Air Force tanker announcement...

[flyboy2548m]

Expect to see this aircraft in service shortly after a Chinese built aircraft carrier goes to sea and Israeli/Egyptian actually fund their own weapon purchases from the US

Huh?

[Dmmoore]

The Air Force changed the terms of the contact. If Boeing re submitted the 767 tanker bid as originally done in the previous round the bid goes to the A330. A change of requirements usually requires a change in the proposal.

My understanding is that they did not change the requirements, they just changed the weighting of criteria. If this is the case, Boeing has a weaker case for the delay.

Expect to see this aircraft in service shortly after a Chinese built aircraft carrier goes to sea and Israeli/Egyptian actually fund their own weapon purchases from the US

Changing the weight given to a larger aircraft isn't the same as changing the requirements of the contract??????????

Get real!

[supersean]

Expect to see this aircraft in service shortly after a Chinese built aircraft carrier goes to sea and Israeli/Egyptian actually fund their own weapon purchases from the US

Huh?

For the simpleton.. I'll spell it out. It will NEVER happen.

[supersean]

The Air Force changed the terms of the contact. If Boeing re submitted the 767 tanker bid as originally done in the previous round the bid goes to the A330. A change of requirements usually requires a change in the proposal.

My understanding is that they did not change the requirements, they just changed the weighting of criteria. If this is the case, Boeing has a weaker case for the delay.

Expect to see this aircraft in service shortly after a Chinese built aircraft carrier goes to sea and Israeli/Egyptian actually fund their own weapon purchases from the US

Changing the weight given to a larger aircraft isn't the same as changing the requirements of the contract??????????

Get real!

Don, you twist the wrenches, I work on the contracts. That is as real as it gets.

Modifying the weighting criteria for such a program is not a justification for such a lengthy extension. Boeing knew that the Air Force wanted to do more with their planes (as the criteria was in the initial RFP) but it was Boeing's decision to focus only on the refueling portion. Boeing also falsely claimed (as charged by EADS and the Air Force) in their appeal to the GAO that they were told that extra fuel would not be given additional weighting. Only meeting the requirements is a sure way to lose in the competitive aerospace industry. Being able to do more for the same price will help you win even if it is not in the contract specification.

FAO Boeing execs: Go cry and whine to mommy now.. hopefully she will bail you out this time.

[Sabre]

And the fun goes on......

Pentagon puts hold on tanker contract process

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon has "terminated" the competition for an Air Force airborne tanker contract for now, leaving the decision for the next presidential administration, a statement from the Defense Department said Wednesday.

The Pentagon has notified Congress and competing contractors Boeing and Northrop Grumman that the "solicitation and award" can't be done by January.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- who made the decision in consultation with Defense and Air Force officials -- said it would be better to have a "cooling-off" period rather than come up with "an incomplete and possibly contested process."

"Over the past seven years the process has become enormously complex and emotional -- in no small part because of mistakes and missteps along the way by the Department of Defense," Gates said.

Complete article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/10/pentag ... index.html

[Robert Hilton]

And the fun goes on......

For how long?

[supersean]

And the fun goes on......

For how long?

Just makes me sick... if this is how we source mission critical infrastructure that does not have the "flash" or pazazz" of a new fighter jet or tank our military will be in big trouble in a few years.

[Robert Hilton]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ker19.html

[Dmmoore]

If the Grumman / EADS bid was cheaper, Boeing should sit down and shut up.

[Robert Hilton]

If the Grumman / EADS bid was cheaper, Boeing should sit down and shut up.

There's been so much mud slung around now you don't know what is what.
One thing is sure, no matter where they come from the air force needs new tankers soon.

[Princess Leia]

If the Grumman / EADS bid was cheaper, Boeing should sit down and shut up.

EADS loves being that lowest bidder. Just look where their pricing put them with the whole A400M project. What garauntee do we have that they wouldn't bid low on the KC-45 project, then hold the project ransom for more cash. Setting a precedent is dangerous.

[Procede]

If the Grumman / EADS bid was cheaper, Boeing should sit down and shut up.

EADS loves being that lowest bidder. Just look where their pricing put them with the whole A400M project. What garauntee do we have that they wouldn't bid low on the KC-45 project, then hold the project ransom for more cash. Setting a precedent is dangerous.

American companies, such as Boeing and Lockheed, would off course never do something like that...

[supersean]

If the Grumman / EADS bid was cheaper, Boeing should sit down and shut up.

EADS loves being that lowest bidder. Just look where their pricing put them with the whole A400M project. What garauntee do we have that they wouldn't bid low on the KC-45 project, then hold the project ransom for more cash. Setting a precedent is dangerous.

My understanding on this issue is that Airbus is demanding a waiver on certain delay penalties partially caused by requirements modifications by the a400 customers not an outright price increase. And as Procede mentions in his post to some extent or another this occurs on all military procurement contracts by all suppliers.

[supersean]

The USAF does not currently have a tanker shortage and will not have a shortage ten years from now. The problem is the age of the existing fleet in years and the availability of spare parts. Structural parts are available but only with long lead times and at very high costs. The current fleet has enough spare aircraft to provide sufficient tanker capacity for the short term (the next 10 years). Most of that time will be needed to get a new tanker on line.

I moved this discussion here to a more appropriate thread. I've been researching this topic for a industry paper I am working on and would like to share with you facts & figures from publicly available sources.

10 years is not an accurate estimate or even a factual based guesstimate on the urgency of replacing the KC-135. From what I know there are dozens of KC-135 planes currently in active or reserve duty currently grounded due to corrosion issues. If you are familiar with the KC-135 Corrosion and Service Life Report published by the AF it stated

only complete re-manufacture of the aircraft can eliminate corrosion, and that airframe corrosion in the KC-135E is a "significant, pervasive, and represents an unacceptable risk"

Fact: Between fiscal years 1991 and 1998, the labor hours planned to complete depot overhauls of the KC-135s increased by about 53 percent and the average time the aircraft spent in the depot increased from 158 days to 295 days.
Fact: Since 1996 the Air Force has spent more than 6 billion to modernize the KC-135 fleet. Even with this monstrous allocation, the fleet is aged, flying using decade old technology. There are fears that structural issues caused by corrosion could be found causing a fleet wide grounding.
Fact: The KC-135 is the oldest flying aircraft as the last KC-135 was delivered to the Air Force in 1965! Never before in civilian or military support structure has such an aged aircraft been supported and the MRO operations are ready to collapse (due a lack of spares, human resource constraints and budgetary considerations)

Between 1993 and 2006, the amount of KC-135 depot maintenance work doubled, and the overhaul cost per aircraft tripled. In 1996 it cost $8,400 per flight hour for the KC-135, and in 2006 this had grown to nearly $15,000. The Air Force’s 15-year cost estimates project further significant growth through fiscal year 2017. For example, operations and support costs for the KC-135 fleet are estimated to grow from about $4.2 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $7.1 billion (2006 dollars) in fiscal year 2017!

And to put the recent contracting controversy to rest:

Boeing is proposing its KC-767 aerial refueler, but has said if a larger plane is needed for the expected cargo mission, the company could easily enter a more suitable airframe for the competition

Source: ITAF 12/2005

[Princess Leia]

Supersean:

All reports of corrosion problems I've seen so far seem to be centered on the KC-135E, and focus mainly on the engine pylons (most of which were liberatd off of commercial 707 airframes). The -R and assosciated subtypes don't seem to be affectd. Now is this because of the more recent rework of the -R fleet, or is there something inherent about the -E pylon causing more extensive corrosion issues?

[Robert Hilton]

I've looked around the net but cannot find confirmation as to whether the pylon was also replaced when the CFM engines were fitted. It would seem likely as the net thrust of the engines is much higher, that would mean the pylons are far younger therefore not yet subject to heavy corrosion.

[Dmmoore]

The KC-135R tankers equipped with CFM-56 engines received new pylons with the engines.
The tankers re engined with JT-3D engines removed from the commercial airline fleet (most of which came from DC-8's) used survivable pylons from out of service 707's.

[Princess Leia]

The KC-135R tankers equipped with CFM-56 engines received new pylons with the engines.
The tankers re engined with JT-3D engines removed from the commercial airline fleet (most of which came from DC-8's) used survivable pylons from out of service 707's.

Correct, however neiter one use the original pylons of hte KC-135A. It seems strange, that TF-33/JT-3D powered 707s were produced till 1992, but there is no way to obtain new pylons.

The E-8 fleet is changing over to the JT8D-200 series. The 707RE program used this engine as well, did they get new pylons?

[Dmmoore]

The KC-135R tankers equipped with CFM-56 engines received new pylons with the engines.
The tankers re engined with JT-3D engines removed from the commercial airline fleet (most of which came from DC-8's) used survivable pylons from out of service 707's.

Correct, however neither one use the original pylons of the KC-135A. It seems strange, that TF-33/JT-3D powered 707s were produced till 1992, but there is no way to obtain new pylons.

The E-8 fleet is changing over to the JT8D-200 series. The 707RE program used this engine as well, did they get new pylons?

All aircraft equipped with engines which were not delivered new on the 707 / 135 / 137 airframes would require new pylons. Therefore the CFM-56 and the P&W JT-8 series require a new pylon.

Even when a pylon from a commercial 707 is used, the pylon must me refurbished before it can be installed. Any active corrosion would have been removed and the structure repaired.

[supersean]

pylon fatigue is the least of the worries being experienced by the tanker fleet.

[Robert Hilton]

pylon fatigue is the least of the worries being experienced by the tanker fleet.

Do you have any examples?

[flyboy2548m]

Do you have any examples?

Not likely, he'll probably just call a fuckwit.

[Princess Leia]

pylon fatigue is the least of the worries being experienced by the tanker fleet.

True. Pylon corrosion on the other hand...

[Verbal]

Oh dear.

Obama Considering Tanker Deal Delay
Move on List of Possible Budget Cuts
Washington Post 03/11/2009
Authors: Ellen Nakashima and Dana Hedgpeth
Copyright 2008, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved

The White House budget office has asked the Pentagon to consider delaying the purchase of aerial refueling tankers by five years, a move that reflects the constraints of drawing up a budget in the midst of a recession, according to two sources familiar with the administration's discussions.

The possible delay in one of the Pentagon's most expensive programs is one of a number of options the administration is weighing, the sources said. No final budget decisions have been made, officials said.

Delaying the purchase of the tankers, which would replace a fleet that dates to the Eisenhower administration, will draw fierce opposition from the defense industry and many members of Congress, whose districts have tens of thousands of jobs related to the program.

It comes as the administration is considering which programs to include in its 2010 defense spending request to Congress next month, and as it grapples with a broken Pentagon procurement system that has led to about $300 billion in cost overruns on 95 major weapons systems compared with initial estimates.

President Obama last month unveiled a general budget calling for $534 billion in defense spending, $50 billion less than what the Joint Chiefs of Staff had argued was needed. The Pentagon and the White House's Office of Management and Budget now are figuring out which programs will survive.

"This is a zero sum game," said Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, who advised the Obama campaign on defense issues, describing the process of determining winners and losers.

The possible tanker program delay was reported by CQ Daily yesterday. Bloomberg News yesterday also reported on a Jan. 29 Office of Management and Budget document that listed possible program cuts.

Other programs that are candidates for cancellation or delay are the Army's Future Combat System, a weapons system built by Boeing that allows combat vehicles, robots and sensors to communicate through a wireless network; the Air Force's airborne laser anti-missile program, also built by Boeing; and the Marines' expeditionary fighting vehicle, built by General Dynamics. A tentative plan to build new long-range bombers also could be shelved.

Many are not surprises. For instance, Obama had said on the campaign trail that he would scrutinize the airborne laser program.

While the list is not an official proposal of what the White House is proposing to cut, it signals the administration recognizes "the time for priority setting has arrived," after the Bush administration's eight years of avoiding "hard choices," said Gordon Adams, a defense policy expert and former OMB official.

Adams, an American University professor, said that although one day a new tanker will be needed, "it is not needed tomorrow."

Some defense industry analysts say the tanker program is unlikely to be delayed because it has such strong support on Capitol Hill, and defense companies already have spent millions on designs and plans.

Also, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said last year that he supported moving forward.

Some defense experts who otherwise support the administration's effort to phase out Cold War-era systems question the wisdom of delaying the tanker program. "You need tankers," Korb said. "You need them more than fighters. You need to refuel."

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), whose district includes a Boeing plant, said the Air Force has called the tanker program its top priority. The existing tankers, some of which are 50 years old, "have the possibility of having breakdowns," he said. "We have to get started on this and move forward. This is a good time to do it with the U.S. economy hurting."

Defense firms competing on the deal said they expect the Pentagon to run another competition this year for the contract, which could be worth up to $100 billion over the next two decades.

The tanker program has been fraught with controversy, including a contracting scandal that sent an Air Force official and a Boeing executive to prison. Last year the deal was rebid and awarded to Northrop Grumman and its partner, European Aeronautic Defence and Space, parent of Airbus. Boeing fought the award and it was overturned.

OMB spokesman Ken Baer said his office has "not directed the Defense Department to either delay production of the new tanker or cancel the new bombers."

[Robert Hilton]

Indeed.