USAF Tanker competition: CANCELLED

[Ma Deuce]

...at least until after the election.

This is about 3 weeks old, but since it doesn't seem to have been posted yet and this issue has been discussed several times before, it seemed appropriate to post the latest chapter in this long, tortured saga.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99526b1a-7f3f ... 07658.html

Pentagon defers air tanker decision

By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Sylvia Pfeifer in London
Published: September 10 2008 14:54 | Last updated: September 11 2008 05:28

EADS suffered a fresh setback on Wednesday in its attempt to break into the lucrative US defence market after the Pentagon scrapped a $35bn refuelling tanker contract that the Franco-German group had been awarded this year.

The Pentagon was expected to restart the long-running tanker competition, that pitched Boeing, the US aerospace and defence group, against its European rival this week, and to choose a winner by the year’s end.

But Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said on Wednesday the Pentagon could not complete a fair contest before the presidential elections and handover, and the process would benefit from a “cooling off” period. Boeing had threatened to walk away from the competition unless the Pentagon provided more time to evaluate the requirements. On Wednesday it welcomed the delay.

Mr Gates blamed the deal’s cancellation on the “highly charged environment” surrounding the competition.

The battle for the tanker contract has seen numerous twists. In a surprise decision this year, the US air force awarded the tanker deal to EADS and Northrop, its US partner. But the Pentagon later scrapped the decision after a congressional oversight body found errors in the air force competition.

“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,” said Mr Gates.

“We can no longer complete a competition that would be viewed as fair and objective in this highly charged environment.”

Ralph Crosby, chief executive of EADS North America, called the decision a “major failure” of the acquisition process. “If the special interests of one contractor have prevailed over the highest priority needs of the US armed forces, it is a terrible precedent,” he added.

The Pentagon’s decision is only the latest turn in a seven-year saga to replace the fleet of tankers, some of which date back to the Eisenhower administration of the 1950s.

Over the years, tanker-related scandals have cost several careers and sent a senior Boeing executive and air force procurement official to jail.

Wednesday’s cancellation leaves the transatlantic defence procurement battle firmly in the next president’s lap.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Gates has commented that he believes that the cheapest aircraft that meets the requirements should get the contract, which of course would be Boeing, should they choose to re-offer the 767 when the contract reopens. So how long until the contract re-opens? Could be up to four years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndu ... 2120080915

UPDATE 2-New US tanker deal could be up to 4 years away

By Andrea Shalal-Esa
Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:04pm EDT

WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said a new contract for aerial refueling aircraft could be awarded within 8 to 12 months, but depending on how the new administration decides to proceed, it could up to 36 to 48 months.

The Pentagon last week canceled a $35 billion revamped competition, which pits Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) against a team of Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) paired with Europe's EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), after concluding it could not pick a winner by January.

Northrop and EADS won the competition in February, but the Pentagon decided to redo the competition after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said Boeing might have won if not for significant errors in the Air Force's handling of the process.

Revised terms for the competition were announced in August, but Boeing said those changes basically disqualified the 767 tanker variant it had bid, and threatened to quit the competition unless it got six months to prepare a new bid.

Schwartz told reporters at the annual Air Force Association meeting on Monday that Air Force officials were preparing a wide range of options for the next administration -- ranging from a "cold, cold start," with a new analysis of requirements, to a modification of the existing request for proposals.

He said his projections for awarding of a new contract would begin once the administration decided how to proceed.

Acting Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said the Air Force supported last week's decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to cancel the competition for now, but the Air Force and Pentagon would ultimately have to "circle back."

"There was a lot of heat and smoke in this process. I don't think it was all healthy," Donley told reporters.

He said he was in the process of scheduling a meeting with Northrop to discuss termination of its existing contract for work on 179 tankers, but declined to give any details on the size of the expected termination fee.

In a speech to the Air Force booster group, Donley said "seven years of history on this program have culminated in a missed opportunity."

"My personal view is that this experience has not been a healthy one for the Air Force or (the Department of Defense), or for the contractors, or the Congress," Donley said in his speech. "We're going to need a new approach going forward."

Donley said Air Force officials would meet with the GAO to discuss ways to better document the decision-making process to avert protests in the future.

In addition, the Air Force planned its own internal review of what went wrong in the tanker competition, and there would be an independent assessment by a federally funded think tank.

Schwartz said it might be possible to remove some of the complexity from the tanker competition, which involved over 800 criteria, some of which were "inherently judgmental."

Regardless of what approach the next administration took, Schwartz said it was important to reform the overall acquisition system so that the military requirements remained the "prime consideration." Asked if requirements should trump concerns about industrial policy or trade subsidies -- some issues raised in the tanker competition -- Schwartz said yes.

Donley said there had been much scrutiny of another controversial competition, the $15 billion contest for new search and rescue helicopters which was redone after the GAO upheld two protests, which is nearing contract award now.

Boeing won the first round of the competition, but Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), won their separate protests and hope to prevail this time around.

"My immediate focus with acquisition community is getting lessons learned out of the tanker process, so we make sure we can get though any possible protest that comes after this," Donley said.

He said expected a decision in the helicopter competition within a few months, before the Bush administration leaves office in January. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

[Sea Skimmer]

This is pretty much ensuring that we’ll have at least one KC-135 break up in mid air, possibly grounding hundreds of tankers and crippling the USAF. I mean even if this deal was going forward, it was only the first installment on KC-135 replacement, and the newest Stratotanker is already forty three years old. The only reason they’ve survived until now at all is because so many spent the Cold War sitting on SAC runways pulling alert duty.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Boeing builds 'em good, but let's face it, this has reached the point of insanity.

Why can't we just award the contract to both Boeing and EADS for the full number of aircraft for each design? We need that many tankers anyway, we can't get out of spending that much money. If we also want them all to be transports, give Boeing a contract for building an equal number of the -777 tanker model as the EADS contract, instead of the -767. Rather than trying to decide who gets the contract with another lengthy competition, the situation right now is simply so miserable with the tanker force that we should just award an identical contract to each company and thereby get enough tankers to entirely replace the poor KC-135s.

[Wicked Pilot]

Boeing builds 'em good, but let's face it, this has reached the point of insanity.

Why can't we just award the contract to both Boeing and EADS for the full number of aircraft for each design? We need that many tankers anyway, we can't get out of spending that much money. If we also want them all to be transports, give Boeing a contract for building an equal number of the -777 tanker model as the EADS contract, instead of the -767. Rather than trying to decide who gets the contract with another lengthy competition, the situation right now is simply so miserable with the tanker force that we should just award an identical contract to each company and thereby get enough tankers to entirely replace the poor KC-135s.

There's no way we could support the infrastructure and training cost of four different tanker airframes, it would be difficult enough with just three.

[Sea Skimmer]

If we buy both at once, we’d have to build each one at half the intended production rate, which would drive up total costs enormously. The money just doesn’t exist to sustain both at a full rate of production, and even if it did, it would be way better spent doubling the F-22 buy. As it is the air force budget is so squeezed they’ve been engaging in some really stupid cuts, like reducing the number of F-35 development and preproduction aircraft, which is bound to result in yet more delays before full scale production.

[Kanastrous]

Is there any merit at all, to remanufacturing the current fleet in the interest of safety?

[Thanas]

As if there would be any chance of the tanker contract not going to Boeing anyway...refresh my memory, when has the US ever baught a european aircraft in large numbers?

[Beowulf]

Is there any merit at all, to remanufacturing the current fleet in the interest of safety?

It'd probably cost enough that buying the replacements would be cheaper.

[Ma Deuce]

As if there would be any chance of the tanker contract not going to Boeing anyway...refresh my memory, when has the US ever baught a european aircraft in large numbers?

Recently? Aside from the UH-72 Lakota (UH-1 replacement, based on the Eurocopter EC145) and the EH101 Marine One contract (not a large order, but rather prestigious nonetheless), no. I'll also note that these contracts were awarded under the governance of the "free trade forever" Republicans, and with the protectionist-minded Democrats likely to be in control of both Congress and the White House for the foreseeable future, I expect from now on the Europeans will find it virtually impossible to land any major US Military contracts aside from small arms, which they've already had a presence in for some time.

Note that by and large, it was Republicans in favor back when Airbus was awarded the contract, and Democrats against.

[Tribun]

That sounds for me like "If we can't suck Boeing's cock, we suck suck none at all."
I think it's clear why this decision was made.

[Sea Skimmer]

Is there any merit at all, to remanufacturing the current fleet in the interest of safety?

It'd probably cost enough that buying the replacements would be cheaper.

We actually did already reskin the wings on most of the aircraft, and a number of engine pylons had to be replaced as well. On paper the aircraft have enough airframe life to last a long while yet, but all sorts of cracking and other problems can defy such calculations when you get so much shear age into the equation. But as it is, some of the aircraft WILL have to serve until 2040 and a number of upgrades are being considered. Unfortunate the SUAVE seems to have just totally ruled out new engines at this point, even though that upgrade wouldn’t just extend life, it would actually improve refueling capability.

[Stormbringer]

That sounds for me like "If we can't suck Boeing's cock, we suck suck none at all."
I think it's clear why this decision was made.

Clearly we don't trust you European mustache twirling, man-sex having, godless Europeans not to hide a bunch of gay all over our planes to subvert of heroic fighting men!

Or you can go with the rational answer. The US can support an indigenous defense industry and are wary of doing anything which will lead to it's downfall or even severe contraction. If that means paying a premium to keep our defense industry in American hands, it's not entirely irrational. It puts us in a much better position if we're buiying our products from our own companies rather than ones operating under foreign governments. That's practical politics and we're talking about a major long term interest to the US and if that means Europe doesn't get it, too bad.

[Count Chocula]

Thomas wrote:

...refresh my memory, when has the US ever baught a european aircraft in large numbers?

The Navy's primary trainer, the T-45 Goshawk, is a license-built version of the British Aerospace Hawk. 200 have been delivered, with a total of 234 slated for delivery.

The McDonnell-Douglas AV-8A and AV-8B Harrier are license-built developments of the Hawker-Siddley (later BAE) Harrier.

That said, it makes more sense for the US armed forces to procure American made aircraft. Just as it makes sense for the French military to procure French-made aircraft.

Re-skinning and pylon replacements aside, 40+ years is a LONG time to keep a large aircraft flying. There have been structural failures of Boeing aircraft, which are built like brick shithouses, with fewer years and hours on them than the AF's tanker fleet. They really need to bring in new planes.

[Beowulf]

The T-45 is an intermediate trainer. The primary trainer is the T-6 Texan II, which is a derivative of the Pilatus PC-9.

[Count Chocula]

Oops, I didn't know the Navy was still flying the T-6. I thought they were using the T-34 for intro qualifications, then the T-45 for the carrier work.

BTW, the T-6 is a sweet, sweet plane to fly. My Windows Messenger display picture has me in one, mid-loop. Damn that's a fun plane!

[Beowulf]

Oops, I didn't know the Navy was still flying the T-6. I thought they were using the T-34 for intro qualifications, then the T-45 for the carrier work.

BTW, the T-6 is a sweet, sweet plane to fly. My Windows Messenger display picture has me in one, mid-loop. Damn that's a fun plane!

The T-34 is being replaced by the T-6 (as is the T-37 for the USAF). The T-6 Texan II is not identical to the T-6 Texan used in WWII.

[Sidewinder]

I'm reminded of the RAF's plan to lease tankers.

U.K., AirTanker Settle RAF Tanker Deal
By Andrew Chuter
Published: 27 Mar 13:11 EDT (17:11 GMT) Print | Email

LONDON - The Royal Air Force is to get a fleet of Airbus in-flight refueling tanker aircraft in a 13 billion pound ($26 billion) private finance initiative (PFI) signed by the Ministry of Defence and the AirTanker consortium.

The new aircraft will replace aging VC-10 and Tristar tanker/transports. (AirTanker photo) More than four years of negotiations between the AirTanker consortium, led by Airbus parent EADS, and the MoD over terms have finally been completed with a service contract allowing the RAF to have the use of up to 14 converted A330 airliners for tanking and passenger transport duties.

The first of the aircraft will enter service in 2011 to replace the RAF's aging fleet of VC-10 and Tristar tanker/transports.

The deal, set to run for 27 years, is reckoned to be the largest defense public-private partnership yet undertaken.

Under the arrangement, the AirTanker consortium will own the aircraft and be responsible for training and maintenance, with the RAF effectively leasing the assets as required.

AirTanker will provide the infrastructure at the A330's operating base at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, including the hangar, training, maintenance, flight operations' fleet management and ground services.

Question: are there any private military contractors with enough tankers to keep the USAF's planes from falling out of the sky before it finally gets replacements for those KC-135s?

[Thanas]

Thomas wrote:

AHEM.

Or you can go with the rational answer. The US can support an indigenous defense industry and are wary of doing anything which will lead to it's downfall or even severe contraction. If that means paying a premium to keep our defense industry in American hands, it's not entirely irrational. It puts us in a much better position if we're buiying our products from our own companies rather than ones operating under foreign governments. That's practical politics and we're talking about a major long term interest to the US and if that means Europe doesn't get it, too bad.

Then why have a competition in the first place?

[Stormbringer]

Then why have a competition in the first place?

Fall-out from the scandal which resulted from the attempt to lease tankers. It's a political farce driven by the need to make it look competitive while there's not much actual desire to buy Airbus.

[Count Chocula]

Have you flown in an Airbus? Christ, it feels like there's just enough plane to get you to your destination before something falls off. Brand new, the suckers creak, squeak and shake. Next time you're in an Airbus in turbulence, take a good look at the overhead luggage compartments. Then, when you're in turbulence on a good old Boeing 757, take a look at the overhead luggage compartments. See the difference? Oh yeah, the A310 wallows like a fucking pig in turbulence that a 757 punches through.

The Airbus may be a newer design, but I'm not convinced it's a better design. Hell, Airbus is the reason I avoid JetBlue. I'd rather see our uniformed guys and gals in a Boeing that will undoubtedly be kept in service far longer than currently planned. B-52s anyone? They're even older than KC-135s.

[phongn]

Question: are there any private military contractors with enough tankers to keep the USAF's planes from falling out of the sky before it finally gets replacements for those KC-135s?

What do you think? Why would any PMC even bother to operate a tanker?

Have you flown in an Airbus? Christ, it feels like there's just enough plane to get you to your destination before something falls off. Brand new, the suckers creak, squeak and shake. Next time you're in an Airbus in turbulence, take a good look at the overhead luggage compartments. Then, when you're in turbulence on a good old Boeing 757, take a look at the overhead luggage compartments. See the difference? Oh yeah, the A310 wallows like a fucking pig in turbulence that a 757 punches through.

I've flown in plenty of Airbuses and Boeings (and MDDs ...) and I've seen creak, squeak and shake in any make or model you care to name. And why are you comparing an A310 and a B757 anyways? They're in completely different classes. For that matter, how would you know how it "wallows like a pig? " Are you an aerospace engineer?

The Airbus may be a newer design, but I'm not convinced it's a better design. Hell, Airbus is the reason I avoid JetBlue. I'd rather see our uniformed guys and gals in a Boeing that will undoubtedly be kept in service far longer than currently planned. B-52s anyone? They're even older than KC-135s.

It's bigger, more efficient and more capable than the KC-767, which should be no surprise. Secondly, the only B-52s left are the -H models, which are not older than the KC-135 fleet, and spent a lot of their time not doing anything particularly intensive.

[Wicked Pilot]

Have you flown in an Airbus? Christ, it feels like there's just enough plane to get you to your destination before something falls off. Brand new, the suckers creak, squeak and shake. Next time you're in an Airbus in turbulence, take a good look at the overhead luggage compartments. Then, when you're in turbulence on a good old Boeing 757, take a look at the overhead luggage compartments. See the difference? Oh yeah, the A310 wallows like a fucking pig in turbulence that a 757 punches through.

Forgive me if I misinterpret the seriousness of your post there, but your riding in the back is not al all adequate to make any kind of informed decision on the quality of these airframes. You don't buy cars based on the locations of the cup holders do you?

The Airbus may be a newer design, but I'm not convinced it's a better design. Hell, Airbus is the reason I avoid JetBlue. I'd rather see our uniformed guys and gals in a Boeing that will undoubtedly be kept in service far longer than currently planned. B-52s anyone? They're even older than KC-135s.

Don't confuse airframe age to airframe hours. The B-52 and the KC-135 are relatively young due to their SAC days not flying. The C-17s on the other hand, most less than twenty years old, are getting the shit kicked out of them. They'll be in the bone yards before the last of the 135s.

[Wicked Pilot]

What do you think? Why would any PMC even bother to operate a tanker?

Ask them. Although in this case I don't think it would be nearly enough in enough time considering our current requirements.

[Sidewinder]

Although in this case I don't think it would be nearly enough in enough time considering our current requirements.

So basically, there's NO WAY the Air Force will get enough tankers to serve its needs before the KC-135s literally fall apart in midair? Even assuming our allies are willing to provide their tankers on an as needed basis (from their already strained fleets, which means they're probably unable to spare any)?

Fuck.

[Jade Falcon]

After just reading how old the newest KC-135 airframe is, does anyone know how old the newest Boeing 720 is?

The reason I ask is that the BAE Comets have been grounded due to fatigue, and one thing being said is that they're 'too old', as far as I know the 720 is no spring chicken either. Hell, the old Avro Shackleton flew up till the 80's on long endurance flights and they were ancient.