[Spook50]

For those of you who don't know, Boeing was in competition with Airbus (who are partnered with Northrop Grumman) to design the new tanker to replace the 50+ year-old KC-135 fleet (which I'm a crew chief on). The contract was recently awarded to Airbus/Northrop to provide the new tanker based on the A330 airframe. It's pretty well accepted among us who work on a Boeing jet (and have flown on POS Airbus jets) that the decision was horse shit, especially given that Boeing already has a new tanker in production and being used by other countries. Apparently word is getting out about the Pentagon's shady desicion-making process:

Review: Air Force found Boeing tanker more capable | KOMO-TV - Seattle, Washington | Boeing (BTW, that picture was taken from the boom pod of a KC-135, for those not familiar with the jet).

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - The Pentagon awarded a $35 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and the parent company of Airbus even though the Air Force's own evaluators found the Boeing Co.'s proposed aerial refueling tanker superior in at least two key areas, Boeing officials said Thursday.

A review of Pentagon files by The Boeing Co. revealed that Air Force evaluators found the Boeing KC-767 advanced tanker offered more mission capability and a better chance of surviving combat than the larger KC-30 tanker proposed by Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

The two aerospace firms were competing for the aerial tanker contract, which ultimately could be worth up to $100 billion over the coming years.

The Air Force's review also found that the Boeing's entry in the tanker competition had more strengths and fewer weaknesses overall than the Northrop-EADS tanker, Boeing officials found as part of their review.

“The fact that the Air Force gave Boeing the highest possible rating in mission capability and cited the KC-767 advanced tanker as having three times more strengths than the Northrop-EADS tanker in this most important category further highlights the inconsistencies in the selection process,” said Mark McGraw, vice president and program manager for Boeing Tanker Programs.

“As for protecting flight crews on the most dangerous missions, the Air Force evaluated Boeing’s tanker as much more survivable than the Northrop-EADS tanker.”

The Air Force selected Northrop-EADS' Airbus A330 derivative over Boeing’s KC-767 on Feb. 29. On March 11, The Boeing Co. asked the Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included making unstated changes to the bid requirements during the competition.

“Despite the changes made in favor of the KC-30 in the area of mission capability, the evaluation was clear in its assessment,” McGraw said. “The Air Force identified 98 strengths and only one weakness with the KC-767, while they pinpointed 30 strengths and five weaknesses for the KC-30, including four weaknesses in aerial refueling.”

The Air Force evaluation gave Boeing high marks in aerial refueling. Evaluators cited the ability of the KC-767 to refuel the V-22 Osprey, which the KC-30 was evaluated as not being able to do.

Air Force evaluators also cited the KC-767’s better maneuverability while flying heavily loaded into a refueling zone, and they said its refueling flight deck displays and communications systems were better than the KC-30's. Evaluators also found three weaknesses in Northrop-EADS’ boom design and an additional weakness in their ability to be a receiver due to the lighting of their receptacle.

In contrast, the Air Force said the KC-767 met or exceeded all key performance parameters in the mission capability requirements evaluation. Among some of the other key strengths: aeromedical evacuation, enhanced navigation system, better use of airport ramp space, better cockpit displays and communications systems, and more likely to integrate into operational use faster with new equipment and future growth.

“Also of significant concern for us is the fact that the Air Force settled for a plane that is ultimately less survivable for flight crews performing their vital missions in war zones,” McGraw said. “In providing technology and features that can keep the airplane more survivable for the men and women flying them, the Air Force determined that the KC-30 is less survivable than the KC-767.”

The Air Force found that in the critical area of combat survivability, the Boeing tanker had nearly five times as many strengths as Northrop’s. The Air Force said Boeing’s strengths totaled 24 and gave just five for Northrop-EADS.

The GAO has denied motions filed by Northrop Grumman Corp. and the Air Force to toss key portions of Boeing's protest of a $35 billion aerial tanker contract, Northrop Grumman said late Wednesday.

The contract to build 179 aerial refueling tankers is the first of three Air Force contracts worth as much as $100 billion over 30 years to replace its fleet of nearly 600 tankers.

[calstyl2]

I say refurb the 135's and put the saved money into building new highways

[reconranger]

I say follow the money. Where does it lead and whom does it benefit?

I am a jarhead thru and thru and have nothing but admiration for our servicemembers but many in the senior leadership have their head up their 4th point of contact.

There is so much palm-greasing among the upper echelon.

Where do retired generals and admirals go? Yup, into these companies.

Oftentimes, it's not what's best for the groundpounders and the "ones in the arena". It's whose pockets gets lined.

Off my soapbox.

I H8 militaro-industrial complex. Gives me a complex.

[baxter650]

I suspect there were not enough hookers and gin supplied by Boeing.
They seem a little foolish thinking that a superior product would win the day.

[semlin]

and i say boeing has excellent PR people.

all that the boeing press release masquerading as an article quoted above tells us is the relative number of strengths and weaknesses of the planes without weighting them. That is potentially highly misleading.

The real issue is what are those strengths and weaknesses, and how material are they.

[lathamb]

This is nothing new. Ever heard of Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)?

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by semlin

and i say boeing has excellent PR people.

all that the boeing press release masquerading as an article quoted above tells us is the relative number of strengths and weaknesses of the planes without weighting them. That is potentially highly misleading.

The real issue is what are those strengths and weaknesses, and how material are they.

x2 on that.

[60wag]

Doesn't the KC30 have a significantly higher lifting capacity with lower fuel consumption?

[Spook50]

Originally Posted by 60wag

Doesn't the KC30 have a significantly higher lifting capacity with lower fuel consumption?

Consumption was about equal, but yes it does carry quite a bit more than the 767. It's also a much larger aircraft and IIRC has nearly double the takeoff length of the KC-767. The problem though, is that it was awarded the contract for a MEDIUM tanker and it's a large scale tanker, like the KC-10. There are future plans for a competition to build a new large tanker to replace the KC-10, which is what the Airbus A330-based KC-45A should've been considered for, and not for a medium sized tanker. They wanted something similar in size to the KC-135, which the KC-767 is.

Boeing aircraft are also far more reliable. Every time I've flown on an Airbus jet, the flight has been delayed because of one maintenance issue or another. Never once seen it on a Boeing jet, save for an occasional issue when we launch out a KC-135. Even then it's rarely a major issue.

[Matador98]

Originally Posted by Spook50

Boeing aircraft are also far more reliable. Every time I've flown on an Airbus jet, the flight has been delayed because of one maintenance issue or another. Never once seen it on a Boeing jet, save for an occasional issue when we launch out a KC-135. Even then it's rarely a major issue.

x2, they really are. My concern will be in 20, 30 years. These airbus planes will be pieces of shit and unmaintainable. Boeing airframes are stiff and relatively straight forward to modify, and they will withstand lots of cycles. Airbus will not.

There is a lot more detail behind the scenes than what was posted. When boeing really mounts their effort counter effort, a lot of shit is going to hit the fan. Boeing did in fact win on multiple counts, and a lot of politics went on that could get some key people in a lot of trouble. Too bad I can't regurgitate everything I know word for word. Just wait for it.

[Spook50]

Originally Posted by Matador98

x2, they really are. My concern will be in 20, 30 years. These airbus planes will be pieces of shit and unmaintainable. Boeing airframes are stiff and relatively straight forward to modify, and they will withstand lots of cycles. Airbus will not.

There is a lot more detail behind the scenes than what was posted. When boeing really mounts their effort counter effort, a lot of shit is going to hit the fan. Boeing did in fact win on multiple counts, and a lot of politics went on that could get some key people in a lot of trouble. Too bad I can't regurgitate everything I know word for word. Just wait for it.

I have a feeling this is going to lead to a repeat of the under-the-table shitstorm that went on when the original KC-767 contract was nixed. Only this time it'll be against Airbus.

[re_guderian]

I say we report Airbus/EADS to the EU anti-trust commission... oh, wait...

Boeing took out at least one full page ad in the paper here outlining their complaints with the process. However, not sure what they wanted to do by that. The only thing worse than a closed-door, under-the-table contract award system would be one done by public opinion...

Personally, having grown up in Seattle in the days when Seattle's economy = Boeing's economy (i.e. pre Microsoft), I'm a big Boeing fan, and I dislike the anticompetitive nature of government involvement of Airbus (plus I hate their commercial jets I fly in), but I gotta admit, I know squat about tanker qualifications/capabilities/TCO/reliability, etc. etc.

[Spook50]

Originally Posted by re_guderian

I say we report Airbus/EADS to the EU anti-trust commission... oh, wait...

Boeing took out at least one full page ad in the paper here outlining their complaints with the process. However, not sure what they wanted to do by that. The only thing worse than a closed-door, under-the-table contract award system would be one done by public opinion...

Personally, having grown up in Seattle in the days when Seattle's economy = Boeing's economy (i.e. pre Microsoft), I'm a big Boeing fan, and I dislike the anticompetitive nature of government involvement of Airbus (plus I hate their commercial jets I fly in), but I gotta admit, I know squat about tanker qualifications/capabilities/TCO/reliability, etc. etc.

Yeah a buddy of mine is an engineer at Boeing and sent me a PDF of that ad before it was released when we were talking about it. He pretty much enforced my opinions of the whole deal.

Speaking as someone who maintains (and regularly flys on) the KC-135, the KC-767 is a FAR better match & replacement for the 135 than the KC-45A will be. Capabilities, maintenance-friendly engineering (but who gives a shit about that if you're behind a desk, am I right?), proven longevity of Boeing's products, and the already proven reliability in the tanker/airlift role of the KC-767. Many countries are already using it, and it's showing itself to be a damn well built tanker.

[Jan-78FJ40]

Originally Posted by Spook50

Boeing aircraft are also far more reliable. Every time I've flown on an Airbus jet, the flight has been delayed because of one maintenance issue or another. Never once seen it on a Boeing jet, save for an occasional issue when we launch out a KC-135. Even then it's rarely a major issue.

Now there's an objective judgement of reliability

[Spook50]

Originally Posted by Jan-78FJ40

Now there's an objective judgement of reliability

Shoulda worded that better. What I was getting at is I've never seen an issue when I've flown commercially on a Boeing jet, and the only issues I've seen at all with Boeing jets (remember, I'm talking about my experiences here) were the occasional burps we have while launching out our tankers.

[re_guderian]

Given the lifespan of our current crop of tankers, I'd like to see the "domestic supplier" criteria get a whole lotta weight in the decision...

[Jan-78FJ40]

Originally Posted by Spook50

Shoulda worded that better. What I was getting at is I've never seen an issue when I've flown commercially on a Boeing jet, and the only issues I've seen at all with Boeing jets (remember, I'm talking about my experiences here) were the occasional burps we have while launching out our tankers.

I understood in the first place. I also think that there were most likely some shady deals going on when this contract was awarded. However, in a direct side-by side of the two planes it was not so clear whether one was clearly superior to the other.
and considering how many airbus commercial jets are flying around, and how successful they have been for many many years, I don't think one can state that airbus are generally inferior.

Oh-edit: both companies will assemble most of the planes here, boeing to a bigger extent, but the split is something like Boeing 70% US made/assembled, vs. Airbus 60% (if I remember correctly).

[Spook50]

Originally Posted by Jan-78FJ40

I understood in the first place. I also think that there were most likely some shady deals going on when this contract was awarded. However, in a direct side-by side of the two planes it was not so clear whether one was clearly superior to the other.
and considering how many airbus commercial jets are flying around, and how successful they have been for many many years, I don't think one can state that airbus are generally inferior.

Oh-edit: both companies will assemble most of the planes here, boeing to a bigger extent, but the split is something like Boeing 70% US made/assembled, vs. Airbus 60% (if I remember correctly).

Unless it's changed since shortly before the contract was awarded, nearly 100% of the Boeing jets will be manufactured domestically (with the exception of certain individual parts being made overseas) and the Airbus jets will be manufactured overseas, then flown to the Northrop/Grumman plant to have the tanker mods done on them. It's possible it could've changed since then, but that's the info that I remember from when we were given info on the differences between the two tankers.