule on the Boeing protest against this contract in the next several months. But the GAO -- as I know from three decades of trying cases like this before it -- cannot rule on anything more than the legalities of what the Air Force did. Its authority does not extend to judging the effect on our warfighting capability.
Before GAO acts, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates must. He should call in all the combatant commanders and all of the Air Mobility Command former bosses he can find who aren’t working for one of the competitors. Get to the bottom of why the warfighters were apparently ignored. And fix this before billions of dollars and precious years are spent on what may reduce the Air Force’s ability to fly and to fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.
Pinging. See above.
False. 24% more fuel efficient.
Fuel efficiency is not measured by fuel consumption only. Fuel consumption is set in relation with an agent of productivity like paying passengers.
The Department of Transportation (DoT) got these numbers:
[...] the Airbus A330 model that Air France flies between Paris and JFK burns an average 12% less fuel per passenger than the 767 does on a similar flight.
Fell free to provide any reliable source for your “24%”.
That is why the Europeans have newer planes. They subsidize EADS, Airbus, and their bloody airlines.
Some quotes from Wikipedia
“The state's shareholding in Air France-KLM subsequently fell to just under 20%.”
“Lufthansa is owned by private investors (88.52%)”
“Alitalia is owned by the Italian Ministry of the Treasury (49%), other shareholders, including employees (49%) and Air France-KLM (2%).”
Let's look at the fleets:
AFR: 180 Airbus, 47 Boeing (only 747 and 777)
Orders: 18 A320, 12 A380 and 21 B777.
DLH: 163 Airbus, 90 Boeing (737 and 747)
Orders: 55 A320, 7 A330/340, 15 A380, 20 B747-8I
AZ: 50 Airbus, 10 B767, 10 B777, 73 MD-82
Orders: -
JAL: 22 Airbus, 136 Boeing, 29 MD-80/90
Orders: 28 B737, 5 B767, 9 B777, 35 B787
ANA: 32 Airbus, 117 Boeing
Orders: 28 B737, 2 B767, 5 B777, 50 B787
And they put serious economic pressure on the profitability/survivability of the U.S. plane fleets.
Did problems for US airlines arise from international or domestic market?
And how is a real commercial free enterprise supposed to compete, h’mmmm?
Just compare Lufthansa or Air France with state owned Alitalia.
Feel free to provide a source.
both boom envelope, and its [...]
GAO-Decision, page 50:
Boeing also protests the Air Force’s conclusion in the aerial refueling area that Northrop Grumman’s proposed larger boom envelope (relative to that offered by Boeing) offered a meaningful benefit to the Air Force. See AR, Tab 55, PAR, at 14. From our review of the record, including hearing testimony on this issue, we do not find a basis to object to the Air Force’s judgment that Northrop Grumman had offered a larger boom envelope and that this offer provided a measurable benefit.
[...] and its lack of suitabilty for the wide variety of fixed wing craft, [...], and inability to do an emergency break away and fly UPWARDS a more serious issue yet.
Page 47:
In sum, we conclude that the record does not demonstrate that the agency reasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft would be able to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures as was required by this KPP No. 1 threshold.
I can't read anywhere in the decision that a KC-767AT with wingpods can do it better? Has Boeing provided some reasonable airspeeds for KC-767A. I have no reliable sources supporting the claim Boeing solved the problem through reducing air speed. I also have no reliable sources for KC-767A air speed with wingpods. Do you?
[...], and deficient nav lights,[...]
It's an almost incredible engineering achievement to put a few more lights on a plane.
And yet they didn't...and likely weren't going to.
Clearly they are not fit for being our defense supplier.
If Messrs Hunter and Gaffney don't like this, the should change the law. But they should do it BEFORE the fact not after it.
A bad idea and its bad law is always a bad law. Not just "after the fact".
My beef is that liberals who hate the military are all of sudden hawks
So why should we conservatives complain? I know its incongruous, but they always say that politics makes strange bedfellows. What is especially incongruous is seeing professed conservatives swallow the EADs Kool-Aid. Explain THAT ONE!!!! [And you are not ALLOWED to claim that EADs had the better proposal. The USAF had to ADMIT to five errors it made even before the ruling that it admits cost Boeing its selection as the cheaper proposal.
and all of the conservatives who preach free trade are all of sudden want the government to spend money according to where the dollar is going.
I think it has finally dawned on them that the dollar is collapsing...and their gravy train is about to come to a screeching halt...and they are trying to compromise to blunt a major political reallignment.
There is a word in dictionary for this, it is called hypocrisy.
It could also be called waking up in some circles. It is truly wierd to hear those liberals talking with some degree of serious depth about defense issues for a change. E.g., Murray is one bizarre example.
Was the deal a good deal or not? That should left up to the engineers and experts who actually know (very few people here on FR),
I think you would be rather surprised and chagrined if you knew the actual truth as to that claim...
... but not to people who are motivated to steer contracts one way or another.
Uh, the judgment capacity of the USAF team has been laid bare as deficient. We need to get them real help...which is not going to be what the DOD Sec is going to want to hear.
We need the WarFighters to have the muzzles taken off and ...they need to be able to talk freely. And that likely would be the END for the EADs bid. No ifs, no buts. If those muzzles were removed, I bet the EADs team wouldn't even resubmit their bid.
No more pussy-footing around.
B'zzzzzzt. Wrong in this case with the smaller KC-135 routinely returning with large % of undistributed fuel loads...
Try again.
That was the EADS and the USAF responsibility. They flubbed.
I can't read anywhere in the decision that a KC-767AT with wingpods can do it better? Has Boeing provided some reasonable airspeeds for KC-767A. I have no reliable sources supporting the claim Boeing solved the problem through reducing air speed. I also have no reliable sources for KC-767A air speed with wingpods. Do you?
The wing is not going to be a new one, and wingpods are already well understood and deployed by the KC-10....which Boeing also is the responsible engineering party for.
Meanwhile, the GAO did also remark on the lack of the EADs speed...which hasn't even had its refueling from either drogue lines from the wing pods or its boom proved.
You want "reliable sources"....EADS ain't it.
I read somewhere best wings are made in Japan, second best is UK and behind Brazil, Russia and others the US? We'll see how god Japanese wings are.
Due to Italy's own misproduction.
Yep, and there is more misproduction:
“Boeing's Exit Opens Door for EADS To Build C-27J”
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3614911&c=AME&s=AIR
The possibility of assembling the C-27J at the Mobile site has arisen because Alenia recently broke off negotiations with Boeing over managing a facility in Jacksonville, Fla., for the Spartan twin-prop.
Unbelievable!
Will Alenia build the stabilizer also in Mobil?
No problem. Conklin & De Decker
Their job is to do these kinds of studies. And they wouldn't let the fact of the buyer corrupt their judgment. I suggest you can spin your stories all day, and not make a serious credible single point against their independent judgment.
Read their study instead of insane EADs lobby spin points.
Feel free to supply a source.
Did you notice the Alitalia orders for new planes?
Zero!
The only big airline in Europe under regime of state. 49% of Alitalia is owned by the Italian Ministry of the Treasury. 49% belongs to Alitalia’s employees.
Alitalia is nearly bankrupt.
that they otherwise were losing irreversibly due to the subsidized cheaper EADS/Airbus corruption machine.
Just look at the subsidies for the new 787.
Italy $590 Million
Japan $1.588 Billion
Kansas $200 Million
Washington $3.200 Billion
http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf
And I think tax cuts won't count as subsidies, too.
EADs, on the other hand, has already admitted to seeking not just tax breaks, but cold, hard cash in the amount of $4 BILLION (dwarfing the cash you allude to) for launch assistance so that they can horn in on the plane's niche:
The Financial Times reported that the financing package to be presented to the board included up to EUR4 billion in financing backed by France, Germany, Britain and Spain. "We're seeking further information from the European Union. Obviously, the reports of EUR4 billion in state-guaranteed funds are not encouraging," US Trade Representative spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said.
I have observed that no matter the proof, no matter the obvious, some will continue arguing against Boeing when they do not understand the requirement, the process, the rules and the events that actually happened-—it is like debating UFO true believers, facts and logic just get in the way.
Recently, in private conversation, Gen Fogleman “broke with the Air Force” over the way the source selection was handled.
Those that know Ron are fully aware that he, of all others in this world, cannot be bought, that he is a man of impeccable character and flawless judgment. He resigned early rather than throw people under the bus over the bombing of the USAF compound in Dhahran. He fought the Clinton White House constantly and resigned rather that compromise his service and honor.
Ron is retained by Boeing, he is so well respected and honored in and outside of the Air Force. He doesn't spew the party line, and he would NOT do that under any circumstances.
Best to you Paul, for your clear voice and fact-based reason. It is clear you have more patience than me when it comes to the “Oh yeah. . .Boeing is bad” crowd that simply won't quit.
the true experts are
1. Those who have worked or flown Tanker aircraft
2. Those who have worked Airlift/Tanker ops
3. Those who have overseen Air Force Contracts
4. Those who work or have worked for Aerospace Military industry.
Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen and don't know snizzle. if you have never preflighted, flown or worked on a tanker aircraft you have no clue what you are talking about. I can tell you out of the 3 AIR REFUELING squadrons I deal with on a daily basis I have not run into one ZIPPERSUITED SUN GOD who has anything good to say about the EADS/NG airplane its too big, cannot perform specific emergency procedures, is made by SCAREBUS and not AMERICAN. There words.
Thanks for the ping!
Try again.
Try again and provide any facts to support your statements.
Did you read their study?
They just use an older study of themselves for Boeing. You won't find this relevant study on the Internet. So the “24%” are just a magic number.
Maybe a A330-200 with full tanks guzzles “24%” more fuel than a 767-200ER on a trip from JFK to LaGuardia.
I know, all the airlines of the world are run by fools.
The news is out that they are going to do a rebid on only the 8 items. The rebid will be overseen by the DOD, not the Air Force. I can’t supply a link since I can’t find one not from the AP.
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.