Terms on US tanker bid due Wednesday: officials

Space War ^ | 2/23/2010 | AFB

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The US Air Force will release on Wednesday the final terms for a 35-billion-dollar competition to replace the country's aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers, a US defense official said. The move marks the latest attempt by the Pentagon to build new tanker aircraft in a project marred by controversy and scandal dating back to 2001. The final request for proposal was expected to be issued on Wednesday after the close of US markets, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP on Tuesday. The lucrative competition pits Airbus parent EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman against arch-rival Boeing, with the two sides and their advocates in Congress locked in a long-running battle.

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company and Northrop have accused the Pentagon of favoring Boeing in a draft request for proposal and warned they may withdraw from the competition. Pentagon officials have ruled out major changes to the requirements for the 15-year contract and denied any bias. Northrop has accused the Defense Department of focusing mainly on the competitors' prices, instead of technical features. Military commanders view the planned KC-X aircraft as crucial to sustaining US air power and are anxious to replace the older Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers that date back to the 1950s. General Norton Schwartz, the US Air Force chief of staff, told lawmakers that replacing the tanker fleet was vital. "Awarding a new aerial refueling aircraft contract remains our top acquisition priority, and we hope to deliver an RFP (request for proposal) within days to get the program under way," Schwartz told lawmakers on Tuesday.

[kittycatonline.com]

European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company? Why not just ask Russia or China to submit bids? Maybe Lil’ Kim would like to toss in a bid, too. Hugo Chavez want to get in on the bidding action?

It might sound quaint or perhaps protectionist, but I think military purchases from aircraft to beanie caps should be limited to 100% US companies.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I agree with you. I have always advocated that.

[PAR35]

It might sound quaint or perhaps protectionist, but I think military purchases from aircraft to beanie caps should be limited to 100% US companies.

So you'd exclude Boeing?

[wolf78]

It might sound quaint or perhaps protectionist, but I think military purchases from aircraft to beanie caps should be limited to 100% US companies.

The problem is the following:

Designing a plane from scratch costs about 10 billion, so using an existing airframe saves a lot of money. However, there are only two manufacturers that build larger passenger jets: Boeing and Airbus (a subsidiary of EADS).

Neither is truly American or European. The new B787 is more of an American/Japanese/Italian aircraft and the A350 uses lots of American parts (due to currency exchange rate reasons).

Even with the EADS proposal most of the work - in terms of value, not in terms of kgs aluminium, most of the fuselage will be made in Europe - will be done in the US, i.e. American engines, American refuelling equipment, American electronics.

The advantage of the Boeing proposal right now is a strategic and a political (union jobs!) one, namely that fewer parts are made outside the US, although the US would still depend on Japanese spare parts. The advantage of the Airbus proposal is economic - and strategic in the long term, namely that Airbus would move its A330 (tanker / freighter) production to the US once passenger versions have been replaced by the A350.

Either way, it's not black and white, but a matter of degrees. If you want to limit it to 100% US companies, neither proposal would meet the requirements.

[MHalblaub]

So you'd exclude Boeing?

The next tanker is going to be a Piper or a Beechcraft.
Maybe a relaunch of the C-45 Expeditor.
Cessna is already producing in China.

[Perdogg]

You do. I work for a foreign national and I do classified work. Patty Murray thank you for helping her reelection bid.

[Perdogg]

Or we would have no main gun on M1 tank since it is made in Germany.

[wolf78]

Boeing's proposal is based on a somewhat smaller, cheaper airframe. In addition to that Boeing tankers don't have to share a production line with passenger aircraft, if it weren't for the tanker the production equipment would be scrapped. Supposedly the most important factor for the DoD is unit price.

Still, Northrop/EADS' proposal was slightly cheaper the last time. So really, Boeing can easily underbid Airbus and still make a profit, if they just got off their entitled *rses. This one is Boeing's to lose.

[MHalblaub]

“Supposedly the most important factor for the DoD is unit price.”

The most important factor for the KC-X is called TEP - Total Evaluated Price. The unit price is equivalent to Total Proposed Price (TPP).

TEP is calculated by applying 3 factors on TPP
- IFARA (Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment)
- FURA (Fuel Usage Rate Adjustment)
- MILCON (Military Construction)

IFARA is based on “fleet effectiveness value” (FEV) that is how many KC-135 could be replaced by one KC-X.

Last competition FEV for KC-767AT was 1.79 and 1.9 for KC-30. A fleet of 500 KC-135 could be replaced by 279 KC-767AT or 263 KC-30.

According to the FURA and MILCON calculations by Air Force both aircrafts are going to be used in exactly the same way despite the FEV difference. Therefore NG is about to walk away and says the smaller aircraft is favored.

According to Air Force's own calculation about 10 KC-30 less would be needed to fulfill the job of 179 KC-767AT. Still Air Force is going to add the faked FURA and MILCON costs for these 10 KC-10 but won't add a benefit for replacing 19 KC-135 earlier or releasing about 20 C-17 from their duty.

A C-17 at half max payloads needs to be refueled for CONUS to Al Udeid or Bagram AB. Therefore a KC-X used as airlifter could also release tankers.

The FURA numbers are faked due to several reasons:
- speed of aircraft is neglected
- faked mission profiles were used for fuel calculations
- use as an airlifter is not properly considered (1 % of all missions)

According to my knowledge FEW only considers refueling efficiency. Therefore a FEW is missing according to airlift.