USAF KC-X Tanker programme [Archive] - Page 2

buglerbilly

19-09-10, 05:07 AM

No evidence of Air Force tanker bid misconduct: GAO

By Andrea Shalal-Esa and Karen Jacobs

WASHINGTON/ATLANTA | Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:42pm EDT

WASHINGTON/ATLANTA (Reuters) - Government auditors on Friday dismissed part of a protest by U.S. Aerospace Inc that alleged misconduct by the Air Force in a projected $50 billion tanker competition, but said they would rule on remaining issues by October 6.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded there was "insufficient support" for U.S. Aerospace's claim that the Air Force may have acted in "bad faith" or intentionally delayed a messenger delivering the bid.

But the agency, which oversees federal contract protests, said it was still reviewing whether the bid was received on time -- or 5 minutes late as the Air Force has said.

The GAO still plans to rule by October 6, a spokesman said.

Southern California-based U.S. Aerospace said in early July it was partnering with Antonov, the state-owned Ukrainian plane builder, to compete against Boeing Co and Airbus parent EADS to build a new generation of aerial refueling planes for the U.S. military.

Michael Goldberg, a former U.S. attorney and one of six directors on the company's board, said he was heartened that the GAO was still reviewing the substance of the protest.

"All the company wants is a fair shake in the bidding process," Goldberg told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Ralph White, who heads GAO's bid protest unit, said the agency found insufficient evidence to back up the company's claims that "Air Force officials may have intentionally delayed the messenger delivering the proposal because of political issues with the company's Ukrainian supplier."

He said a final ruling was still expected by October 6, given the Air Force's request for an expedited handling of the case.

The Air Force referred questions about the ruling to the Pentagon, which said it would be inappropriate to comment until the overall issue had been decided by the GAO.

Goldberg said U.S. Aerospace planned to exhaust its administrative remedies in the case, but could take the case to federal court if the protest was not upheld.

Defense analysts are skeptical about the prospects for the U.S. Aerospace bid, given the size and financial standing of the small company, and say they doubt the U.S. government would ultimately choose a Ukrainian-designed plane as a new tanker.

"I don't think it was truly a serious bid," said Paul Nisbet, analyst at JSA Research.

Goldberg insisted that U.S. Aerospace was a serious contender, and said it planned to bid for other global arms deals, including a New Zealand helicopter competition and an upcoming U.S. Air Force competition for new training aircraft.

Goldberg said U.S. Aerospace was working with Antonov and a Chinese manufacturer to produce lower-cost aerospace products.

"We've not been trying to ballyhoo the stock; we're working the company. It's not for flash; it's for substance," he said.

U.S. Aerospace was in final stages of talking to people who would be hired as senior executives, including some well-known names in the military and aerospace community, and was also exploring acquisitions of smaller defense companies with annual revenues of under $100 million, he said.

On Friday, the company appointed Michael Cabral as president, citing his 30-plus years' experience in the aerospace industry. Earlier this week, U.S. Aerospace sold its machine-tool manufacturing business and said that David Duquette resigned as chief executive.

U.S. Aerospace shares ended 1 cent or 14.3 percent higher at 8 cents in over-the-counter trading on Friday.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa in Washington and Karen Jacobs in Atlanta; Editing by Bernard Orr and Matthew Lewis)

buglerbilly

20-09-10, 02:08 PM

More info on this............

GAO Throws Out Some KC-X Protest Claims

Sep 20, 2010

By Amy Butler

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has thrown out some of the complaints made by would-be KC-X bidder U.S. Aerospace, though others are still being investigated.

In a Sept. 16 decision, the government auditors found that “to the extent [the company’s] initial and supplemental protests allege bad faith or intentional agency misconduct, the protests are dismissed,” according to an official familiar with the decision.

U.S. Aerospace, which teamed with Ukrainian state-owned Antonov to propose an An-70 tanker to replace the KC-135, filed its first protest Aug. 2 after the Air Force removed the contractor from the KC-X bidding because of a tardy proposal. A supplemental protest was filed Sept. 1 after discovery materials were exchanged in pursuit of the first protest.

Some matters, however, remain open for review, but they are expected to be addressed by Oct. 6. At the root of the issue still under investigation is whether the proposal was delivered late, after the July 9, 2 p.m. deadline. The GAO dismissed U.S. Aerospace’s claims that the Air Force and its security personnel intentionally delayed a messenger with the company’s bid from entering Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. But the legal question of whether the bid was late and whether acceptance would “not unduly delay the procurement” remains open. The proposal was stamped received by Air Force personnel at 2:05 p.m.

The GAO seems to be placing at least part of the blame for the delivery debacle on U.S. Aerospace itself and its messenger. The company opted to dispatch a messenger to the base to deliver the proposal to 1755 Eleventh St., Building 570 at Wright-Patterson in accordance with the KC-X request-for-proposal instructions, but without gaining prior approval from the program office to enter the base past security posts. Boeing and EADS both dispatched bids — at least eight volumes of data — by multiple methods of delivery, and both arrived hours early.

According to an official, the GAO determined: “We note that it was [the company’s] decision — not that of the Air Force — to have the messenger delivering its proposal arrive at the entrance to Wright-Patterson AFB less than an hour before proposals were due. Similarly, it was [the company’s] decision not to seek advance agency approval for its messenger to be admitted to the base. Finally, it was [the company’s] decision not to confirm in advance the precise location of, and directions to, the building at which proposals were to be received.”

U.S. Aerospace had claimed that Air Force officials intentionally delayed the messenger and stamped the proposal late. But the GAO did not support this assertion.

The matters that remain open must be decided before Nov. 5, according to the GAO’s findings. But as evidenced by this development and the rest by next month, government officials are working to close out the matter. One official says they are “carving off any allegation of bad faith.”

The auditors declined Aug. 6 to compel the Air Force to produce the Boeing and EADS proposals, which were requested by U.S. Aerospace’s lawyers during discovery.

buglerbilly

21-09-10, 10:17 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

A Swiss Army Knife for Aerial Refueling?

Posted by Graham Warwick at 9/20/2010 2:54 PM CDT

Don't see this happening even for KC-X, too risky for what they want to be a rapid programme and don't really see the need for KC-X as there is nothing wrong with having both hose and boom refuelling.......but separaetly..............

The two methods of aerial refuelling in use today are fundamentally incompatible -- the boom-and-receptacle system used by the US Air Force and a few allies and the probe-and-drogue system used by everyone else. This ongoing barrier to interoperability is worked around by fitting boom-equipped tankers with hose-and-drogue pods -- or sticking a length of hose on the end of the boom.

Photo: US Air Force (via wikipedia)

That's all very well, but the hose has to be attached to the boom on the ground and remain in place throughout the flight -- so the tanker can't switch between refuelling probe-equipped and receptacle-equipped aircraft during a mission. That's the problem tackled by a new Boeing patent, which describes a way to attach and detach the hose and drogue during flight.

Graphics: US Patent and Trademark Office

The design mounts the hose and drogue in the extreme tail of the tanker, with a mechanism to attach the hose to the retracted boom when required. The boom then extends, refuels the probe-equipped receiver, then retracts and the hose is detached, allowing the boom to extend to refuel a receptacle-equipped aircraft. Pretty neat.

Deks

21-09-10, 03:09 PM

.. or you just add a center-line hose and drogue pod as on the KC-45. Seriously, WTF?

I thought I may be wrong but looked it up:

The KC-45 will be fitted with an Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS), two Cobham 905E under-wing refuelling pods and one Cobham 805E Fuselage Refuelling Unit (FRU).

buglerbilly

22-09-10, 12:51 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Sens. Murray, Brownback to Pursue KC-X Amendment

Posted by Michael Bruno at 9/21/2010 9:34 AM CDT

Washington Sen. Patty Murray (D) said a few minutes ago on the Senate floor that she and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (R) will offer an amendment to the 2011 defense authorization bill in that chamber that would - if enacted - require the Pentagon to consider whether a bidder enjoys an "unfair competitive advantage."

The Boeing proponents have long argued that EADS enjoyed such an unfair advantage in its pursuit of the USAF KC-X aerial refueling tanker program. In her floor speech, Murray also linked award of the program to providing domestic jobs (C-Span video here).

The Senate is expected to face a key procedural decision this afternoon on whether to move forward with the defense bill, which includes a few contentious provisions like repealing the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said right after Murray it was not clear whether the chamber's leaders could muster the necessary 60 votes for the vote.

One of the funniest comments to this comes from Bill Sweetman of all people............

Bill Sweetman wrote:
Michael M - Late 1980s? I was at Farnborough in 1978 just after Airbus signed Eastern and Boeing was complaining. The always quotable Bernard Lathiere's comment: I think the big bad wolf is screaming because Little Red Riding Hood has bitten him in the ass.9/21/2010 3:51 PM CDT

buglerbilly

29-09-10, 05:15 AM

UPDATE 3-Two Boeing tankers finally heading to Italy

Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:30pm EDT

* First planes were initially expected in 2005

* Final two planes delayed as improvements made

* Analyst questions why two additional planes delayed (Adds analyst comment)

By Deepa Babington and Andrea Shalal-Esa

ROME/WASHINGTON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) will deliver two long overdue refueling planes to Italy this year, but capability improvements will delay delivery of two more planes, the company and the Italian air force said on Tuesday.

Boeing has resolved problems with the planes' fuel-carrying wing pods that had caused their wings to flutter at high speeds, and delivery is now expected by the end of the year, a spokesman for the Italian air force said.

The delivery would come five years after the 767-based tankers were initially slated for arrival, and could coincide with a decision from the U.S. Air Force this fall on whether it will buy 179 refueling planes from Boeing or Europe's EADS (EAD.PA) at a cost of up to $50 billion.

The Italian air force declined to specify the exact nature of the modifications on the other two wide-body planes, saying they pertained to general operating capacity.

Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale said the first two planes would have three operational air refueling systems -- the wing pods, a refueling boom and a centerline hose drum unit -- as planned in the company's 2002 contract with Italy.

He gave no details on when the next set of tankers would be delivered, or who was paying for the modifications, saying only that both Italy and Boeing had agreed "to further enhance the present capability."

Boeing officials have acknowledged in the past that they faced penalties for delays in the contract, but details have not been released.

The long delay in the Italian delivery might not be a major factor in the current U.S. tanker competition, given that past performance on similar contracts was now being judged on a "pass/fail" basis, said defense consultant Jim McAleese.

However, it was embarrassing for Boeing, and could increase the "Air Force perception that the Boeing proposal is a higher-risk solution," he said.

Robbin Laird, co-founder of the Second Line of Defense aerospace Website, said he was troubled about Boeing's decision to delay delivery of the second batch of refueling planes.

"If you've really solved the problems, you could deliver all four tankers," Laird said, questioning when Italy would be able to use the first two planes to bring fuel to fighter planes.

"If they want to build the tanker for the U.S. Air Force, they should be able to demonstrate that they can build a relatively simple tanker for the Italians," Laird said.

Boeing and the Italian government gave no exact date, but said the delivery would allow the Italian air force to achieve initial operational capability for the new planes "shortly."

Boeing delivered the last of four 767-based refueling tankers to Japan in January.

EADS' delivery of five A330-based tankers to Australia is also delayed by around 18 months, partly due to additional capabilities ordered by Australia (Huh?) but company officials now expect multiple deliveries to Australia this year.

The first of 14 tankers EADS is building for Britain completed its first flight on Sept. 16. EADS is also building six tankers for Saudi Arabia and three for the United Arab Emirates.

Shares of Boeing were up 0.13 percent at $63.97 in midday New York Stock Exchange trading. (Reporting by Deepa Babington in Rome and Andrea Shalal-Esa in Washington; editing by Michael Shields, Lisa Von Ahn and Gunna Dickson)

buglerbilly

30-09-10, 01:12 AM

DATE:29/09/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing source reveals specifications for KC-767 NewGen Tanker

By Brendan Sobie

Boeing's proposed KC-767 NewGen Tanker for the US Air Force incorporates the wing and fuselage from the 767-200, the cargo door and floor from the 767-300F and the cockpit from the 767-400ER.

The offering, which is currently being evaluated by the USAF along with the EADS North America KC-45 for an initial 179-aircraft requirement, will also feature a new boom. NewGen Tanker programme manager Jean Chamberlin says the new boom will have "a wider envelope than the KC-10 and is fully digitalised". She declines to provide more details for proprietary reasons but says it will "absolutely" be developed in time for first delivery in 2017.

The new boom is the biggest difference between the NewGen Tanker and the four delayed KC-767 tankers that Boeing is now preparing to deliver to Italy. "Boeing and the Italian air force will seek to deliver the first two KC-767s by the end of this year," the company says.

Chamberlin, speaking to Flightglobal after addressing employees at a 27 September rally in Everett to promote the NewGen Tanker programme, also confirms that the tanker's cockpit will feature four large Rockwell Collins displays similar to those on the 787 and also now installed on the 777 and 767-400ER.

© Boeing

The latest technologies will also be incorporated at the operator station, where Chamberlin says there will be a "three-dimensional view". She says the NewGen Tanker will also feature a "computer-aided boom that allows you to ensure alignment". It will be able to "refuel any aircraft in the inventory of the US government and many of our foreign allies".

Chamberlin declines to discuss fuselage and wing specifications. But another Boeing source says the NewGen Tanker will have a 159ft (48.5m) wingspan and 156ft fuselage length, matching the footprint of the 767-200. The aircraft will borrow the cargo door and floor rollers from the 767-300F.

The source says Boeing decided against incorporating the fuselage and wing from the larger 767-300 to give the USAF more flexibility in operating into smaller airfields. The company believes the 767-200 is ideal for meeting the service's requirement for "best performance and smallest footprint".

Boeing marketing documents illustrate as an example the tight ramp at Royal Air Force base Akrotiri in Cyprus, which was used during Operation "Desert Storm". Boeing claims this can accommodate only six Airbus A330-200-based KC-45 tankers, or nine KC-767 NewGen Tankers at one time. Although each A330 can carry more fuel, the total amount of fuel and passengers that can be carried with a mission at Akrotiri is higher with the Boeing solution.

Boeing chief executive Jim Albaugh told the rally the NewGen Tanker will be able to operate into twice as many airfields as the A330. Its claimed superior fuel efficiency will also result in savings that according to Washington Congressmen Norm Dicks will amount to $25 billion to $30 billion over 40 years.

Albaugh says he expects a decision from the USAF, which has been reviewing Boeing's NewGen Tanker proposal since July, in late November or early December. While the initial requirement is only for 179 KC-135 replacements, he estimates Boeing will ultimately produce 400 to 500 NewGen Tankers for the USAF and "air forces around the world".

Chamberlin says Boeing has already begun preparations to ensure it can deliver 18 aircraft in 78 months after the winning bid is selected. She says the manufacturer is "laser-focused for day one" and will be ready to start producing 767-based tankers for the USAF "when the clock starts".

Boeing, which has been promoting its NewGen Tanker through a road show that has seen its demonstrator visit 26 locations since March, estimates a USAF contract will support 11,000 jobs in the state of Washington and generate $693 million in annual economic impact.

Deks

30-09-10, 03:15 AM

"Boeing has already begun preparations to ensure it can deliver 18 aircraft in 78 months"

How much preparation does boeing defense need to do to hit the high mark of 3 aircraft a year? I mean sure, their aircraft doesn't exist yet but it sounds ridiculous all the same.

buglerbilly

30-09-10, 11:44 PM

DATE:30/09/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Lufthansa Technik to support UK's FSTA fleet

By Craig Hoyle

British Tankers being maintained in Germany? My, my times are strange in the Wunderlandt of the PFI................:doh

AND please nobody bore me with the factual reasons why this has been done as there are equably viable reasons to choose Brit companies...........

Airbus Military has picked Lufthansa Technik to manage component-level support for the UK's future fleet of 14 A330-200-based tanker/transports.

The maintenance, repair and overhaul specialist will deliver services in support of the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme for an initial 10 years, starting from the first aircraft's entry into Royal Air Force service in late 2011.

Airbus Military cites LHT's "long and in-depth expertise" in supporting Lufthansa's commercial A330 fleet as having contributed to its selection for the FSTA programme. Its choice followed "a thorough evaluation of candidate companies", it adds.

LHT's responsibilities will include establishing an initial component pool at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, sustaining this and "expendables and standard aircraft hardware", plus providing component repair and overhaul services. The deal also includes an option for LHT to paint the UK's FSTA fleet.

© Airbus Military
The UK will eventually operate 14 A330-200-based tanker/transports

"This contract is an important milestone in creating the highly robust MRO operation that we are putting into place to support FSTA in service," says Airbus Military vice-president customer services Richard Thompson. "This is a clear example of the type of market-leading support services that we will be providing to all customers of the A330 multi-role tanker transport."

In addition to the UK, the type has also been ordered for the air forces of Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with a total of 28 to be delivered. EADS North America is also offering a KC-45 derivative for the US Air Force's 179-aircraft KC-X tanker deal.

JimWH

01-10-10, 12:30 AM

It's not all that much loopier than the PFI, but none the less does add yet another surreal touch to FSTA.

buglerbilly

05-10-10, 02:44 AM

Ukraine's Antonov aircraft producer to compete for multi-billion U.S. tanker tender

Ukraine's state-run Antonov aircraft producer will compete with U.S. aerospace giant Boeing and Europe's EADS in a multi-billion tender to supply almost 180 airborne refueling tankers to the United States Air Force (USAF), Antonov's President and General Designer Dmitry Kiva said on Monday.

"We have not managed to officially register our participation, but the terms were prolonged following our request, and we will take part in the tender," Kiva said in Kiev.

The tender, with an estimated value between $25 billion and $50 billion, was launched in January 2007. The U.S. Air Force intends to replace its obsolete Boeing KC-135 refueling tankers, which have been in service since the 1950s.

EADS and U.S. aerospace and defense firm Northrop Grumman were initially competing in the tender, which was then cancelled and restarted following a protest by rival Boeing in 2008.

In July this year, Antonov and aerospace and defense contractor U.S. Aerospace Inc. filed a joint application to participate in the tender. The companies intend to supply up to three aircraft types to the USAF, such as the four-engined Antonov An-124, a twin-engined variant of the aircraft, the Antonov An-122, and the An-112, a twin-engine modification of the Antonov An-70 propfan.

KIEV, October 4 (RIA Novosti)

JKM Mk2

05-10-10, 02:48 PM

For a program that has the 'Highest Priority' somebody is certainly making every possible effort to delay the decision. Unless Boeing 'wins' the competition this farce is going to continue indefinitely -so why not just give them the contract and be done with it. I'm sure the guys flying the old KC-135's don't really care as long as something is chosen.

This program only includes replacement of the not-reengined KC-135E's right? how long before the next shit-fight (replacing the KC-135R's & KC-10's) comes around? It will be interesting to see how long Boeing can draw out that program also.

Cheers
JKM

Deks

06-10-10, 03:02 AM

Actually, from what I've read airbus winning the KC-10 replacement is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Not sure about KC-135R

buglerbilly

07-10-10, 12:28 AM

GAO Denies US Aerospace Protest

By Colin Clark Wednesday, October 6th, 2010 1:35 pm

The Government Accountability Office has denied all aspects of the KC-X protest by tiny upstart U.S. Aerospace. This is the company that was working with Antonov and claimed the Air Force misdirected their messenger when he tried to deliver the company’s bid less than an hour before the Pentagon’s deadline. Its erstwhile competitors, Boeing and EADS NA, delivered their bids long before US Aerospace’s messenger got tied up at the Wright-Patterson base gate and then got lost.

If you want to get some idea just how weird the small company’s protest got, read this excerpt from the protest decision. Note especially the “sniper spotter” reference:

“First, USAI challenged the accuracy of the website map provided with the agency report, suggesting that the map is “incorrect and/or outdated.” USAI Opposition to Dismissal at 2. In this regard, USAI complained that currently available photographic maps of Wright-Patterson AFB reflect a ‘missing section of Eleventh Street, which has been … removed since the Air Force maps were drawn’” further noting that USAI’s photographic maps indicate that another building has been ‘built over the missing section of Eleventh Street.’ Id. USAI’s opposition to dismissal further complained that the sign in front of building 570, which identifies both the building number and the address of ‘1755 Eleventh Street,’ is located “some 50 to 100 yards from Eleventh Street,” and is ‘impossible for anyone to see without the assistance of a sniper spotter with a high-powered spotting scope.’ Id. Accordingly, USAI maintained that its messenger ‘could not fairly be blamed for being unable to find Building 570.’”

Hopefully, neither Boeing nor EADS NA will consider a protest should they lose the bid for the $45 billion airborne tanker program. If they do, they will risk being compared to US Aerospace. How much would that hurt their credibility?

The protest is denied.
.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/06/gao-denies-us-aerospace-protest/#ixzz11clpJHUv

buglerbilly

07-10-10, 01:09 AM

KC-45 Supporters Rally In California

Oct 6, 2010

By Guy Norris

LOS ANGELES — Aerospace workers as well as city and state officials rallied Oct. 5 in Southern California as part of nationwide moves by EADS North America aimed at showcasing the proposed KC-45 tanker for the U.S. Air Force contest — and the jobs they say it will support across the country.

The rally, one of several orchestrated in a parallel operation countering a similar series of meetings held by competitor Boeing, was hosted in Irvine by Parker Aerospace. Parker would be a major supplier on both the KC-45 and Boeing’s proposed KC-767 program.

Parker was part of the original team with EADS and Northrop Grumman on the previous Airbus A330-200 multi-role tanker transport proposal, and under the succeeding KC-45 bid is set to provide flight controls; hydraulic, fuel and engine components and systems; and aerial refueling equipment.

Parker, which expected to have several hundred employees at the rally, says the KC-45 would support more than 1,900 workers at three facilities in California, plus 975 at first-tier suppliers throughout the state. The EADS tanker work also would support around 2,700 jobs tied to other Parker Aerospace products at suppliers and production sites in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Utah, it adds. The total economic impact is estimated at more than $500 million, of which $328 million would be associated with Parker’s KC-45-related spending in California alone.

The rally comes amid continuing claims and counterclaims by the competing teams at tanker events. Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Jim Albaugh told a rally in Everett, Wash., last week that its KC-767 would be able to operate from twice as many airfields as the KC-45. Washington Rep. Norm Dicks (D), a powerful appropriator, noted fuel savings over the A330 derivative would total $25-30 billion over 40 years.

EADS, releasing details of internal studies through aerospace analysts Leeham and Co., says that based on requirements and criteria in the USAF request for proposals, the KC-45 would actually use 3% less fuel per gallon delivered on refueling missions than the KC-767 on 500-nm. trips, and 31% less on 2,500-nm. missions. Using USAF criteria, EADS says on a 2,500-nm. mission with 250 sorties, the KC-45 would save $25.8 million in one day alone, based on assumed Defense Department fuel-per-gallon pricing.

buglerbilly

07-10-10, 01:38 AM

DATE:06/10/10

SOURCE:Flight International

A330 tanker gains military certification

By Craig Hoyle

Airbus Military will deliver its first A330 multi-role tanker transport to the Royal Australian Air Force "in the coming weeks", following its receipt of military certification for the type from Spain's INTA body.

Received on 5 October, the certification "covers the design and operation of all the military systems added to the aircraft in addition to the basic civil design", Airbus says. This includes its aerial refuelling boom system and Cobham 905E underwing hose and drogue refuelling pods.

© Airbus Military

Reached several months later than expected, the milestone follows the mid-March award by the European Aviation Safety Agency of a civil supplemental type certificate for the tanker conversion to the A330-200.

"This confirms the A330 MRTT has satisfactorily demonstrated its global military airworthiness and the maturity of all its systems, and its full readiness to enter service with its customers," says Airbus Military managing director Domingo Ureña.

Development and certification work on the A330 MRTT has seen the type deliver more than 450t of fuel in over 280 sorties, Airbus says.

© Airbus Military

Australia will also receive its second of five locally designated KC-30As late this year, with the General Electric CF6-80E-powered fleet to be operated by the RAAF's 33 Sqn from Amberley air base, Queensland. The service, which retired its last Boeing 707 tanker in June 2008, should receive its remaining examples in 2011-12, according to plans outlined earlier this year.

The military certification receipt will also provide a boost to EADS North America's campaign for the US Air Force's 179-aircraft KC-X tanker deal. The company's KC-45 submission is largely based on the KC-30A model prepared for Australia. Boeing is offering the smaller KC-767 NewGen Tanker.

Airbus Military's orderbook for the A330 tanker/transport also includes six aircraft for Saudi Arabia, three for the United Arab Emirates and 14 for the UK. The type has a maximum fuel load of 111t.

buglerbilly

20-10-10, 01:35 AM

Fuel Capacity Pivotal in U.S. Tanker Bid: Experts

By JOHN REED

Published: 19 Oct 2010 14:19

Fuel capacity will be a major factor in deciding the outcome of the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion KC-X tanker competition, which will likely be the Air Force's last tanker buy for decades, according to an influential analyst and a former Air Force three-star general.

"I personally think that additional fuel offload is of great value" considering military scenarios that would require long-distance flights over the Pacific Ocean, Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS research, said on Oct. 19. If a tanker carries more fuel it will be able to fly farther, stay on station longer and have more fuel left over for waiting aircraft, Grant said.

"What worries me is … how do you do the really tough things," such as conducting sustained air operations far from bases, Grant asked.

Read more: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4933494&c=AME&s=AIR

buglerbilly

20-10-10, 02:15 AM

EADS North America KC-45 tanker program benefits from the first flight of third Australian A330 MRTT

Arlington, Virginia, 18 October 2010

The maturity of the EADS North America KC-45 program has been further reinforced with the maiden flight of Australia’s third mission-equipped Airbus Military A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT). EADS North America is offering an A330 MRTT-based tanker to the U.S. Air Force as the KC-45, and is the only competitor offering the Air Force a tanker that is already flying, refueling and fully certified today.

Airbus Military will begin deliveries of A330 MRTTs this year to its first operator, the Royal Australian Air Force.

The first two A330 MRTTs built for Australia have performed more than 1,300 aerial refueling contacts and transferred more than one million pounds of fuel, using the same advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) and digital under-wing refueling pods offered on the KC-45. The Australian aircraft also is configured with a Link 16 real-time data link for airborne connectivity, along with a directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system, among other defensive systems.

The third A330 MRTT built for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) takes off in Brisbane, Australia, on its first flight after being configured for its tanker transport mission. The aircraft will be painted gray prior to delivery to the RAAF.

The third Australian A330 MRTT was converted to its tanker/transport configuration by Qantas Engineering in Brisbane, Australia – underscoring the company’s ability to successfully transfer A330 MRTT production and outfitting around the world. The KC-45 variant of the A330 MRTT will be built at a new American aerospace center of excellence that will be constructed in Mobile, Alabama.

“Every day, the A330 MRTT program is demonstrating that our KC-45 offers the U.S. Air Force a tanker solution that is in production, flying today and proven,” said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. “We are ready to bring the only real tanker in the Air Force competition to the U.S., where it will be built by 48,000 Americans.”

During the four-hour maiden flight for the newest Australian A330 MRTT, the aircraft reached an altitude of 41,000 feet and performed a series of preplanned trials of test equipment, handling qualities, performance and systems in a full range of mission situations. This is the fifth A330 MRTT currently flying, including two aircraft for the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force.

The A330 MRTT is in production today for four U.S. allies. Australia, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have ordered a total of 28 MRTTs. It has won every head-to-head competition with Boeing’s KC-767 tanker – including the U.S. Air Force competition in 2008.

To learn more about the KC-45, visit www.kc-45now.com.

Unicorn

20-10-10, 10:55 AM

Actually, from what I've read airbus winning the KC-10 replacement is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Not sure about KC-135R

Not quite. Boeing is planning on offering a 777 based tanker for that program.

buglerbilly

27-10-10, 01:58 AM

9 Secrets of the Tanker War

Author:By Rebecca Grant

Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Replacing America's Aerial Refueling Tankers with KC-X $35 Billion Contract

The Air Force has been waiting nearly 10 years for a program to start replacing some of its KC-135 tanker aircraft, which were built from 1957 to 1965.

Right now, the Pentagon is evaluating bids from Boeing and EADS North America for a new aerial refueling tanker plane called KC-X. They say they’ll award the $35 billion contract in November, but it may take weeks or months more.

This tanker war has turned into one of the longest and most complicated acquisitions ever, with lots of heated debate about jobs, trade disputes, etc.

Today I’m releasing a short white paper called 9 Secrets of the Tanker War.

http://www.irisresearch.com/library/resources/documents/9SecretsoftheTankerWar.pdf

Having watched the drama unfold for many years, I wanted to puncture some of the myths and point out some major operational considerations, like the importance of air refueling to conventional deterrence in the Pacific – a job American airpower and seapower will have to do for decades to help ensure China’s peaceful rise.

Secret #1 is no secret – the Boeing vs EADS North America competition was bound to get loud and noisy. Boeing and EADS, maker of the Airbus jetliners, compete like undernourished tigers. They fight over every commercial sale, and that’s perfectly normal in the business.

The fuss about a “foreign” plane is harder to understand. First, there’s nothing remarkable about a European company competing with an American one. The US has several military aircraft which are converted European designs – like the Italian-born Alenia C-27J Spartan light cargo plane or the UH-72 Lakota helicopter, which began life as the Eurocopter.

Nor will either bidder go under without a KC-X win. The overall market for airliners is very robust. EADS predicts global demand for 24,097 new commercial aircraft from now through 2028, so neither bidder is going under without a KC-X win.

The two bidders come in about even on creating American jobs: Boeing estimates 50,000 at full production, while EADS estimates 48,000 jobs for Americans. Most of these will be with supplier firms making everything from engines to laminates to fasteners.

More delays on KC-X only hurt the joint force. “Without tankers, we’re not global,” said Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz. The reach of American military power depends on aerial refueling tankers to deploy ground forces and top off fighters and bombers attacking targets and to keep vital surveillance and communications planes in the sky longer. That’s vital for the wars we are in – and for national security tomorrow.

buglerbilly

27-10-10, 03:50 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Second A330 FSTA Makes First Post-mod Test Flight

Posted by Max Kingsley-Jones at 10/27/2010 5:37 AM CDT

The second Future Strategic Transport Aircraft derivative of Airbus’s A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) for the UK Royal Air Force made its first post-modification test flight from Madrid yesterday (Oct 26).

Airbus Military says the second FSTA took off from its Getafe plant for a successful 2 hr flight on the evening of Oct 26.

Meanwhile work is progressing on the installation of the Cobham-supplied fuselage refuelling unit (FRU) system on FSTA number one in Getafe, says Gabriel García Mesuro, Airbus head of flight operations and test.

“There was a delay in the delivery of the system from the supplier but we have now received it,” says Mesuro.

This aircraft performed around five flights prior to going into the workshop. Early next year will be used for refuelling qualification tests in the UK with various RAF aircraft including the Eurofighter Typhoon. Mesuro says the aircraft may also fly some refuelling trials with the Airbus Military A400M.

Meanwhile the first MRTTs for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are due to make the first post-modification test flights from Getafe early next year.

Unicorn

28-10-10, 08:54 AM

Bug,

That document is one of the most cogent summations I have yet to see, thanks for that.

Unicorn

buglerbilly

28-10-10, 09:53 AM

Yup it is pretty good but I've read her stuff previously and generally good to excellent.

Sharon Weinberger is another one who writes occasional cogent gems.............

buglerbilly

28-10-10, 03:14 PM

Australian Tanker Deliveries Loom

Oct 28, 2010

By Max Kingsley-Jones

SEVILLE, Spain — Airbus Military expects the remaining test flights for the Royal Australian Air Force’s A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft will be completed by early November, clearing the way for deliveries to begin before year’s end.

The RAAF will be the first operator of the A330 tanker variant. Flight testing for the MRTT’s military certification was completed in July after a seven-month program involving 112 flights. Spanish military approval was received Oct. 5, says Airbus’s head of flight operations and test, Gabriel Garcia Mesuro. “There remain less than 10 qualification flights to fly [for the RAAF],” he says. Some of the testing left will involve night flights for receiver qualification. “We’ll finish all these by early November,” Mesuro says.

The MRTT flight test effort involved the RAAF’s first two A330s, Mesuro says, while its third aircraft has just gone into the paint shop in Paris. The next phase will be the start of the “formal delivery process,” he adds. “We will deliver two MRTTs by the end of the year — numbers two and three. The aircraft will be ready for delivery by early December.”

Conversion of the RAAF’s fourth MRTT began “some months ago” and will be completed in mid-2011, Mesuro says, while its fifth and final aircraft will be delivered to Qantas for modification early next year.

Meanwhile, the second A330 MRTT Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) for the U.K. Royal Air Force completed its first post-modification test flight from Airbus’s Getafe plant near Madrid on Oct. 26. The manufacturer says the crew reported that the aircraft, its systems and Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines performed entirely satisfactorily during the 2-hr. flight.

The RAF’s first FSTA, which made its first flight on Sept. 16, is grounded in Getafe while its Cobham-supplied fuselage refueling unit system is installed.

“There was a delay in the delivery of the system from the supplier, but we have now received it,” Mesuro says.

This aircraft performed five flights prior to going into the workshop. Early next year, it will undertake refueling qualification tests in the U.K. with various RAF aircraft, including the Eurofighter Typhoon. Mesuro says the FSTA may also fly some refueling trials with the Airbus Military A400M. Formal deliveries to the RAF are due to begin toward the end of 2011, according to Airbus.

The first A330 MRTTs for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are due to make their post-modification first flights from Getafe early next year.

Unicorn

30-10-10, 10:00 AM

Mind you the died in the wool Boeing apologists and xenophobes on forums elsewhere are claiming that she was paid by Airbus to slant her document towards larger tankers and hence for the A330 MRTT and against the KC-767.

Idiots. God must love them, he made so many.

Unicorn

buglerbilly

30-10-10, 11:38 AM

buglerbilly

02-11-10, 01:13 AM

Quote from Gen. Sir Nicholas Houghton, the United Kingdom's Vice Defence chief: -

Meantime, in an eyebrow-raising remark to reporters, Houghton said if the Pentagon picks an Airbus-made aerial tanker over a Boeing plane, "that would be a good thing." He said such a move would be a marker of "good faith" between Washington and Europe; "it would make commercial sense"; and would foster interoperability between the U.S. military and other allied nations that operate or are buying the Airbus A330 tanker, including the U.K.

.......it's a statement of obvious fact BUT undoubtedly the wee little Uber-nationalist morons that blindly support Boeing will be up in arms about this............ :moon

buglerbilly

02-11-10, 10:54 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

KC-X: Questions over Questions

Posted by Robert Wall at 11/1/2010 11:29 PM CDT

The U.S. Air Force may keep industry waiting just a while longer than first expected concerning this year's biggest defense program competition, the KC-X tanker.

At one point, November 12 was considered the likely award date for the more than $35 billion, 179 aircraft program to kick off the KC-135 replacement effort -- Boeing is in the hunt with its KC-767 and EADS with its Airbus A330-based KC-30. Even a few weeks ago, that date appeared to be slipping toward the end of the month. The question now is whether the delay will be even greater.

Industry officials on both sides note they have been surprised by the amount of questions the service has asked about their proposals -- the dialogue began in August. Just sorting through the answers, some of them lengthy, is likely to take a while, they note, dimming hopes of an imminent announcement.

It is not unusual for source selection authorities to raise points of clarification at this stage in the competitive process. That there are this many questions is perhaps surprising, though, given the meticulous pass/fail process the request for proposal spelled out to avoid ambiguities.

However, possibly owing to concern about another GAO protest from the losing bidder, the Pentagon seems to be particularly thorough in trying to sort out there are no misunderstandings. The risk, of course, is that there is something in the correspondence that could give rise to another protest.

The KC-X is certainly not the only big program award still due out of the Pentagon this year. The Littoral Combat Ship competitive process also is expected to be completed, although there, too, delays have set in. General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin are the two rival prime contractors.

buglerbilly

03-11-10, 03:36 AM

Corporate Crime, Corroding Planes: The Inside Story of The Air Force’s Tanker Mess

By Spencer Ackerman November 2, 2010 | 4:45 pm

Sometime before the winter, the Air Force is supposed to award one of the most momentous defense contracts in its history: a deal worth at least $35 billion to finally replace its ancient fleet of refueling tankers. On the surface, the contract is about buying 179 planes that will ensure the U.S. military can continue to fly wherever it needs around Planet Earth. Beneath the surface, it’s a cutthroat competition for the future of the defense industry, with congressmen and the Air Force eager to influence it.

Shane Harris has a comprehensive piece in Washingtonian recounting the ins and outs of a decade-long search for a new tanker. (Full disclosure: Harris will be my editor on a freelance piece.) The current KC-135 tankers, built by Boeing during the Eisenhower era, show rust, decay and corrosion: in Germany in 1999, one malfunctioned during a landing, killing all four crew members. But the seemingly simple task of replacing the tanker fleet, Harris documents, is a case study in what happens when procurement battles collide with politics.

A legislative baron, the deceased Senator Ted Stevens, set up up a lucrative, competition-free deal to lease tankers from Boeing as a cost-control measure: buying new tankers is enormously expensive. Senator John McCain not only stopped the deal in the name of open competition, but he helped uncover corruption within the Air Force over it. Emails written by Secretary James Roche said hoped an acquisition official would “tortur[e]” a representative from Boeing rival EADS “slowly.” That official, Darleen Druyun, went to jail for negotiating an executive job for herself at Boeing while working on the contract.

And that’s just the most infamous moment in the long tanker war. The frequent collapse of the contracts to hold it have been more mundane but just as momentous. After Congress killed the leasing deal in 2004, McCain stayed heavily involved in the tanker, warning the Pentagon brass to keep the competition based on value when it looked like Washington state-based Boeing might lowball an EADS-Northrop Grumman team. When EADS and Northrop actually won in 2008, Boeing quickly appealed. The protracted battle led the Pentagon to pull the plug on the tanker contract later that year. But competition got so intense that by early 2010, Northrop walked out of its partnership, convinced that the deck remains stacked in Boeing’s favor by the Air Force choosing to award the contract on the basis of who offers the “lowest price, technically acceptable.”

Even so, EADS, the European defense giant, is fighting — hard — to win the tanker deal. That’s because it thinks it has a real chance to dislodge Boeing at the top of the U.S. aviation market. Boeing has the natural advantage: it’s an American company, providing thousands of jobs in a terrible economy. In order to check Boeing’s All-American image, EADS began setting up factories in the economically battered — and heavily Republican — Deep South, pledging to build at least half the new tankers in Mobile. All of a sudden, EADS looks like it’s helping rebuild the Gulf Coast.

And the once-mighty Boeing is fighting for survival, even as a home-state congressman, Democrat Norm Dicks, chairs the powerful House appropriations subcommittee on defense. (Well, at least until the polls close today, that is.) It recently lost contracts to build the (also troubled) Joint Strike Fighter and military satellites. Rumors are flying that it might try to merge with Northrop to stay alive (and create the world’s biggest defense corporation).

The process is about at its end. (We hope.) By December, the Pentagon will have finished reading 16,000 pages of proposals for the tankers submitted by Boeing and EADS and will reach a decision. Politics permeates into the bids with ease. “The people who know this contract well believe that military officials are being influenced by members of Congress, who have taken sides in the deal along party lines,” Harris writes. “If the Democrats maintain their majority, Boeing wins; if the Republicans take over, EADS gets the nod.”

That’s a bit overstated. EADS’ political action committee, for instance, gave 56 percent of its campaign cash to Democrats during this heavily anti-Democrat midterm election; and it gave Republicans 54 percent of its cash the previous (heavily anti-Republican) election season. But Harris’ broader point is that the competition has become “poisoned” by outside influence. And any fair assessment of the ongoing saga of the tanker would have to endorse that conclusion.

Photo: Staff Sergeant Robert Barney

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/corporate-crime-corroding-planes-the-inside-story-of-the-air-forces-tanker-mess/#more-34546#ixzz14BP97WK8

buglerbilly

03-11-10, 03:39 AM

This is the Washingtonian article mentioned above.................

Own the Sky
The American military is the strongest and most agile on the planet for one reason - the refueling tanker. But replacing the 50-year-old airplane has turned into a decade-long saga, one that has cost a CEO his job, sent two officials to jail, and wasted millions of dollars.

By Shane Harris Published Monday, November 01, 2010

Modern wars aren’t fought just with guns, tanks, missiles, and bombs. To fight wars today, the US military depends on a 27-foot telescopic rod that dispenses a torrent of jet fuel at the rate of 1,000 gallons a minute. Without this metal boom and the airplane that tows it across the sky, the American military machine doesn’t move beyond our own shores.

When the first American forces deployed to Afghanistan in 2001, they were carried in the bellies of cavernous transport planes that would never have completed the journey from base to battlefield without refueling along the way. When stealth aircraft launched a preemptive strike on the purported hideout of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in 2003, a refueling tanker kept them from plummeting into the ocean. These essential rendezvous usually happen 25,000 feet above the earth.

The receiving plane approaches the tanker from behind. When the two planes are nearly touching, a boom operator lying on his belly in the tanker’s tail, peering out a glass window like a 1940s bombardier, guides his instrument into a fuel port near the nose of the thirsty plane and starts pumping. A tanker can top off the 35,000-gallon tanks of the gargantuan C-17 cargo plane in half an hour and smaller planes in less than five minutes. At that rate, it could refuel the average automobile in less than two seconds.

Take away the tankers and you neuter the US armed forces. As the attendants of these midair pit stops are fond of reminding their customers, “You can’t kick ass without tanker gas.”

Yet just how long the tankers can keep kicking ass is a question. The workhorses of the refueling fleet are 50-year-old airplanes that went into service when Dwight Eisenhower occupied the White House. To keep these 400 or so old planes flying—and from falling apart—they’ve been fitted with new engines, new electronic guidance systems, even new wings. But the planes otherwise are ancient.

Today’s tanker pilots are flying airplanes first flown by their grandfathers. These planes won’t all be replaced until the middle of this century, at which point they’ll be 80 years old. The pilots who will fly the planes then haven’t been born yet.

For nearly a decade, the military’s leadership and its overseers in Congress have tried and failed to replace the tankers with newer models. With any luck, they’ll achieve the mission sometime in the coming weeks. By late December, the Air Force has promised to award a contract for new tankers, potentially worth up to $40 billion, to one of two companies—Boeing, the largest aircraft manufacturer in the United States, or the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), which owns Airbus, the largest plane builder in Europe.

If the Air Force meets its deadline, the award will bring to a close the most controversial, politically contentious, and personally ruinous military contract in modern history. The damage this deal has wrought, measured in wasted taxpayer dollars and wasted lives, includes two people who have gone to prison; one CEO who has resigned in disgrace; two members of Congress who have died unable to close the deal and another who has been indelibly tainted by scandal; the destroyed credibility of some senior military leaders; and, in the end, a US military that is still being moved around the world by an airplane that will, sooner rather than later, be unfit to fly.

This is not the story of how the US government bought an airplane but of how it has failed to buy an airplane. And of how a generation of leaders has abrogated the wise stewardship of the public’s wealth in favor of narrower institutional concerns and petty grievances. It’s a story of how business gets done in Washington..............edited, there is more at the link.........

Read more: http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/17244.html

Trackmaster

04-11-10, 02:52 AM

Could there be a hint of the way ahead in the latest reported move by the US Navy with the Littoral Combat System?
The USN is reported to be negotiating a split buy of 10 ships each from Austal and Lockheed. Among the reasons given are lower than expected prices and to help avert a protest by the loser.
Sounds like a story I have heard before.

buglerbilly

05-11-10, 02:56 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Colombia Receives 767-based Tanker

Posted by Robert Wall at 11/4/2010 8:49 AM CDT

Israel Aerospace Industries has delivered a converted Boeing 767-200ER as as multi-role tanker to the Colombian air force.

(Photo: IAI)

IAI released this video of the aircraft:

IAI's Bedek division performed the conversion.

buglerbilly

16-11-10, 12:59 AM

Boeing NewGen Tanker Win Would Bring 230 Jobs, $10 Million to Oklahoma

18:14 GMT, November 12, 2010

Another "I wanna have your baby" announcement from Boeing and its sycophants..............

OKLAHOMA CITY | The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that Oklahoma will benefit from an estimated 230 total jobs and generate an estimated $10 million in annual economic impact if the NewGen Tanker is selected as the U.S. Air Force's next aerial refueling aircraft.

Boeing submitted its proposal July 9 to replace 179 of the Air Force's 400 Eisenhower-era KC-135 aircraft. The Air Force is expected to award a contract in the next few months.

"We welcome the high-paying, skilled jobs that the Boeing tanker project will support," said Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry. "Oklahomans will be very proud to contribute to the mission of our country's brave military men and women, who need just the kind of state-of-the-art, American-made tanker that Boeing has proposed."

"Oklahoma's aerospace workers will play an integral role on Boeing's tanker team," said Mark DeVoss, Supplier Management director, Boeing Tanker Programs. "Along with the rest of the United States Tanker Team, our suppliers in Oklahoma will be focused on building a NewGen Tanker that best meets America's military needs at the greatest value to American taxpayers."

Oklahoma manufacturers ready to produce critical components on the NewGen Tanker include:

• Boeing, Oklahoma City
• Cinch Connectors, Vinita
• Limco Manufacturing, Tulsa
• Precise Machining & Manufacturing, Tulsa.

Currently, Boeing has 964 employees in Oklahoma and works with nearly 247 suppliers/vendors, delivering a total $531 million in annual economic impact.

The NewGen Tanker is a widebody, multi-mission aircraft based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane and updated with the latest and most advanced technology. Capable of fulfilling the Air Force's needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients, the combat-ready NewGen Tanker will meet or exceed the 372 mandatory requirements described in the service's final KC-X Request for Proposal released Feb. 24.

The NewGen Tanker will be made with a low-risk approach to manufacturing that relies on existing Boeing facilities in Washington state and Kansas as well as U.S. suppliers throughout the nation, with decades of experience delivering dependable military tanker and derivative aircraft. Nationwide, the NewGen Tanker program will support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs with Boeing and more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states.

The Boeing NewGen Tanker also will be more cost-effective to own and operate than a larger, heavier tanker. It will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel than the competitor's airplane.

Boeing has been designing, building, modifying and supporting tankers for decades. These include the KC-135 that will be replaced in the KC-X competition, and the KC-10 fleet. The company also has delivered four KC-767Js to the Japan Air Self-Defense Force and is on contract to deliver four KC-767As to the Italian Air Force.

More information on Boeing's NewGen Tanker, including video clips and an interactive tour of the aircraft, is available at www.UnitedStatesTanker.com. For more information on joining the company's efforts, visit www.RealAmericanTankers.com.

Unicorn

20-11-10, 01:58 AM

Just when you thought this f*&king farce couldn't get any more stupid, they go the extra yards :vis :banghead

Air Force mixes up refueling tanker bid information

The Air Force has again stumbled in the lucrative but long-drawn-out competition for air refueling tankers for which Airbus and Boeing are contending.

The Air Force informed members of Congress on Friday that about two weeks ago it accidentally provided Boeing with detailed data on the Airbus bid, and vice versa provided the corresponding Boeing data to Airbus.

The data includes crucial pricing information on each bid. Price is considered likely to be the key differentiator in the competition and knowing the other side's bid could allow either contender to adjust its own price accordingly.

However, it's unclear how damaging the glitch is at this stage of the competition and how the data disclosure might impact the outcome.

The bid information was provided to the two manufacturers on computer disks and the Air Force doesn't know for sure "whether either party has viewed the other party's detailed data," said John Diamond, a spokesman for Sen. Maria Cantwell who was briefed Friday.

Diamond said that "both Airbus and Boeing claim that once they realized the error, they did not look at the detailed proprietary info they had been inadvertently given."

The data switch happened after the Air Force took the detailed specifications of the contending jets and ran them through a software program that models how the aircraft will perform in a variety of real-world tanker missions.

The so-called Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment (IFARA) model is used to evaluate how the jets perform and whether the pricing in the bid is realistic. Typically, following the IFARA modeling, the Air Force may tell the bidder that the price they have submitted needs to be adjusted up or down, Diamond said.

The tanker competition was originally expected to have been decided this month but recently indications were that the award of the $40 billion contract would slip into next year.

It's possible this inadvertent swap of proprietary information may further delay the result. It could also provide the losing bidder with grounds for an appeal.

The initial Air Force assessment is that this should not scotch the competition since both bids are already in, Diamond said.

Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or dgates@seattletimes.com

buglerbilly

20-11-10, 06:10 AM

NOTHING in this bid and evaluation process would surprise me...................sad to say!

buglerbilly

20-11-10, 11:01 AM

Just confirming what we already knew................

US tanker decision delayed to 2011: Air Force

Dan De Luce

November 20, 2010 - 5:39PM

The US Air Force said a final decision on a lucrative contract for a new aerial refueling tanker will be delayed until early next year, instead of a December 20 deadline.

The announcement marked the latest setback in a protracted contest that pits the US aerospace giant Boeing against rival EADS, the parent company of France-based Airbus.

"Certain aspects of the source selection have taken longer than we originally anticipated," spokesman Colonel Les Kodlick told AFP.

Advertisement: Story continues below "So right now we expect an award to occur early next year."

He did not offer details as to why the 35-billion-dollar contract award would be pushed back yet again, despite a scheduled December 20 target date.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon had promised to choose a winner in the contest in November and then had recently said it would declare a choice no later than December 20.

Coinciding with the delay, the Air Force acknowledged a "clerical error" in which the wrong documents were sent to aerospace rivals Boeing and EADS.

The Air Force mixed up the delivery of technical assessments, handing out a report earlier this month meant for EADS to Boeing and vice versa, Kodlick said.

Both firms "immediately recognized the error and contacted our Air Force contracting officer," he said.

He said the mistake had no effect on the competition schedule and was not the cause of the latest postponement.

The politically-charged competition for the tanker has been marked by scandal and intense lobbying in Congress.

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and Boeing are in a bidding war for the deal to replace 179 aerial refueling tankers in an aging Boeing-built fleet.

In 2008, EADS in partnership with Northrop Grumman won the contract for the tankers, but the deal was canceled after a successful Boeing appeal to the investigative arm of Congress.

Northrop has dropped out in the latest contest.

US Air Force commanders see the planned KC-X aircraft as crucial to bolstering American air power and are anxious to replace the older Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers that date back to the 1950s.

In 2003, the Pentagon awarded an air tanker contract to Boeing but later suspended the deal after an ethics scandal involving a company executive and an Air Force official. The Air Force official was later convicted of criminal conspiracy.

In the last competition, EADS and Northrop offered a modified Airbus 330, while Boeing proposed an altered 767 in its bid.

Members of Congress have lobbied heavily on behalf of the rival firms, hoping to secure coveted jobs in their states.

During a US visit earlier this year by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, President Barack Obama said the competition for the tankers would be "free and fair."

© 2010 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

buglerbilly

23-11-10, 01:48 AM

No KC-X Protest, For Now

By John Reed Monday, November 22nd, 2010 5:04 pm

EADS North America CEO Sean O’Keefe today said that while he trusts that the Air Force’s word that no game changing information was disclosed when the service mistakenly sent data on rival bids to each of the KC-X competitors, he cannot rule out the possibility that EADS may protest this latest round of competition.

Speaking to reporters in Washington during his first public appearance since the Aug. 9 plane crash in Alaska that killed Sen. Ted Stevens and left O’Keefe badly injured, the executive repeatedly said the Air Force is conducting an extremely fair and “above board” competition all in a way that would ensure the “avoidance of a [sustainable] protest.”............Edited................

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/22/no-kc-x-protest-for-now/#ixzz1649XSDZX

buglerbilly

24-11-10, 12:03 AM

AF Fires Two in Tanker Document Mix-Up

November 23, 2010

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz says two people have been fired from the service's aerial refueling tanker program after confidential information was mistakenly sent to competing contractors.

The document mix-up was the latest flub in the troubled program. The Air Force has tried since 2003 to replace it's Eisenhower-era fleet of refueling tankers.

Schwartz told reporters on Tuesday that competing contractors Boeing Co. and EADS had received a one-page efficiency analysis of the other's proposal, but that the information did not include proprietary or pricing data.

Schwartz called the mistake a "profound disappointment" but said it didn't give either company an advantage.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

24-11-10, 01:13 AM

DATE:23/11/10

SOURCE:Flight International

KC-X competition delayed as evaluation process roiled by politics, USAF errors

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has acknowledged extending the evaluation process on the KC-X tanker competition into early next year amid new upheavals caused by political changes and a major procedural gaffe.

The Republican Party's takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2 November election changes the political context of the highly charged competition to replace the Boeing KC-135 tanker fleet with either a Boeing KC-767 or an Airbus A330-200 derivative offered by EADS North America.

Represenative Norm Dicks, a Washington-based Democrat and staunch Boeing partisan, loses chairmanship of the powerful defence appropriations committee, becoming the minority leader. Meanwhile, Representative Todd Tiahrt, another key Boeing ally from Kansas, lost his seat in the House after a failed bid for a Senate seat.

EADS North America chief executive Sean O'Keefe, who publicly discussed KC-X on 22 November for the first time since surviving an aircraft crash in Alaska four months ago, says the Republican takeover of the House is a positive signal for the Airbus tanker bid.

Meanwhile, O'Keefe declines to rule out the possibility of filing a protest before the contract award is even decided.

USAF officials acknowledge committing an embarrassing - and possibly disruptive - error by sending packages with proprietary information to the wrong bidders. The mistake was realised and corrected before either company gained access to their competitors' secrets, according to the USAF.

But the damage in some ways had already been done, leaving both bidders to wonder if they can trust the USAF's judgement after such a blunder.

Asked whether EADS has any concern that Boeing obtained proprietary data during the exchange, O'Keefe says: "I suspect probably no more or no less so than they're concerned about any disclosure we may have received."

O'Keefe, however, notes that USAF officials had established a record of fair dealings during the latest round of the KC-X competition before committing the latest mistake. "The benefit of the doubt will always be extended by virtue of their past performance record," he says.

Boeing declines to comment about the incident, but one of the company's strong supporters has raised concerns about the USAF's procedural mishap.

"The additional delays combined with careless handling of sensitive data cannot be tolerated," says Tiahrt, who will remain in Congress until late January. "We have thousands of American workers standing by who are ready to build the next generation air refuelling tankers, but the air force continues to act without a sense of urgency."

buglerbilly

02-12-10, 04:50 AM

Originally published November 30, 2010 at 7:12 PM | Page modified December 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Air Force scrambled to fix tanker information mix-up

After an Air Force mix-up that sent Boeing and EADS computer disks with crucial data on each other's bid for the air refueling tanker contract, Boeing initially was left at a disadvantage, contrary to previous reports.

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

After an Air Force mix-up sent Boeing and EADS computer disks with crucial data on each other's bid for the air-refueling tanker contract, Boeing initially was left at a disadvantage, contrary to previous reports.

The Air Force then had to scramble to level the playing field in the $40 billion competition.

When Boeing tanker-team officials got the errant disk last month, they recognized from the labeling that the disk was intended for EADS, and did not open it.

But their EADS counterparts did open the disk they received and looked at a spreadsheet of data on the mission performance of the Boeing 767 tanker, Air Force Col. Les Kodlick confirmed Tuesday.

Only afterward did the EADS reviewers realize the error. They then contacted the Air Force and returned the disk.

"EADS opened Boeing's spreadsheet. Boeing did not look at the EADS spreadsheet," said Kodlick.

To ensure that neither side could claim bias, he said, the Air Force then sent the corresponding spreadsheet data on EADS' Airbus A330 tanker to Boeing and gave EADS back the spreadsheet on the Boeing tanker.

With that action, Kodlick said, the Air Force believes it has minimized the impact of what it described as "a clerical error."

"Providing each company that same type of information equalized the playing field," said Kodlick. "EADS got Boeing's information and Boeing got EADS', and they do now have that."

Previously the Air Force had said only that both sides had "the same information," but it didn't divulge details.

The disks sent to each manufacturer contained other files, but the Air Force believes only the performance analysis spreadsheet was accessed.

Kodlick said that an independent forensic computer analysis was done to confirm exactly what data files Boeing and EADS had viewed.

The forensic analysis "verified and is consistent with what both offerers said they did," he said.

Boeing has requested access to the outcome of that analysis, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. That suggests Boeing is gathering all information that might be relevant to any protest of the eventual outcome.

Kodlick declined to comment on whether Boeing had asked the Air Force to see that analysis.

"We're being prudent in what we say so we don't compromise the source-selection process," he said.

The Air Force asserts the data inadvertently provided to the two players in the $40 billion tanker competition was not proprietary, meaning it was not data belonging to either Boeing or EADS.

"It was government-created and derived information, not proprietary to either offerer," said Kodlick.

But that doesn't mean the switch involved innocuous information.

Each disk contained an Air Force spreadsheet quantifying the effectiveness of one proposed tanker in a series of mission simulations.

An Air Force computer model for various mission scenarios works out how many airplanes of the proposed type would be needed for each mission, where they would be based, how far they would have to fly, and how well they could meet the fuel demands of the combat aircraft.

An Air Force analysis of the Boeing 767's performance as a tanker is arguably even more valuable to EADS than a proprietary Boeing analysis. Likewise, the Air Force analysis of the A330 is likely s more valuable to Boeing than an EADS self-assessment.

A crucial question is whether the leaked information could affect the final pricing of the airplanes. Kodlick reiterated the spreadsheet did not include "any offer or proposed pricing."

However, the Air Force's mission effectiveness spreadsheets, in determining how many planes are needed and how far they fly, could provide information on the costs of carrying out the missions.

Knowing this cost data could factor into an adjustment of the offering price still ahead in the contest's final stages.

But the Air Force believes that since each company now has the other's data, that doesn't matter.

"Each offerer has the same information, so each could do the same thing" in weighing any price adjustment, said Kodlick. "It's a level playing field."

Kodlick said those responsible for the slip-up "will be held accountable." Two Air Force employees have already been reassigned and further disciplinary action is not ruled out, he said.

After a decade of do-overs and appeals, a tanker contract award was expected to be decided by November but has now slipped into early next year.

Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or dgates@seattletimes.com

buglerbilly

02-12-10, 01:13 PM

Air Force Officials Continuing Source Selection for New Tanker

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued December 1, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- Air Force officials have said the KC-X source selection process will continue despite a mistake in November, where a limited amount of identical source selection information was provided to both KC-X offerors concerning their competitor's offering.

Air Force officials are ensuring a level playing field with regards to the information actually accessed by one of the offerors. The information concerned was limited to a single page of non-proprietary data on a CD that did not include any offeror-proposed prices.

"This clerical error does not affect our source selection schedule," said Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the military deputy from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. "There are unrelated aspects of the source selection that will take slightly longer than originally anticipated, which push the award to early in 2011."

Air Force officials have analyzed the information that was actually accessed by one of the offerors and have taken steps to ensure that both competitors have equal access to this information.

Service acquisition officials have also undertaken a detailed review to determine how this error occurred, and are taking steps to prevent it from happening again.

Both offerors recognized the error and contacted the Air Force Contracting Office responsible for this acquisition program.

The KC-X remains the Air Force's top acquisition priority, officials said.

The aircraft will be capable of operating day and night, in adverse weather conditions and hostile environments over vast distances to enable rapid, global deployment, employment, sustainment and redeployment of U.S., allied and coalition forces.

"The tanker underwrites our nation's ability to project power rapidly," said Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff. "It enables the 'global' in global vigilance, global reach, and global power.

"Today, tankers fulfill multiple roles, from aerial refueling to airlift to aeromedical evacuation, not only for our Airmen, but for our joint and coalition partners," he said.

Officials said the acquisition strategy to field new tankers is grounded to the requirements set forth by the warfighter, and will provide an aircraft capable of performing this important mission, while ensuring the best value to the taxpayer.

-ends-

buglerbilly

02-12-10, 02:13 PM

DATE:02/12/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing keeps protest options open as KC-X questions linger

By Stephen Trimble

Ferkin' Boeing are a bunch of Mary's, read the Seattle Times report above (and they are no friend of EADS for obvious reasons)........."to ensure that neither side could claim bias, he said, the Air Force then sent the corresponding spreadsheet data on EADS' Airbus A330 tanker to Boeing and gave EADS back the spreadsheet on the Boeing tanker."

Boeing wants answers to "unresolved questions" before moving beyond a US Air Force blunder that sent proposal data to the wrong bidding teams for the KC-X tanker contract, the company says.

No option - including filing a protest - has been ruled out after Boeing learned that the USAF error allowed EADS North America access to a document containing proposal data.

"We're still reviewing what happened," the company says. "We're taking a hard look at the situation and implications. There are still some unresolved questions that we need to have answers for."

The USAF initially said an investigation showed no proprietary data had been compromised on either side, but acknowledged on 1 December that one company accessed a computer file containing its competitors' data.

EADS has not denied that its employees gained access to the file, but says the compact disc was secured "the minute" the error was realised.

Boeing, however, says two employees who received the compact disc recognised the problem before opening the file.

After inserting the disc into a classified laptop computer, the employees saw that the file name included an unexpected four characters - "K30B". EADS markets the US tanker version of the Airbus A330-200 as the KC-45, but previously advertised the aircraft as the KC-30B.

The employees ejected the disc and called security, the company says. As the security team stored the disc in a sealed location, the employees notified the USAF of the potential error.

"The air force gave them instructions that they followed completely," Boeing says. "It went the way it was supposed to."

The contract award date for either the Boeing KC-767 or EADS KC-45 has been delayed from November until early 2011. The USAF blames the latest delay on issues unrelated to the botched data shipment.

buglerbilly

07-12-10, 02:45 AM

EADS poised to win Air Force tanker contest, analyst says

Published: Monday, December 06, 2010, 5:00 AM Updated: Monday, December 06, 2010, 8:44 AM

George Talbot

An Australian A330 MRTT simultaneously refuels two F/A-18 fighters via its all-digital hose-and-drogue refueling pods under each wing. EADS North America says the same system will be used on the KC-45. (AP Photo/file)

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. will win the U.S. Air Force tanker contract over rival Boeing Co., according to a leading defense analyst.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said EADS has emerged as the clear favorite for the coveted deal, based on the Air Force's internal analysis of the two competing bids.

"Boeing has lost this competition," Thompson said, citing conversations with Boeing executives. "The only question now is whether they choose to protest the award, and I'm not sure they will."

Neither Boeing nor EADS would comment Sunday.

The Air Force said it expects to announce a winner for the potential $40 billion contract as early as next month. Chicago-based Boeing and EADS, the parent company of Airbus, are vying for the lucrative work to build 179 jet tankers for the Air Force.

It's the second round of competition between the American and European defense giants in a contest marked by fierce political fighting and prodigious marketing campaigns.

The battle has big stakes in Mobile. EADS has said that, if successful, it plans to assemble its KC-30 tankers at a $600 million, 1,500-worker factory to be constructed at Brookley Field.

Boeing has proposed to assemble its KC-767 tankers on its existing commercial assembly lines in Everett, Wash., and modify them for the military in Wichita, Kan.

EADS, then part of a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp., won the tanker contract in 2008. But the deal unraveled after federal auditors, acting on a protest filed by Boeing, found problems with the way the Air Force conducted its review.

That led to a new competition beginning in July, when Boeing and EADS submitted new bids on the contract.

Thompson said Boeing executives concluded last week - after getting a look at the Air Force's technical analysis of the two competing planes - that they were beaten.

The Air Force sent the confidential analysis, known as an Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment, to each of the companies in mid-November. But it mistakenly included a disk containing the Boeing analysis in the package shipped to EADS, and vice versa.

Both companies acknowledged that they received the errant disks and said they notified the Air Force as soon as they became aware of the mistake.

The Air Force called the mix-up a "clerical error" and said it took steps to ensure that neither side was put at a disadvantage. One of those steps, according to the Air Force, was to release the Boeing analysis to EADS and the EADS analysis to Boeing.

"We gave both competitors equal access to the information," Air Force spokesman Col. Les Kodlick said. "We view that as leveling the playing field."

Thompson, who has advocated for Boeing in the tanker contest, said Friday that he spoke to Boeing officials close to the competition. He said that, after reviewing the data, they concluded that EADS held a substantial edge in the Air Force's assessment.

"Basically they saw how they stacked up in the warfighting effectiveness analysis, and they did not stack up well," Thompson said. "The Air Force continues to favor the larger plane" offered by EADS.

The IFARA analysis is based on a complex computer modeling program that measures the effectiveness of each plane in a series of battlefield scenarios. The score could weigh heavily in a tight competition between two aircraft that offer different features.

Boeing has promoted its smaller KC-767 as "optimum sized" for the Air Force's needs, able to land on more runways and bring fuel closer to the front lines of combat.

EADS has touted the greater capability of its KC-30, a bigger plane that can carry larger amounts of cargo and passengers in addition to fuel.

Thompson said Boeing had some objections to the way the Air Force structured the analysis, but that the company's greater concern was a "pattern of bias" that appeared to skew the competition in favor of EADS.

A chief complaint, he said, was the Air Force's decision to exclude as a factor in the competition a recent ruling by the World Trade Organization that Airbus received illegal subsidies from European governments.

But Thompson said Boeing may have a difficult time proving - for a second time - that the tanker competition was flawed.

"In the first round, the errors were so fundamental and obvious," he said. "The pattern is much more subtle this time."

The Air Force dismissed Thompson's accusation of bias.

"We are continuing to work hard to ensure a fair and open competition for the tanker contract, and absolutely take issue with any suggestion to the contrary," Kodlick said.

Chunder

07-12-10, 05:08 AM

What a flip flopper...

Deks

07-12-10, 02:10 PM

I guess it's not over til it's over :) EADS did say the first time around that they managed to sell the USAF on the larger aircraft, so it doesn't surprise me that they'd want to lean that way.

Trackmaster

07-12-10, 10:55 PM

A question or two
What data did Boeing review to lead them to this conclusion?
Is it co-incidental this story appears after the USAF mistake with sending material to Boeing and EADS?

buglerbilly

08-12-10, 03:28 AM

Short answer, BOTH Boeing and EADS were sent the performance data for each other based on USAF scenarios and the results they attained.

Two EADS people opened the data but they immediately realised their mistake and called in the USAF Rep to say so and get it removed.........they followed the correct procedure for securing the info for the USAF.

BOEING didn't open their data package as they realised before opening that it belonged to EADS. They secured the data per the above and notified the USAF Rep.

The USAF subsequently, and quite quickly, decided that BOTH parties should see each others data to remove any future complaint by either Party................this is performance data in various USAF postulated combat and peace scenarios, this is NOT financial data...........

buglerbilly

09-12-10, 11:28 AM

EADS North America to build KC-45 tanker production facility in Alabama

December 09, 2010

EADS North America today announced that it is soliciting bids through its recently selected program management firm for design and construction of the Mobile Conversion Center where KC-45 aerial refueling tanker aircraft will be militarized for the United States Air Force. Preparation for construction of the facility began in November with the selection of Hoar Program Management to oversee the project.

The selection of a program manager and initiation of work on the Mobile Conversion Center reflects EADS North America's commitment to produce the KC-45 in the US and put Americans on the job as soon as possible.

The conversion center is one part of a large aircraft production facility that EADS North America will construct in Mobile, Alabama, to build the KC-45 in the United States if the Air Force selects it as its new aerial refueler. The KC-45 will create or support 48,000 American jobs across the country, and create more than 1,500 direct positions in Mobile. Construction of the production facilities also will create thousands of related jobs in the Gulf Coast area.

EADS North America has also committed to build commercial A330 freighter aircraft at the same site, resulting in the capability to produce more than twice as many aircraft annually in the US than required to support the US tanker program.

EADS North America already has begun work related to the KC-45 in Alabama. Earlier this year, the company began its transfer of the KC-45 program management team -nearly 200 employees - to new offices in Mobile.

"The Air Force has had to wait far too long for a new tanker, and the 48,000 Americans who will build the KC-45 have had to wait far too long for the jobs," said Ralph D. Crosby Jr., EADS North America Chairman. "If our tanker is selected by the Air Force, we are well positioned to hit the ground running on day one."

"All of us at Hoar were thrilled and humbled to be selected for a project that is so vitally needed by our nation and our state," said Mike Lanier, Principal with Hoar Program Management. "This selection was a testimony to all of the great work our people do for our clients each and every day, and we are eager to begin work at once."

Hoar Program Management will begin Advertisements for Qualifications effective December 12, 2010 and will begin issuance of Request for Qualification packages effective December 13, 2010. All interested parties, represented by one primary point of contact, may submit their information electronically via the web at http://www.hoarpm.com.

The KC-45 is the US configuration of the Airbus Military A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport, which is in production for four US allies who selected it over Boeing tankers in four straight competitions. The KC-45 is the only tanker offered to the US Air Force that is flying and refueling today, with more than 1,300 aerial refueling contacts and 1.2 million pounds of fuel transferred.

Source: EADS North America

buglerbilly

09-12-10, 01:11 PM

DATE:09/12/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Brazil to seek deal for A330 tankers

After issuing a request for proposals in September, the Brazilian air force's KC-X tanker/transport procurement has taken an unexpected turn. Despite having initially forecast the participation of at least three bidders, sources in Brasilia indicate that Airbus Military's A330 multi-role tanker/transport might be selected before the end of the year.

Launched earlier in the decade to replace the air force's four Boeing KC-137 (707) tanker/transports, the use of which has been hampered by low availability rates over the last few years, the KC-X programme was fast-tracked early this year.

© Airbus Military

Problems with the service's sole long-range air transport assets were highlighted by its provision of only a small number of relief flights following the earthquake in Haiti early this year. Its KC-137s were then unable to take part in the 23-day Cruzex V exercise that was conducted during November.

However, it was the type's role as a long-range presidential transport that spurred the government to seek a quick replacement. Brazil purchased one Airbus A319CJ in 2005, but this is unable to satisfy seating and range requirements for longer presidential trips.

With an immediate requirement for two tanker/transports and an option for a third, Brazil's KC-X programme calls for one aircraft to be reconfigurable for presidential transport duties.

The air force originally expected Airbus to tender a proposal based on its A330-200-based MRTT design, with Boeing and Israel Aerospace Industries - the latter teamed with Brazil's VEM - to submit offers based on modified 767s. However, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has indicated that a selection will be finalised later this month.

Chunder

12-12-10, 03:19 AM

Eager to see the new delivery arrive soon. If anyone is going down to see one, I wouldn't mind some more detailed pictures of the Refuelling boom. I have a model that needs building. Should look good parked next to some C-17's & Rhino's. A lot of shiny new kit.

buglerbilly

15-12-10, 12:07 PM

DATE:15/12/10

SOURCE:Flight International

G550 could support refuelling training, says Bedek

By Arie Egozi

Israel Aerospace Industries is again evaluating the Gulfstream G550 as an inflight refuelling asset, but this time as a "complementary platform", or one that will serve during the training of pilots.

The fresh assessment is being made after the company's Bedek unit reached the conclusion that the type is not attractive as a dedicated main tanker. "We are evaluating the G550 or aircraft in the same size category for the missions we identified as needed," says a company source.

Bedek is instead focusing its air-to-air refuelling marketing strategy on the Boeing 767. The unit last month delivered to the Colombian air force its first secondhand example to have been adapted as a tanker/transport. IAI purchased the used 767-200ER and converted it with a hose and drogue refuelling system.

IAI has already adapted G550s for use as airborne early warning and signals intelligence-gathering assets for the Israeli air force. Singapore has also acquired the AEW-roled version for its air force.

buglerbilly

16-12-10, 11:04 AM

DATE:16/12/10

SOURCE:Flightglobal.com

UK's A330 tanker makes first dry contacts

By Craig Hoyle

The UK’s first Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) has made its first dry contacts with a fighter, marking the end of a strong year for the modified Airbus A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT).

Flown from Airbus Military’s Getafe site near Madrid on 13 December, the Rolls-Royce Trent 772B-powered A330 made a series of contacts with a Spanish air force Boeing EF-18 Hornet using its Cobham 805E fuselage refuelling unit (FRU).

Airbus Military says the 2h 20min sortie and a subsequent second flight included work conducted “throughout the refuelling flight envelope”, at altitudes from 8,000-35,000ft (2,440-10,700m) and at a speed range of 180-325kt (333-600km/h).

© Airbus Military

“This is the first time that the FRU has been used, and means that all of the A330 MRTT’s refuelling systems have now completed contacts,” says Airbus Military. The type’s Cobham 905E hose and drogue refuelling pods – also installed on the UK Royal Air Force’s FSTA variant – have already been tested for launch A330 tanker operator Australia.

Flight testing for the UK is expected to progress to completing to transferring the first fuel via the FRU “in the coming days”, says Airbus Military.

The UK’s AirTanker Services-managed FSTA programme received a significant boost in late October, when its Strategic Defence and Security Review confirmed plans to field the entire fleet of 14 aircraft, and to retire the RAF’s remaining Lockheed TriStars and Vickers VC10s by 2013.

buglerbilly

22-12-10, 03:52 AM

Airbus Military A330 MRTT ends 2010 on a high note

December 21, 2010

The Airbus Military A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport is poised to be delivered to three different customers in 2011, following a flurry of activities which ended 2010, and with its position cemented as the only tanker offered in the US Air Force´s KC-X tanker competition that is real, certified, flying and refuelling today.

In a major exercise with the Portuguese Air Force on three days in November, 25 F-16A/B pilots underwent air-to-air refuelling training, conducting more than 70 dry and wet contacts in different weapons configurations, and expressing their satisfaction with the refuelling systems including the proven Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS).

The operation came soon after the A330 MRTT´s first real-life refuelling mission involving two PoAF F-16s which were airborne when their home base of Monte Real was suddenly closed because of an emergency. The fighters, call-signs Tiger 71 and Tiger 72, had been conducting trials with the A330 MRTT and were accepted back to receive more fuel, enabling them to stay airborne until the end of the emergency and avoid having to divert to another airfield.

On 13th December the A330 MRTT Future Strategic Transport Aircraft (FSTA) for the UK´s Royal Air Force successfully completed a series of dry contacts for the first time, performing simulated refuelling with a F-18 fighter using the FSTA´s Fuselage Refuelling Unit. The Fuselage Refuelling Unit is the same that is offered on the EADS North America KC-45, the configuration of the A330 MRTT that is being offered to the US Air Force.

This latest activity follows the commencement of FSTA certification and qualification flight-testing on 24th November at the start of a process that will lead to eventual certification of the aircraft by Spanish military certification authority INTA. First delivery is due in late 2011.

The aerodynamic modifications made to the basic A330-200 design in service with airlines around the world have also been demonstrated to comply with the most recent noise requirements.

The delivery process of the first aircraft to the Royal Australian Air Force is on-going. Final hand-over will take place once the lengthy review of all related documentation and activities are complete.

The second aircraft for the Royal Saudi Air Force recently entered the conversion process in Madrid and the first is progressing smoothly towards delivery in 2011.

The first aircraft for the United Arab Emirates has completed its structural conversion and is now undergoing systems installation in preparation for delivery in 2012.

Head of Airbus Military Derivatives Antonio Caramazana said: "2010 has been an outstanding year for the A330 MRTT which has clearly demonstrated the robustness and maturity of the conversion process as well as the performance of the aircraft exactly as promised. We look forward with great excitement to delivering aircraft to our customers and see them beginning operations next year.

Source: Airbus Military

buglerbilly

23-12-10, 09:13 AM

US House passes measure on air tanker fight

Dec 23, 2010 12:13 AM GMT+0800 By The Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The U.S. House has passed a measure that would require the Pentagon to factor in all government subsidies in the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker competition.

The measure passed on a 325-23 vote Tuesday. It was introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee and Rick Larsen of Washington after the Senate didn't act on a similar measure passed earlier this year. It is uncertain whether the Senate will act on the House bill. - No its not, its pretty certain the Senate will not pass the act, same as last time..................

Boeing Co. is competing with European aerospace company EADS to build the tanker.

The Pentagon is expected to award a $35 billion contract soon for 179 planes. Replacing the fleet of aging tankers eventually could be worth up to $100 billion.

Many in Washington state's congressional delegation want the Pentagon to consider that Airbus has received subsidies that the World Trade Organization calls improper.

Copyright © 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Trackmaster

24-12-10, 01:42 AM

And the American public voted these people into office!!!
The USA is a signatory to the World Trade Organisation rules. The matter is not finalised and is subject to appeal. It is illegal, under international law, to consider this in awarding the contract.
If it were to be considered and Boeing won the contract (considered unlikely by many), Airbus Military would immediately appeal and the merry-go-round would continue for another couple of years.
Some people need to get a grip. I thought their interest lay with "the warfighters".

buglerbilly

03-01-11, 09:28 AM

US diplomats pushed Boeing deals: cables

January 3, 2011 - 5:14PM

Soooo is this going to be taken into account during the Evaluation? Yeah right............:shakehead

US diplomats have on several occasions intervened to convince foreign governments to buy aircraft from Boeing rather than its European rival Airbus, newly released diplomatic cables show.

The cables, obtained by the New York Times from the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, document several incidents in which diplomats were involved in haggling over the billion-dollar deals seen as key to US economic growth.

One cable describes Saudi King Abdullah responding favorably to a personal request from then-president George W. Bush in 2006 that he buy as many as 43 Boeing jets for Saudi Arabian Airlines and another 13 for the royal fleet.

But the king "wanted to have all the technology that his friend, President Bush, had on Air Force One," the cable said.

Once the king's own plane was outfitted with the world's most advanced telecommunications and defense equipment, "'God willing,' he will make a decision that will 'please you very much,'" the cable said.

In November, state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines said it had signed a contract for 12 new Boeing 777-300ER jets worth some 3.3 billion US dollars.

The State Department confirmed to the Times that it had authorized an "upgrade" to the king's plane but declined to provide further details on security grounds.

In another incident, Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina demanded landing rights for its national carrier at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport as a condition for a Boeing deal.

"If there is no New York route, what is the point of buying Boeing," she was quoted as saying in a November 2009 cable.

The deal went through, but so far Biman Bangladesh Airlines has not been given the landing rights, the Times said.

The Times said such practices have continued despite decades-old agreements between US and European leaders to keep politics out of airline deals.

But State Department officials interviewed by the newspaper defended their involvement, saying such high-value exports were crucial to US President Barack Obama's efforts to pull the country out of its economic slump.

"That is the reality of the 21st century; governments are playing a greater role in supporting their companies, and we need to do the same thing," Robert Hormats, under secretary of state for economic affairs, told the Times.

Airbus may receive similar aid: other US cables cited by the Times describe the Bush administration and French President Nicolas Sarkozy's government scrambling to win a jet deal from oil-rich Bahrain in 2007.

In the end, US diplomats convinced Bahrain to buy from Boeing after linking the signing of the deal to an upcoming visit by Bush in January 2008, the first-ever by a sitting US president, the Times said.

Washington has been infuriated by WikiLeaks and launched its own criminal investigation into the disclosure of the documents.

WikiLeaks has argued that its release of documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the inner workings of US diplomacy exposes US military abuses on the battlefield and "contradictions between the US's public persona and what it says behind closed doors."

On Sunday, Republican Representative Darrell Issa blamed US Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to bring criminal charges against Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Issa, who takes over as the chairman of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform committee, said that "the world is laughing at this paper tiger we've become."

He said legislation would be swiftly taken up by his committee, "so the diplomats can do their job with confidence and people can talk to our government with confidence."

Assange is on bail in Britain fighting a bid by Sweden to extradite him over allegations of sexual assault made by two women. His strict bail conditions include reporting to police daily and wearing an electronic tag.

© 2011 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

buglerbilly

13-01-11, 01:36 AM

VIDEO: Boeing's Albaugh on KC-X contract award timing

By Stephen Trimble on January 12, 2011 10:44 PM

Hopes of a KC-X contract award in February -- raised only yesterday by EADS North America chief executive Sean O'Keefe -- were quickly dampened. Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley invoked an inscrutable phrase to describe the current timing of the KC-135 replacement. After remarks at an Air Force Association breakfast, Donley told reporters the KC-X source selection process is "moving toward completion", but offered no date or timeframe at all. A few hours later, Boeing Commercial Airplanes president Jim Albaugh told reporters: "I'm not holding my breath." When told that O'Keefe had predicted a contract signing in February, Albaugh replied: "Whatever decision is made is one that is going to undergo a lot of scrutiny, and if I were to hazard a guess on a date I would say later rather than sooner."

buglerbilly

13-01-11, 10:46 AM

DATE:13/01/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF backs off timing estimate for KC-X contract award

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has backed off committing to any schedule for awarding the controversial KC-X tanker contract despite entering what was expected to be the final weeks of a protracted evaluation process.

"Source selection is moving toward completion, and that's all we have [to say] with regard to timing," Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said on 12 January.

The two competitors vying for the contract, however, took different stands. On 11 January, EADS North America chief executive officer Sean O'Keefe told reporters in Paris that he expects contract award in February. Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Commercial Aircraft, is not so confident: "I'm not holding my breath."

Albaugh explained there is an intense focus on the competition to build 179 tankers, with the Boeing KC-767 NewGen Tanker competing against the Airbus A330-based EADS KC-45.

"Whatever decision is made is one that is going to undergo a lot of scrutiny," Albaugh said, "and if I were to hazard a guess on a date I would say later rather than sooner."

The USAF has already extended the evaluation three times, back-tracking since early 2010 from scheduling contract award in November, to late 2010, to "early 2011". Now, the USAF refuses to provide any date or timeframe for the decision at all.

A mistake revealed by USAF acquisition officials on 19 November served to roil the debate over the evaluation process. Two service officials, who have since been fired, accidentally shipped evaluation data to the wrong bidders. A page containing Boeing's data was glimpsed by by EADS staff before the mistake was discovered.

That error raised questions about the credibility of the USAF's acquisition process, which has already seen one contract for new tankers overturned by the Government Accountability Office in 2008 and another deal caught up in a conflict of interest scandal four years earlier.

Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee has called a hearing on 1 February to question USAF officials about the document mistake revealed in November.

It is not clear how the timing of the Senate hearing will affect the USAF's decision, but service officials may have "difficulty" responding to the senators' questions while privately evaluating the competitors' bids, Donley says.

buglerbilly

20-01-11, 11:54 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Questions About the Airbus KC-30A Tanker Incident

Posted by Robert Wall at 1/20/2011 1:52 PM CST

The wording & tone in here is pathetic Mr Wall. Nobody is trying to keep anything secret. Neither you nor I know what happened during this incident. There is an official report that has to be produced by the relevant Authorities with Airbus providing the answers; the RAAF will be there in an over-watch role so will be fully aware of what has transpired and what may need to be done as a result IF anything.................

Today's news that an Airbus Military A330-tanker in development for the Royal Australian Air Force suffered damage during a refueling exercise has raised a number of questions about what the effects may be on the RAAF's KC-30A program and the company's tanker effort more broadly.

The KC-30A was refueling a Portuguese F-16 when the refueling boom detached. The incident is now under investigation.

One of the biggest immediate concerns is that the boom, once it separate from the A330, feel into the Atlantic Ocean. That will complicate efforts to determine what exactly prompted the unusual incident. In particular, the critical question of whether there was some sort of unusual material failure at fault, or whether there is a design problem.

(credit: EADS)

The boom, early on, was considered a weakness of the EADS effort on the U.S. Air Force KC-X tanker program, but since then the company has spent considerable time and resources to develop and test the system (including in the rig shown above). In fact, company officials started to believe the boom had become an asset, not a handicap.

(credit: Airbus Military)

Now some of that data may need to be reviewed more closely.

So far, there's no clear indication what the impact might be on the first tanker delivery to the RAAF. The program is already about two years late. The latest delay, missing the end-of-2010 handover target, is being attributed to the pace of completing paperwork between the customer and supplier; Airbus Military officials have said the technical work is done. What is more, Airbus CEO Tom Enders said this week the first delivery was imminent.

Still, it is hard to believe the RAAF will accept delivery of the aircraft until there is greater certainty over what transpired. It is easy to imagine that means another delay.

Perhaps the biggest question is, what will it mean for KC-X...

Trackmaster

21-01-11, 01:20 AM

Fair coverage of the story, I would have thought.
No secrecy involved.
This is a major story, attracting legitimate interest in many media outlets. Of course, the usual nutters are out on the American sites, but most of them suffer from "not invented here" syndrome.
It may well be that the driver of the F-16 has questions to answer and that the test program has just found a safety point that will go into the operating manual.
It is not the first boom to be lost but it is certainly unfortunate timing, all things considered.

buglerbilly

21-01-11, 03:57 PM

Tanker Wars: Contract Award to Airbus Coincides with Damning WTO Findings

16:16 GMT, January 20, 2011

Mr Boeing speaks................

The U.S. Air Force is likely to announce the winner of its tanker competition in March -- the same timeframe in which the World Trade Organization (WTO) will release two different reports casting Airbus business practices in a negative light. The first WTO report, which has already been completed, will find that competitor Boeing received prohibited trade subsidies totaling a modest $3 billion over the last several decades. That amount averages less than the value of a single widebody jet per year over the period covered. The second report will largely reject a European appeal of the WTO's earlier finding that Airbus received about $20 billion in illegal subsidies during the same period. The disparity in findings with regard to the two tanker rivals by the world's preeminent trade body will undoubtedly play into the controversy surrounding award of the tanker contract to Airbus.

Airbus is going to win largely on the basis of aggressive pricing -- the same way it bests Boeing in commercial competitions. The WTO has found that the European company's ability to under-price Boeing is directly traceable to a pattern of illegal trade subsidies from four European countries. In the case of the A330 transport that Airbus parent EADS is bidding in the tanker competition, the company received $5.7 billion in improper trade subsidies, without which the plane probably could not have been developed at all. The WTO found in its final report on the matter last year that the European subsidies not only enabled Airbus to develop airliners faster than a purely commercial company like Boeing could have, but to price them lower to grab market share. European nations appealed that ruling, but the WTO will uphold its core findings when it rules on the appeal in February or March.

The final report on Boeing's subsidies, although done, will remain confidential until it is translated into several languages -- a process that will result in it becoming available to the public sometime in February. But you don't have to see the precise language to predict the political fallout the two WTO reports will have. The U.S. Air Force will be awarding a $40 billion program to the Europeans because of attractive pricing at the same time the World Trade Organization is highlighting the illegal methods Airbus has used to under-price its rival. When the Air Force is asked how the winning team was able to price its planes competitively with the Boeing offering even though they weigh 28 percent more and have 40 feet more wingspan, the service will have no answer. It decided not to even read the earlier WTO reports, much less adjust the price to eliminate the advantage conferred by improper payments.

It didn't help Boeing's cause in the tanker competition that the Air Force rated the planes using a warfighting model in which Airbus tankers were allowed to land at bases from which Boeing's planes were excluded. It also didn't help that the Air Force discounted the high operational costs of using the bigger Airbus plane -- which burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour than the Boeing plane, even though both planes are much bigger than the Eisenhower-era tankers being replaced. But the core of the controversy arising in the aftermath of the tanker award will be that the winner has been rewarded for a multi-decade pattern of illegal trade practices, which enabled it to bid a lower price than the company that largely avoided such practices. The centerpiece of the European strategy in the tanker competition from Day One has always been to offer a concessionary price that Boeing could not match. Now it has found an ally in the U.S. Air Force to help destroy more American jobs.

----
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Early Warning Blog, Lexington Institute

buglerbilly

23-01-11, 04:50 AM

U.S. Senate Hearing on Air Force Tankers Set for January 27

By Anthony Capaccio - Jan 22, 2011 5:19 AM GMT+0800

The Senate Armed Services Committee will convene a hearing Jan. 27 to examine the inadvertent release of data from the bids of Boeing Co. and European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. on the U.S. Air Force’s new aerial tanker.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman, promised the hearing based on concerns from Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, a Democrat like Levin, that the release may have tainted the competition.

The Air Force disclosed last Nov. 19 that it mistakenly provided Chicago-based Boeing and EADS with “a limited amount” of data on each other’s offer. The bids are now under government review. The mistake was termed a “clerical error” by the Air Force.

The Pentagon agreed with the Air Force’s initial assessment that the sharing of some of the rivals’ information won’t affect the selection of a winner for the new refueling aircraft, Colonel David Lapan, a spokesman, said Nov. 22 in an interview.

“The department does believe that it was a ‘clerical’ error,” Lapan said. “We are certainly concerned with it, and the Air Force is looking into it, but we don’t believe there will be a significant impact.”

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn and Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, have been briefed on the mistake, Lapan said.

The winner of the tanker competition may be announced this month to replace 179 of a fleet of more than 500 KC-135 refueling aircraft, which the company developed in the 1950s along with the Boeing 707 passenger airliner. The military depends on the tankers to extend the range of combat and transport planes.

To contact the reporter on this story: Anthony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net .

buglerbilly

26-01-11, 12:30 PM

Whilst KC-X limps along, Israel has to go the 707 route again.............

DATE:26/01/11

SOURCE:Flight International

IAI gets contract for last 707 tanker conversion

By Arie Egozi

The Israeli air force has bought another Boeing 707 for Israel Aerospace Industries to convert into an in-flight refuelling aircraft. Local sources say the deal will probably be the last signed to adapt a 707 for the mission.

Israel's air force has had to convert several more 707s in recent years because of the US Air Force's troubled selection process for a new KC-X fleet of tankers.

Upgrades have also expanded the capability of the Israeli air force's 707 "Reem" fleet, which is used primarily for tanker duties. Modifications have included installing a new Honeywell cockpit avionics suite with six multifunction displays, plus new communications equipment and a global air traffic management system.

An Israeli-made boom has been replaced with the same system used on the USAF's Boeing KC-135s.

Tel Aviv is awaiting the outcome of the KC-X contest between Boeing's 767 NewGen Tanker and an Airbus A330-based KC-45 aircraft offered by EADS North America before deciding on acquiring new tanker/transports.

Chunder

26-01-11, 04:31 PM

What a load of shit. IAI are perfectly capable of podding out commercial aircraft, and they certainly are not reliant on the U.S to make a decision, so they can. Arie Eegozi - what a retard.

Chunder

27-01-11, 12:22 AM

I'm Going to add, that the Bush Administration denied a FMS request for 767 Tankers to Israel sometime around 2006... just to underscore the above.

buglerbilly

27-01-11, 01:40 AM

Airbus: FSTA Tests Succeed, Boom Tests on Hold

By ANDREW CHUTER

Published: 26 Jan 2011 17:10

LONDON - Airbus Military said it successfully tested the final hose-and-drogue system destined for Britain's Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) program by refueling two Spanish Air Force F/A-18 fighter jets while in flight on Jan. 21.

A company spokeswoman also confirmed that Airbus has, for the time being, ceased test flying using its new flight refueling system. Part of the equipment broke off during contact with a Portuguese Air Force F-16 during Jan. 19 tests on an aerial refueling plane built for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

On Jan. 21, the Cobham-designed fuselage-hose-and-drogue refueling unit was tested in a series of "wet contacts" with the F/A-18s during a three-plus-hour sortie by the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft, Airbus said.

Situated on the fuselage, the system is similar to the Cobham units fitted under the wings of the British-bound refueling plane, but with a higher rate of fuel transfer. The wing systems have already been tested.

Airbus parent EADS is leading a consortium to supply 14 A330 tanker planes for use by the U.K. Royal Air Force as part of a private finance initiative.

The first aircraft is to be handed over at year's end.

Meanwhile, investigations continue into the loss of part of the new Airbus-designed aerial refueling boom system during testing on the A330 destined for the RAAF..........EDITED...............

Read more: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5547855&c=EUR&s=AIR

buglerbilly

27-01-11, 01:47 AM

DATE:26/01/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Airbus Military details 'limited damage' to A330 tanker after boom mishap

By Craig Hoyle

The Airbus Military-operated A330 multirole tanker transport (MRTT) that was involved in an in-flight refuelling training incident on 19 January suffered only "some limited damage", the company says.

Scheduled for delivery as part of a Royal Australian Air Force order for five MRTTs, the aircraft was supporting a Portuguese air force Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter when part of its boom was broken off.

"The boom detached at the root of the structural mast," says Airbus Military, responding to questions from Flightglobal. "There is no damage to the boom attachment, nor is there any significant damage to the [aircraft's] fuselage," it adds.

However, the company is assessing the likely duration of limited repairs required, which it says are "in the non-pressurised area of the tail cone and auxiliary power unit area (structure)".

© Airbus Military
The A330 tanker lost its boom (file image shown) at the root of the structural mast

The company test crew piloting the A330 flew the aircraft for a further 1h 40min after the incident before landing at its Getafe site near Madrid. They reported "no impact or consequences on the overall systems behaviour of the aircraft", it notes.

The F-16 also sustained minor damage as a result of the mishap, but landed safely at Monte Real air base. The broken boom section fell into the sea following the contact.

Meanwhile, the UK's first A330-200-based Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft has cleared a significant milestone, having passed fuel for the first time via its centreline Cobham 805E fuselage refuelling unit. Airbus Military performed the test from Getafe on 21 January with the support of two Spanish air force Boeing EF-18 fighters.

"Contacts were successfully performed with both fighters at an altitude of around 15,000ft [4,570m] and at speeds from 250kt [462km/h] to 325kt," says Airbus Military.

buglerbilly

28-01-11, 01:51 AM

Pentagon Defers Senate KC-X Questions

Jan 27, 2011

By Michael Bruno michael_bruno@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON

The U.S. Air Force will respond to a lawmaker’s inquiry on whether the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (Ifara) can be eliminated from the armed service’s KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition, as well as comment on how important Ifara is to the award, an Air Force representative told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) this morning.

Moroever, the Air Force will respond to a question about what options were considered to “level the playing field” after a data-release mishap last year, defense officials said during a wide-ranging and mostly theatrical hearing on the mishap. The 2.5-hour hearing, which quickly became more contentious among senators than between the panel and the witnesses, follows the Nov. 1, 2010, mishap and comes just weeks before the long-expected award announcement (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 17).

Responses to these questions may become the most relevant outcome from the hearing and the mishap as Ifara, a model used to gauge how each aircraft will handle various operational scenarios, is important to the competition. The assessment is one of three areas that will potentially impact the final price that the bidders can offer the Air Force.

As reported by Aviation Week since the now-defunct 2008 attempt to award the KC-X program to a team of Northrop Grumman and EADS, Ifara was added to the KC-X competition after pressure from the Northrop-EADS team. It is viewed by Boeing proponents as favoring the larger EADS aircraft proposal.

The witnesses were Maj. Gen. Wendy Masiello, program executive officer for combat and mission support in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, and Steven Shirley, executive director of the Defense Department’s Cyber Crime Center. Neither official is involved in the KC-X competition, nor were they able to provide much comment on Air Force and Pentagon thinking over the mishap.

In turn, most senators used the opportunity to try to advocate for Boeing or EADS positions in the competition, depending on the potential benefits to their states from either bidder winning the award. Along the way, some legislators sought actual details on the mishap as well.

For instance, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the second-ranking Republican on the Democratic-controlled SASC, inquired about the role and importance of Ifara. The witnesses took the question for the record, meaning the Air Force and Pentagon officials are expected to provide answers later. “I believe we should know,” Inhofe said.

In the mishap, Air Force officials mistakenly sent files containing interim Ifara data to the wrong industry teams.

However, in an effort to level the playing field, the Air Force then released to both contractors the coversheets outlining each bidder’s performance in the Ifara model — meaning both sides now officially have the same information on the other.

Positive, efficient performance in Ifara can work in a bidder’s favor, and a design Ifara deems ineffective can have the opposite result. The data were not a definitive score. But some industry officials contend that the mix-up gave the competitors at the very least an unplanned glimpse at their rival’s design.

According to Masiello and Shirley, whose lab provided highly regarded computer forensics analysis, defense officials have a high degree of confidence in understanding what happened right after each industry team received the data intended for their competitor. Some information stems from the companies themselves, but officials have no reason to doubt their veracity.

According to the hearing testimony and statements provided by the companies, a Boeing executive recognized that the one wrong computer file was not intended for Boeing and did not view it.

“At no point did the Boeing analysts open any files on the second (“K30B”) disk, nor did they make any copies or printouts of the second disk data,” Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, told the SASC. “Our analysts did not forward the files or in any other way provide further access to the data to any other person.”

By comparison, an EADS executive glimpsed the file and quickly reported to another person under a protocol for handling inappropriate exposure to such data. The executive purportedly looked at the one-page file for 15 seconds. The file was open on the computer for about three minutes, and the computer itself stayed on for about 20 minutes during this sequence of events.

“At this point, we believe the incident was properly handled by our personnel as to mitigate the situation,” said an EADS email to USAF Contracting Officer B. Gehrs, which was included in a detailed EADS chronology sent to the SASC.

Some senators lobbed questions at the defense witnesses about the truthfulness of the EADS assertions. Shirley expressed confidence in the computer forensics. Masiello — and some senators friendly to EADS — noted that the interim Ifara data has since then been formally provided to both teams, which can still update the final bids they have submitted to the Air Force.

Senators also sparred over whether the hearing was appropriate now, considering that the KC-X award has not been made and the hearing could be seen to influence the outcome. SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) defended calling the hearing while ranking Republican Sen. John McCain criticized the timing and the official release of related statements from Boeing and EADS.

Photo: Northrop Grumman

buglerbilly

28-01-11, 02:01 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Finally, Boeing Delivers a KC-767 to taly

Posted by Graham Warwick at 1/27/2011 6:09 PM CST

Almost six years late, Boeing has delivered the first of four KC-767A tanker/transports to the Italian air force. The aircraft, serial MM 62229, was handed over at Practica di Mare airbase south of Rome on Jan 27.

'It's all yours, mate." (Photo: Aeronautica Militare)

But it won't go to work just yet. First it will have to undergo in-country tests before entering operational service with 14 Stormo (Wing). Boeing will deliver the second aircraft within a few months, says the air force. The KC-767As are replacing four ageing Boeing 707T/T tanker/transports. Delivery was planned for 2005, but was delayed by flutter problems caused by the underwing hose-and-drogue refueling pods.

Italy's KC-767As are equipped for three-point refueling, with a centerline boom in addition to the pods. The aircraft also can carry a combination of passengers and freight, whereas Japan's KC-767s are equipped with just the boom and can carry either passengers or cargo.

Photo: Boeing

buglerbilly

28-01-11, 02:21 AM

DATE:27/01/11

SOURCE:Flight International

US Senators call for new probe on KC-X evaluation process

By Stephen Trimble

I have nothing polite to say about this..............:stfu

Another investigation may be launched before the US Air Force can award the long-delayed KC-X contract for new tankers.

Seven US senators signed a letter on 27 January calling for the Department of Defense's inspector general to open a review on the "fairness and lawfulness" of the USAF's evaluation process.

The lawmakers' request - led by Boeing supporter Sen Maria Cantwell of Washington - came less than 3hr after a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee adjourned without resolving a key new question about the controversial KC-X competition.

The senators repeatedly asked two witnesses if a mistake by USAF officials that sent proprietary documents to the wrong bidders could give one bidder an unfair advantage.

Neither panelist - DOD cyber crime director Steven Shirley and USAF Maj Gen Wendy Masiello - could answer the question, saying they are not directly involved in the evaluation.

"Today's hearing did not get at the core of the problem," Cantwell said in a statement.

The shipping mistake meant that an EADS North America employee opened a file containing the USAF's interim score on a key aspect of Boeing's proposal. Boeing received the same file from the USAF with EADS' data, but did not open it.

Shirley told the senators that a forensic analysis showed the file remained open on the employee's classified laptop for about 3min. For most of that time, the employee said he left the room to initiate a process to secure the compromised data.

The USAF attempted to "level the playing field" after the mistake by providing both bidders with the same sheet that was opened by EADS. But some senators questioned whether that action would be enough to make the process fair.

"It seems to me it could be an issue whether or not the exchange of the same information advantages one party or the other," said Sen Carl Levin, chairman of the committee. "The intent to level the playing field is clear. The attempt to do that is the right thing to do. But whether it succeeds or not is a different issue."

But other senators who have supported EADS' bid for the contract defended the USAF's process. Sen Roger Wicker, of Mississippi, said neither company should have an advantage due to the mistake.

"It wouldn't matter if the EADS employee had looked at that for 3hr or for 3 days," Wicker said. "Each company now has that one little bit of information from the other company. They've had it, and they could analyze it until the wee hours of the morning. Is that correct?"

"That's correct, sir," Masiello said.

Sen Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, challenged the basis for calling a hearing in the absence of a protest filed by other competitor because of the USAF's mistake. "I'm not quite sure why we're actually here."

But Boeing's supporters in the Senate remained alarmed. Some, including Sen Claire McCaskill of Missouri, used the hearing as a platform to criticize an acquisition process for KC-X that ignores what she calls illegal subsidies provided to Airbus.

"We've got foreign nations that are subsidizing companies and that's not relevant to our competition," McCaskill said. "That just doesn't make sense to me."

The letter that Cantwell sent to the DoD inspector general, however, focuses on the question of whether EADS received an advantage over Boeing.

"It is essential that we have the non-redacted version of the internal Air Force investigation that was conducted after the data breach as well as all relevant documents," Cantwell wrote. "Given the importance of the KC-X competition, we really do need to get down to the bottom of what happened."

buglerbilly

28-01-11, 02:10 PM

EADS North America CEO Provides Statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee

(Source: EADS North America; issued January 27, 2011)

ARLINGTON, VA --- EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe today provided the Senate Armed Services Committee with a written statement outlining the company's response to the U.S. Air Force's disclosure of data in the KC-X competition.

"I appreciate the thoughtful and careful manner in which the Committee has engaged on the issue of data disclosure in the KC-X competition," stated Sean O'Keefe, CEO of EADS North America.

O'Keefe expressed the hope that the Committee would gather the information necessary to gain an "...understanding of what transpired, as well as the care and precision with which EADS North America personnel dealt with a situation that they had no part in creating; and concurrently the professionalism of the U.S. Air Force response to make every effort to preserve the integrity of the procurement for aerial refueling tankers."

EADS North America commissioned an independent investigation conducted by outside counsel into the company's actions following the Air Force's unintended data disclosure. This investigation determined that a single page of summary data derived from competitive information was inadvertently viewed by one employee for no more than 15 seconds. These findings were validated by the Air Force's subsequent forensic investigation and analysis.

In commenting on the independent investigation, O'Keefe told the Committee, "Clearly, it would have been preferable that the data disclosure by the U.S. Air Force had not happened. However, after a full and thorough review of EADS North America's actions, I can tell you with high confidence that our actions following awareness of the disclosure were timely, responsible and appropriate.

"We have voluntarily made our findings and reports available to the Committee, as requested. We did this without making public statements that might exacerbate matters or adversely affect the course of this important procurement.

"Unfortunately, it appears that some are attempting to exploit the U.S. Air Force's inadvertent error by speculating on events which are not in evidence. Most disconcerting is the false assertion that EADS North America held for a month the data incorrectly sent to us. I can assure the Committee that this allegation is simply untrue and is substantively contradicted by the government's investigation and detailed forensic analysis."

The KC-45 is the U.S. configuration of the Airbus Military A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport, which is in production for four U.S. allies who selected it over Boeing tankers in four straight competitions. The KC-45 is the only tanker offered to the U.S. Air Force that is flying and refueling today, with more than 1,500 aerial refueling contacts and 1.5 million pounds of fuel transferred.

EADS North America is the North American operation of EADS, a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. As a leader in all sectors of defense and homeland security, EADS North America and its parent company, EADS, contribute over $11 billion to the U.S. economy annually and support more than 200,000 American jobs through its network of suppliers and services. Operating in 17 states, EADS North America offers a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets.

Click here for the statement to the committee by EADS North America

http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2011/01%20January/O'Keefe%2001-27-11.pdf

Click here for the statement to the committee by Boeing

http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2011/01%20January/Morrison%2001-27-11.pdf

Click here for the archived podcast of the committee hearing on the KC-X.

http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/Webcasts/2011/01%20January/01-27-11%20Webcast.htm

-ends-

buglerbilly

01-02-11, 12:57 AM

So Both Sides Got Subsidies in KC-X, Now What?

The World Trade Organization has apparently issued a final ruling saying that Boeing did indeed recieve unfair — not illegal — subsidies that benefit the development of its aircraft fleet.

According to the New York Times, the WTO ruled, in a confidential report, that Boeing received about $5 billion in subsidies. The WTO focused on about $24 billion in R & D contracts Boeing receives from the military and NASA along with Washington state tax breaks that European governments say gave the Chicago-based company a technological and financial edge.

Last summer, the WTO found that EADS had received billions in unfair subsidies as well, something that was key in allowing EADS to eat up large amounts of Boeing’s market share around the globe, according to the U.S. trade representative.

This comes as the U.S. Senate is once again taking up the so called, “Level-Field” bill, that will require the Pentagon to factor in the impact of the subsidies in its evaluation of Boeing’s KC-767-based and EADS A330 MRTT-based offerings in the $35 billion KC-X contest.

Many who have watched KC-X closely didn’t think the proposed law would have a chance of getting passed before the Air Force choses its new tanker (something that may happen in the coming weeks).

A similar bill was first introduced in late Spring of last year when it appeared the service would award a contract sometime between September and mid-November.

Oh how things have changed. The Air Force has repeatedly delayed the contract award so that it can be as confident as possible that this round of the contest has been run by the book.

Remember, in 2008, Boeing successfully protested the service’s award of KC-X to EADS, claiming that the requirements laid out in the RfP for that contest weren’t clear enough. That came after the whole Darleen Druyun tanker leasing affair.

Hopefully this bill won’t delay the contest any longer. The KC-135 is great, but as we all know, the oldest are 50 years old and desperately need replacement. So both sides received subsidies. Fine, lets just move on with the contest.
..

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1CfFQY6RW
Defense.org

buglerbilly

01-02-11, 01:00 AM

WTO Subsidy Ruling Sets Stage for U.S. Appeal

Jan 31, 2011

By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
LONDON

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has issued, but not released publicly, the final ruling on the European Union’s claim that Boeing has benefited from illegal state aid for its commercial aircraft, upholding at least some of what Brussels had charged.

The ruling, which remains closely held and will not be made public for several weeks, closely follows the preliminary finding issued in September.

The verdict, emanating today from Geneva, is the latest in a series of milestones in the long-running subsidy dispute between the U.S. and European Union, a dispute that kicked off when Washington challenged aid provided by European states to Airbus.

The WTO now effectively has ruled that both Airbus and Boeing have benefited from subsidies that are not compliant with existing international trade rules. The U.S. case against Europe already is in the appeals stage. Industry officials indicate they expect the U.S. to now also appeal this finding.

Both sides have charged that the other will have to take steps to remedy billions of dollars worth of subsidies, although the WTO so far has not issued any figure on the actual harm done.

But U.S. officials stress that around April, the WTO will issue its verdict on the European appeal. If the European’s lose, then that side would have 90 days to come into compliance with the WTO ruling. If Europe does not do so, the U.S. can seek penalties, although establishing their size would require a renewed appeal to the WTO.

Airbus, in a statement issued after the Jan. 31 final report was issued, says that it expects the public version to state that Boeing “would not have been able to launch the 787 without illegal subsidies” and that funding from both the Pentagon and NASA contravene subsidy rules. Airbus also repeated its call for a negotiated resolution to the dispute.

Boeing, in a statement, says that the reports of the ruling “confirm the interim news from last September that the WTO rejected almost all of Europe’s claims against the United States, including the vast majority of its R&D claims - except for some $2.6 billion. This represents a sweeping rejection of the EU’s claims.”

The company also notes the WTO has found more violations against Europe than the U.S., a claim exactly opposite what Airbus officials argue.

European officials also have argued the subsidy case is increasingly without logic at a time when emergent rivals, such as China, are using massive state support to build rivals to the existing large commercial aircraft makers.

buglerbilly

02-02-11, 12:10 AM

Boeing Got $5B in Subsidies, WTO Rules

By Colin Clark Monday, January 31st, 2011 8:15 pm

The World Trade Organization confirmed its interim ruling last September, finding that Boeing received roughly$5 billion in illegal subsidies for some of its civilian aircraft. Airbus, who designed and built the plane that EADS NA hopes to modify for the coming KC-X airborne tanker program. Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, a vigorous Boeing supporter, said the latest ruling proved that the EADS NA offering did benefit from subsidies.

“There is a stark contrast between the WTO’s ruling today and their ruling last year against the EU. Today, reports say the WTO upheld their interim ruling and dismissed over three-quarters of the EU’s allegations, identified most of it as associated with U.S. export tax policies repealed in 2004 and reiterated their finding that Boeing did not receive any existing prohibited subsidies,” she said in a statement. “But last year, the WTO was unambiguous in ruling that Airbus had received an illegal subsidy of billions of dollars for aircraft-specific launch aid, including the airframe Airbus put forward as the basis for its tanker bid, and that that subsidy caused direct harm to the U.S. aerospace industry. This final ruling today confirms what we have been saying all along: It is EADS/Airbus that has benefitted from illegal subsidies relating to the Air Force tanker competition.”

Here is the New York Times’ lead on the story:

“A panel at theWorld Trade Organization ruled on Monday that Boeing had received up to $5 billion in improper subsidies for its 787 Dreamliner and other jets , giving it an unfair advantage against its European rival, Airbus, European officials said.

“The confidential ruling affirmed the W.T.O’s interim ruling in September in response to a longstanding complaint by Europe over United States government support of Boeing, officials briefed on the decision said.”

The paper goes on to quote Nefeterius Akeli McPherson, a spokeswoman for the United States trade representative, who “said officials in Washington remained “confident that the W.T.O. will confirm the U.S. view that European subsidies to Airbus dwarf any subsidies that the United States provided to Boeing.”

So the line appears to be that the European subsidies were bigger than the American subsidies. This does not provide a terribly solid ethical baseline for any future discussions since both sides engaged in illegal subsidies, whomever pumped more in. Please just let the contract be awarded to the company with the best product that can be built with a reasonable mix of risk and capability.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/31/boeing-got-5b-in-subsidies-wto-rules/#ixzz1CkuCDv3m

buglerbilly

02-02-11, 12:44 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

A Tanker Clue

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 2/1/2011 8:09 AM CST

Want to know the outcome of the USAF's tanker decision? There's a big clue over at the Forbes website.

Uberconsultant to defense companies Dr Loren Thompson issues what is little less than a Jeremiad against Airbus, and the European governments who have been its primary bankers throughout much of its development. It is government subsidy on a massive scale, Thompson charges, which will allow Airbus to undercut Boeing's price on the tanker deal with a larger aircraft, and win the contract. And, Thompson predicts, the result will be another furious political battle:

Having declared in his State of the Union speech that waning competitiveness has brought America to a new “Sputnik moment,” the President will be asked to award the biggest military hardware contract ever to a foreign country — mainly because it was able to leverage illegal trade subsidies to underbid its U.S. rival. That should provoke quite a political storm on Capitol Hill, where members have already alleged that predatory business practices by Airbus have cost the U.S. aerospace industry many tens of thousands of jobs.

I don't buy outright Thompson's argument that the claimed $20 billion in subsidies - which is a lot of money, but is spread over 40 years for a company that had $85 billion in sales in 2010 and scored a single order for $15.6 billion a couple of weeks ago - is what allows Airbus to undercut Boeing today.

It would be worth seeing the mechanism by which remaining government support in the form of launch aid would allow Airbus to sign a money-losing tanker contract, or an explanation for why Airbus would want to spend that money locking up the military tanker market, which compared with the core commercial business is like a Cessna 150 alongside an A380.

But that's a little beside the point.

What Thompson, and some on Capitol Hill, are advocating is a retroactive change in the tanker competition rules, to throw out any decision in favor of Airbus. Such a decision would subordinate the Pentagon's judgment to that of Congress, delay the program and increase its costs, and force the USAF to buy its second-choice aircraft. It's hard to consider an action that would be more damaging to European-US defense trade interests.

One final observation: Thompson's clients usually keep him well informed, and he's saying bluntly that "the Air Force is planning to award the $35 billion tanker contract to its European rival". The piece in Forbes reads a lot like what doctrine writers call "shaping the battlespace".

In the fall of 2001, with the Joint Strike Fighter source selection in its final weeks, it was Boeing's advocates who started to call for a teaming arrangement, rather than winner-take-all. It seems like the same message is coming across now.

buglerbilly

02-02-11, 01:10 AM

DATE:01/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

PICTURES: Italy accepts first delayed KC-767A tanker

By Luca Peruzzi

The Italian air force's first of four delayed Boeing KC-767A tankers has finally been delivered to its Pratica di Mare air base near Rome. Italian air force chief of staff Gen Giuseppe Bernardis and Boeing Italy president Rinaldo Petrignani marked the milestone at a 27 January ceremony.

Registered as MM 62229, the aircraft will now enter a series of evaluations and other activities before being placed into operational use, the air force says.

© Italian air force

Formally accepted in the USA on 29 December, the tanker will be followed by a second example in the coming months, after this has cleared acceptance trials that are under way at Boeing's Wichita site in Kansas, US.

Originally slated for delivery from 2005, the new aircraft have been delayed due to technical issues, including a buffet problem that was encountered following the installation of their underwing hose and drogue refuelling pods.

Boeing has already supplied one civilian 767 to support Italy's training activities. The manufacturer says that the parties "have agreed to further enhance present capabilities on the final two KC-767 tankers", and that this "will delay their delivery".

© Italian air force

Based on a modified 767-200ER airframe, the KC-767A also has a centreline hose and an advanced aerial refuelling boom. The aircraft can carry up to 200 passengers or 19 pallets of freight on its main deck, or be outfitted in a "combi" configuration with up to 100 seats and 10 pallets.

© Italian air force

buglerbilly

02-02-11, 01:12 AM

Boeing to revise bid for U.S. military tanker deal

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESS

Published: 1 Feb 2011 16:15

WASHINGTON - Boeing said Tuesday it would submit a new, "final" bid for a $35 billion contract to supply the U.S. military with 179 aerial refueling tankers, as it tries to beat European rival Airbus.

Boeing plans to submit a new bid to the U.S. military .for a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers. An Italian jet is shown above. (BOEING) A Boeing spokesman said the firm and U.S. Air Force officials held talks Monday to discuss the company's proposal and revisions would follow.

"This was our last opportunity to get feedback from the Air Force on our proposal before the end of the tanker competition," Bill Barksdale said in a company blog post.

"Based on this feedback, we're now making final adjustments to our bid, which we will provide February 11 to the Air Force," he said.

The revised final proposal "will represent our best and final offer to the Air Force - one that matches decades of tanker experience and the best state-of-the-art technology with a proven Boeing airframe to best fulfill the Air Force's requirements."

Analysts expect the Air Force to announce its decision in March on the contract to replace 179 tankers from an aging fleet of Boeing KC-135s from the 1950s.

"As the competition comes down to the wire, our tanker team is focused on one thing: providing the Air Force with the most capable tanker at the lowest cost to the taxpayer," Barksdale said.

This will be the third time in a decade the Air Force has tried to secure a contract for the planes.

At first awarded to Boeing in 2003, the Pentagon was forced to cancel the contract by Congress due to irregularities in the process.

In 2008, EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space), the parent of Airbus, and U.S. partner Northrop Grumman won the bid, but the decision was withdrawn after the congressional watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, upheld Boeing's objections.

The lucrative tanker contract has deep political implications, with lawmakers representing states such as Washington, where Boeing makes planes, and Alabama, where EADS would have an assembly plant, vying for jobs.

EADS is competing this time for the military contract without a main partner, but with support from a number of U.S. equipment makers.

buglerbilly

02-02-11, 08:46 AM

Boeing sees bias in tanker-bid formula

By John T. Bennett - 02/01/11 07:34 PM ET

The venality of the Boeing camp quite literally knows no bounds, like watching a bunch of Good Ol' Boys divvying up the spoils....................:jerkit

An Air Force computer formula that will help the service pick a new aerial tanker is under fire on Capitol Hill, and Boeing has for some time voiced concerns about it behind closed doors, according to sources and documents.

Several lawmakers are pushing for a Pentagon investigation of a mix-up in November that sent packets of information about tanker bids being prepared by Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) to one another. Specifically, lawmakers want to know whether the incident gave EADS a leg-up in the 179-plane competition, with some going so far as to suggest the computer model used to help determine the winner be scrapped.

Defense sources say it is no surprise that pro-Boeing lawmakers are targeting the service’s “Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment” (IFARA) model. Boeing has long felt that the Air Force has unfairly altered the criteria used to determine how each plane would perform in real-world situations to keep the larger EADS plane in the competition.

“There is a feeling among Boeing supporters that waivers and preferential treatment granted to EADS have given them artificially higher scores in IFARA,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group.

A set of Boeing briefing slides about the computer model obtained by The Hill bluntly states that it is “biased toward KC-30,” the designation of the proposed EADS plane.

“IFARA would have eliminated [the] KC-30 as a competitor, if not for concessions made to accommodate a larger tanker,” the Boeing briefing states. The “issues biased toward [the] KC-30 tanker unfairly penalize” Boeing’s KC-767 aircraft, it adds.

The Boeing briefing document states that the Air Force altered the criteria to assume the larger EADS plane would use bases not in the original IFARA model because it was too big for those facilities.

“What that has to do with real-world war fighting scenarios is hard to figure out,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.

Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale said the company has “communicated our concerns with the U.S. Air Force” about the IFARA model “and look forward to submitting our final proposal revision.”

Barksdale declined to comment on the company’s stance about a possible Pentagon IG probe of the data mix-up.

The service’s complex computer formula typically factors in several data points about the planes entered into the KC-X competition, including how large bases must be to accommodate the planes, fuel burn, and runway and parking requirements.

Because the data mix-up involved IFARA data, Boeing’s congressional allies have new ammunition in a big-ticket competition insiders say appears to be favoring EADS.

“If either side thought they were losing, they would try to change the terms of the process,” Aboulafia said.

Even though the service is weeks away from announcing a winner, Boeing’s congressional allies aren’t giving up on trying to influence the outcome.

“At a minimum, we know that the IFARA score data was compromised,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and seven other senators said in a Jan. 28 letter to Pentagon Inspector General Gordon Heddell.

The group wants the inspector general (IG) to conduct his own probe of the mix-up and determine “whether the data breach compromises the IFARA adjustment to price, and more broadly, whether the data breach creates an unfair competitive advantage for the bidder that looked at the other bidder’s proprietary data.”

The letter also was signed by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). Boeing would do tanker work in Washington and Kansas, and is headquartered in Chicago.

During a Jan. 27 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the incident, Graham said he opposes the EADS bid because the firm receives billions in illegal subsidies from European governments. During that same hearing, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) floated the idea of throwing out the IFARA model.

EADS and its congressional allies want to move toward a contract award with no further delays.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the Air Force has so far been unable to convince him that the mix-up has not given EADS an advantage.

Scrapping the model, which the service uses to adjust each bidder’s proposed price, likely would help Boeing, analysts say.

“A simpler process could make this more of a cost-per-boom comparison, with fewer bells and whistles,” Aboulafia said. “That would help Boeing, which offers a less costly solution.”

But Boeing’s friends may want to be careful — EADS likely will be able to take advantage of the government assistance it receives and take a loss on the Air Force contract just to prevent Boeing from winning it.

“If the Air Force eliminated the war fighting model from its selection process, then the tanker outcome would be determined almost entirely by pricing,” Thompson said. “Theoretically that could help Boeing, which is offering a smaller, cheaper plane, but [EADS] isn’t bound by the same pricing constraints as Boeing due to its government subsidies.”

buglerbilly

04-02-11, 01:33 AM

EADS Won’t Say If KC-X Bid Changes

By Colin Clark Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 5:52 pm

While Boeing went public with the news that they had met with the Air Force to discuss their KC-X bid and would revise their offering, EADS NA has stayed mum and only went public when we gave them a call.

They also met on Monday with the Air Force. “We received final proposal revisions, which are due to the customer on Friday, Feb. 11 at 8 a.m at Wright Patterson (Air Force Base),” said Guy Hicks, head spokesman. Hicks refused to say whether his company would revise its bid.

We understand that among the details the Air Force disclosed to both companies were the IFARA [Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment] score, the military construction score and the fuel burn score.

Given the culture of the two companies, and the fact that Boeing executives have reportedly revealed their deep unease with their chances of winning the contract, it seems reasonable to assume that EADS did not feel compelled to alter its bid because its scores left them feeling pretty confident.

If you do the calendar, and take into account the fact that several decision-making layers in the Pentagon — and probably one or two in the White House given the keen French, British and German interest in the contract award — must be notified of the results and make certain the decision is sound, it seems reasonable that a contract award would not be made before Feb. 28 and it might not be until March 4.

One footnote: EADS and Boeing will, we bet, use three or four delivery methods to get their final presentations to Wright-Pat. After all, they don’t want to miss the deadline as someone once did.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/02/eads-wont-say-if-kc-x-bid-changes/#ixzz1Cww6qclm

buglerbilly

10-02-11, 11:49 PM

DATE:10/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

EADS, Boeing submit final KC-X price revisions

By Stephen Trimble

Although the timing and even the legality of the KC-X acquisition process remains uncertain, both competitors vying for the roughly $35 billion contract have submitted their last updates to proposals for the US Air Force tanker replacement contract.

The final proposal revisions submitted on 10 February should mark the last major step before contract award, although USAF officials have declined to specify the timing. Boeing and EADS North America executives, however, expect the USAF to make a final down-select in February.

But signing a contract could still prove difficult for two reasons.

First, a critical shipping error committed by the USAF in November sent evaluation assessments to the wrong bidders. That blunder has prompted calls by Boeing's supporters in Congress for an investigation by the inspector general, which may prolong the timing of contract award.

Meanwhile, a political stalemate over the Fiscal 2011 federal budget means the USAF may be prevented from awarding a contract to either company until the appropriations bill is passed.

Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Studies (CSBA), believes the USAF may announce a winning bidder, but signing a contract that launches the development programme may be delayed until the FY2011 budget is approved.

The final proposal revisions allowed both companies perhaps one final opportunity to rattle their competitor.

EADS issued a press statement ridiculing Boeing's proposed KC-767 NewGen Tanker as a "concept", rather than a proven aircraft. By contrast, EADS also claims that the KC-45, which is based on the Airbus A330 multirole tanker transport (MRTT), offers a 15-44% savings on operating costs with greater fuel efficiency.

Boeing's statement, however, described the tanker replacement decision as a matter of national security.

"This decision is critical to America's national security and its manufacturing base," Boeing chairman, president and chief executive Jim McNerney said in a statement. Boeing also described their tanker as the cheaper option that would save "$36 billion in life-cycle costs compared with the competitor's aircraft", according to Boeing's press release.

buglerbilly

11-02-11, 10:55 AM

Boeing submits final NewGen Tanker proposal to US Air Force

February 11, 2011

The Boeing Company today submitted its final proposal for the US Air Force’s KC-X tanker competition.

The proposal offers a fleet of Boeing NewGen Tankers -- 767-based, multi-mission aircraft that deliver superior capabilities to US warfighters and burn 24 percent less fuel than the competing European Aeronautic Defence and Space (EADS) Company’s tanker.

If selected, the Boeing tanker will save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in fuel costs over the next 40 years and support 50,000 American jobs with more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states.

“This decision is critical to America’s national security and its manufacturing base,” said Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney. “Our best-of-Boeing team has offered the most capable and fuel-efficient tanker that will enable the US Air Force to continue serving as the world’s finest air refueling provider without breaking future defense budgets.”

“Our challenge is to replace the KC-135, one of the most valuable aircraft fleets in aviation history, and we responded to the US Air Force’s requirements by proposing the best multi-mission airplane built by the most experienced people -- the NewGen Tanker,” said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security. “We have an integrated team that has spent the entire competition focusing on our customer and preparing to execute immediately after the contract is awarded. Boeing is ready to build America’s next tanker.”

“Our NewGen Tankers will be built using a proven low-risk, in-line manufacturing approach similar to the highly successful 737-based Navy P-8A, by an already trained and highly experienced US work force at existing Boeing facilities that have delivered more than 2,000 tankers and 1,000 commercial 767s,” said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

Boeing has been designing, building, modifying and supporting tankers for decades. These include the KC-135 fleet, the KC-10 fleet, and four KC-767Js delivered to the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

The Italian Air Force formally accepted its first KC-767 tanker in December and will receive three more as part of its current contract. In addition to being ready now, the Boeing NewGen Tanker will continue to deliver capability and value to both warfighters and US taxpayers for decades to come. The NewGen Tanker:

- Saves taxpayers up to $36 billion in life-cycle costs compared with the competitor’s aircraft -- a difference that could pay for an additional fleet of 179 tankers

- Features a flight control design philosophy that places aircrews in command of the entire flight envelope rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability

- Provides Air Force pilots with an advanced digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays

- Includes proven air refueling technology and a modernized NewGen KC-10 boom with an expanded refueling envelope capability, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system -- all from the company that invented the air refueling boom and has produced the world’s most capable and reliable tankers

- Delivers significantly more fuel, cargo, passengers and patients than the current KC-135 tanker in a widebody airplane with a narrowbody footprint that affords the Air Force invaluable flexibility for a variety of operations.

Boeing’s final proposal is the culmination of a process that began when the company started studying tanker requirements after the release of the Air Force’s draft Request for Proposal (RFP) in September 2009, followed by a final RFP in February 2010.

Boeing responded to the final RFP by submitting an 8,000-page proposal on July 9, 2010. A contractor will be selected early this year to replace 179 of the 400 Eisenhower-era KC-135 aircraft currently in the Air Force fleet.

Source: Boeing

buglerbilly

11-02-11, 10:56 AM

EADS North America responds to Air Force request for final proposal revisions in tanker competition

February 11, 2011

EADS North America today will submit its response to the US Air Force's request for final proposal revisions in the KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition.

EADS North America is offering the KC-45, the only tanker in the competition that is flying now and certified. The KC-45 will be built in the United States by 48,000 American workers.

If the Air Force selects the KC-45, EADS North America will build the tanker along with commercial freighter aircraft at a new aircraft production center in Mobile, Alabama, using a supplier base of hundreds of US companies in more than 40 states.

"Our fighting men and women deserve the most modern, capable and proven tanker in the world, and American workers deserve the jobs that the KC-45 will create here at home," said Ralph D. Crosby Jr., EADS North America Chairman. "We're proud to compete on the merits of our tanker offering and support the warfighter's right to choose the aircraft they will go to war in."

Because of its superior capabilities and efficiency, the EADS North America KC-45 will provide the Air Force substantial savings in operating costs compared to the concept aircraft that the Boeing company is offering. In true Air Force operational scenarios, Boeing's concept tanker will cost 15% to 44% more, measured on the basis of cost per gallon of fuel delivered, Crosby said.

Demonstrated cost efficiency is one reason that in four straight competitions, US allies have chosen the A330-based tanker that EADS North America is offering the Air Force over the older Boeing 767 tanker. All of the KC-45's refueling systems have been proven in flight, with more than a thousand aerial refueling contacts and over 1.5 million pounds of fuel transferred to a wide range of receiver aircraft.

The concept aircraft and refueling systems that Boeing is offering to the Air Force have never been built, flown or tested.

"We're offering a real aircraft that has proven what it can do for our men and women in uniform, not asking the Air Force and US taxpayers to take a huge gamble on an airplane that only exists on paper," Crosby said.

Source: EADS North America

buglerbilly

15-02-11, 04:06 AM

Pentagon aims for tanker award next month

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:33pm EST

It'll be interesting to see how this goes once they award, not least cos there still isn't a signed-off budget for this program or for any other if it comes to that..............

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department said on Monday it hopes in the next month or so to award a contract, worth roughly $35 billion, for 179 Air Force tanker aircraft, capping a saga that began almost a decade ago.

Chicago-based Boeing Co is vying for the deal against Europe's EADS, parent of Toulouse, France-based Airbus.

Last February, a senior U.S. military officer, outlining a rematch between the bidders at a Pentagon background briefing, cited a range of $25 billion to $50 billion for the deal's potential value.

"The contract is valued at approximately $35 billion," said a summary of the Defense Department's proposed 2012 budget as President Barack Obama sent his spending plan to Congress.

The department is seeking $900 million for new tankers in fiscal 2012, which starts October 1, and hopes "to make an award within a month or so," Robert Hale, the Pentagon's chief financial officer, told a briefing.

Hale said he did not expect any impact from a stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution, that limits the government generally to previously approved spending levels. The current measure expires March 4.

He cited what he described as a previous budget's funding for the planes and said the Air Force, if the stopgap funding were to be extended, could "reprioritize" to pay for a contract.

The high-stakes deal has fanned transatlantic tensions as well as jockeying among U.S. lawmakers eager to bring jobs to their electorates.

Washington state and Kansas would gain if Boeing wins because the company would build its tankers and make final upgrades to them in those states.

Alabama and surrounding areas would benefit if the contract goes to EADS, which plans to build an assembly plant in Mobile if it gets the deal.

The new aircraft will replace about one-third of the existing U.S. tanker fleet, which is used to extend the reach of U.S. military power by refueling fighters, bombers and other aircraft during flight.

The Air Force has tried since 2001 to begin replacing its Boeing-built KC-135 tankers that now average more than 50 years old.

An initial $23.5 billion plan to lease and then buy 100 modified Boeing 767s as tankers, fell apart in 2004 amid a conflict-of-interest scandal that sent Boeing's chief financial officer and the Air Force's former No. 2 arms buyer to prison.

EADS, partnered with Northrop Grumman Corp, won a 179-plane deal in February 2008, only to have it canceled after government auditors upheld parts of a protest by Boeing.

(Reporting by Jim Wolf; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Gary Hill)

buglerbilly

16-02-11, 11:14 PM

EADS Unlikely to Protest KC-X, Unless

By Colin Clark Wednesday, February 16th, 2011 10:27 am

With the contract award for the $45 billion tanker program less than a month off, EADS NA board chairman Ralph Crosby said today that his company would not rule out a protest, but that his company was unlikely to file one barring an “egregious process error.”

That, of course, does not rule out a protest from Boeing if they lose. And it does not rule out a protest from EADS NA if they conclude the Air Force screwed in an impressive fashion.

Crosby also told reporters this morning that he believes that, once again, the Airbus-based tanker will be cheaper than the Boeing 767. “If it’s not we lose,” he said simply.

He pointed again to the operating cost spread between the EADS and the Boeing planes. For shorter flights the EADS plane would be approximately 15 percent cheaper. For medium-length flights (say from Guam) there would be an almost $3 a gallon difference. For really long-distance refueling flights there would be a spread of almost 45 percent ($28.90 vs. $41.87), Crosby said.

Crosby declined to discuss the recent tanking accident in Australia saying the investigation has not been concluded. He repeated earlier comments by EADS officials that the boom has been tested in more than 1,500 refueling contacts.

Finally, in a study clearly aimed at winning friends on Capitol Hill, he said the company would release an “independent study” next week detailing jobs generated by the two programs on a district by district basis.

Now we just need to find out who won.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/16/eads-unlikely-to-protest-kc-x-unless/#ixzz1EAOBsOXe

buglerbilly

16-02-11, 11:41 PM

EADS Cuts Price on U.S. Air Force Tanker Bid

By VERONICA SMITH, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 16 Feb 2011 10:13

WASHINGTON - European aerospace giant EADS on Feb. 16 said it had lowered its bid for a $35 billion U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker contract against U.S. rival Boeing.

EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby told reporters at a Washington news conference: "We did in fact revise our proposal and our price."

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space company "improved and updated the pricing" of the proposed A330 aircraft made by France-based unit Airbus and submitted a "very competitive price proposal," Crosby said.

In a politically charged battle, the U.S. and European rivals delivered their revised final bids by last Friday's deadline to replace 179 tankers in an aging fleet of Boeing KC-135s that date back to the 1950s.

Boeing last week described its final bid as an "aggressive" attempt to beat its "subsidized" European rival.

Boeing representatives were not immediately available to comment on Crosby's remarks.

The Air Force has been trying for nearly a decade to award a contract to update the fleet of aircraft which serve as flying fuel stations for the military.

This third attempt is marked by fierce lobbying from lawmakers seeking jobs in their states - for Boeing those would be Washington state and Kansas; for Airbus, Alabama - and comes amid a long-running trade dispute between the United States and the European Union at the World Trade Organization over subsidies for Boeing and Airbus.

The Defense Department insists the winner would be decided on the merits of the bids. The department hoped "to make an award within a month or so," comptroller Robert Hale told reporters Feb. 14.

Analysts expect the decision will be announced in March.

EADS is competing for the military contract without a main partner, but with support from a number of U.S. equipment makers.

Crosby recalled that its last bid, with U.S. defense giant Northrop Grumman in 2008, won the contract because the price was 6.0 percent lower than Boeing's offer.

That decision was withdrawn after the congressional watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, upheld Boeing's objections.

Crosby said that because the Airbus rate of production has increased, EADS's price advantage "may be greater than that" 6.0 percent difference and "almost certainly the development costs will be less."

Crosby sidestepped a question on what would be EADS response if the Pentagon changed its mind on a single-source contract and opted to split the contract between the rivals.

The EADS North America chairman highlighted that the Air Force request for proposal for the contract allows "one or more" contracts and included a variance in quantity (VIQ) pricing component.

"I believe that this Pentagon is dead-set on a single award," he said.

However, he said, by asking for the VIQ "they cover a range beyond the nominal 15 aircraft a year."

"The foundation of our offering is at least one aircraft a month or 12 a year," he said.

Asked whether EADS would protest an award to Boeing, Crosby said: "No, I'm not saying that. But I am saying that if this process has been followed up with all of the detail, focus and conscientiousness with which it's been executed to date, I would expect that the winning bid ought to be sustained."

"Unless there's some egregious process error, I would not expect that we would protest." He added that it was unlikely that criteria would be evaluated on a different basis.

Both rivals are offering militarized versions of their commercial aircraft.

The EADS KC-45 is based on the long-haul Airbus 330, in service since 1993.

EADS says it has 31 percent more capacity and a longer range than Boeing's offer, the KC-767. It would be assembled in Mobile, Alabama.

Boeing's KC-767 is based on its long-haul 767 plane which entered service in 1982. Dubbed the "NextGen Tanker," the plane is smaller than the Airbus plane and is to be assembled in Everett, Washington, and equipped in Wichita, Kansas.

Unicorn

17-02-11, 09:48 AM

[B]Boeing's KC-767 is based on its long-haul 767 plane which entered service in 1982 and which is supposed to have ceased production, except we frakked up its replacement so bad it's three years late and counting. Dubbed the "FrankenTanker," the plane is smaller, more expensive and less capable than the Airbus plane and is to be assembled in Everett, Washington, and equipped in Wichita, Kansas and wherever else necessary to bribe politicians into backing our POS.

Fixed your post :wave

.

buglerbilly

17-02-11, 09:51 AM

Tsk, tsk! :pifreak

I should send that to Loren Thompson just to piss the little prick off...............:shtf

buglerbilly

17-02-11, 12:10 PM

DATE:17/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

EADS outlines bidding strategy for KC-X win

By Stephen Trimble

As the KC-X competition enters perhaps its final week, EADS North America has revealed a major shift in pricing strategy and outlined how its proposal may prevail over Boeing's bid.

After a seven-month evaluation phase, the US Air Force allowed both competitors to submit final changes on 11 February. A week before the deadline, EADS chief executive Tom Enders ruled out making any "hectic, last-minute" changes before the deadline, according to a Reuters story.

However, EADS officials in the US changed their minds over the next six days.

Ralph Crosby, chairman of EADS NA, on 16 February explained how the undisclosed price cut became possible.

The air force's "refinement of our understanding and our refinement to them of our proposal built the case of, 'hey, we could in fact revise our price from the initial bid," Crosby says.

For example, the air force clarified a requirement for an onboard inert gas generation system [OBIGGS] listed in the request for proposal. That allowed EADS to reduce their cost estimate for providing the system, Crosby says. Another example is the initial requirement for a large aircraft infrared countermeasures [LAIRCM] system, which the air force decided to provide as government furnished equipment.

Price is the key factor in the air force's evaluation process for KC-X. To measure the price of both proposals, the air force multiplies each bid by a factor of 1.25, then adjusts the estimates based on an analysis of lifecycle fuel and infrastructure costs. A mission-based assessment, which rewards the aircraft that performs better in simulations, also adjusts the price.

Crosby concedes that Boeing's smaller KC-767 will likely beat the KC-45 on fuel burn and infrastructure costs. But he estimates the difference amounts to no greater than $1.5 billion over 30 years. Boeing, however, advertises that the KC-767 lifecycle operating costs will be $36 billion cheaper over the same period.

The KC-45's bigger size may be an advantage in the mission-based refuelling assessment, Crosby says. The same aircraft scored 6% higher than the KC-767 in the previous competition, which was awarded to the KC-45 before a protest over-turned the decision. Based on the models used in this competition, the KC-45 could beat its competitor by an even greater margin, Crosby says.

The most important factor, however, may be the price submitted by each bidder for development and production. As the larger aircraft, the KC-45 would seem to be the most expensive. Crosby, however, insists EADS has an opportunity to underbid Boeing.

In the last competition, the KC-45 was initially judged cheaper than Boeing's proposal. Since then, Northrop Grumman has withdrawn as prime contractor for the EADS bid, lowering the KC-45's cost base. Crosby also notes that Airbus is ramping up production of the Airbus A330, although Boeing has announced similar plans for the 767.

"How those criteria and factors are added together," Crosby says, "[are why] we feel very good about the opportunity."

buglerbilly

18-02-11, 11:07 PM

DoD Ready For Tanker Protest

By Colin Clark Friday, February 18th, 2011 10:39 am

ORLANDO – No one will say there will be a bid protest when the $35 billion KC-X tanker contract is awarded in the next few weeks. Neither Boeing nor EADS NA will rule out a protest either. So if — as most observers believe — a protest is filed is the Air Force ready? Does it have a plan? “Let me say right off we have assumed there might be a protest,” Air Force Secretary Mike Donley told reporters today. “We have taken a lot of care and extra time in our source selection process.” Donley, speaking at the Air Force Association winter conference, said “we certainly hope the offerors will not decide to protest but we recognize it is their right to do so.”

Word here at the conference is that the contract is likely to be awarded a week from now, almost three years after the last protest. A few sources says it may be the week after. Regardless, the contract will be awarded very soon. And a protest is likely. Boeing believes it has an ace in the hole in the extent of its congressional support. And that matters because most observers pin the win on EADS. While EADS has a solid block of supporters in Alabama and several other southern states, it lacks the broad support Boeing can draw on from its large web of plants and suppliers scattered throughout the country. “You just have to look at the map,” one source here said.

Meanwhile, Boeing lashed out yesterday afternoon at EADS, accusing the company’s chairman of making a “reckless statement,” one of “a series of false and misleading claims in its tanker campaign…” The statement, from Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barskdale, came in reaction to Ralph Crosby’s claim that the tanker Boeing built for Italy has not been “certified.”

“The fact is… the Italian KC-767A tanker is fully qualified — including the aerial refueling systems (Wing Air Refueling Pods; Hose Drum Unit; Universal Air Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation; Boom) — by The Boeing Company and was subsequently certified by the FAA. In fact, the Italian Ministry of Defense also has issued a Military Type Certificate to Boeing for the KC-767A tanker aircraft. Their first KC-767A tanker has been delivered and is capable of operational air refueling,” Barksdale said. “Boeing also takes exception to his saying that Boeing has been ‘irresponsible’ to warfighters. The fact is, Boeing has been responsibly serving U.S. warfighters since the 1920s, including over 60 years of aerial refueling experience. This stands in stark contrast to EADS’ relatively recent and limited experience in serving U.S. warfighters.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/18/dod-ready-for-tanker-protest/#ixzz1EM31jdrL

buglerbilly

21-02-11, 05:21 AM

UPDATE 2-Watchdog clears US Air Force in tanker data mix-up

Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:10pm EST

* Inspector general sees no need to further investigate

* Says Air Force complied with federal law (Adds quotes from letter, byline)

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, Feb 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon's internal watchdog agency said it sees no need to further investigate a data mix-up in the $35 billion U.S. aerial tanker competition between Boeing Co (BA.N) and Europe's EADS (EAD.PA).

The decision could pave the way for a tanker contract award by the U.S. Air Force in the next two to three weeks, but possibly as early as Feb. 25.

Inspector General Gordon Heddell said a review by his office showed the Air Force fully complied with federal law after it learned of the data release, and that evidence confirmed the Air Force's determination that the data release was inadvertent and not a violation of federal law.

In a Feb. 17 letter to seven U.S. senators, Heddell said that Boeing or EADS could take their concerns to the Government Accountability Office, the contracting officer, or federal court if they believed there was impropriety or that they were adversely affected by the events.

The letter was released by Senator Patty Murray on Friday.

Murray and Senator Maria Cantwell, Washington state Democrats, and five other senators backing Boeing's tanker bid, had asked the Pentagon inspector general to investigate if a clerical error would mar the politically charged competition.

Air Force officials insist a mix-up last November that gave the companies internal data on each other's tanker bid was unintentional and involved no pricing data that could have comprised the procurement.

The competition has fanned trans-Atlantic tensions and jockeying among U.S. lawmakers eager to bring jobs to their states. Boeing and EADS submitted final bids last week.

Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale said this week that the Air Force was requesting nearly $900 million for the program in fiscal 2012, and expected to award a contract in a month or so.

Heddell said in the letter that the Air Force's contracting officer had asked that a senior official outside the Air Force investigate the incident when it occurred.

The contracting officer concluded there was no impact on the procurement or violation of the Procurement Integrity Act because a violation required intent, which he said was not the case. A more senior Air Force contracting official concurred and authorized the procurement to proceed, Heddell said.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Unicorn

21-02-11, 10:51 AM

First piece of common sense being shown by anyone in this frakked up procurement saga in quite a while.

.

buglerbilly

21-02-11, 01:37 PM

What happens if EADS wins the KC-X contract?

By Stephen Trimble on February 18, 2011 10:20 AM

What-if, what-if, what-if? Some people went to the Moon after asking that question. I just went to my blog. The KC-X contract could be awarded in days or perhaps weeks. I have no idea who will win or lose, but I think I'm ready to play out a what-if exercise. Please, let me know what you think.

1. What if EADS wins the KC-X contract by under-bidding Boeing?

If you're a KC-767 supporter, you may argue disproportionate subsidies gives Airbus an unfair commercial advantage. If you're a KC-45 supporter, you may argue that EADS North America can price more aggressively because it's not offering a paper airplane. The point is, both sides agree it can happen. Sooo...

2. What if Boeing decides NOT to protest?

No matter who wins the KC-X contract the losing bidder will file a protest. That seems to be the widely accepted and perhaps forgiveably cynical viewpoint about the tanker competition. But let's consider, for a moment, the facts.

The previous contract award was overturned by the US Government Accountability Office because the air force made a critical error. After specifically informing Boeing that aircraft size was not a factor in the evaluation, the air force awarded the contract to the then-Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 and cited the aircraft's larger size as the reason. According to the GAO, that's not fair.

It may be a lot harder to make that case this time, notwithstanding the mail switcher-oo blunder by the air force in November. It's very clear that this competition is a price shoot-out. To win a protest on similar grounds as the previous case, the losing bidder may be forced to argue the air force decided to buy the most expensive aircraft because it was the most expensive. That seems like a hard-sell.

Of course, there are other considerations. If there is evidence of wrongdoing (remember Darleen Druyun?), that will be automatic grounds to sustain a protest. It's still not clear if the botched shipment by the air force could be a factor. Finally, filing a protest simply as a stalling tactic is possible -- as long as the contractor doesn't mind really offending its biggest customer.

3. What if Congress refuses to approve funding for the KC-X program?

KC-767 supporters may argue that appropriating funds for the KC-45 steals jobs from Americans and rewards a world trade-scofflaw for undermining US competitiveness. KC-45 supporters may argue that EADS North America will be creating thousands of jobs, and revitalizing domestic competition for large commercial aircraft. The point is, Boeing's supporters in Congress may seek to ensure that EADS doesn't win, even if Boeing loses. This would then become a test of political strength. If Northrop was still involved, I'd consider it a fair fight. With EADS standing alone, I'm not so sure.

4. What if Congress, as a compromise, requires the air force to buy both?

This is maybe the biggest what-if of them all. It probably isn't possible until after the retirement of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, an outspoken opponent of a split-buy deal. But such a compromise would probably not be reached in the immediate future anyway.

If there's anything we have learned about the KC-X competition, it is certainly this: Anything can happen.

buglerbilly

22-02-11, 05:31 PM

Influence Game: Aircraft Titans Spark Lobby Blitz (excerpt)

(Source: Associated Press; published Feb. 21, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- Even by Pentagon standards, it's an eye-popping prize: a $35 billion contract to build nearly 200 giant airborne refueling tankers. And the decade-long brawl by two defense industry titans to win it has been just as epic.

In a matter of weeks — if not days — the Pentagon will announce whether Chicago-based Boeing Co. or European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) will build 179 new tankers to replace the Air Force's Eisenhower-era KC-135 planes.

The competition is far more complex than a case of the U.S. against Europe. If Boeing wins, the air tanker would be built in Everett, Wash., Wichita, Kan., and several other states. If EADS wins, the tanker would be assembled in Mobile, Ala., at the former Brookley military base that was shuttered in the 1960s.

Either way, about 50,000 jobs would be created in the U.S.

And $35 billion could amount to a mere first installment on a $100 billion deal if the Air Force pushes ahead and buys more tankers.

The contract has touched off some of the fiercest and costliest lobbying that Washington has ever seen. The companies have spent millions on advertising and hired dozens of lobbyists to do their bidding. Lawmakers are relentlessly pressing Defense Department officials.

INFLUENCE GAME: Aircraft titans spark lobby blitz
(AP) – 22 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Even by Pentagon standards, it's an eye-popping prize: a $35 billion contract to build nearly 200 giant airborne refueling tankers. And the decade-long brawl by two defense industry titans to win it has been just as epic.

In a matter of weeks — if not days — the Pentagon will announce whether Chicago-based Boeing Co. or European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) will build 179 new tankers to replace the Air Force's Eisenhower-era KC-135 planes.

The competition is far more complex than a case of the U.S. against Europe. If Boeing wins, the air tanker would be built in Everett, Wash., Wichita, Kan., and several other states. If EADS wins, the tanker would be assembled in Mobile, Ala., at the former Brookley military base that was shuttered in the 1960s.

Either way, about 50,000 jobs would be created in the U.S.

And $35 billion could amount to a mere first installment on a $100 billion deal if the Air Force pushes ahead and buys more tankers.

The contract has touched off some of the fiercest and costliest lobbying that Washington has ever seen. The companies have spent millions on advertising and hired dozens of lobbyists to do their bidding. Lawmakers are relentlessly pressing Defense Department officials.

Replacing the KC-135 planes is critical for the military. The first aircraft — the equivalent of a flying gas station — entered the fleet in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower occupied the White House, and the last one was delivered in 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson was president. Today, the Air Force is struggling to keep them in flying shape.

The tankers are the one aircraft the military cannot go to war without. They allow jet fighters, supply planes and other aircraft to cover long distances, crucial with fewer overseas bases and operations far from the United States in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

With so much at stake, the companies and their backers are pursuing every edge and taking the struggle to places that military contractors don't normally go: radio and subway ads in the nation's capital among them. (end of excerpt)

Click here for the complete article, on the AP website.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5joBRZcq5BhSPtCQnQls3xuoMXgCA?docId=e6e4ac72e d7a417c8eefc810eeda0bf1

-ends-

buglerbilly

23-02-11, 02:39 AM

UPDATE 1-US may announce aerial tanker winner Thurs -source

Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:05pm EST

* Boeing and EADS have submitted final proposals

* Winner would replace aging refueling tankers (Adds background on tanker contest)

WASHINGTON Feb 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force may announce as early as Thursday whether Boeing Co (BA.N) or Europe's EADS (EAD.PA) has won a projected $35 billion contract for 179 new refueling planes, a senior defense official said.

No final decision on the timing of the long-awaited contract announcement had been made, said the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

"It could be this week, it could be as early as Thursday," said the official on Tuesday.

The high-stakes contest has fanned trans-Atlantic tensions and jockeying among U.S. lawmakers eager to bring jobs to their states. Boeing and EADS submitted final bids earlier this month.

An award would cap a saga that began almost a decade ago. The Air Force has tried since 2001 to begin replacing its Boeing-built KC-135 tankers that now average more than 50 years old.

An initial $23.5 billion plan to lease and then buy 100 modified Boeing 767s as tankers, fell apart in 2004 amid a conflict-of-interest scandal that sent Boeing's chief financial officer and the Air Force's former No. 2 arms buyer to prison.

EADS, partnered with Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), won a 179-plane deal in February 2008, only to have it canceled after government auditors upheld parts of a protest by Boeing. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

buglerbilly

23-02-11, 02:49 AM

Air force to get Airbus transporter planes by year-end

Rory Jones

Last Updated: Feb 22, 2011

The UAE Air Force will receive the first of three new Airbus military transporter planes by the end of the year.

A military version of the Airbus A330 passenger airliner, the Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), is designed as both a transport and an air-to-air refuelling aircraft.

Having ordered three MRTT planes in early 2008, the UAE will receive the first of them in December, Didier Vernet, the head of market development at Airbus, said yesterday.

The UAE is one of four countries to have ordered the new type of transporter, along with Australia, the UK and Saudi Arabia. The planes will be used to strengthen the UAE's homeland defences and increase its role in regional security and humanitarian relief.

Waha Capital, an Abu Dhabi finance company with interests in aviation leasing and property development, last year closed financing deals worth Dh6.7 billion (US$1.82bn) from a syndicate of international banks to buy nine military aircraft for the UAE Armed Forces.

This deal included finance for the purchase of the A330 MRTT planes. The Royal Australian Air Force will receive delivery of the first plane, which is now in final testing, in the next six months.

The UK has ordered 14 planes and Saudi Arabia six. They are due for delivery next year.

Mr Vernet said Airbus had received more "big interest" in the region for the new aircraft.

"We are in discussions with many parties here," he said. "But there are no more planes on order."

Airbus Military is testing four MRRT planes and is converting three A330 passenger aircraft. The company said it had also received strong interest from Middle East buyers for its A400M transporter plane.

rjones@thenational.ae

Trackmaster

24-02-11, 07:34 AM

The announcement is pegged for tomorrow morning, 8am Eastern Standard

tiddles

24-02-11, 10:54 PM

And the winner is -
Originally published February 24, 2011 at 11:30 AM | Page modified February 24, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Boeing wins huge Air Force tanker contract
The Air Force awarded its $35 billion air-refueling tanker contract Thursday to Boeing.

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

The Air Force awarded its $35 billion air-refueling tanker contract Thursday to Boeing, surprising many defense analysts and bringing relief and delight to advocates for Washington state.

Boeing will build its 767 tanker on a newly opened assembly line at the back of its Everett widebody jet plant.

Winning the tanker contract secures what Boeing says are 11,000 direct and indirect jobs in Washington state. That figure includes not only projected jobs at Boeing and at its in-state suppliers, but also at any kind of business — from bars to bakeries — serving the aerospace workforce.

Boeing was originally awarded a tanker contract in 2001, but that deal, which was never open to competitors, was swamped in controversy. It was canceled after a procurement scandal that sent Boeing's then-chief financial officer to jail.

In 2008, after an open competition, the contract was awarded to a joint bid from Northrop Grumman and Airbus parent company EADS. The award was canceled after Boeing challenged the procedures leading to the decision.

This time around, Northrop withdrew and it was a straight head-to-head contest between Boeing and EADS.

Though the Air Force award will draw the ire of politicians in southern states that would have benefited from an EADS win, the decision may finally bring the decade-long saga to a close.

EADS now has three days to ask for a debriefing as to why exactly it lost. That debriefing must take place within five days, after which EADS has another five days to decide if it wants to formally protest the decision.

Ralph Crosby, head of EADS North America, recently told the Press-Register newspaper in Mobile, Ala., that absent "some egregious process error," his company was unlikely to contest a Boeing win.

The outcome is a bitter disappointment for EADS.

The European planemaker had hoped to establish itself as a peer with U.S. companies in bidding for major defense contracts in the future.

It had also wanted a manufacturing facility in the U.S. that would have brought revenue in dollars — valuable as the euro rises against the dollar.

With expectations that Airbus could price its plane lower than Boeing, and leaks suggesting that the EADS A330 had outscored the Boeing 767 on a key mission evaluation that was part of the Air Force assessment, analysts had recently been predicting an EADS win.

With the outcome reversed, the happiest man at Boeing may be commercial airplanes chief Jim Albaugh, who was on a flight back from Texas to Seattle as the announcement was made.

Albaugh took over the defense side of the company in 2002 and closely shepherded Boeing's tanker bid afterward.

Having switched roles to head Boeing's commercial jet division in the fall of 2009, Albaugh will now get to oversee the building of the tanker.

Boeing stock rose $2.52, or 3.6 percent, to $73.28 in

JimWH

25-02-11, 12:00 AM

I hate to say it, but can anyone imagine Boeing's stooges ever having let the USAF choose the A330?

Unicorn

25-02-11, 12:59 AM

USAF announcement

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 153-11
February 24, 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Force Announces KC-46A Tanker Contract Award

The Department of the Air Force announced today the award of an engineering and manufacturing development contract valued at more than $3.5 billion for the KC-46A aerial refueler to Boeing Co. of Seattle, Washington.

The Air Force-led selection effort included experts from the larger Department of Defense community, including the office of the Defense Secretary's staff and independent review teams during each step of the process.

"Many factors were evaluated during the tanker selection process,” said Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley.

Selection "took into account mission effectiveness in wartime and life cycle costs as embodied in fuel efficiency and military construction costs," said Donley, emphasizing that both offerors met all the mandatory requirements.

“The thorough and transparent selection process was marked by continual dialogue with offerors to ensure the Air Force had a clear understanding of their proposals and the companies clearly understood the service's analysis of their offers,” said Donley.

"Gen. Schwartz and I are confident in the fact that when our young pilots, boom operators and maintainers receive this aircraft, they will have the tools they need to be successful at what we ask them to do," Donley said.

"To the men and women of our Air Force, today's announcement represents a long-overdue start to a much-needed program," Donley said. "Your Air Force leadership, supported by others throughout the Department of Defense, is determined to see this through, and we will stand behind this work."

The program will deliver the first 18 aircraft by 2017. Basing decisions for the aircraft will take place over the next couple of years.

Unicorn

25-02-11, 01:00 AM

Boeing's statement

Boeing Receives USAF Contract to Build Next-Generation Refueling Tanker

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 24, 2011 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has received a contract from the U.S. Air Force to build the next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft that will replace 179 of the service’s 400 KC-135 tankers.

The contract calls for Boeing to design, develop, manufacture and deliver 18 initial combat-ready tankers by 2017.

"We're honored to be given the opportunity to build the Air Force's next tanker and provide a vital capability to the men and women of our armed forces," said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and CEO. "Our team is ready now to apply our 60 years of tanker experience to develop and build an airplane that will serve the nation for decades to come."

In selecting the Boeing NewGen Tanker after a lengthy and rigorous proposal process, the Air Force has chosen an American-built, multi-mission tanker that is based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane and meets all requirements at the lowest risk for the warfighter and the best value for taxpayers. The Boeing proposal was created by an integrated "One Boeing" team from various sites across the company, including employees from the Commercial Airplanes; Defense, Space & Security; and Engineering, Operations & Technology organizations.

"This contract award would not have been possible without the hundreds of Boeing employees across the entire company, and the thousands of our industry teammates, who remained laser-focused on our commitment to offer a solution that is first in capability and best in value,” said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security. "This award is also a tribute to the Air Force and Defense Department officials who worked so tirelessly to make this procurement process fair, ultimately resulting in the selection of the right plane for the mission. We look forward to working with our Air Force customer to deliver this much needed capability to the servicemen and women we are honored to serve."

The KC-46A tankers will be built using a low-risk approach to manufacturing by a trained and experienced U.S. work force at existing Boeing facilities. The KC-46A tanker also will fuel the economy as it supports approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs with Boeing and more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states.

"Boeing has always been committed to the integrity of the competitive process, and the men and women across our Boeing commercial and defense teams and our entire supplier network are ready to extend that commitment to delivering these tankers on time and on budget," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

Based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane, the KC-46A Tanker is a widebody, multi-mission aircraft updated with the latest and most advanced technology and capable of meeting or exceeding the Air Force's needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients. It includes state-of-the-art systems to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future, including a digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays and a flight control design philosophy that places aircrews in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability. The NewGen Tanker also features an advanced KC-10 boom with an expanded refueling envelope, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system.

To learn more about the KC-46A Tanker, visit www.UnitedStatesTanker.com.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 66,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.

# # #

Unicorn

25-02-11, 01:01 AM

EADS response

EADS North America statement concerning U.S. Air Force Tanker selectionArlington, Virginia, 24 February 2011

EADS North America officials today expressed disappointment and concern over the announcement by the U.S. Air Force that it had selected a high-risk, concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45 for the nation’s next aerial refueling tanker.

“This is certainly a disappointing turn of events, and we look forward to discussing with the Air Force how it arrived at this conclusion,” said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. “For seven years our goal has been to provide the greatest capability to our men and women in uniform, and to create American jobs by building the KC-45 here in the U.S. We remain committed to those objectives.”

If selected, EADS North America had committed to build the KC-45 at a new production facility in Mobile, Alabama, with a U.S. supplier base of nearly a thousand American companies.

“With a program of such complexity, our review of today’s decision will take some time,” Crosby said. “There are more than 48,000 Americans who are eager to build the KC-45 here in the U.S., and we owe it to them to conduct a thorough analysis.”

“Though we had hoped for a different outcome, it’s important to remember that this is one business opportunity among many for EADS in the United States,” said Sean O’Keefe, CEO of EADS North America. “We have exceptional technology and highly capable platforms that will be invaluable to U.S. military forces, now and in the future. We have learned much through this process, developed a world-class organization in the U.S. and have earned the respect of the Department of Defense. Our commitment to our U.S. customers is stronger than ever.”

To learn more about the KC-45 and the more than 48,000 American jobs it will create or support, visit www.kc-45now.com.

buglerbilly

25-02-11, 01:58 AM

Gee I'm shocked..........NOT!

I have more than a feeling that the USAF is going to regret this. And what this does for Trans-Atlantic trade is a question still to be answered...............

tiddles

25-02-11, 02:04 AM

Yawn,yawn, ah well at least the whole circus may now be over & all the clowns can have a rest . This leaves the Indian MMRCA to be finalised & then that will leave all the debates about big International comps. in recess. I am assuming that the Brasil FX? comp. is now dead in the water?/air? although a decision could come one of these days seeing as all or most of the data was on the table. OTOH we could see FX3 - would anyone bother trying for it.Financial problems seems to be the reason for FX2 being cancelled but I had a feeling that it would come to nothing for some time now ,any reason would be found
Tiddles

buglerbilly

25-02-11, 02:09 AM

The Brazilian FX progarmme is delayed while its re-evaluated...........probable outcome is that F-18 and GRIPEN become the faves, with F-18 possibly having the edge. Certianly they were oth considered technically and militarily superior to the RAFAEL.

buglerbilly

25-02-11, 02:47 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Given KC-Y, Should EADS Risk a KC-X Protest?

Posted by Robert Wall at 2/24/2011 4:50 PM CST

The big question, in the wake of Boeing's win of the KC-X competition to supply the KC-46A to the U.S. Air Force, is whether losing bidder EADS will file a bid protest with the congressional Government Accountability Office. After all, Boeing did so successfully three years ago when the Northrop Grumman/EADS team won KC-X in a prior round.

Pentagon deputy secretary Bill Lynn acknowledges that EADS "has a right to protest," but he argues that this KC-X source-selection process was open and transparent and "will not yield grounds for a protest."

But will EADS agree?

A bigger issue than whether or not EADS feels wronged is possibly the still pending competition to eventually replace the KC-10s. The so-called KC-Y competition is not officially underway, but many see the Airbus A330 as a better fit to replace the KC-10 than the KC-135 being replaced now by the 767-based KC-46A.

What is more, EADS is trying to tread carefully in the U.S. market where it still is trying to secure a strong foothold.

But should the company really play the long game, in the hopes of big rewards down the road, or should it take a page from Boeing and fight KC-X to the bitter end?

For now, EADS will only say that "with a program of such complexity, our review of today's decision will take some time."

buglerbilly

25-02-11, 02:48 AM

The comment by Marcase is probably relevant here.......

Marcase wrote:

From a US standpoint, awarding EADS the KC-Y contract would be a good thing: both Boeing and the (eventual) US partner of EADS would provide aerospace jobs in more states than just the "Boeing district".

Seems like a win-win in these economic times. EADS will have to find plenty of US (sub) contractors of course, but their previous partnering offered a serious industrial investment package that had congressmen salivating.

Also, perhaps a Euro-American KC-Y could keep some pressure on Boeing to keep its KC-X on time and within budget.

2/24/2011 5:34 PM CST

McFriday

25-02-11, 08:40 AM

"The Department of the Air Force announced today the award of an engineering and manufacturing development contract valued at more than $3.5 billion for the KC-46A aerial refueler to Boeing Co. of Seattle, Washington."

"The contract calls for Boeing to design, develop, manufacture and deliver 18 initial combat-ready tankers by 2017."

"Also, perhaps a Euro-American KC-Y could keep some pressure on Boeing to keep its KC-X on time and within budget."

"many see the Airbus A330 as a better fit to replace the KC-10 than the KC-135 being replaced now by the 767-based KC-46A."

The above snippets from current posts give every indication to me that this "transparent" contest is far from over. Unless it's a typo, the contract is for $3.5b for 18 combat ready tankers by 2017. Six years to design, develop and have ready for combat service !8 tankers at the contracted price seems a bit of a stretch for Boeing given its recent history for being on time and under budget with big birds.

Any delay by Boeing can only make EADS look good, providing their [EADS] tankers to other customers are performing as advertised.

With such a venal, bigoted, biased, politically charged atmosphere surrounding this "transparent" contest the best thing might be to take the odds and see if Boeing will fall on its own sword. Not that this would deter Boeing's political lackeys, errr supporters.

If they do, maybe just maybe, EADS will have a chance with the KC-Y or even picking up orders to take up Boeing's slack on the remaining 161 KC-X tankers, as unlikely as that may appear now.

EADS really does need to make sure its current tanker customers are very, very happy, this should be good news for the RAAF, RAF etc.

Cheers,
Mac

Chunder

25-02-11, 09:52 AM

Gee I'm shocked..........NOT!

I have more than a feeling that the USAF is going to regret this. And what this does for Trans-Atlantic trade is a question still to be answered...............

Probably have SFA effect on Trans-Atlantic trade.

Hopefully the whole thing is over and friggin done with now...

Unicorn

25-02-11, 10:05 AM

You don't know politics.

If there is the slightest hint of protectionism, then Sarkozy and the other European leaders will have something to say.

Not to mention putting pressure on their national flag carriers to look to Airbus for the next passenger aircraft orders.

Boeing has done quite well on selling 747, 777 and the continually late 787 aircraft to European airlines, for example the only serious order for the new 747-8 is from Lufthansa. Perhaps they might 'defer' this critical order for some 'consideration' and review'. Basically screwing Being something fierce.

All's fair in love, war and trans-Atlantic trade wars.

.

buglerbilly

25-02-11, 01:19 PM

Boeing Receives US Air Force Contract to Build Next-Generation Refueling Tanker

(Source: Boeing Co.; issued Feb. 24, 2011)

ST. LOUIS --- The Boeing Company has received a contract from the U.S. Air Force to build the next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft that will replace 179 of the service’s 400 KC-135 tankers.

The contract calls for Boeing to design, develop, manufacture and deliver 18 initial combat-ready tankers by 2017.

"We're honored to be given the opportunity to build the Air Force's next tanker and provide a vital capability to the men and women of our armed forces," said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and CEO. "Our team is ready now to apply our 60 years of tanker experience to develop and build an airplane that will serve the nation for decades to come."

In selecting the Boeing NewGen Tanker after a lengthy and rigorous proposal process, the Air Force has chosen an American-built, multi-mission tanker that is based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane and meets all requirements at the lowest risk for the warfighter and the best value for taxpayers. The Boeing proposal was created by an integrated "One Boeing" team from various sites across the company, including employees from the Commercial Airplanes; Defense, Space & Security; and Engineering, Operations & Technology organizations.

"This contract award would not have been possible without the hundreds of Boeing employees across the entire company, and the thousands of our industry teammates, who remained laser-focused on our commitment to offer a solution that is first in capability and best in value,” said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security.

"This award is also a tribute to the Air Force and Defense Department officials who worked so tirelessly to make this procurement process fair, ultimately resulting in the selection of the right plane for the mission. We look forward to working with our Air Force customer to deliver this much needed capability to the servicemen and women we are honored to serve."

The KC-46A tankers will be built using a low-risk approach to manufacturing by a trained and experienced U.S. work force at existing Boeing facilities.

So they've changed it from the Meccano set they had offered, the one that takes elements from hither and thither that have NEVER been built in ANY Boeing plane never mind any Tanker they have delivered (years LATE in every case) under the ORIGINAL 767 banner (little relationship to the 767 now being offerd for KC-X)...........dear me, I must have misunderstood completely...........must be old age, the BS no longer flies with me! :shakehead

The KC-46A tanker also will fuel the economy as it supports approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs with Boeing and more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states.

"Boeing has always been committed to the integrity of the competitive process, and the men and women across our Boeing commercial and defense teams and our entire supplier network are ready to extend that commitment to delivering these tankers on time and on budget," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

Based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane, the KC-46A Tanker is a widebody, multi-mission aircraft updated with the latest and most advanced technology and capable of meeting or exceeding the Air Force's needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients. It includes state-of-the-art systems to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future, including a digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays and a flight control design philosophy that places aircrews in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability. The NewGen Tanker also features an advanced KC-10 boom with an expanded refueling envelope, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 66,000 employees worldwide. (ends)

EADS North America Statement Concerning U.S. Air Force Tanker Selection

(Source: EADS North America; issued February 24, 2011)

ARLINGTON, Virginia --- EADS North America officials today expressed disappointment and concern over the announcement by the U.S. Air Force that it had selected a high-risk, concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45 for the nation's next aerial refueling tanker.

"This is certainly a disappointing turn of events, and we look forward to discussing with the Air Force how it arrived at this conclusion," said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. "For seven years our goal has been to provide the greatest capability to our men and women in uniform, and to create American jobs by building the KC-45 here in the U.S. We remain committed to those objectives."

If selected, EADS North America had committed to build the KC-45 at a new production facility in Mobile, Alabama, with a U.S. supplier base of nearly a thousand American companies.

"With a program of such complexity, our review of today's decision will take some time," Crosby said. "There are more than 48,000 Americans who are eager to build the KC-45 here in the U.S., and we owe it to them to conduct a thorough analysis."

"Though we had hoped for a different outcome, it's important to remember that this is one business opportunity among many for EADS in the United States," said Sean O'Keefe, CEO of EADS North America. "We have exceptional technology and highly capable platforms that will be invaluable to U.S. military forces, now and in the future. We have learned much through this process, developed a world-class organization in the U.S. and have earned the respect of the Department of Defense. Our commitment to our U.S. customers is stronger than ever."

EADS North America is the North American operation of EADS, a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. As a leader in all sectors of defense and homeland security, EADS North America and its parent company, EADS, contribute over $11 billion to the U.S. economy annually and support more than 200,000 American jobs through its network of suppliers and services. Operating in 17 states, EADS North America offers a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets.

EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. In 2009, the Group - comprising Airbus, Astrium, Cassidian and Eurocopter – generated revenues of EUR 42.8 billion and employed a workforce of more than 119,000. (ends)

Machinists Welcome Tanker Decision

(Source: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM); issued February 24, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today hailed the Department of Defense’s decision to award the Boeing Company with a contract to build a new fleet of air-to-air refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force.

“The Pentagon’s decision will result in an American aircraft, built by American workers for America’s warriors,” said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger.

“With more than 40,000 U.S. jobs at stake, this decision also significantly strengthens the core of the U.S. aerospace manufacturing industry.”

Supported by a nationwide coalition of union members, businesses and communities, the IAM has been fully engaged in the decade-long effort to secure a U.S.-built replacement for the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135 tankers.

“The importance of this decision cannot be overstated,” said Buffenbarger. “Our legacy as providers of the best-built military aircraft in the world was on the line, challenged by a foreign competitor who hoped to establish a high-tech beachhead in this country that could have permanently altered our ability to provide for our own defense.”

The IAM represents more than 35,000 Boeing workers and is among the largest industrial trade unions in North America, with nearly 700,000 active and retired members in dozens of industries.

-ends-

Milne Bay

27-02-11, 10:59 PM

Defense Aerospace again:

The US Air Force’s Tanker Gamble

(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published Feb. 25, 2011)

By Giovanni de Briganti

Perhaps inauspiciously given the Joint Strike Fighter’s poor record of meeting price and schedule goals, Boeing opted to depict its future KC-46A tanker with an F-35. (Boeing imagery)
PARIS --- When all is said and done, the Pentagon’s Feb. 24 decision to award the $30 billion KC-X tanker contract to Boeing is a huge gamble for both the company and the department.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Pentagon is gambling that Boeing will be able to develop and deliver a new, highly complex tanker design in less than six years, when it needed nine years to deliver the far simpler KC-767A to the Italian air force.

However, the Pentagon has hedged its bet: its award to Boeing is a “fixed-price incentive firm” contract, not a far laxer “cost-plus” contract that it used to award. This shifts all financial risk to Boeing, and means the company would no doubt have to pay financial penalties if it failed to perform, in addition to foregoing incentive payments.

But, despite this hedge, the Pentagon could find itself with a large shortfall in air-refueling capability if Boeing failed to deliver, and it would then have no obvious recourse except to deal with EADS at whatever price that company then demanded.

Boeing, for its part, is gambling that it can develop a new aircraft combining the airframe of the 767 airliner with the digital flight deck of the still uncertified 787 Dreamliner; “new flight controls with a new design philosophy;” and an all-new, digital refueling boom that it has yet to design. And, once developed, Boeing will have to manufacture and deliver the first 18 production aircraft in just six years from now.

Boeing says the new refueling boom will have “an expanded refueling envelope, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system,” but intriguingly says in a Feb. 24 statement that it will use “a low-risk approach to manufacturing” without offering any further explanation.

So, given the company’s past performance on the KC-767A, this is quite a gamble, and one which Boeing has no way of hedging: if it fails to meet its contractual obligations, it will have to pay substantial financial penalties out of its profits or its capital.

As the contract’s terms will not be made public, no-one knows exactly how big a financial risk Boeing is taking, and neither will Boeing’s shareholders, who by the way still don’t know how much the company had to pay in compensation to the Japan Air-Self-Defense Force and to the Italian air force for late delivery of the KC-767A.

(In fact, no one would even know Boeing delivered the first KC-767 to Italy on Jan. 27 if it hadn’t been announced by the Italian air force, since Boeing apparently decided it was not worth mentioning – or thought it best not to draw attention to the KC-767 delays just as the US Air Force was finalizing its own tanker decision.)

In the circumstances, Boeing’s may well be a Pyrrhic victory, especially as the company must have cut its profit margin to the bone to have undercut EADS’ price by over 1 percent. And, furthermore, Boeing still has to pay for the KC-46A's development.

A little arithmetic can illustrate the scope of the financial risk Boeing took to win the program, and show just how fragile are the KC-46 program’s economics.

Italy is paying $993.6 million in 2002 dollars for its four KC-767s, or about $1,093 million in today’s dollars, equivalent to $273 million per aircraft. Assuming the US Air Force pays about the same price for the first 18 KC-46As, the total works out to $4.9 billion in production costs alone.

Yet, as announced Feb. 24, the KC-46A contract is worth “over $3.5 billion” for “Engineering and Manufacturing Development” as well as the first 18 aircraft.

The clear implication is that Boeing cut its KC-767 price by about 25% to stay within the $3.5 billion contract envelope, and that it will have to pay for all of the remaining KC-46A development work with its own money as there will be nothing left out of the $3.5 billion.

By comparison, the Feb. 2008 tanker contract won by Northrop and EADS was worth $1.5 billion and covered the first four aircraft, with a $10.6 billion option for another 64; this implies a unit price of $165.6 million, much lower than the KC-46A price implied by yesterday’s announcement.

Admittedly, this is a very rough, “back of an envelope” guesstimate, but it is clear Boeing stands to lose a lot of money on this initial contract, which is a fixed-price deal with no comebacks.

And this is assuming nothing goes wrong with the KC-46A’s development -- a fairly big assumption given Boeing’s recent development record. And if this assumption proves wrong, the company’s very survival would be in play.

EADS, although understandably frustrated that it has now lost a contract it had won so decisively in 2008, needs only to sit back and wait until it can bid on the two other tanker replacement contracts, KC-Y and KC-Z, by which time Boeing’s performance on the KC-X will have become a matter of record.

Finally, it is worth noting that, despite all the hysterical rhetoric to the contrary, the issue of subsidies did not even come up, given the margin of Boeing’s victory. The more extravagant claims by some pundits that “illegal” government subsidies would allow EADS to underbid Boeing and to win unfairly were shown to be just the ill-informed, partisan rants they were.

buglerbilly

28-02-11, 09:18 PM

EADS Mum On Tanker Debrief

By Colin Clark Monday, February 28th, 2011 1:33 pm

The tanker competition did not change much publicly this morning after EADS NA received its briefing from the Air Force on just why Boeing won the $35 billion program.

“The EADS North America team has met with the Air Force, received a debriefing and is evaluating the information presented to us. Our objective has always been that the U.S. warfighter receive the most capable tanker, following a fair and transparent competition. That remains our position today,” said company spokesman Guy Hicks.

Put this together with comments made when the Boeing win was announced by EADS Chairman Ralph Crosby, saying in a statement that the Air Force had picked “a high-risk concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45…” and you have a hungry company moving very cautiously. EADS NA has other major programs at stake and must be weighing every opportunity before it starts to publicly lean one way or another in deciding to file a bid protest. Crosby also made clear the company might not say much more for a while given the program’s complexity.

Richard Aboulafia, one of the aerospace world’s best informed analysts, offered this summary of the competition in his monthly newsletter, which came out today:

“Fuel. This is the biggest issue, because it’s the biggest thing that’s changed over the past few years since the last KC-X contract. We’ve all known the terms of the competitive equation between the KC-30 and KC-767. The former plane ismore capable, but it costsmore to buy and burnsmore fuel.

The added capability stayed constant. The higher price tag was reduced with a very aggressive EADS bid. But fuel is the one thing EADS could do nothing about.

Let’s look at the numbers. According to the authoritative Airline Monitor (November 2010), the average 767-300ER inUS airline service burns about 1,550 gallons per block hour (Boeing’s tanker uses a smaller airframe, but more equipment, so we don’t know it’s exact burn rate). The average A330 in US airline service (-200s and –300s; the FAA doesn’t break them out, but the KC-30 too would carry more equipment) burns about 1,900 gallons per block hour. If fuel is $50/bbl, that fuel burn difference isn’t the end of theworld. If you star twith a base year assumption of $100/bbl, and then add the usual US Government fuel cost inflation factor for a 30 year life span, multiply it times X hundreds of flight hours per year times 179 aircraft, you get a fuel-related operating cost difference wide enough to drive a truck through. The EADS up-front price discount would have been dwarfed by this huge fuel cost divergence.“

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/28/eads-mum-on-tanker-debrief/#ixzz1FI4herz6

Unicorn

01-03-11, 09:59 AM

Boeing's paid mouthpiece speaks...

How Boeing Won The Tanker War
posted by LOREN THOMPSON
Forbes Magazine

After ten years of seeking a replacement for hundreds of Eisenhower-era tankers, the Air Force may have finally found a workable solution last week. On Thursday, Pentagon leaders surprised both teams competing for the prize — a program initially worth $35 billion that eventually could grow to $100 billion — by declaring Boeing’s proposal was the “clear winner.” The losing team, led by Airbus parent EADS, was stunned. Not only had it won an earlier competition to supply the new tanker, but some Boeing executives expected the European company to win this time too. So why did Boeing prevail in an outcome that government officials say wasn’t even close?

In this case, the bottom line really was the bottom line. Boeing offered a very low price to build and own its plane, while over-confidence and maybe funding constraints led EADS to bid less aggressively. Since the two rival tankers had already satisfied 372 mandatory performance requirements, price determined the outcome and Boeing emerged victorious. In other words, Boeing won because EADS made a mistake — it failed to tap the European government subsidies that have allowed it to develop every commercial transport it currently offers to a sufficient degree so it could overcome the pricing advantage Boeing had from offering a much smaller plane. Smaller planes cost less to manufacture and to fly, but that has not stopped EADS subsidiary Airbus from beating Boeing on price in scores of commercial competitions. In the tanker contest, though, EADS either bid too optimistically or failed to leverage subsidies for some other reason, so it was out of the money.

Before I elaborate on how Boeing won, I need to dispose of one inconvenient truth. A big part of the reason why many people thought EADS would win the tanker competition was because I said it would, over and over again in the national media, in the months leading up to the award. Within minutes after the Boeing victory was disclosed, Politico put up a story on its web-site stating that expectations of a Boeing loss were driven mainly by my pronouncements on the matter. And the biggest newspaper in Alabama editorialized on Sunday that the Boeing win was “unbelievable” in part because “one of the nation’s leading defense analysts” — me — predicted EADS would prevail. Obviously, I was completely wrong. So why would you take seriously my explanation of how the opposite of what I predicted happened?

The reason I’m still halfway credible on the subject is because I said all along that the Boeing plane was the more cost-effective solution to the Air Force’s tanker needs. I simply assumed EADS would leverage the same subsidies that allowed it to aggressively market its commercial product line to also win the tanker competition. It wouldn’t have been hard, because the Air Force methodology for comparing the EADS and Boeing planes actually understated the cost of owning the much bigger European tanker over a 40-year service life. Many people within Boeing assumed the same thing, which is why they were worried in the final stages of the tanker contest despite the fact they were offering a more economical solution to Air Force needs. But EADS didn’t tap subsidies to the degree Boeing or I expected, so Boeing won in the kind of competitive climax that defense industry insiders call a “price shootout.”

Boeing executives sensed during the preparation of final offers that EADS had become overly optimistic, in much the same way that Boeing itself had grown too confident in the earlier round of competition. They now think that EADS lost partly because of its own hubris. They’re probably right, but I suspect something more is going on because concessionary pricing has been the centerpiece of the EADS tanker strategy since it first got into the competition in 2006. I’ll come back to the question of why EADS didn’t fully leverage its pricing power at the end of this essay, after I explain why it is so clear that cost was the reason Boeing won and EADS lost. But it’s important first to demonstrate that Boeing won on the merits, because any protest EADS mounts to try to overturn the outcome is unlikely to prevail, and we don’t need conspiracy theories floating around for the next 40 years about why “the better tanker lost.”

The Air Force’s aerial refueling fleet is unique in the world. Without it, U.S. and allied aircraft would have great difficulty sustaining operations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. But by the beginning of the new century, the Boeing 707-type tankers that provided 90 percent of the aircraft in the refueling fleet had reached nearly 40 years of age, so Air Force officials began what they thought would be a routine effort to convert an existing commercial transport into a replacement tanker. A decade later, no new tankers had been built. An abortive effort to lease tankers from Boeing was killed by Congress, and then a competition to select a new tanker from between rival Boeing and Airbus offerings was overturned by the Government Accountability Office. By the time the Obama Administration was handed the responsibility for finding a new plane the aging tankers in the fleet were approaching half a century of age, and the new team at the Pentagon decided it had to come up with an acquisition strategy that was impervious to further delays.

Its solution was to craft a selection process in which there was virtually no subjectivity that might be challenged by the loser. Rather than weighing the performance features of Boeing and Airbus offerings, the Air Force developed a list of 372 mandatory performance requirements that each team must meet before they could submit a final bid. What this meant in practical terms was that unless one of the teams was disqualified, the key discriminator in the competition would be price. But price was defined to cover more than just the cost of producing the planes. It also reflected the cost of ownership over a 40-year lifetime, including fuel expenditures, construction outlays, and the relative efficiency with which each tanker could accomplish refueling missions. Those life-cycle costs were to prove pivotal in Boeing’s eventual victory.

The tanker competition that began in late 2009 was a “come as you are” competition in the sense that the Air Force did not want to pay for the cost of developing a new tanker from scratch. So Boeing and EADS had to pick an airliner from their existing commercial product lineups and adapt it to the refueling mission. The mandatory performance requirements demanded that it be able to offload at least as much fuel as the 707-type planes in the existing tanker fleet while having a main flight deck available for cargo, passengers and other payloads. Boeing had long since settled on its twin-engine widebody 767 airliner as the best available airframe, since other planes in its line-up were either too small for necessary payloads or too expensive to operate. The 787 Dreamliner was not seriously considered because production capacity was committed to commercial customers far into the future. EADS selected as its offering a modified version of the much bigger Airbus A330, which weighed 28 percent more than the Boeing entry and burned correspondingly more fuel — in fact, over a ton more fuel per flight hour when fully loaded.

On its face, the A330 did not look like much of a bargain for the Air Force because it cost much more to build and operate than the plane it was replacing or the Boeing alternative. However, in the first, abortive round of competition with Boeing’s tanker, EADS and then-partner Northrop Grumman had convinced Air Force evaluators that by doing refueling missions differently they could benefit from buying the bigger plane. That made a certain amount of sense since bigger planes typically are more efficient per pound of payload delivered. The problem, though, was that existing, smaller tankers typically returned from refueling missions with a lot of fuel still on board, so buying a much bigger successor required the Air Force to completely change its approach to aerial refueling. That became all too apparent when the Air Force tried to apply its scenario-based warfighting model to the rival tankers and discovered that the EADS plane couldn’t accomplish some wartime missions due to basing constraints. Under pressure from Congress to keep the Northrop-EADS team in the competition, the Air Force made changes to its model that enabled the bigger plane to execute all the missions.

Northrop Grumman decided to withdraw from the tanker battle when it saw the Obama Administration’s proposed terms for the second round of competition, so EADS elected to go it alone. Despite complaints from Boeing, the Air Force continued using the same modified warfighting model to evaluate the two tanker proposals — which was one reason why EADS thought its bigger plane had a shot at winning. But once the rival tankers met mandatory performance requirements the revised acquisition strategy was all about price, and there EADS faced a big challenge. First of all, the A330 typically sells for about $40 million more than Boeing’s 767, which is a huge difference in cost when multiplied by the 179 planes the Air Force was seeking to acquire in the competition. EADS would need to tap billions of dollars in subsidies to price competitively with the manufacturing costs of the smaller Boeing plane. And then there were the post-production costs — the much higher fuel burn of the A330 over a 40-year service life, and the need to modify hangars and runways to accommodate a bigger plane. The only way Airbus could defray those costs for the Air Force was to offer an even lower up-front pricetag.

Boeing wasn’t happy with the way the Air Force calculated the higher fuel costs of the A330, since evaluators used a price escalator for the next several decades that was only about a third of the actual growth rate in fuel costs since 1970. The company felt the government was undercutting the cost-effectiveness of their offering in the real world, especially given the refusal of policymakers to even consider adjusting the EADS price to reflect use of illegal subsidies as long as subsidy cases were still pending before the World Trade Organization. So Boeing entered the final stages of the tanker competition pessimistic about its prospects. However, one message the company heard loud and clear was that if it was to have any chance of prevailing it had to price very aggressively, and that it did — so much so that its board refused to go any lower for fear of losing money on the contract. When the Pentagon announced that Boeing had won last Thursday company officials were pleasantly surprised, but they knew the government had gotten quite a bargain.

Of course, Boeing got something big too: the continuation of it 50-year tanker franchise with the U.S. Air Force, and a deal that would preclude its main rival in the airliner business from setting up commercial operations in Boeing’s home market. But in the aftermath of Boeing’s convincing win, the question still arises as to why EADS didn’t bid more aggressively when it knew price would be decisive in determining the outcome. Was it really just hubris, or was something else going on? Perhaps people like myself over-estimated how much latitude EADS had in tapping government subsidies, given the huge funding infusions it had already received to fix the A380 jumbo-jet, continue the A400M military transport, and develop a rival for the Boeing Dreamliner. Or perhaps the company’s willingness to leverage subsidies in a politically charged competition had been muted by the WTO finding of massive impropriety in its past use of subsidies to steal commercial market share.

We’ll have to wait a while to learn why EADS failed to price its tanker competitively. The one thing we know for sure is that the real-world costs of the rival tankers weren’t even close, because EADS lost even though evaluators gave the company big breaks in calculating the cost of owning its plane. In other words, the Boeing tanker won on merit, and no protest of the outcome by EADS is going to change that fact.

buglerbilly

01-03-11, 11:52 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Would EADS Have To Protest KC-X If It Has Found Fault?

Posted by Robert Wall at 3/1/2011 8:46 AM CST

In the wake of Boeing's win of KC-46A last week, we here at Ares had an interesting discussion on the topic of whether EADS should protest given the prospect of a KC-Y competition. But now that the losing bidder has been debriefed, I want to frame the argument slightly differently.

EADS says it is still assessing and evaluating everything it learned from the Pentagon in its Feb. 28 session. There are many who simply want the long-national nightmare to be over and hope EADS will just close the book on this one. The Air Force, for one, would likely breath a huge sigh of relief -- that is until it has to start managing the fixed-price development and make sure Boeing delivers on time and cost.

But there are other issues to consider. One point, for instance, is EADS management's responsibility to its shareholders. If the company truly learned something it believes gives it cause to protest, can it really walk away from pursuing a protest just to preserve its long-term potential access to the U.S. Defense Dept. market? There is no guarantee KC-Y will emerge or any of the other programs EADS may have its eye on.

So would walking away from a protest not breach management's fiduciary responsibilities? After all, this is a massive, $35 billion program, so is EADS not required to do all it can to secure the deal, having taken the decision to compete in the first place?

There is, of course, always the chance the losing bidder will not find anything of substance to fault -- although the interpretation of what is "fault" may depend as much on whether a decision to protest or not has already been taken.

buglerbilly

03-03-11, 01:26 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Hope fades for Frankentanker?

Posted by Guy Norris at 3/2/2011 5:29 PM CST

Boeing says that, despite the recent award of the long-awaited U.S. Air Force KC-X tanker contract, they have no “known” plans to re-activate the hybrid KC-767 prototype airframe built seven years ago in advance of the company’s initial failed lease-buy tanker plan.

The program, killed by Congress in October 2004 following the well-known procurement scandals involving high level Boeing and Air Force officials, prompted a double re-run of the contest which ultimately resulted in Boeing’s recent victory with the KC-46A. Before the effort died, however, Boeing spent its own dollars building a prototype that incorporated the baseline features of what was the KC-767A including a standard length -200 fuselage with strengthened floor and added main deck cargo door, -300ER strengthened wings and a flightdeck provisioned for the layout and displays of the -400ER cockpit.

Tanker prototype - forlorn and unused at Paine Field. (joe Walker)

Although it is unclear if the flightdeck was ever fitted out, the basic airframe (dubbed Frankentanker for obvious reasons) has remained stored and engineless at Everett ever since. In its more recent proposals, ending with the victorious KC-46A bid, Boeing has moved further and further away from the original variant, with changes reflecting features of later 767-200LRF long-range freighter configurations, and in its latest form, flight deck avionics derived from those of the 787.

Boeing admitted in 2005 that after recouping the scrap value along, its net loss on building the aircraft would have been $54 million. According to figures in that year’s annual report, Boeing said development expenses incurred in producing the prototype brought the total loss to $275 million.

A happier fate finally befell another 767 military prototype orphaned after the cancellation of Northrop Grumman’s E-10 MC2A program to succeed the E-2, E-8 Joint STARS and RC-135. The prototype, based on a 767-400ER, was sold to Bahrain as a VIP transport in January 2009 and finally delivered to a refurbishment center in Hamburg in January 2011.

The one that got away - ex E-10 prototype flew the nest to a VIP customer. (Joe Walker)

..and talking of 767-400s, Flightblogger reports that Boeing and FedEx Express may be studying a freighter variant of the 767-400ER as a long term replacement for the carrier’s MD-10 fleet, and providing a production bridge until the start of series production of the KC-46A tanker variant for the U.S. Air Force. Boeing currently holds orders for 49 un-built 767s, of which 24 are 767-300ERs and 25 767-300Fs, and does not plan to start assembly of the first KC-46A until 2014.

buglerbilly

03-03-11, 02:45 PM

EADS KC-X Debriefing Spanned Two Days

Mar 3, 2011

By Amy Butler

The U.S. Air Force’s debriefing for losing KC-X bidder EADS North America spanned two days to allow the service to follow up on some items with the contractor, according to a program official.

The company’s debriefing on its loss wrapped up with a session March 1, the official says. It began with a 90-min. session Feb. 28.

A little-known fact about the debriefing process is that the government can keep the session open in the event a bidder has additional questions. This was the process used Feb. 28, and final issues were addressed the next day, the program official says.

Typically, the companies take the position that the clock for a protest runs out five days after the debriefing, when they are made aware of how the government performed its source selection. However, this is an issue of debate and the legal merits of the arguments on this matter would be handled by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the event a protest is lodged.

Either way, the likely deadline for a protest is March 7, according to David Van Buren, Air Force acquisition chief.

Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, says “I trust” that the companies involved in KC-X will “respect the decision” and “allow it to proceed unimpeded.” He made his comments March 2 at a conference in Arlington, Va., hosted by Credit Suisse.

“It is ugly history and so we worked diligently with extremely professional and competent offerors to make sure that this time we did it properly,” he adds.

He acknowledges that EADS is “entitled” to protest, and he notes there is “not payback on these kinds of things” with regard to future access to the U.S. defense market if they do. Some analysts suggest EADS would hold back on a protest at the risk of offending a major customer. “The process is much too pristine” for a bias of that sort, Schwartz says.

However, the tanker decision raises a larger question about perceived access by European manufacturers to the U.S. defense market. In recent years, an Italian design won the Marine One helicopter program, only to be scrapped owing largely to government squabbles over requirements. And Alenia’s grip on a once-robust C-27J buy loosened when the Air Force took over the program and truncated it, dashing the company’s plans to build a stateside final assembly facility.

Now, with the latest KC-X selection, EADS has lost to Boeing, quashing its hopes for a U.S. final assembly plant in the near term. Though these decisions were made individually on their merits by the Pentagon, some analysts wonder whether European contractors will begin to sour on the notion of doing business with a fickle Defense Department.

Schwartz says simply that “We are going to go where the best value resides,” indicating that non-U.S. designs are still welcome for consideration. The Boeing selection, he says, “is about the best deal.” Boeing won the $3.5 billion fixed-price development contract Feb. 24. The company is expected to deliver the first 18 KC-46As for operational use in 2017. Air Force officials acknowledged March 1 the contract was signed with Boeing; the company declines to say whether work has begun (Aerospace DAILY, March 2).

A Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team won a $1.5 billion development contract for four testing aircraft in 2008; that decision was overturned after Boeing launched a protest with GAO and procurement missteps came to light.

Meanwhile, the government and Northrop/EADS still have not reached a legal agreement on that canceled contract. The Air Force placed a substantial payment on the first KC-45A.

Photo: Northrop Grumman

buglerbilly

03-03-11, 11:23 PM

EADS May Pass On KC-X Protest

By Colin Clark Thursday, March 3rd, 2011 5:21 pm

While it’s not official, there are indications that EADS NA will not file a bid protest about the airborne tanker deal with the Government Accountability Office.

Reuters broke the story in Europe and then AFP quoted a source “close to the matter” who said “apparently” a protest will not be filed. But it also quoted a spokesman for EADS NA saying no decision has been reached. The French news agency has excellent sources within EADS, the parent company. An EADS NA spokesman told me the company is still weighing its options. But the initial sense from company officials after Boeing was named winner was that EADS was leaning strongly toward filing a protest.

Given the importance of other business for EADS NA with the Pentagon, and in the interests of US– European trade ties (especially important in the defense world) , the European parent may well have decided to cut its losses and not risk antagonizing Pentagon buyers or the Obama White House. The company is proposing its AAS-72X for the Army’s armed scout helicopter mission. And it supplies the TRS-3D radar for Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Combat Ship.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/03/eads-may-pass-on-kc-x-protest/#ixzz1Fa8GIx2a

buglerbilly

04-03-11, 12:15 AM

DATE:03/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing's KC-X spec still remains a secret

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing entered the second USAF tanker competition acknowledging the need to slash the KC-767's cost. While its losing bid in the last round combined elements of three versions of the 767 in what some called the "Frankentanker", Boeing appeared focused on leveraging existing technology.

But little is known about the details of Boeing's offer outside the air force's evaluation team. On 15 February, EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby noted that it was difficult for EADS to estimate Boeing's risk exposure because so many details about the KC-767's configuration and performance have not been revealed.

Since unveiling the KC-767 NewGen Tanker last February, Boeing officials kept the key facts about the company's offer hidden from public view. Among the items that remain undisclosed are the aircraft's range, payload capacity, and fuel offload at a given range.

Boeing also has not disclosed if the KC-767 - to be rebranded the KC-46A - is based on a single model or assembled from major elements of different models. Even the identity of the refuelling systems, including the boom, centreline drogue and wingtip hose and drogues, are still not publicised.

Asked if Boeing would now disclose those details a few hours after contract award, Dennis Muilenberg, president of the company's defence and security division, declined, saying they would not be "rolled out" until more time has passed.

The air force's evaluation, of course, determined that Boeing's proposal met all 372 mandatory requirements, which included specific measures for fuel offload at range, the flow-rate for the boom and payload capacity for cargo, passengers and medical patients.

buglerbilly

04-03-11, 12:17 AM

DATE:03/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF evaluated rivals' bids on price

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force's evaluation in the second round of competition elevated a single criterion - price - over all other factors. Even judging the competitors by their past performance, a standard and sometimes controversial metric, was reduced in significance.

Ashton Carter, under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, confirms the KC-X evaluation considered past performance only as one of 372 pass/fail requirements, which also included the amount of water that must be stowed in the aircraft's lavatory.

The goal of the highly prescriptive KC-X evaluation process seemed focused on driving any potentially subjective criteria out of the system, reducing the decision to a mathematical formula as much as possible.

"The unsuccessful offerer has a right to protest as part of the process," Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn told reporters on 24 February. "We think we've established a clear and open and transparent process. We think we've executed on that, and it will not yield grounds for a protest."

Despite EADS North America Ralph Crosby's confidence preceding the contract award, it was Boeing's price that Carter declared a "clear winner" in the competition. The difference between the two bids was at least greater than 1%, or about $330 million, Carter says.

A key factor in the review by EADS officials is likely to be how the USAF adjusted the original price proposals submitted by both companies.

As part of the unique formula that was devised for the KC-X competition, the air force established three criteria - an operational assessment, the cost of fuel consumed over 40 years and construction of new hangars - to adjust each bid to determine a "total evaluated price".

A week before contract award, Crosby acknowledged that the KC-45 faced a shortfall of at least $1 billion on lifecycle fuel burn and construction costs compared with Boeing's smaller aircraft. But Crosby said he believed the KC-45 could still be the cheaper aircraft in the competition.

Since the KC-45 was based on the Airbus A330, which boasts a higher production rate than the 767, EADS's manufacturing costs could be more efficient, Crosby says. And since EADS was offering a nearly off-the-shelf tanker, he adds, the KC-45 could be priced more aggressively. In the previous competition, which EADS won, the price of the KC-45 was nearly identical to the KC-767.

In the subsequent round, EADS had shed Northrop Grumman as the prime contractor, which is estimated to have wiped at least 10% off the cost of the proposal with almost no decrease in value.

Unicorn

04-03-11, 10:14 PM

EADS won't appeal $35B Air Force tanker decision

Donna Cassata, Associated Press, On Friday March 4, 2011, 12:38 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The European plane-building company that lost out on a $35 billion refueling tanker deal isn't appealing the Air Force's decision to go with Chicago-based Boeing.

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. said Friday it won't ask the Pentagon to review the decision to have Boeing build nearly 200 giant airborne refueling tankers.

"It's time to put the interest of the warfighter first and we're stepping aside," said Ralph Crosby Jr., chairman of EADS North America.

The Air Force last week picked Boeing to build a replacement for the Eisenhower-era tanker fleet. The contract would mean tens of thousands of U.S. jobs, with Washington state and Kansas getting the bulk of the work. The contract, which could be worth as much as $100 billion, is a major win for Boeing.

EADS planned to assemble the aircraft at a closed military base in Mobile, Ala.

The tankers allow jet fighters, supply planes and other aircraft to cover long distances. That's critical today with fewer overseas bases and with operations under way far from the U.S.

JimWH

04-03-11, 10:38 PM

I think EADS has it's eye on the next contract, and I think they might just have won some friends in the Pentagon.

buglerbilly

05-03-11, 01:29 AM

No Protest; EADS Urges Close Boeing Tanker Oversight

By Colin Clark Friday, March 4th, 2011 1:39 pm

Posted in Air, International, Policy

UPDATED: Rep. Norm Dicks Comments

Arguing that Boeing may well find it difficult to build and fly its airborne tanker on cost and on schedule, EADS NA made clear the Air Force had run the competition with integrity and fairlness and would not pursue a bid protest on one of the largest Pentagon procurements ever.

EADS made clear that Boeing won the competition with a comfortable margin, underbidding EADS NA by almost 10 percent, $20.6 billion versus $22.6 billion. That bid was so low that EADS NA Chairman Ralph Crosby said he believed it important that Boeing be watched closely to make sure they can deliver at that price and on schedule. “If they aren’t, then they should be held accountable,” he said. CEO Sean O’Keefe said the company’s friends on Capitol Hill would be watching Boeing to provide oversight.

Crosby said the company decided not to protest because the Air Force “has been absolutely scrupulous in following the rules.”

The breadth of that price difference led Crosby to conclude that Boeing made “extremely low-ball bid to achieve their strategic objectives” of keeping EADS out of the American military market.

“When you are in a fixed price game and the other guy decides he is going to win at any cost there isn’t much you can do,” Crosby said, making it clear that he thought Boeing made a strategic decision to bid low on the tanker to ensure EADS did not start building cargo or tanker aircraft in the United States. He pointed to the fact that EADS would have been ready to fly its first aircraft in 2013, two years earlier than Boeing plans.

The EADS decision drew a kind word from one of Boeing’s staunchest supporters on Capitol Hill. “I am encouraged by the announcement today from the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) that it will not seek to prolong the Air Force’s procurement of Boeing KC-46A tankers by protesting the decision made last week,” Rep. Norm Dicks said. “This clears the way for the tanker acquisition process to move forward rapidly so that we can begin the replacement of the Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers. It is clear that the competition was fair and objective: Boeing won by offering a more fuel-efficient tanker at a more reasonable price.”

During today’s press conference, Crosby sent one last barb at Boeing, saying his company stands ready to supply some of its tankers should Boeing “falter” in its efforts to build a new airborne tanker.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/04/eads-decides-against-kc-x-protest-urges-close-boeing-oversight/#ixzz1FgU6SX4Y

Chunder

05-03-11, 03:50 AM

[B]” Rep. Norm Dicks said.... It is clear that the competition was fair and objective: Boeing won by offering a more fuel-efficient tanker at a more reasonable price.”

For the sake of calling out an idiot. Aircraft weight is directly proportional to fuel efficiency. (Though probably not so with that 767 wing!) Aircraft wing area/size is directly proportional to the capabilities of that aircraft.

Boeing won by meeting a RFP criteria, at a lower price. 1% cost difference didn't even come into play.

buglerbilly

11-03-11, 10:55 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

KC-46A: What We Don't Know

Posted by Amy Butler at 3/11/2011 10:25 AM CST

It is nearly a decade after USAF negotiated a defunct lease of 100 tankers with Boeing, a year after the most recent RFP for KC-X went out, just over two weeks since Boeing's KC-46A contract award and one week after rival EADS said it wouldn't protest the loss.

But, despite all of the mental and financial capital that went into selecting the KC-46A, there are some very basic details that remain unaddressed for the taxpayer.

First and foremost is cost. For what was perhaps the most controversial contractor selection in recent history at the Pentagon, its official "blue top" announcement on Feb. 24 was scant in detail.

The Boeing Co. of Seattle, Washington, was awarded a fixed price incentive firm contract valued at over $3.5 billion for the KC-X Engineering and Manufacturing Development which will deliver 18 aircraft by 2017. Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC/WKK), Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8625-11-C600).

Neither the U.S. Air Force nor Boeing have stated what exactly "over $3.5 billion" means for the KC-46A development contract. The Pentagon has been touting the fixed-price approach as a savvy move to save money. But, one item we don't know is the price of the deal.

Secondly, following Boeing's win, Jean Chamberlain, the company's tanker VP, acknowledged that first flight is in 2015, and delivery of the first 18 aircraft would take place by the end of 2017. Chamberlain acknowledged on the company's Feb. 24 telecon post-win that this is "concurrent development" meaning flight test and developmental activities are taking place as the first aircraft are being built. That characterization is certainly accurate. But, another item we don't know about the KC-46A contract is why the Air Force and Boeing opted to take this approach and what the likelihood is it will deliver on time.

Thanks to the three-time restructured F-35 development program, the term "concurrent development" has become a bit of a dirty word among some in Pentagon circles. F-35 development was built on concurrent development and promised low prices. Those didn't materialize, problems have been found in development and production is slipping. So, while a COTS modified tanker and a design-to-spec JSF are very different, the challenges of concurrent development and production remain the same -- risk of delays and possible retrofits.

Underlying the question of what we don't know about the rationale to approve concurrent development and production is what we don't know about configuration. The greater aerospace community can't have a dialogue about the risk or lack thereof to this concurrent approach if the Air Force and Boeing don't release details about the exact configuration. There are a few things we do know: Somehow Boeing is putting a digital 787 cockpit into an analog 767 aircraft and there is a modified KC-10 boom to meet the gallon-per-minute offload requirement. But, we don't know what the design entails in terms of risk reduction on the platform or on the mission systems.

Finally, we don’t even know officially that work has begun on this contract. Neither USAF nor Boeing will confirm.

When the Pentagon set about issuing this RFP in February 2010, it was clear that the paramount concern was designing a competition that would be "protest proof" -- in essence, one that could withstand a protest. The Air Force's ability to buy a tanker wasn’t the only thing on the line. The credibility of its acquisition corps, and its ability to move forward with other major procurements was also at stake. Against that goal, the KC-X procurement has been successful; it was – in the strictest since – protest proof. EADS announced a week ago that wasn’t even going to try for a protest. So, we will never know if the process would have withstood the scrutiny of an audit, but the bottom line is that the Air Force’s acquisition corps has not been subjected to the cloud that comes with a protest on a major program.

Some could argue that Air Force acquisition has been handed – or earned – some clout. It is up to the Air Force, now, not to squander this clout. From the moment EADS announced it was not going to protest, the Air Force entered a traditional customer/contractor relationship with Boeing as its KC-46A supplier. With that comes the responsibility of informing the public and the airmen that will use the KC-46A of what they are getting and how they plan on getting these new aircraft on the ramp.

Perhaps there is an effort to sidestep any public discussion about these topics. Perhaps the Air Force is still in “hunker down,” defensive posture lingering after the protest was anticipated, as one serviceman suggested. Perhaps the Air Force was simply unprepared for the prospect of a protest-less competition.

There is any number of reasons why the Air Force isn’t talking about the particulars. But, if KC-X is any model for the future – or even a successful anomaly of a procurement – the service has got to step up, own the decision and explain it to the public at large.

Unicorn

11-03-11, 11:32 PM

Yep, they selected an aircraft that is not even finished design, won't fly for four years and won't be entering Squadron service for six years. If, IF! it's delivered on time, which given their recent history is unlikely.

How many more KC135s will need massively expensive rework to keep flying for six more years, at which point the first KC-45 will enter service?

They may have gone with a cheaper bid, but Boeing's ability to deliver on time, on budget and on performance is abysmal.

Look at the 748 and 787 programs. Perhaps, from Boeing's point of view it's better if you don't.

EADS was offering an aircraft that is available now and about to enter service with the RAAF, instead the USAF believed the Boeing spin about delivering an untested aircraft on time and budget.

If I was the person responsible for this decision, I would be making sure I was out of the Air Force before 2017, to avoid taking the fall for another frakked up project.

.

ADMk2

12-03-11, 02:39 AM

Hell, look at Boeing's effort with it's last 767 based tanker. Makes European Defence Industries look positively brilliant...

buglerbilly

14-03-11, 08:39 AM

DATE:13/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

KC-X contest boosted EADS reputation in the USA: Gallois

By Dominic Perry

EADS has no regrets about competing for the US Air Force's KC-X tanker contract, despite losing out to rival Boeing, believing the whole episode has boosted the company's standing with US Department of Defense officials.

Chief executive Louis Gallois, speaking at the company's 2010 results presentation on 9 March, said that EADS's "reputation in the USA has dramatically improved" as a result of its participation in the contest.

He believes there has been a change in the way the company is viewed within the DoD and Congress and points to the "faithful support" it received from several southern states, notably Alabama, where it planned to assemble the A330-based KC-45 and its A330 freighters.

"If we want to develop our company [in the USA] we know where we can go and where we will be supported and welcomed," he added.

However, he believes that thanks to the parameters of the tender, which judged the two offerings solely on price, the US armed forces have lost out: "We regret that the warfighter in the US will not have the most capable tanker; ours is a more capable product, that is clear."

Although the company could have found "some small details" on which to build a protest over the handling of the competition, Gallois believes the company was not unfairly treated by the USAF. However, he acknowledges that "we knew the way that [the tender] was framed gave an advantage to the smaller airplane".

It has also held back from protesting for fear that this would be misconstrued by a US public that has been "expecting its tanker for the last 10 years", he adds. Nonetheless the competition has benefited the US taxpayer, he says, as the USAF is receiving more aircraft for a lower unit price. By its calculations the unit cost has been halved, leading to an overall saving of something in the order of $16 billion.

Boeing was awarded the contract , worth up to $35 billion, on 24 February. It will build 179 KC-46A aircraft over 13 years, based on its KC-767 New Gen Tanker. A first flight is scheduled for 2015, with initial operational capability, with 18 aircraft, due by 2017.

Unicorn

14-03-11, 08:58 AM

I doubt the US taxpayer will save anything.

Boeing will start delivering and then claim a need for more money 'due to changed USAF requirements" or some such, and their paid Senate stooges and Congresscritters will force the DOD to pay more.

.

buglerbilly

16-03-11, 01:17 PM

DATE:16/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

PICTURE: Airbus Military completes first A330 tanker flight for Saudi Arabia

By Craig Hoyle

Saudi Arabia's first A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) has made its first flight in modified form, touching down on 15 March at the end of a 4h 15min sortie.

Conducted from Airbus Military's Getafe site near Madrid, the debut comes ahead of the company's planned delivery of the Royal Saudi Air Force's first of six aircraft late this year.

"The crew reported that the aircraft, its systems and two General Electric CF6 engines performed entirely satisfactorily," says Airbus Military. The company has previously flown modified A330 MRTT aircraft for Australia (three) and the UK (two), and is also modifying its first unit for the United Arab Emirates.

Airbus Military says Saudi Arabia's new tanker will enter a period of final certification and qualification activities ahead of its delivery. The nation's second aircraft is already in conversion, while work on a third will begin in mid-2011, it adds.

© Airbus Military

Meanwhile, the company says the first two of the Royal Australian Air Force's five delayed GE-engined tankers are "technically complete and ready for delivery to the RAAF in Getafe, pending finalisation of contractual discussion".

The EADS unit had previously planned to hand the pair over late in 2010, but suffered a setback earlier this year, when one of Canberra's aircraft suffered limited damage during a night-time training incident with a Portuguese air force Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter.

Part of the tanker's refuelling boom separated from the aircraft and fell into the sea following a collision, although the A330 and F-16 both returned safely to their operating bases.

buglerbilly

18-03-11, 02:37 AM

USAF to Tightly Control Tanker Requirements Changes

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 17 Mar 2011 17:25

Comments at the bottom...............

U.S. Air Force leaders are taking draconian steps to ensure the service's prized Boeing KC-46A tanker program stays in line.

U.S. Air Force leaders said its KC-46 program will be scrutinized microscopically. (Boeing)

To protect the aerial refueling plane from ever-expanding requirements, changes will not be allowed except at the "highest level," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told the Senate Armed Services Committee March 17.

Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, who was testifying alongside Donley, added that the KC-46 program would be scrutinized "microscopically" to make certain the "offeror delivers what he promised.

"The level of approval for engineering change orders is not going to be at the program office level," Schwartz said.

Though it has yet to be decided who will have final authority to approve such changes, it might be at the very top level of the Air Force leadership.

"It might be at our level," Schwartz said. "The bottom line is, we intend to maintain discipline on this thing."

Analysts applauded the Air Force's move. Historically, contractors would bid low to win competitions and then use the engineering change order mechanism to avoid fulfilling their contractual obligations, said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.

"It used to be a common practice in the industry that people would bid low and then try to use engineering changes to restore [profit] margins on the program," he said.

With the new approach, the Air Force cuts off that loophole for any potential contractor, Thompson said.

Byron Callan, an analyst at Capital Alpha Partners in New York, also applauded the move.

"That's pretty prudent on their part. … It's the only way they're going to keep the tanker at the cost that it was bid for," he said.

"It may not be great from a Boeing standpoint," Callan added.

However, in cases where a technology is particularly cutting edge, such an approach could backfire.

"If you were to limit engineering changes on something revolutionary like the F-35 [Joint Strike Fighter], you could really foul up the program," Thompson said.

Callan agreed that the new approach to the tanker program would not be a good idea if it were to be applied to all Air Force contracts.

"Trying to think you can just freeze a design that will last five or six years, that's locking yourself into obsolescence," he said.

The last comment is pretty indicative of where the general problems lie. EVERY program should have a stringent and challenging Change Control process in it, IF you don't control change you'll end up with the very problems that currently exist where rampant nice-to-have's and uncontrolled need-to-have's have led to soooooo many instances of Cost Growth, Development Delay and Program unfettered expansion...........leading edge technology has ZIP to do with any of this, proper Project Management has..............where you are doing leading edge stuff you also need an active and vibrant Challenge process where the risks, technical and commercial, can be explored and their potential accurately assessed BEFORE you proceed and (blindly) do it.

The bain of every Military program since time-immemorial has been uncontrolled GROWTH, growth in costs, in time necessary to develop and get a program to fruition and growth that, with hindsight, should have been deemed unnecessary when viewed against the minor benefit sometimes gained.

Deks

18-03-11, 04:15 AM

To be honest I think it depends on what your end-state is, but I agree in principle. Makes sense on this project, for sure.

Unicorn

18-03-11, 09:39 AM

buglerbilly

18-03-11, 03:00 PM

Iberia Converts Passenger Aircraft Into Mid-Air Refuelling Tanker

(Source: Iberia; issued March 16, 2010)

--Iberia's Maintenance and Engineering unit completed the job in a record 16 months.
--Systems added to enable A330 to refuel other aircraft in flight and to take on fuel in the air.
--Total of 5,500 system components were modified, with structural changes made to 2,000.
--Iberia Maintenance has a strategic military aircraft business line.
--This conversion is part of an agreement between Iberia Maintenance and Airbus Military.

MADRID --- Iberia has converted an Airbus A330-200 passenger airliner into a Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), equipped for mid-air refuelling. It was the first time such a complex task has been performed in Spain, where Iberia maintenance and engineering teams completed it in a record 16 months.

After yesterday's final flight test, the aircraft, belonging to the Saudi Arabian air force, was delivered by Iberia to Airbus Military.

The aircraft was flown in November, 2009 from the Airbus plant in Toulouse, France to Iberia's Madrid maintenance installations, where it was equipped to carry fuel, and deliver it in mid-air to other aircraft, and also to receive fuel from other tankers in flight. Hose and funnel mid-air refuelling systems were installed on both wings and on the fuselage along with a fly-by-wire control device. First the aircraft was disassembled to allow structural modifications to be made, followed by functional tests both on the ground and in the air. The transformation of the A330 into an MRTT was completed with the configuration of the interior.

Iberia's engineers and technicians spent 140,000 man-hours on the conversion of the A330, during which they modified 5,500 system components, making structural changes to 2,000 parts. An additional 58.5 km. of wiring was installed, including 1,000 metres each of coaxial cable and fibre optic cable.

The collaboration agreement between Iberia Maintenance and Airbus Military to convert civilian aircraft into MRTTs reflects the Spanish company's strategy of reorienting its maintenance business towards technologically challenging and high value-added activities. Iberia’s EVP Maintenance and Engineering, José Luis Ruiz de Castañeda, said: "it is a great satisfaction for us to have successfully completed a project which is certainly the biggest challenge we have ever faced in the transformation of aircraft".

Iberia has more than 20 years of experience in the maintenance of military aircraft. In addition to the inspection and repair of the Pegasus engines used in Harrier VTOL fighters, it maintains Boeing 707s and P3-Orion sea rescue craft for the Spanish armed forces. It has also serviced the aircraft used by the heads of state of such countries as Argentina and Turkmenistan.

Iberia Maintenance is responsible for maintaining the Iberia fleet and those of another 100 clients around the world. In 2010 it carried out a total of 122 C and D checks of aircraft, and inspected and repaired 200 engines and 53,587 aircraft components. It is the world's ninth-largest aircraft maintenance company. Last October it commissioned a new maintenance hangar at the Barcelona Airport.

-ends-

Chunder

18-03-11, 04:15 PM

Especially as basically they are buying a new replacement for a 50 year old design.

If Boeing had offered new build KC-135s with modern engines, I doubt that the contest would have dragged on as long.

.

Thats what makes this whole contest so frigging stupid. It seems the USAF is interested in practically eff all outside it's own little bubble. I still can't fathom that the USAF actually believes in essence replacing a dawn of SAC - age tanker where the requirement is a SAC platform that forms the genesis of a 'gold standard' replacement competition. perfect size, footprint, etc - is a responsible use of taxpayers money when deciding upon a platform...

How many gallons are those C-17's burning moving pallets. What use can the USAF's req have with the USN... In the rest of the world rationalisation of req's and usages would be the name of the game.

Unicorn

18-03-11, 11:59 PM

The USAF seemed to believe that the replacement for a KC-135 needed to fit within the same footprint as the KC-135. ignoring the adage that more aircraft size buys you more capability.

Concrete is cheap, capability is not.

For gods sake, the latest 737-900ERs are almost as large as the old 707s, on which the KC-135 was based.

.

buglerbilly

23-03-11, 10:18 PM

DATE:23/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

PICTURE: UK's first A330 tanker demonstrates three-point configuration

By Craig Hoyle

The UK's first Airbus A330-based Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) remains on track for its planned delivery to the Royal Air Force late this year, with the type having recently achieved another first during testing.

One of two A330-200s to have been modified for the UK at Airbus Military's Getafe site near Madrid, the aircraft is pictured trailing its two underwing hose and drogue refuelling lines, as well as one from its centreline fuselage refuelling unit.

The image was captured by a Spanish air force Boeing EF-18 fighter, which Airbus Military says was providing support during a recent handling qualities flight.

© Airbus Military

"Two FSTAs are currently flying and the first is on schedule to transfer to the UK in the second quarter of the year to begin qualification flights with the specified receiver aircraft types, leading to first delivery towards the end of the year," the company says.

Fourteen modified A330s will enter RAF use under a private finance initiative deal with AirTanker, with the fleet to be flown from the service's Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire. AirTanker will open its new building on the site on 31 March, with the company's first aircraft due to enter operational use in October 2011.

buglerbilly

24-03-11, 03:37 AM

DATE:23/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing reveals KC-46A tanker milestone date

By Stephen Trimble

A top Boeing executive has filled in the date for a key milestone in the development of the KC-46A tanker, saying the deadline for completing "firm configuration" is in the third quarter.

Speaking to reporters in Seattle on 20 March, Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager for Boeing commercial airplane programmes, identified the milestone, which matches requirements with the engineering needs for the final design for the US Air Force's next tanker.

"The fuse is lit," Shanahan says. "We're off and running."

Boeing was awarded a $4.5 billion development contract on 24 February to modify four 767-based airliners into prototype military tankers. The USAF plans to buy 175 more tankers over a 13-year period, starting with the first 18 by the end of 2017.

"We worked that very, very hard and there were a lot of people that were involved in putting together that schedule, so now it's really about staffing it with the right people that have the right experience, so that on the requirements side and on the engineering side we nail that flat," Shanahan says.

The air force has signed a fixed priced, incentive-fee contract for the KC-46A, meaning the balance of the risk is assumed by Boeing in the event of cost overruns and schedule delays.

Shanahan notes that Boeing recent experiences with breakdowns on the 787 and 747-8 development programmes helped shape the company's proposal for the so-called KC-X award.

"We did a lot of things on the [7]87 that were right and we did a lot of things that we probably should have done differently," he says. We've learned a lot on the [747-8] Intercontinental, so between - those are firm, fixed price development projects - so on this firm fixed-price development program, we put together an executable schedule."

Boeing has still not revealed details of the planned configuration of the KC-46A, including whether the aircraft will mix together elements of different models of the 767.

Jon Ostrower contributed to this report from Seattle.

buglerbilly

27-03-11, 11:42 AM

Boeing looks to offer 767 for more military aircraft

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., speaks during a celebration on Friday, March 25, 2011 in Boeing's Everett, Wash., wide-body factory of the company's win of a U.S. Air Force contract to build 179 aerial refueling tankers. (Aubrey Cohen/seattlepi.com)

Posted by Aubrey Cohen on March 25, 2011 at 4:04 pm

The Air Force’s recent choice of Boeing’s 767-based aerial refueling tanker for a 179-plane contract isn’t necessarily the last triumph for the 767, Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Jim Albaugh said Friday.

“We’re not done. We’re going to build 179 of these, and then we’ll build another 179 for the U.S. Air Force,” he said after a celebration of the company’s tanker win with U.S. Reps. Norm Dicks and Rick Larsen, both D-Wash. “My guess is there are a hundred (orders) out there internationally.”

Just as the new tankers will replace Boeing 707-based KC-135 Stratotankers, there are other 707-based military aircraft still in operation, such as the E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS) and E-8 Joint STARS, Albaugh added. “They all need to be re-platformed and I think this is a great airplane to do it on.”

That appears to have been part of Boeing’s calculation in making a tanker bid that is aggressive by its own admission. But Albaugh rejected competitor EADS North America’s contention that Boeing’s bid was too low to make a profit.

“I don’t like losing, but I’d rater lose than win and lose money. We’re going to make money on this airplane,” he said. “We took bilions of dollars out of the bill of materials, and we have a profit margin built into this program that, while standing here today might not be as attractive as we have on other programs, over time I think we can make this program very profitable.”

Part of ensuring that profit will be protecting against a creep in the scope of work, Albaugh said. “(I)f additional requirements are needed by the Air Force, that’s fine. But they’re going to have to pay for it.”

During the celebration, Dicks congratulated Boeing for its “courageous bid,” joking: “I didn’t realize how courageous it was until Airbus was explaining it” in announcing it wouldn’t protest the award.

But Friday was mostly a celebration of Dicks’ decade of work promoting Boeing for the tanker contract.

“I think if there’s one singular person among all the people who worked so hard on this program, who allowed us to win it, helped us to win it, it’s Congressman Norm Dicks,” Albaugh said during the ceremony.

“Every time that we had something that had to get done Norm was there,” Albaugh said, noting that Dicks pushed Boeing to protest the Air Force’s 2008 choice of the then competing offering from a Northrop Grumman-EADS team and made sure that the Government Accountability Office “did their work” in reviewing that award and finding flaws that led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to declare a new competition.

“About three weeks later, the Air Force came out with a new set of requirements, and it was a set of requirements written around a big airplane,” Albaugh said. “Norm cried foul and the Air Force withdrew that set of requirements.”

Northrop sat out the new competition because it saw the final requirements as favoring Boeing’s smaller tanker, which generally costs less, requires fewer modifications to hangars and runways and, most notably, burns less fuel.

“Key in our winning this competition was Norm calling the Air Force and telling them that they had to look at the life-cycle cost of this airplane not over 25 years but over 40 years,” Albaugh said. “I think that one small change was instrumental in our winning this program.”

The 767-based tanker will use $11 billion to $36 billion less fuel over those 40 years, Dicks said.

“I wanted 50 years,” he said. “I said: ‘Hey, you’ve got these KC-135s that are 50 years old now. They’re going to fly, some of them, until they’re 80 years old. Why not 50?’ I couldn’t sell that, but at least we got 40.”

Dicks said he also talked then House Defense Appropriations Committee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., out of promoting a split buy between Boeing and EADS. And he said he and Larsen plan to push to accelerate tanker production to 24 a year.

While Dicks got the biggest chunk of love Friday, Albaugh called Larsen the left hand to Dick’s right in the tanker one-two punch. He also noted that Larsen, whose district includes the Everett plant, pushed a measure that would have required the Air Force to account for illegal subsidies to Airbus in the tanker competition (with Boeing’s win, that never came into play).

One reason for Friday’s celebration was that Dicks and Larsen missed the parties the day Boeing won the contract and the day after that, although Dicks spoke by phone.

“How many times are we going to celebrate this,” Larsen asked Friday. “Forever.”

buglerbilly

01-04-11, 01:29 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Rep. Bonner Presses For Tanker Answers

Posted by Jen DiMascio at 3/31/2011 12:41 PM CDT

Bonner and his buddies down South are going to be up Boeing's ass like a bunch of feral ferrets IF they try to get huge swages of more money from the USAF...............whether Dicks-head is there or not!

EADS aerial refueling tanker supporters just won't leave Boeing’s recent win alone.

Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), represents the district where EADS would have assembled the tankers.

In a House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing Thursday, he grilled Air Force Secretary Mike Donley about who had the authority to approve changes to the tanker program in the future and whether Congress had to be notified.

According to Donley, he’ll be the one to approve changes to the program. And the Air Force will provide Congress with periodic program updates. “We’re not required by law to inform you of every contract change,” he said. “But certainly we can make that available upon request.”

Rep. Norm Dicks (Wash.), the committee's ranking Democrat and one of the biggest supporters of Boeing on Capitol Hill leaned far forward in his seat during the whole exchange.

As he left the hearing, Bonner told Aviation Week that in a time when Congress is scrutinizing every penny it spends, he could find bipartisan support for ensuring the tanker is delivered on time at the price that was originally promised.

But what’s Bonner driving at exactly? Does he want to write some kind of legislation that would require the Air Force to let Congress know about change orders?

Bonner was noncommital.

“You never know what you need to do until you get the basics of understanding about what the facts are,” he said.

buglerbilly

02-04-11, 01:59 AM

The Ghost of KC-X Lingers

By John Reed Friday, April 1st, 2011 12:23 pm

Both EADS and Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill continue to make noise about the Air Force’s now settled KC-X contest which saw Boeing recently win the $30-$35 billion contract to replace the Air Force’s oldest KC-135s with the 767-based KC-46A.

Washington state’ Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) released a statement last night firing a final jab at EADS’ parent company Airbus regarding this week’s final World Trade Organization ruling that rejects much of an EU suit claiming Boeing receives unfair government subsidies:

This final ruling confirms what we already knew: Airbus has had a massive illegal advantage over Boeing for years. In today’s ruling, the World Trade Organization rejected 80 percent of the European Union’s alleged subsidy claims.

The EU suit came after the WTO ruled that Airbus recieved billions in unfair launch aid for its aircraft that allowed it to undermine Boeing’s market share around the globe. That ruling became a political football during the KC-X contest, with Boeing supporters arguing that the subsidies would help EADS undercut Boeing’s 767-based NewGen Tanker offer with its bigger, newer and more expensive Airbus A330 based bid for KC-X.

Canwell went on to say:

The EU should put a stop to launch aid, which distorts the true price of products and creates unfair competition in the global marketplace.

Today’s ruling reaffirms that American sweat equity beat out massive illegal subsidies for the Air Force’s tanker contract. American workers will win every time, if given a fair playing field. The deck was stacked in favor of Airbus – and American ingenuity won anyway.

Keep in mind that KC-X is only one small part of the overall battle between Boeing and EADS who are slugging it out over the top spot in the global heavy aircraft market. Many predict the two giants will need to figure out some way to get along and play nice (aka: resolve the subsidies issue, among other things) in the face of what’s expected to be increased competition from a Chinese aircraft industry in the coming decades.

Meanwhile, EADS backer, Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), yesterday took an oversight stance in the new contract asking Air Force brass during a House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing if they were required to inform lawmakers about every small change made to the KC-X contract over the coming months and years. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley effectively replied, not really.

“We owe you annual updates as we come back through the development program…and production,” said Donley. But, “I don’t believe we’re required by law to inform you of every contract change but certainly we’ll make that information available on request.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/01/the-ghost-of-kc-x-lingers/#ixzz1IK5HATNX

buglerbilly

06-04-11, 01:07 AM

Any Changes To KC-X Contract Will Require “High Level” Approval

By John Reed Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 5:03 pm

In an effort to keep the $30 billion KC-X contract on track to deliver airplanes by the middle of the decade, any changes to the KC-X contract will have to be approved at the highest levels of the service and Pentagon leadership, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said today.

The service secretary told reporters today that the has a draft memo sitting on his desk, “the focus of which is to not allow changes to the tanker contract without high level review.”

Donley was speaking in response to a question about the potential for requirements creep on the new tanker during a breakfast with reporters in Washington.

The secretary went on to point out that both the Air Force and KC-46-maker Boeing are not likely to desire any major changes, considering that the deal for the new jet is a fixed price contract. He noted that the service and Pentagon leadership have not yet figured out just how high up in DoD bureaucracy “high level” approval will be.

This comes about a week after Donley told lawmakers that he would work to tell them about any changes to the KC-X contract, despite there being no legal requirement to do so.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/05/any-changes-to-kc-x-contract-will-require-high-level-approval/#ixzz1IhGR5Faq

buglerbilly

08-04-11, 02:43 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

KC-46A -- First Photos ... Sans Winglets

Posted by Amy Butler at 4/7/2011 8:54 AM CDT

One debate sure to spring out of the new KC-46A data finally coming from Boeing and the Pentagon is whether anything goes in terms of marketing for a business capture campaign. At issue is just how conceptual should conceptual art printed in ads and given to the press for publication be?

Enter the case of the missing winglets.

Boeing concept

Until this week, Boeing widely distributed artist concepts of its NewGen Tanker, based on the 767, with prominent winglets, sparking discussion among onlookers about why they were needed and how much integration would cost.

One characteristic of the KC-46A in newly released images, however, is the conspicuous absence of the winglets. So, about six weeks after winning the $4.4 billion KC-X development contract, it comes to light that the design is far different than that proposed on the company’s website.

The image posted with this blog is actually a virtual retake of one distributed last year -- just without the winglets.

Boeing opted against revising its so-called NewGen tanker marketing materials in advance of the source selection despite having earlier determined that the winglets would not be needed after conducting design trade studies. “Based on the USAF refueling requirements, the missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets,” according to a company statement provided as a response about the winglet issue. “We felt comfortable showing winglets on the NewGen tanker because we were considering them through the trade study. Showing available technology and potential airplane configurations in marketing material is a normal practice in the industry.”

In short, Bill Barksdale, Boeing’s KC-46A spokesman, says the winglets did not “earn their way onto the airplane.” But, they apparently earned their way onto concept art renderings and managed to stay there. Barksdale declines to say when the design decision was made to opt for standard wings.

Boeing’s unitedstatestanker.com website still features images of the aircraft with winglets. “I don’t think we are ever going to talk about the timing of when we decided to take them off,” he explains.

This raises some questions that might be worth debate. Just how far is acceptable to go in using concept art to represent – or perhaps misrepresent – a team’s design during a competition? And, if design decisions are made during the course of a campaign, is it ethical to continue to knowingly distribute art that misrepresents your design to the media and the public? When selling to the Pentagon, it is – after all – taxpayer money that a company is chasing.

Boeing’s strategy during the most recent KC-X duel, which it won in February with the KC-46A, can be summed up as a “mum’s the word” approach. Even the company’s 767 design rollout was dubbed as a “virtual” rollout, which took place only on the web and lacked actual presentations from executives or Q&A time for reporters. While many in the press saw this as a lazy man’s rollout owing to the lack of willingness to answer questions, some communications experts in industry found it to be genius because the company got its art and its message out there with none of the messy fallout of executive Q&As.

Of course, that rollout included professional imagery and a video of the tanker – with winglets – and we may never know if by then Boeing had internally opted against them before or after the rollout took place.

The company’s unwillingness to answer even the most basic questions during the yearlong competition about its design was frustrating for a journalist. But, admittedly, that is the company’s prerogative. In the case of KC-X, Boeing has far stronger political pull then EADS. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were willing to fight the company’s battles on matters such as the request for proposals and how many years lifecycle cost should be (that requirement was changed). And, these legislators happily fought the “American jobs” fight on the Hill, as well, even though EADS was slated to assemble its tanker in Alabama. But, the voice of pro-EADS lawmakers was drowned out by the cacophony on Boeing’s side.

So, Boeing really didn’t need the press to fight its fights or deliver its message in this campaign. That is fair enough … but being silent and being misleading are two very different strategies. And, I’m not sure where the case of the missing winglets lands on that spectrum.

If you are silent with the press, you give up your right to influence them with what you say – clearly. You leave your positions open to interpretations that the press may find elsewhere.

But, if you mislead, you try to influence that public discussion with information that is knowingly inaccurate. I wonder if keeping those winglets on the marketing materials goes too far into the territory of misinformation.

And, I fear that other companies may fall in line with forthcoming competitions for the new bomber, an EP-3 replacement or a next-gen UAS. If the public can’t rely on contractors to at least be accurate in discussions – and pictures – about design options, then one wonders what the point is of printing what a contactor says at all. Anything really doesn’t and shouldn’t go in pursing a capture campaign.

Ultimately, you have to wonder if folks in the press will be willing to print Boeing concept art in the future for fear it may be more concept than truth.

I'd love to hear what our Ares readers think on this!

buglerbilly

09-04-11, 01:18 AM

Pentagon Gives First Peek Into KC-46A Details

Apr 8, 2011

By Amy Butler

The Pentagon is quite confident Boeing can execute the notional plan for its long-fought, $4.4 billion KC-46A tanker development contract, but the company is working to iron out a detailed schedule of work by the end of the summer.

Risk in Boeing’s winning KC-X proposal “wasn’t low. It is probably closer to the moderate side, but it is manageable,” says Shay Assad, director of procurement and acquisition policy at the Pentagon, in an exclusive interview with Aviation Week.

An integrated baseline review (IBR), which will outline the entire program’s master plan, is expected six months from contract award, which was Feb. 24. The IBR will sort out how that risk is managed and all major milestones, including flight testing.

The company signed up to a fixed-price incentive deal to design the KC-135 refueler replacements. Solid execution on the contract could exonerate Boeing for poor performance delivering 767-based tankers for Japan and Italy, and for losing its first KC-X attempt to a Northrop Grumman/EADS team in 2008.

Perhaps more importantly, though, progress on the KC-46A contract will be a reflection of the Air Force’s ability to manage a major program after a decade of sordid procurement foul-ups, including the repeated restarts of the KC-X duel. “The Air Force and the department basically put its very best people on this source selection,” Assad says.

The proposed price for Boeing’s 767-based KC-46A program — $21.4 billion — beat that from EADS by about 10%, according to EADS Chairman Ralph Crosby. Boeing’s price, including inflation and in today’s dollars, is about $31.5 billion, EADS officials say. The Air Force plans to buy 179 tankers, four of which will be used for testing.

Pentagon and Boeing officials will not release the target per-unit price of the aircraft in early lots, though the numbers have been negotiated. Until the roughly five-year development program is complete and the Air Force exercises an option for production, the figure is proprietary, Assad says.

However, based on the aforementioned figures, it averages to about $154.9 million for the 175 production aircraft.

The fixed-price arrangement is designed to limit the government’s financial exposure to delays or a cost overrun, and Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter says he plans to use more of these fixed-price contracts to insulate the government from the seemingly rampant cost overages that have taken place in recent years. On the KC-46A, the government agrees to pay 60% of any cost overrun up to 125% of the negotiated target cost (which does not include the company’s profit, included in the target price). If the overrun reaches the 125% ceiling, then profit begins to erode.

“If they overrun their target, they will lose a portion of their profit until it actually goes to zero. And, at that point, the contract effectively is at ceiling,” Assad says. “Once they hit ceiling, they start to lose money.”

By contrast, the fixed-price contract for low-rate, initial production of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is not commercially derived, is 50/50, with the ceiling at 120%.

Another financial protection for the Pentagon built into the KC-46A tanker deal is the requirement that each lot’s renegotiation produce a target price lower than the previous lot. “Every price is downward-negotiable,” Assad says.

Preliminary design review is expected around mid-2012, with critical design review to follow about one year later, he adds. The first 18 aircraft, including the four developmental aircraft, must be delivered in 2017.

Boeing concept

buglerbilly

12-04-11, 01:50 PM

DATE:12/04/11

SOURCE:Flight International

PICTURE: UAE's first modified A330 tanker completes debut flight

By Craig Hoyle

Airbus Military has performed the first flight of a modified A330 multi-role tanker transport for the United Arab Emirates, less than one month after achieving the same milestone for Saudi Arabia.

Flown from the company's Getafe site near Madrid on 9 April, the aircraft is the first of three on order for the UAE air force, which signed for its MRTT fleet in February 2008.

"The crew reported that the aircraft, its systems and two Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines performed entirely satisfactorily during the 2h 55min flight," says Airbus Military.

"As it features some different avionics, and is the first 'receiver' to be powered by the Rolls-Royce Trent engine, the UAE A330 MRTT now enters the certification and qualification phase for these new elements," the company says.

© Airbus Military

It expects to hand over the aircraft before the end of this year for final testing, with the UAE scheduled to formally take delivery of the tanker in the second quarter of 2012.

Unlike those A330 tankers also on order for Australia, Saudi Arabia and the UK, the UAE's aircraft will be delivered with a commercial airline-standard, two-class cabin configuration. With room for 262 passengers, its examples will have the same layout and equipment as Etihad Airways' A330-200s.

The UAE has a detachment of 12 six Dassault Mirage 2000-9s and six Lockheed Martin F-16s deployed at Decimomannu air base in Sardinia as part of NATO's Operation Unified Protector, which is enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. Its air force currently lacks in-flight refuelling aircraft to support such activities.

buglerbilly

14-04-11, 01:50 AM

LAAD 2011: Australia set to receive MRTT aircraft

April 13, 2011

Australia is on the verge of taking delivery of its first two A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft, in the first of a host of deliveries for the platform that are scheduled for 2011.

Speaking to reporters at LAAD 2011 in Rio de Janeiro on 13 April, Damien Allard, Airbus Military’s MRTT market development manager, said the first two aircraft for Australia were ready to be delivered while the following two of the five aircraft ordered were expected to follow by the end of the year.

In addition, the first aircraft assigned for Saudi Arabia had its first flight in March 2011 and was also expected to be delivered this year, as was the first aircraft for the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Twenty eight A330 MRTT aircraft have been ordered across four air forces, with the UK’s 14 aircraft order currently the largest on Airbus Military’s books.

Allard used the press conference to emphasise the versatility of the aircraft, noting that as the A330-200 wing was large enough to hold all the fuel needed to ensure the MRTT was a high performing tanker, there was no reduction in the aircraft’s ability to carry passengers or cargo.

He argued that this, therefore, allowed the aircraft to fulfil the missions that would otherwise by carried out by three different types.

‘This makes the aircraft a true game changer. In the context of the budget cuts across the world this clearly rings a bell for decision-makers. The MRTT is clearly an aircraft for the future – it is a benchmark in tanker transport because it is a truly versatile platform,’ Allard said.

Out of the four orders received so far for the A330 MRTT, the MRTT fleets of Australia, Saudi Arabia and UAE will be fitted with the Airbus Military Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS). This allows the refuel of receptacle-equipped aircraft such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

For probe-equipped aircraft such as the Eurofighter or Tornado, the A330 MRTT is fitted with two Cobham 905E under-wing hose and drogue pods. Allard said those systems would be controlled by an operator console in the cockpit, which features an enhanced video monitoring system.

Allard also highlighted the capabilities of the A400M transport aircraft but would not be drawn on what specific regional opportunities the company was targeting with the platform. He said while a global market of 400 aircraft has been forecast, it was too early to detail any Latin American sales campaigns

Tony Skinner, Rio de Janeiro

buglerbilly

04-05-11, 10:14 AM

DATE:04/05/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Marshall Aerospace to supply auxiliary tanks for Boeing's KC-46A

By Craig Hoyle

Details have emerged of another configuration item for the US Air Force's future fleet of Boeing 767-based KC-46A tankers, with Marshall Aerospace to supply the type's integrated-body fuel tanks.

Announcing its receipt of a contract for the design, certification and manufacture of an initial batch of development tanks on 3 May, Marshall said: "It is expected that production orders will follow for more than 650 tanks for the USAF over a 15-year period."

The Cambridge-based firm, which said it was selected by Boeing last year, has forecast its total potential business linked to the US programme at more than £100 million ($165 million). "The company believes the KC-46A tanker aircraft will have good export prospects with potential for the manufacture of further integrated body fuel tanks into the future," it said.

© Boeing

Marshall Aerospace chief executive Steve Fitz-Gerald said: "Over the past few months we have been supporting Boeing with definition and risk reduction work, and we are now looking forward to starting the detailed work on the programme."

Earlier this year, Boeing won the USAF's protracted KC-X competition, beating a rival EADS North America proposal using a development of the Airbus A330-200. According to Marshall, the service's 179 KC-46A tankers will each have four integrated body fuel tanks "to enhance the aircraft's flight range and refuelling capability".

The new contract on the KC-46A follows Marshall's previous work in developing and producing auxiliary fuel tanks for other Boeing products. These include the US Navy's 737-based P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and extended-range variants of the commercial 747 and 777.

Earlier KC-767A-model tanker/transports produced for export operators Italy and Japan were also equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks installed in their cargo holds.

Milne Bay

04-05-11, 11:30 AM

buglerbilly

04-05-11, 01:14 PM

It's a file photograph, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that...............

buglerbilly

12-05-11, 02:59 AM

Firm, Unchanged Requirements Key to KC-X Competition: Shackelford

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Published: 11 May 2011 17:15

Setting firm requirements and refusing to modify them along the way contributed to the U.S. Air Force's successful awarding of the much-watched KC-X tanker competition earlier this year, according to a top service acquisition official.

This process of locking in requirements is one that will continue as the service purchases weapons, especially for programs with many known factors, according to Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the Air Force's military deputy for acquisition.

"[W]hat we did was make sure that the war fighter knew exactly what he was asking for, and what he was asking for was going to be sufficient to do the job as soon as the airplane hit the ramp without further modification," he said during a May 11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference on Capitol Hill. "What that allowed us to do is simplify the selection process quite a bit, but design into the strategy for [fixed-price contracting] because we knew the requirements so well, which now reduces the risk of that program overrunning."

The Air Force awarded the tanker contract to Boeing in February.

Having the firm requirements, particularly in terms of the KC-X award, allowed the Air Force to use a fixed-price contracting structure, a tool that will likely continue when acquisitions have well-known parameters, according to Shackelford.

"If we know exactly what we want, then sure, we're going to lean toward fixed-price," he said. "That's beneficial in a number of areas."

Still, Shackelford noted, every future acquisition will not be run exactly like the KC-X program.

For years, Air Force acquisition officials have been working to incorporate solid requirements into the weapon buying process. Several requirements policy changes have been included in the Air Force's acquisition improvement plan.

In a February 2010 memo to the service's weapon buyers, David Van Buren, the Air Force acquisition executive, wrote that "program requirements will be locked down at contract award." A board would need to formally approve any requirement changes.

"Certainly, being very tightly controlled on our requirements is part and parcel of the way we want to do business," Shackelford said.

But there have been cases in which officials have challenged that rule and have lobbied for program requirements changes, albeit unsuccessfully, Shackelford said.

"They're getting the hand," he said. "They're not going to get it because we're getting the war fighter what the war fighter said he needed on Day One."

buglerbilly

18-05-11, 02:34 AM

Italy Enters First 2 Boeing Tankers Into Service

By Tom Kington

Published: 17 May 2011 19:10

How many years late? Five or six? I notice no mention of that..............

The first two of four Boeing KC-767 tankers ordered by the Italian Air Force entered into service on May 17, Boeing said.

The two aircraft were delivered to the Italian Air Force on Dec. 29, 2010, and March 10 this year, Boeing said in a statement. Italian crews flew the aircraft from Boeing's Wichita, Kan., facility to the Italian Air Force base at Pratica di Mare, south of Rome.

"Anticipated" delivery of the third tanker is this summer, with the fourth to "follow shortly thereafter," Boeing said.

Final operating capability for the aircraft will be reached after the delivery of the fourth aircraft.

Italy's tankers, which replace the B-707T/T tanker previously flown by the Italian Air Force, are configured to carry fuel as well as either cargo or passengers or a combination of both.

Speaking at an official ceremony at Pratica di Mare, Air Force chief Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis said the aircraft could also be used for medical evacuation missions in the future.

The aircraft have a refueling boom as well as three hose and drogue systems, one under each wing and one on the central fuselage. The aircraft can also be refueled by other aircraft via a refueling receptacle near the cockpit.

Unicorn

18-05-11, 09:08 AM

Ordered in 2002 for a 2005 delivery...

Anyone believe the wankers at Boeing will deliver to the USAF by 2017?

.

buglerbilly

25-05-11, 11:18 AM

DATE:25/05/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Italian KC-767 tanker supports NATO's Libya mission

By Luca Peruzzi

Inducted into service on 17 May, one of the Italian air force's two newly operational Boeing KC-767A tankers has joined NATO's Operation Unified Protector Libyan mission.

The Italian defence ministry on 20 May confirmed that the aircraft and one Lockheed Martin KC-130J have been put at NATO's disposal for in-flight refuelling tasks. Its statement revealed that both types were used last week, along with Italian air force Eurofighters, Lockheed F-16s, Panavia Tornados and an Alenia Aeronautica G222VS surveillance aircraft.

© Italian Air Force

Italy's first two KC-767As were inducted into operational service with the 14th Wing during a ceremony at Pratica di Mare, attended by officials including air force chief of staff Gen Giuseppe Bernardis and Boeing representatives.

Accepted late last December and in early March, the aircraft should be followed by a third example soon. The fourth and final tanker/transport should follow in late 2011 or early 2012, said industry sources.

The last two aircraft will be delivered in an enhanced configuration, which industry and military sources said will include medical evacuation capability and a self-protection suite including an Elettronica ELT/572 directional infrared countermeasures system. The in-service aircraft will be retrofitted to the same standard.

Based on a modified 767-200ER airframe, Italy's KC-767As have two under-wing hose-and-drogue refuelling pods and a centreline boom, also with a centreline hose. Alternatively, the aircraft can carry up to 200 passengers or 19 pallets, or operate in a "combi" configuration with 100 seats and 10 pallets.

buglerbilly

08-06-11, 01:49 AM

DATE:07/06/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing confirms commercial identity of KC-46A tanker

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing has confirmed new details about the new 767-2C commercial freighter that has been revealed as the core of the KC-46A, but key aspects of the aircraft's configuration remain undisclosed more than three months after the award of the US Air Force's KC-X tanker contract.

Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes. The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

The 767-2C configuration also includes a cargo floor and door, a 787-based large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, such as hose and drogue and boom refuelling systems, Boeing said.

It remains unclear, however, if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic design of the 767-200ER platform.

These details will remain undisclosed until Boeing completes a system requirements review and an integrated baseline review with the air force, said Jean Chamberlin, vice-president and general manager of Boeing's military division.

But the disclosure still provides the most complete picture of the aircraft released by Boeing to date.

Company officials declined multiple requests during the 16-month bidding process to disclose the identity of the aircraft configuration contained in its proposal.

It previously had offered the 767-200LRF composite airframe, mating the fuselage of the 767-200ER and the wings of the 767-300ER. That proposal initially lost to a bid from a Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team offering the Airbus A330-200-based KC-45, but the victory was overturned by the US Government Accountability Office after Boeing protested over the air force's evaluation process.

Boeing took a different approach in the follow-up competition by keeping certain details about its offering a closely guarded secret.

The existence of the 767-2C marks the latest commercial freighter variant in Boeing's product line-up, but it was not immediately clear if the airframe would be offered to the civil cargo market.

Each 767-2C will be assembled in Everett, Washington, then moved to Wichita in Kansas to install military avionics and refuelling systems for the KC-46A.

It was also clear from previously released images that the KC-46A incorporated a 777-style cursor control unit. Contract documents obtained from the USAF also reveal the airframe incorporates a central maintenance computer.

The 767-2C also introduces a new engine option for the 767-200ER variant with the 62,000lb-thrust (275kN) Pratt & Whitney 4062 turbofan. The model was previously supported by PW4052/4056/4060-series engines and the General Electric CF6-80C2 series.

buglerbilly

08-06-11, 02:39 PM

Boeing plays it cool on USAF tanker

June 08, 2011

Boeing officials continue to be confident that they will be able to meet the tight time lines for delivering the next generation KC-46 air tanker to the US Air Force (USAF), despite the challenges of developing and integrating the various components of the system.

The company and the USAF remain tight-lipped about many of the exact details of the aircraft, which is baselined on the commercial 767 design. According to Boeing, further details of the aircraft will be revealed once the detailed requirements work has been completed.

Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, told Shephard that he was confident that both the company and the USAF customer were closely aligned in how they see those requirements.

As part of its rebid for the tanker competition Boeing committed to a $3.5 billion firm, fixed price contract for the development and delivery of the first 18 aircraft combat ready by 2017 and any changes to the baseline requirement could be costly for the programme. However, Muilenburg said that he did not anticipate any significant changes to the baseline aircraft proposed to the USAF although he would not be drawn on details.

The company has stated that it will not talk details until after the systems requirement review. 'With all the scrutiny that the air force tanker has had, we want to be unbelievably sure that as we move forward that here is the path we're going, and here is the information and insight,' stated Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Airplanes.

The company's recent experience on tanker programmes has not been good with a number of difficulties in delivering aircraft to both the Italian Air Force and the Japanese Air Self Defence Force.

'Admittedly it's been a challenging programme but we're now nearing the finish line. There have been some lessons learned from both those programmes,' Muilenburg acknowledged.

'What we have done is taken those lessons learned and rolled them directly in to our KC-46 programme,' he continued. The four key lessons for Boeing include: having a clear understanding of the requirements up front; having those requirements communicated down to suppliers clearly so that there are no gaps in the requirements; ensuring the use of mature technologies; and keeping tight control of changes.

However, there are concerns that Boeing may be understating the risk in developing the KC-46, especially as it has been unable to disclose further details on the aircraft. One of the key challenges will be integrating a large display '787 type' flight deck with the 767-2C airframe.

'In this case it's really focused on the systems integration... it is taking existing subsystems and putting them in to the aircraft,' Muilenburg stated. ‘There is some development work to do there, which is well understood work. It's not risky work.'

Looking beyond the USAF programme, Muilenburg said that he anticipated that there would be an international market for tankers that would build on the KC-46 work. He said that he believed the design would be identical or similar to the USAF configuration. However, he added: ‘Right now we are very focused on executing the air force programme successfully, but when we do that then we do think that will generate some international opportunities.'

Darren Lake, St Louis, Missouri

buglerbilly

09-06-11, 02:18 PM

DATE:09/06/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing stays mum on key KC-46A design features

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing has revealed its KC-46A tanker is heavier and slightly longer than any previous version of the 767-200 airframe on which it is based, but still refuses to provide essential details about the airframe configuration and refuelling system more than three months after winning the KC-X contract.

The company's clamp-down on design details is a departure from its practice on the P-8A, which also involved adapting an airliner, a 737, for a military mission, and in the first round of the KC-X bidding process.

Boeing Military Aircraft president Chris Chadwick argues that this approach should not be interpreted as any lack of confidence in the company's commitment to meet all 372 requirements under a fixed-price development contract.

© Boeing

"Rest assured, it is going well," Chadwick said. "We have got a happy customer."

Such essential details as the KC-46A's wing and refuelling boom will be revealed at some point within the next two years, Boeing officials said. More information will be released after the KC-46A clears a system requirements review in August, a preliminary design review next year and a critical design review in 2013.

"That's where we stand," Chadwick said, after repeated questioning. "We're not going to get into any more details."

Boeing officials offered conflicting explanations about the lack of disclosure. Jean Chamberlin, vice-president and general manager of Boeing mobility systems, said details are being held back until Boeing and the USAF fully understand the requirements in the system requirements review.

But Dennis Muilenberg, president of Boeing's Defense, Security and Space division, said that Boeing has a "clear understanding" of the KC-46A's design requirements. "We haven't seen any gaps as we've flowed those down to the supplier level," Muilenberg said.

New information has trickled out into the public domain since the contract award, including the public confirmation that the KC-46A is based on a new commercial freighter internally designated the 767-2C.

Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes from the baseline.

The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

The 767-2C configuration also includes a cargo floor and door, a 787-based large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, such as hose and drogue and boom refuelling systems, Boeing said.

It remains unclear, however, if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic design of the 767-200ER platform.

Company officials declined multiple requests during the 16-month bidding process to disclose the identity of the aircraft configuration contained in its proposal.

It previously had offered the 767-200LRF composite airframe, mating the fuselage of the 767-200ER and the wings of the 767-300ER. That proposal initially lost to a bid from a Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team offering the Airbus A330-200-based KC-45, but the victory was overturned by the US Government Accountability Office after Boeing protested over the air force's evaluation process.

Boeing took a different approach in the follow-up competition by keeping certain details about its offering a closely guarded secret. In contrast, the P-8A was fully briefed before Boeing even submitted its proposal for the US Navy's multi-mission maritime aircraft contract in 2005.

The existence of the 767-2C marks the latest commercial freighter variant in Boeing's product line-up, but it was not immediately clear if the airframe would be offered to the civil cargo market.

Each 767-2C will be assembled in Everett, Washington, then moved to Wichita in Kansas to install military avionics and refuelling systems for the KC-46A.

It was also clear from previously released images that the KC-46A incorporated a 777-style cursor control unit. Contract documents obtained from the USAF also reveal the airframe incorporates a central maintenance computer.

The 767-2C also introduces a new engine option for the 767-200ER variant with the 62,000lb-thrust (275kN) Pratt & Whitney PW4062 turbofan. The model was previously supported by PW4052/4056/4060-series engines and the General Electric CF6-80C2 series.

buglerbilly

13-06-11, 01:43 PM

Boeing's Air Force Tanker Contract Falls Under Congress' Microscope (excerpt)

(Source: Mobile Press-Register; published June 11, 2011)

MOBILE, Alabama -- Congress wants notice of any significant cost increases in Boeing Co.’s work to build refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force.

The 2012 defense spending bill, approved this week by the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on defense, includes a provision that requires the Air Force to report to Congress any increase of $5 million or more to the tanker program.

The panel "directs the secretary of the Air Force to report any authorized contract modifications with a cost greater than or equal to" $5 million, no later than 30 days after that change is made, according to the committee report that accompanies the bill. Bloomberg News obtained a copy of the document.

Chicago-based Boeing beat the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. earlier this year for a $35 billion contract to build 179 new tankers. EADS, the parent company of Airbus, had proposed to assemble its planes in Mobile.

Boeing promises to meet obligations under contract

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said on Feb. 24, when Boeing won the award, that the Pentagon "committed to a fixed-price contract structure that would deliver the Air Force a capable aircraft at the most competitive price."

Boeing said it was confident that it would meet its obligations under the contract. The company promised to deliver the first 18 combat-ready tankers to the Air Force by 2017.

The appropriations bill underscores Congress’ continued scrutiny of the program. As part of the legislation authorizing defense spending for fiscal year 2012, the full House approved a provision that would require the Pentagon to review and brief Congress quarterly on the program. At each review, Pentagon officials should provide notice of "major engineering, design, capability or configuration change to the tanker as well as the cost for those changes." (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full story, on the Alabama Live website.

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/06/boeings_air_force_tanker_contr.html

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-06-11, 06:57 AM

Raytheon Awarded Contract to Enhance Situational Awareness of KC-46 Tanker

PARIS, June 19, 2011

PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) has received a contract from The Boeing Company to supply ALR-69A digital radar warning receivers and digital anti-jam receiver global positioning systems for the KC-46 tanker.

(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110619/NE22069 )

"Raytheon's ALR-69A digital radar warning receiver will provide the KC-46 tanker with greater situational awareness that will result in significant increased aircrew survivability," said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing KC-46 vice president and program manager.

"The ALR-69A is an all-digital radar warning receiver designed to work both with large and fighter aircraft," said Mark Kula, vice president, Tactical Airborne Systems, for Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. "Our advanced digital open architecture provides increased sensitivity and the ability to accurately identify threat signals much earlier in today's dense urban environments. We look forward to working with Boeing and contributing to delivering these much-needed capabilities to the warfighter."

The Raytheon digital anti-jam receiver global positioning system and multielement controlled reception pattern antenna provides robust GPS-based navigation. The system is part of Raytheon's GPS and Navigation Systems portfolio of avionics anti-jam and GPS receiver products.

"This is the world's first avionics GPS receiver to integrate high performance digital anti-jam capabilities into a single product," said Joe Kiser, program manager, Integrated Technology Programs, for Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. "This system will improve performance, size, weight and power for the KC-46 tanker."

buglerbilly

22-06-11, 09:47 AM

Boeing names KC-46 Tanker suppliers

June 22, 2011

The Boeing Company today announced the supplier team that will provide key components for the US Air Force's KC-46 Tanker. The Air Force selected Boeing on Feb. 24 to replace 179 Eisenhower-era KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft.

"Delivering 18 combat-ready tankers to the US Air Force in 78 months is our priority as a company, and it will take a talented, committed supplier team to help get that done," said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing KC-46 vice president and program manager. "We're fortunate to have a strong defense industry team of domain experts working side-by-side to provide a new generation of aerial refueling."

The KC-46 Tanker team will include more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states and support approximately 50,000 total US jobs. Major suppliers include:

Cobham (Davenport, Iowa): Refueling systems, including wing aerial refueling pods and centerline drogue system

DRS Laurel Technologies Inc. (Johnstown, Pa.): Aerial Refueling Operator Station (AROS)

Eaton Aerospace: Electromechanical and cargo door actuation systems (Grand Rapids, Mich.); hydraulic and fuel distribution subcomponents (Jackson, Mich.)

GE Aviation Systems (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Clearwater, Fla.): Mission control system

Goodrich: Interiors (Colorado); landing gear (Ontario, Canada)

Honeywell: Auxiliary power unit (Phoenix); cabin pressure control system (Tucson, Ariz.), air data inertial navigation (Coon Rapids, Minn.); lighting (Urbana, Ohio)

Moog Inc.: Electro-hydraulic servo valves, actuators, stabilize trim controls, leading edge slat actuator, inboard/outboard leading edge rotary actuators, autopilot actuators, elevator feel system (East Aurora, N.Y.; Wolverhampton, UK); refueling boom actuators (Torrance, Calif.)

Northrop Grumman (Rolling Meadows, Ill.): Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)

Parker Aerospace (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah): Refueling components including the receptacle door actuator, aerial refueling interface control system, and wing refueling pod hydraulic power packs; primary flight controls and fuel equipment; pneumatic, fluid conveyance, and hydraulic equipment

Pratt & Whitney (Middletown, Conn.): Engines

Raytheon Company (El Segundo, Calif.): Digital radar warning receiver and digital anti-jam receiver GPS

Rockwell Collins (Cedar Rapids, Iowa): Integrated display system featuring 15.1-inch diagonal crystal displays built on proven technology from the commercial 787; tactical situational awareness system; remote vision system 3-D and 2-D technology for the boom operator; communications, navigation, surveillance, networking and flight control systems

Spirit: Forward fuselage section; strut; nacelle components to include inlet, fan cowl and core cowl; fixed fan duct (Wichita, Kan.); fixed leading edge (Prestwick, Scotland)

Triumph Group Inc.: Horizontal stabilizer and aft body section, including pressure bulkhead; wing center section, doors, nacelles and other components including cowl doors, seal depressor panels, acoustic panels and aft wheel well bulkhead

Woodward Inc. (Skokie, Ill.): Several elements of the aerial refueling boom, including the sensor system, control unit, and telescopic and flight control sticks.

Based on the proven Boeing 767-200ER commercial aircraft, the KC-46 is powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines and will be flown by three aircrew members (pilot, co-pilot, boom operator) with additional permanent seating for 12 aircrew.

The KC-46 has a maximum fuel capacity of 212,000 pounds and is equipped with a flush-mounted, air-to-air refueling receptacle that is capable of onloading fuel at 1,200 gallons per minute.

Boom operators will control the refueling systems from the crew compartment via the AROS and a series of cameras mounted on the tanker's fuselage that provide a 185-degree field of view, as well as a camera on the boom that captures 3-D video. This advanced system allows the boom operator to refuel all fixed-wing receiver aircraft, anytime, on every mission, to include simultaneous multi-point refueling from the wing air refueling pods. The KC-46 refueling systems include a digital fly-by-wire boom capable of offloading 1,200 gallons of fuel per minute, as well as a permanent centerline drogue system and removable wing air refueling pods that can each offload 400 gallons of fuel per minute.

Featuring a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds, the tanker will carry 18 463L cargo pallets (the same number of pallets as the Air Force's Boeing C-17 airlifter) and is capable of transporting 58 passengers normally and up to 114 passengers during contingency operations. This multi-mission tanker aircraft also will provide urgent aeromedical evacuation by transporting 58 medical patients (24 litters/34 ambulatory).

Boeing will build the KC-46 Tanker using a low-risk approach to manufacturing by a trained and experienced workforce at existing facilities in Everett, Wash., and Wichita.

Source: Boeing

buglerbilly

26-06-11, 04:02 PM

Boeing Projects About $300 Million Overrun on Tanker Contract

By Tony Capaccio - Jun 25, 2011 2:55 AM GMT+0800

Boeing Co. (BA) is projected to exceed its cost ceiling by as much as $300 million -- about 6 percent - - on the initial contract to develop and build U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers, according to government officials.

Air Force officials this month briefed congressional defense committees and Pentagon officials on the projected increase on what’s now a $4.9 billion engineering, manufacturing and development contract that includes four tanker aircraft. The contract calls for 14 more tankers to be delivered by September 30, 2017.

The $300 million projection was obtained by Bloomberg News from government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to comment publicly.

After the contract was awarded, Boeing revealed “that it proposed a ceiling price that is less than its actual projected cost to execute the contract,” according to an Air Force statement from spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jack Miller. “There is no legal barrier that prohibits pursuing a below-cost proposal strategy and Boeing’s met all rules.”

“Boeing is responsible for all costs over the $4.9 billion ceiling price,” according to the Air Force statement. The contract would allow the government to save 60 cents and Boeing 40 cents of every dollar below the target cost.

Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale confirmed the company projects it will exceed the $4.9 billion ceiling and is prepared to absorb the extra costs.

“We are not there yet. It’s a projection,” he said in a telephone interview. Barksdale declined to comment on the $300 million or outline when the company concluded it would exceed the ceiling.

‘Low-Ball Offer’

Boeing in February beat out European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. ending an almost 10-year process for deciding who would build the new tankers. EADS didn’t protest the decision. EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby in March said “what determined the outcome here was price,” calling Boeing’s offer “an extremely low-ball offer.”

Pentagon officials told the House Armed Services Committee this year that the competition resulted in at least a 20 percent per-aircraft savings.

Disclosure of the projected overrun comes as congressional defense committees crafting the fiscal 2012 defense budget have included provisions for close scrutiny of the overall $35 billion program. A House Armed Services Committee provision requires an annual audit by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Protecting the Taxpayer

The projected overrun “highlights the importance” of fixed-price contracts “to protect the government and taxpayer,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has pushed these contract types so that companies assume more risk for rising weapons costs.

Barksdale said Chicago-based Boeing offered “an aggressive and responsible bid” that came with a risk the company might exceed the ceiling. “We decided to accept the risk,” he said. “This was an intentional step.”

“We completely understand our contractual requirement to pay above the ceiling and we are prepared to do that,” Barksdale said. “We are comfortable with how we bid. We had to be competitive.”

The projected overrun “doesn’t impact the schedule,” Barksdale said. “It’s just the way we bid and we are going to press ahead.”

Boeing will manufacture basic 767-model aircraft in Everett, Washington, and convert them into tankers in Wichita, Kansas, during the first stage of a three-part Air Force program stretching decades to replace its tanker fleet.

The Pratt & Whitney unit of United Technologies Corp. (UTX) will provide the engines. Boeing says winning the contract will create and sustain 50,000 jobs among 800 suppliers in 40 states.

The Air Force’s large tanker fleet consists mostly of 415 KC-135R aircraft that first entered service in 1956. The last was delivered in 1964.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

28-06-11, 12:20 AM

Airborne Sensors May Be Given Analysis Role: USAF

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 27 Jun 2011 17:56

The U.S. Air Force wants its airborne sensors to do some preliminary analysis work automatically before transmitting that information back to intelligence analysts, a service official said.

Currently, the service's analysts who monitor intelligence feeds from unmanned aircraft watch mundane video footage for hours on end without ever seeing anything of value, a waste of both time and resources.

But if the sensors could do some of the analysis before transmitting that data to the Air Force's Distributed Common Ground Stations (DCGS), that would save the service time and manpower resources, Brig. Gen. Scott Bethel, deputy commander of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, said at a conference hosted by Marcus Evans on June 27.

"What I would prefer is that by the time it gets to the analyst's space, that he has something purposeful to look at," he said. "In essence, what I want is Phase I analysis to be done onboard."

That would eliminate the need for forward-deployed processing, exploitation and dissemination, Bethel said. Only the important information would be sent back for humans to look at, but that extraneous data would be available if the computer made a mistake. That would enable the service to get more utility out of its five DCGSs, he said.

Having that information at a more centralized location allows for better collaboration between analysts and makes the process much more efficient, Bethel said. "I want to push the brain power further up the food chain," he said.

It would also make the system more responsive to a greater range of threats across the spectrum rather than being focused on counter insurgency, Bethel said.

For Phase II and Phase III analysis, information could be passed back to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC).

"We're starting to look at them to be this bridge between the DCGS and the larger Phase II and III architecture," Bethel said.

The center would use some of the same tools as the DCGS, but would be directly linked to NASIC's small army of PhD-level analysts.

buglerbilly

29-06-11, 01:42 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Is Lowballing the New Industry Strategy?

Posted by Amy Butler at 6/28/2011 1:38 PM CDT

The news came out quietly last Friday (evening -- if you were in Paris time after the big air show) that Boeing essentially paid to win the KC-46A competition.

Tony Capaccio at Bloomberg reports that the company projects it will cost about $300 million over the contract ceiling, to execute the KC-46A development contract won in February after a bitter, years-long duel with EADS and its Airbus A330 proposal.

Boeing and Air Force officials decline to confirm that figure. But, the Air Force acknowledges that the contract will exceed the ceiling. The original development deal, including 18 aircraft delivered in 4Q FY 2017, included a $4.4 billion target price. The maximum liability for the government is $4.9 billion.

"Boeing revealed, post-contract award on 25 April 2011, that during source selection it proposed a ceiling price for the EMD contact that is less than its actual projected cost to execute the contract," says USAF Lt. Col. Jack Miller, a service spokesman, in a written statement. "Boeing is liable for all cost above the $4.9 billion contract ceiling price." More about how the contract works can be found in Av Week's interview this spring with Shay Assad at the DoD here. Miller notes that Boeing's lowball approach did not violate any federal law or regulations.

What this news tells us is what many suspected. Boeing's strategy was to win development of the KC-46A even if it costs the company in the short run. Remember, the benefits to the company are twofold and strategic:

- maintain a grip on a decades-long refueler business with the USAF, and keep EADS from establishing a U.S. base for assembling A330s.

Bill Barksdale, a Boeing spokesman, says, "We expect to make money on the KC-46 tanker program." He cites the USAF orders -- the service is projected to buy 179 tankers -- and potential international sales. Perhaps the amount of the actual cost to Boeing to develop the tanker will come out in the next earnings call, slated for July 27. At some point, the company will have to take a charge to account for the overage.

From a business perspective, Boeing's strategy may prove to be brilliant. The company is taking a calculated risk, and if it pays off, it will eclipse Airbus in the numbers of tankers produced (though Europe may win more customers). As one Air Force official said, "it may be the best $300 million Boeing spends all year."

But, I'm curious if this is equally a success for the Pentagon and its strategy of using fixed-price contracts.

On one hand, the Pentagon is getting a tanker development at a bargain basement price. And, it isn't responsible for any overruns over $4.9 billion. So, at the very least, cost is predictable.

On the other hand, the Pentagon is paying its greatest estimated amount for the program. There is no realistic chance of coming in at target on cost and it is even less likely the company can deliver under target to take advantage of the incentives laid out for doing so.

And, this raises a question. Was the incentive structure so carefully laid out by the Pentagon even a player in Boeing's strategy? If Boeing's strategic goals were as stated above -- to win and keep EADS out of its backyard -- then the Pentagon's hopes to incentive an underrun appear naive.

Pentagon acquisition chief David Van Buren said last week in Paris that he was dismayed at how few programs come in under target on cost.

He said he has not seen any major programs come in under cost since taking his job. "I'd like to see some companies underrun and earn some profit" that way, he told an audience hosted by Accenture at the Paris Air Show.

It may very well be that he'll have to wait until the next big competition to see that happen.

But, there is no guarantee. In the forthcoming T-X trainer and CVLSP helicopter competitions, companies could opt to take a similar approach and buy into the program.

Only time will tell if the lowball strategy is a byproduct of the Boeing/Airbus duel and -- therefore -- an anomaly in Pentagon procurement, or if it is a sign of what is to come.

buglerbilly

13-07-11, 11:04 AM

Boeing May Lose $400 Million More on Tanker, Air Force Says

By Tony Capaccio - Jul 12, 2011 9:29 AM GMT+0800

Dear oh dearie me..........................:doh

Boeing Co. (BA) may be required to absorb more than $700 million and the Air Force another $600 million in overruns if projections of cost increases on the KC-46 tanker program materialize, according to newly released U.S. Air Force figures.

Boeing’s $700 million cost is a combination of a previously reported $300 million and another $432 million the Air Force disclosed today, putting Boeing’s profit from the tanker contract in jeopardy if the contract exceeds its $4.9 billion ceiling.

The Air Force and Boeing split 60/40 any dollar increase between a target cost of $3.9 billion to the contract ceiling -- a $600 million share for the service and $400 million for Boeing.

“It’s a part of the contract,” Air Force acquisition head David Van Buren said in an interview today. “That’s the geometry of the contract.”

“If they come in” over $3.9 billion, the Air Force pays its share until the $4.9 billion ceiling is reached, Air Force KC-46 program manager Major General-select Christopher Bogdon said. “If they get to $4.9 billion, they get zero profit,” Bogdon said.

“We made an aggressive yet responsible bid to win the contract. This is a win for the Air Force and a win for the taxpayer in that they will receive the best tanker at the best price,” said Conrad Chun, a Boeing spokesman.

Boeing Shares

Chicago-based Boeing declined $1.72, or 2.3 percent, to $73.35 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange Composite trading.

“Based on the present estimate to complete that Boeing has given to us, they will spend up to the ceiling price, so yes, we would share the difference between target cost and up to the ceiling. But anything over $4.9 billion is completely the responsibility of Boeing,” Pentagon director of pricing Shay Assad said in an interview.

“That wasn’t a surprise to us because we evaluated the contracts and we have properly budgeted for it,” Assad said.

The Pentagon evaluated the Boeing bid with the understanding it was “possible” the ceiling would be breached, Assad said.

Now, Boeing has told the Pentagon it expects to exceed the ceiling, Assad said.

“We will have to see how they actually perform but that’s what they’ve informed us of.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

15-07-11, 03:49 AM

Boeing Tanker Costs ‘Completely Unacceptable,’ McCain Says

By Tony Capaccio - Jul 15, 2011 9:20 AM GMT+0800 .

Boeing Co.’s projected cost growth on its aerial tanker contract, which may force it to absorb $700 million and U.S. taxpayers $600 million, is “completely unacceptable,” Senator John McCain told the Pentagon in a letter today.

Under the terms of the $4.9 billion fixed-price contract ceiling that calls for a sharing of cost increases, the Air Force and Boeing split 60/40 any increase between the target cost of $3.9 billion to the contract ceiling -- a $600 million share for the service and $400 million for Boeing.

Boeing also faces absorbing another $300 million because it is projected to exceed the $4.9 billion ceiling by that amount, McCain wrote. Boeing alerted the Air Force in April it would exceed the ceiling by $300 million.

“This is gravely wrong and creates an incentive, particularly on very large programs, for contractors to low-ball a contract knowing that the taxpayers will subsidize at least some of the overruns that will be needed to actually complete the work,” wrote McCain to Pentagon weapons buyer Ashton Carter.

Boeing in February won the competition to replace the Air Force tanker fleet over European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby in March said, “What determined the outcome here was price,” calling Boeing’s bid “an extremely low-ball offer.” EADS didn’t contest the award.

The $4.9 billion contract covers development and the first four tankers.

10-Year Effort

McCain is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is also the most persistent congressional critic and watchdog of almost a 10-year-old Air Force effort to buy new tankers, which he said in the letter are needed.

McCain released in September 2003 hundreds of internal Boeing e-mails on what was then a deal to lease and buy Boeing tankers. The documents triggered hearings and official reviews that eventually killed the proposal.

McCain wrote today, “I can assure you that Congress and taxpayers will find a $600 million subsidy of a low-ball bid by Boeing is something they feel they should not have to pay.”

“Boeing fully understood that up to 60 percent of any cost overrun up to $1 billion over the target cost” of $3.9 billion “would be borne by the taxpayer,” McCain wrote.

“On a program that you found to be low-to-moderate risk, the extent of exposure to the taxpayer here appears excessive,” McCain wrote.

Defense Department spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said Carter “has answers to all of Senator McCain’s questions and will share those answers with Senator McCain.”

Bloomberg provided the letter to Boeing spokesman Conrad Chun, who declined to comment. He previously said, “We made an aggressive yet responsible bid to win the contract. This is a win for the Air Force and a win for the taxpayer in that they will receive the best tanker at the best price.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

16-07-11, 02:42 AM

U.S. arms buyer dismisses Boeing tanker cost fears

Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:26pm EDT

* Carter says Boeing decided on below-cost bid

* McCain concerned taxpayers will part of overrun

* Ceiling bid a primary factor in contract award

By David Alexander

WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - The Pentagon's top weapons buyer dismissed concerns on Friday that Boeing is projecting huge cost overruns in developing a new Air Force refueling tanker, saying it was a fixed-price contract and company losses were "not our problem."

Defense Undersecretary Ashton Carter said Boeing (BA.N) had made a commercial decision to offer a below-cost bid for development of the aircraft in hopes of making up its losses during production of 179 of the aircraft through the 2020s.

The development contract for the KC-46 tanker, based on Boeing's 767 wide-body commercial airliner, had a ceiling price of $4.9 billion, while the overall deal for 179 aircraft is valued at $30 billion, one of the Pentagon's costliest purchases.

Boeing agreed to a $3.9 billion target price for tanker development, including the first four aircraft. Any cost overruns above $3.9 billion would be shared 60-40 between the Pentagon and the company, to the fixed ceiling of $4.9 billion. The company had to cover any costs above that.

Boeing won the tanker contract in February against European aircraft maker EADS (EAD.PA), which produces the Airbus, after years of contract disputes. Boeing notified the Pentagon in April that it expected to exceed the development contract's ceiling price by $300 million.

That means it would miss the target price by some $1.3 billion. The Pentagon would be responsible for 60 percent of overruns up to the ceiling price, or about $600 million.

Senator John McCain wrote a letter to Carter on Thursday expressing concern about the projected cost overruns, saying it was "unacceptable" in the current difficult fiscal climate for the contract to allow the company to pass on $600 million in development costs to the taxpayer.

"That is gravely wrong and creates an incentive, particularly on very large programs, for contractors to low-ball a contract bid knowing that the taxpayer will subsidize at least some of the overruns that will be needed to actually complete the work," McCain wrote.

But Carter, answering questions about defense procurement at the Brookings Institution think tank on Friday, dismissed reports of Boeing's cost overruns, saying, "It's not our problem because it's a fixed-price contract and it was written with ... protections for the taxpayers."

He said the issue was the value of the contract at its ceiling price.

"The fact that Boeing decided that it would lose money in the development phase, presumably in the hopes of making money in the production phase, was a decision that they made, and that's not a problem from the Defense Department's point of view," Carter added.

He noted that the contract work is just getting under way and the figures at this point are estimates.

"What this means is that Boeing will have every incentive .. to control costs so that those estimates don't come true, otherwise they're going to lose money."

Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy said the bids from both Boeing and EADS were evaluated based upon their ceiling price, "which is the Air Force's maximum financial liability."

"The Air Force will not pay any more than the contractually binding KC-46 Engineering, Manufacturing and Development ceiling price of $4.9 billion, regardless of what it might cost Boeing to satisfy the terms and conditions of the contract," she said.

Boeing spokesman William Barksdale has said the company will make money on the overall KC-46 program.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

buglerbilly

31-08-11, 04:34 AM

USAF, Boeing Complete Key KC-46A Review

Aug 29, 2011

By Amy Butler

The U.S. Air Force has completed an interim baseline review (IBR) for the KC-46A aerial refueler, clearing the first major schedule milestone for the program.

The review lasted weeks and concluded Aug. 24, according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. “IBRs are intended to provide a mutual understanding of risks inherent in contractors’ performance plans and underlying management control systems,” she says. An IBR is a formal review conducted directly by the government in cooperation with the contractor team. These reviews also outline what resources are needed to achieve program goals.

The company won the work Feb. 24 under a fixed-price contract. Because of the contract’s aggressive schedule for deliveries by 2017 and the fixed-price development, many in industry are closely watching progress. The IBR was conducted in accordance with the program schedule, which called for the review to be complete within seven months of contract award.

Cassidy says the IBR was “successful,” but service procurement officials declined to provide detail on the outcome of the review. Boeing deferred questions on the IBR to the Air Force.

A critical design review is slated for 31 months after contract award, or September 2013, and the first 18 KC-46As are due for delivery in 2017.

Boeing is expected to exceed its contract ceiling of $4.9 billion; the company is liable for any costs beyond that ceiling (Aerospace DAILY, July 28). The Air Force plans to buy 179 KC-46As to begin replacing the aging KC-135 fleet.

Boeing Concept

Photo credit: Boeing

buglerbilly

12-09-11, 02:05 PM

Boeing Shrugs Off Concerns About Tanker Budget

(Source: Reuters; published Sept. 9, 2011)

When Boeing Co bagged a $30 billion Pentagon order for refueling tankers in February, skeptics said its budget for the program was unrealistic. But even if its costs exceed internal estimates, many analysts say the company eventually will come out a winner on the deal.

Speaking this week at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington, Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing's space, security and defense arm, insisted the tanker program was "on cost and on schedule."

"As we stated before, it was an aggressive bid, but one that was also responsible," Muilenburg told the summit by teleconference.

Concerns about Boeing's aggressive bid emerged in the wake of its triumph over European rival EADS, the maker of Airbus planes, for a contract to build 179 refueling planes for the U.S. Air Force.

Concerns intensified this summer when government figures showed the program likely will see no profit in its first phase and will shift $600 million in development costs to taxpayers.

But Muilenburg told the summit, "We are very confident that over time it will allow us to deliver leading-edge war-fighting capability to our U.S. Air Force, that it's a great deal for the taxpayers, and that it will return value for our shareholders."

He shrugged off criticism that taxpayers might shoulder the added cost if the program blows its budget. If there are cost overruns, Boeing bears that risk, he said, "and that was clearly factored into our bid."

Alex Hamilton, managing director with EarlyBirdCapital, said concerns about the contract were spurred by a weak economy that has tightened the belt for military programs.

"Anything that looks like the government is going to take a loss on it, people are hypersensitive to it," he said, adding that it is simply too early to know if the program will exceed its budget.

"Despite what anyone says, I don't think that it is unusual to be at a loss or break-even on the first part of an aircraft program," Hamilton said. "That's very typical. It's pretty well known that you recoup that in the later life of the program."

For the most part, aerospace experts agree, and they say Boeing's surprise victory in the contest allowed the company to preserve dominance over EADS in the lucrative U.S. military market.

"It's a market that Boeing has historically controlled," said aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group. "There's a lot of aftermarket revenue associated with it -- support and upgrade, some export potential, too.

"It would be a revenue blow and a psychological blow if Boeing were to lose control of that market," Aboulafia said. "A lot of people would see a story of a company in decline if they lost that segment."

The tanker contract marks the Pentagon's third effort since 2001 to start replacing its 50-year-old Boeing-made KC-135 Stratotankers.

Boeing's business is split almost evenly between defense and commercial airplane products, but its shares more closely track developments in commercial orders and deliveries.

-ends-

buglerbilly

13-09-11, 01:15 PM

DATE:13/09/11

SOURCE:Flight International

DSEi: AmSafe to protect KC-46A tanker crews

By Craig Hoyle

Phoenix, Arizona-based AmSafe Industries has won a contract to provide cargo restraint systems and other equipment for the Boeing KC-46A tanker.

Potentially worth more than $45 million over the life of the US Air Force's KC-X programme, the deal covers the delivery of 9g-rated barrier nets and smoke barriers for the 767-based KC-46A.

Equipment deliveries are due to commence in 2015.

AmSafe announced details of its win at the Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition in London on 13 September.

"The barrier net is designed to restrain a shifting cargo load from penetrating the crew section of the main deck," said Neal McKeever, vice president of defence. "The smoke barrier performs as a blockade between the cargo and crew, preventing smoke or flames from entering into the passenger cabin and flight deck areas of the aircraft."

Boeing won the 179-aircraft KC-X contest in February 2011, to replace the USAF's oldest KC-135 tanker/transports with a development of the 767.

buglerbilly

19-09-11, 04:22 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Let's Name the New Tanker

Posted by Amy Butler at 9/19/2011 5:18 AM CDT

Air Force officials are hailing the unprotested selection of Boeing to build up to 179 USAF KC-135 replacements as a success -- a model acquisition they intend to repeat with forthcoming buys of trainers, helicopters and bombers.

But, after a decade of turmoil in finding the right tanker, we can't properly close this chapter for the Air Force without a named KC-46A.

We have the KC-135 Stratotanker in service as well as the KC-10 Extender. While descriptive ... these names just seem to lack zip. I know -- it is a gas hauler -- but after 10 years of insanity to buy it, this one has to be good.

I'm pretty sure Boeing would balk at "Frankentanker," which was the less-than-flattering nickname for the company's losing proposal a few years ago.

In talking with some friends, I thought of a few entertaining, albeit about as likely to be used, ideas. Do keep in mind, this is all in good fun -- no one is cheering for or against the KC-46A here.

Albatross
Negotiator (remember those illegal job talks between Druyun and Boeing?)
Achilles Heel
Trey (it only took three attempts-ish to buy it)

I hope our readers will throw a few more out there!!

My offering.................

Mirage - as in "You're not seeing a REAL aeroplane, it's a MIRAGE!"
Fantasy - if you think its going to be delivered on time!
Chevy Ford - due to the fact its a right hotch potch of shit thrown together.
Flop - (self-explanatory!)

buglerbilly

22-09-11, 01:37 AM

Schedule Is A Risk In KC-46A Work

Sep 21, 2011

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON

After conducting an in-depth integrated baseline review (IBR) of Boeing’s plans to develop the KC-46A refueler, U.S. Air Force officials say the program is on schedule and cost.

However, the one area of elevated risk for the $4.9 billion program is whether the company can deliver 18 of the KC-135 replacements by August 2017, says Brig. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force program executive officer overseeing the KC-46. “A vast, vast majority of everything we looked at in terms of cost, schedule and performance is low risk,” he told Aviation Week in a Sept. 21 interview during the annual Air Force Association conference here. “The only element of the entire process where there was some element of risk above low – and it is not high, just above low — is Boeing’s ability to get that work done by 2017.”

Bogdan notes that “there are a few things that may take longer” than articulated in the master schedule. “Some of the things we are watching are some of the phasing of the milestones to get to 2017. ... For every day that they go longer than the plan, it is time equals money — and that would be money out of their pocket, so there is a huge incentive for Boeing to deliver this product on time.”

His comments reference the scope of work and ability to execute the entire development, including flight test and certification, in the time allotted. Bogdan notes that he does not expect Boeing to experience the supply chain and parts-mating issues experienced in the 787 commercial airliner program.

Shay Assad, director of procurement and acquisition policy for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, says that to date the KC-46A program is on schedule and cost. Bogdan has made three progress payments to Boeing and is in the process of approving the fourth, he says. Federal regulations call for 80% of a contractor’s progress payments to be paid when received; the additional 20% is then paid when the work is complete.

Air Force Gen. Raymond Johns, who oversees Air Mobility Command, says that despite Boeing’s expectation of exceeding the target price for development and delivery of the first 18 aircraft, he expects the company to reduce that price and come in “at target cost,” which is $3.8 billion. The entire program was estimated at $4.5 billion, including profit and government cost; the government’s cost is now expected to be $4.9 billion, the ceiling for the contract. Assad notes that target profit on the contract is 12%. The government plans to pay 60% of the overrun up to the contract ceiling; likewise, Boeing and the government share in the financial benefits of early delivery or a cost underrun.

One product of the IBR is a master schedule, which outlines KC-46A milestones as well as progress by Boeing in developing the commercial 767-2C, the new aircraft that will be the baseline platform. The aircraft was a “catalogue” item, meaning it has been offered to customers but not yet developed. Thus the Air Force is the launch customer for it.

The 767-2C is based on the -200ER airframe and includes Boeing 787 digital displays, main deck cargo door and freighter equipment and auxiliary fuel tanks.

Bogdan says that roughly 60% of the cost of the 767-2C will be paid by the KC-46A development. Boeing officials plan eventually to offer the -2C to other customers, including commercial carriers interested in freighter options, or, potentially, other nations looking for an aerial refueler.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Defense Space and Security are working as an integrated team to develop the -2C and the KC-46A, Bogdan says. “They have blended commercial design practices and their defense design practices into building this aircraft,” Bogdan says. “What you will see in the first few years as we design the airplane and lead up to CDR [critical design review] is the best practices from Boeing [Commercial Airplanes] relative to designing the airplane, which Boeing Defense may not have used if this was a purely defense contract. But because half of Boeing’s team was Commercial, they are using those best practices.”

The FAA and the Air Force are also working to “streamline” the certification process so that tasks only need to be done once to certify for both authorities, Bogdan notes.

Another marriage to support this contract is taking place inside the Air Force. Johns, in his role as the requirements generator and future KC-46A fleet manager, is taking a more prominent role in monitoring the development program than operators have in the past. This is purposeful, he says, to ensure that work on the acquisition side continues to be in line with the requirements of the system. “I am going to continue to monitor the performance, the cost and the schedule,” Johns says.

Boeing plans to conduct a major review of the 767-2C configuration by the end of November, with a preliminary design view for the KC-46A in March. A critical design review of the KC-46A is slated for the summer of 2013 with a CDR of the -2C about four months prior, Bogdan says.

Boeing KC-46A illustration

Unicorn

22-09-11, 11:26 AM

buglerbilly

22-09-11, 04:31 PM

I wouldn't want to insult the Edsel!

buglerbilly

22-09-11, 04:32 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

USAF Acknowledges Some Risk in KC-46A Schedule

Posted by Amy Butler at 9/22/2011 9:42 AM CDT

Following a sweeping Integrated Baseline Review of its KC-46A refueler program, Air Force officials say they are comfortable with the schedule ahead. But, Air Force PEO Brig. Gen. Christopher Bogdan acknowledges he is closely watching whether Boeing can deliver all 18 tanker buy August 2017 as planned.

Read Av Week's interview with Bogdan, his first since contract award in February, here. He suggests that a solid marriage between Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Defense Space and Security -- an about face since the company's failed 2008 bid -- is contributing to his assessment that risk is not excessive in executing the schedule.

Though not a high risk, Bogdan notes that the scope of work is substantial in the $4.9 billion development program. Boeing is required to develop four development tankers, conduct testing and certification and deliver 14 units ready for operations in six years. And, not all of these activities are under the company's direct control. Contractors have long wrangled with the rigidity of the military's testing community and FAA and military certification processes.

And, the stakes are high. The company is on a fixed price contract, though there are incentives for performing ahead of schedule. Air Mobility Command chief Gen Raymond Johns says he expects Boeing to work to complete the program at target or below. This spring, Boeing told government officials the company would exceed the contract ceiling of $4.9 billion, forcing the company to dip into its own coffers to execute the work.

Schedule has always been the thing to watch since the Air Force announced Boeing won the contract.

Boeing is working now to solidify the configuration of its 767-2C commercial "catalogue" platform, which is the baseline for the militarized KC-46A. A critical functional review is slated for November with a design review for the tanker to follow months later.

The two are being developed in parallel, though the 2C is necessarily slightly ahead in the schedule than the KC-46A.

The reciprocity between the 2C and 46A work will be interesting to watch. If Boeing gets this right, it could take a step beyond the commercial/defense work already accomplished in its P-8 design and development process (the baseline 737 was already developed prior to P-8 award). And, that could go a long way to legitimize the company's push to militarize commercial platforms for Pentagon use in the eyes of the customer.

The next big marketing campaign on this front is for Boeing to conduct the Jstars ground surveillance mission from a modified 737.

buglerbilly

14-10-11, 03:47 PM

KC-46: Model Program, Yet Potential Delays Exist

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 13 Oct 2011 20:17

Model program? Hardly..........:jerkit

The U.S. Air Force's KC-46 tanker is a model acquisition program in several ways, yet four things may keep the aircraft from entering service on schedule, senior defense officials said.

Above, an artist's rendering of the KC-46 tanker. (The Boeing Co.)

"We need to use the type of procurement practice that we used on KC-X on as many programs, frankly, as we can," said Shay Assad, the Defense Department's director of defense procurement and acquisition policy. "In those instances where we can define our requirements in a firm way, we need to use this type of contract."

Assad conceded there are many who oppose fixed-price contracts, and he noted that DoD spent a huge amount of time to lay out the Air Force's precise requirements. But if the risks are fully understood and the requirements are constructed soundly, Assad told lawmakers Oct. 13, such contract vehicles are appropriate.

Assad said the KC-46 contract offers great advantages to the government. Boeing is completely responsible for any price increases above the contract ceiling price. Boeing estimates the program's cost at $5.2 billion, which means that the company will swallow a loss of about $300 million unless it can bring costs down, Assad said.

The contract ceiling is $4.83 billion, Maj. Gen. (sel.) Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force's KC-46 program manager, said later.

Bogdan said the contract is meant to give Boeing every incentive to manage costs ruthlessly. The Air Force is now obligated to buy just four test planes, he said. The rest of the 179 aircraft are options, including the 18 fully operational planes that Boeing is obligated to deliver by August 2017, he said.

If the company can't deliver on its promises, the Air Force can start the follow-on KC-Y or KC-Z programs sooner than planned, Bogdan said.

Air Force acquisition executive David Van Buren, who was also testifying, said that if the KC-46 works as advertised, the Air Force could dispense with replacing the KC-10 with a heavy tanker. However, the Air Force wants to keep its options open, he said.

The contract isn't all stick; there is a carrot being offered, too.

"The good news for us is, if they finish that program for less than $4.8 billion, for every dollar less, we get 60 cents of it and they get 40 cents of it," Bogdan said.

Nonetheless, both the program office and Boeing have cash in reserve in case of problems, Bogdan said.

Van Buren said that the service also got a good deal because the first two production lots will be built to a firm fixed price, while subsequent aircraft fall under a "not-to-exceed" pricing structure.

But if Congress cannot pass a 2012 budget, the entire tanker effort could head toward disaster. Disruptions to cash flow would have "very negative" consequences, Van Buren and others said.

If the service operated on a continuing resolution for the whole year, the program would wind up $203 million short, which could require the entire deal to be restructured.

The KC-46, meant to offload 212,000 pounds of fuel and double as a cargo plane, is well into its first year of development, Bogdan said. The aircraft is being designed with a 40-year lifespan and will undergo its preliminary design review in 2012 and its critical design review the following year, Van Buren said.

The first flight of a 767-2C airframe without the tanker-specific hardware will occur in 2014; a fully equipped KC-46 aircraft will fly by the end of that year, Van Buren said.

Engineering and manufacturing development will wrap up in 2016.

Bogdan said Boeing will put the KC-46 through two sets of preliminary and critical reviews under military and civilian procedures.

Boeing is projecting that it will deliver 18 operational aircraft five months before the deadline in August 2017, Bogdan said.

Four Threats

Bogdan said there are four potential threats to the schedule.

Boeing is building the KC-46 as a military derivative of a commercial airframe, which normally means completing the aircraft as a civilian product, then modifying it for military service. But Boeing and its subcontractors are building the tanker as a military aircraft from the outset. For example, the emplacement for the refueling boom might be built into the plane at the factory, rather than being cut out of the fuselage later, Bogdan said.

But this risks delays if the subcontractors can't immediately build the modified components correctly, he said.

The second potential pitfall, Bogdan said, is that Boeing is contracted to deliver an aircraft with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type of certificate. There are two parts to this requirement: the baseline 767-2C must first get its Amended Type Certificate (ATC), as all new variants of existing civilian aircraft must; but also, the plane must get a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) for all of its various military modifications, Bodgan said.

These steps would normally be done in sequence, but production modifications require them to be done at roughly the same time, which means any course corrections may cause delays, Bogdan said.

The Air Force could simply issue a military-type certificate, but then the service couldn't use the testing already done by civilian users, which would make operating the plane more expensive, he said.

Third, flight testing may not go as smoothly as Boeing hopes, Bogdan said. The company, in partnership with the FAA, is efficient at testing new civilian aircraft, but testing military aircraft is more complex.

Fourth is software.

"I've never been on a program where software was not an issue," Bogdan said.

Boeing plans to reuse much of its civilian software, which Bogdan said is a good move. But modifying code for military use is always difficult, he said. Another good move, he said, is setting up three labs to support KC-46 software development, including one dedicated to the tanker program. But he said he will be watching software progress like a hawk.

Putting the Boeing 787 cockpit avionics into the KC-46 may cause integration problems, but will be well worth it to get an upgradable, reliable and vastly more capable system, Bogdan said.

Weasel

15-10-11, 01:16 AM

KC-46: Model Program, Yet Potential Delays Exist

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 13 Oct 2011 20:17

Model program? Hardly..........:jerkit

Really Bugs?

Your jaded perception wouldn't have something to do with this link by any chance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

The whole tanker program is a hot wet mess. Interesting to note that Airbus actually won a fair contract bid, even though Boeing knew what they were going to present. lol

cheers

w

buglerbilly

15-10-11, 02:49 AM

Quite! I forgot about Darleen but then again forgive me for my Chauvanism, she is NOT what one would call God's gift to the beauty of womanhood................ apart from the fact she has no morals or ethics................:violent

"Model Program" is a farcical comment along the lines of Monty Python, and as you say they lost the original contract DESPITE the fact they knew the opposition's content..........the second time around it was so biased against the previous Winner as to make it almost nosensical for Airbus Military to proceed.

Weasel

15-10-11, 10:47 PM

buglerbilly

21-10-11, 02:40 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Next-Gen winglet for KC-46A Tanker?

Posted by Guy Norris at 10/20/2011 8:22 PM CDT

This is one of those unashamedly ‘what-if’ scenario blog entries – so apologies in advance to those hoping to find hard news about the U.S. Air Force reversing its decision not to equip its new Boeing KC-46A tankers with winglets.

Despite the demonstrated fuel burn savings of winglets and the remorseless spread of both retrofit upgrades and forward-fit winglets on virtually all active and new-build air transport programs, the Air Force evidently elected to forgo the feature for its 767 tanker variant. Read a blog by my colleague Amy Butler for a great discussion about the whys and wherefores of this.

But what if things change? What if fuel costs continue to spiral upwards? In fact, what are the chances they won’t? Virtually nil is the short answer. What if large-scale winglet designs improve to the point where they reduce outboard wing loading (and hence structural complexity for retrofit) to a negligible degree? What if new structural concepts appear that dramatically cut installed weight and manufacturing cost?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to imagine all of this happening because it already is. Well before the first KC-46A even comes together the seeds are being sown that could one day lead to a fleet-wide retrofit which would ultimately save the Air Force millions of gallons of fuel. According to the Air Force’s Alternative Aviation Fuel Initiative, the military is the largest single consumer of petroleum products in the U.S. and the Air Force alone uses more than two billion gallons of aviation fuel each year. The service’s annual energy bill is around $6.7 billion, of which over 80% is spent on jet fuel. Staggering numbers at a time of vicious budget cuts.

So what about these advances? Not surprisingly for a world in which commercial and business aviation is increasingly pushing technology ahead of the military (a reversal of the historic trend), they were on display at this year’s National Business Aviation Association show in Las Vegas, Nevada.

UK-based aerostructures company GKN aims to change the manufacturing paradigm for winglet technology by developing a one-piece, integrated composite structure offering significant weight and cost savings over current built-up designs. Unveiling its development technology demonstrator winglet structure at the show, GKN says the co-cured unit will undergo loads tests later this year before further evaluation.

GKN's winglet technology demonstrator (Guy Norris)

Interior winglet structure exposed at root (GKN)

Interior structure without skin (GKN)

Current GKN-built winglet for comparison (GKN)

The design incorporates co-bonded skins and webs which form integral trapezoidal spars and forms a radical departure from conventional winglet structures. Interestingly GKN builds Aviation Partner Boeing winglets for the 767, with the 767-300/BCF converted freighter due to become the latest variant to use the devices from February 2012.

In the same exhibit hall, Aviation Partners displayed a blended split-tip scimitar winglet which is an evolution of the baseline blended winglet with a downward canted element to counter vortices generated by interactions between the wing tip and the lower wing surface. The new design is expected to provide additional drag reduction without generating so much of an increase in bending moment and weight penalty. Aviation Partners CEO Joe Clark says computational fluid analysis of the design indicates potential drag reductions of up to 9.5% over an unmodified wing, producing a cruise performance gain of over 40% above the original blended winglet configuration.

So with these promising advances in the wings, perhaps winglets will eventually earn their way onto the KC-46A one day after all.

Aviation Partner's radical blended split-tip scimitar concept (Guy Norris)

buglerbilly

28-11-11, 10:59 AM

Boeing may exceed aerial tanker cost ceiling by $500 Million

By Tony Capaccio and — Bloomberg Government, Monday, November 28, 6:10 AM

Boeing is projected to exceed by as much as $500 million the cost ceiling on its contract to develop new refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force, or about $200 million more than previous estimates, according to the Defense Department.

Chicago-based Boeing, which is developing the KC-46A tanker from its 767 airliner, absorbs 100 percent of any dollars over the contract’s $4.8 billion ceiling.

Government officials in June told Bloomberg News that Boeing was projected to exceed the ceiling by $300 million.

A senior official told reporters July 27 the estimate had dropped “a little bit.’’

The new, higher estimate is disclosed in a 37-page Selected Acquisition Report, the Pentagon’s first official cost review for what is planned as a 179-aircraft, $51.7 billion program that includes research, production and aircraft support.

The estimate comes as engineering, manufacturing and development are “progressing well with no significant technical issues,’’ the report said. A major review that ended in mid-August resulted in a well-understood and approved contract, technical, cost and schedule baseline’’ that the government will use to “measure and closely manage Boeing’s progress.’’

“The program manager’s most likely estimated price at completion is $5.3 billion and the contractor’s most likely is $5.1 billion,’’ according to the document obtained by Bloomberg News.

“The government’s estimate is higher than the contractor’s due to the inclusion of schedule risk associated with the remainder of development,’’ it said. “The government’s liability is limited to $4.8 billion.’’

Zero profit?

Program manager Brig. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said of Boeing in July that “if they get to $4.9 billion, they get zero profit.’’

Boeing spokesman Jerry Drelling said he had no immediate comment but planned to provide a statement.

The estimated value for buying four development and 175 production tankers includes $40.2 billion for procurement. A full-rate production decision is scheduled for June 2017.

Procurement spending is scheduled to start in 2015 with $1.6 billion, increasing to $2.6 billion in 2016 and $3.2 billion in 2016 when measured in “then-year’’ current dollars. The production schedule calls for building the first seven aircrafts in 2015, 12 in 2016 and 15 a year annually through 2026, with the final six of 175 in 2027.

Most of $7.1 billion in development funds will be spent through 2016.

The cost per tanker jet in current dollars is estimated at $288.8 million, the report said.

— Bloomberg Government

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 12:03 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

KC-46: Boeing Before and After the Tanker Win

Posted by Robert Wall at 1/4/2012 10:53 AM CST

Boeing's decision to shutter its Wichita facility by the end of 2013 is a big blow for the region's aerospace activity, which is already suffering after other cutbacks. It also marks a sharp turnaround from the message the company had for the region when it was looking for political support to win the U.S. Air Force KC-X tanker program.

Here is some of what the company put out before it won the KC-46A program:

TOPEKA, Kan., April 30, 2010 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that Kansas will benefit from approximately 7,500 jobs and an estimated $388 million in annual economic impact if the Boeing NewGen Tanker is selected as the U.S. Air Force's next aerial refueling aircraft.

"The national recession has hit the aviation industry hard, with thousands of Kansans out of work," said Gov. Mark Parkinson. "The jobs from this contract can provide meaningful economic recovery to our state and country. The delays on this project have been frustrating, and unnecessary. I urge our military leaders to act swiftly and award this contract to Boeing. It's time we bring these jobs home to Kansas."

"I am confident that the Air Force will select Boeing to build its new tanker because I know the strength of the Kansas work force. Our workers will provide the skills and expertise that a new generation of airmen will depend on to keep America secure," said U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback. "I am excited for Boeing to win the contract and get these tankers rolling off of the line, and excited that we are working together to create new jobs in Kansas and grow the Kansas economy."

"This announcement today confirms what we all know to be true, that Boeing will make the best next-generation aerial refueling tanker. Boeing's proposal is based on a proven platform founded on the expertise of a well-established pool of skilled workers," said U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts. "The tanker proposal must be based on a level playing field and not construed to accommodate the business needs of an illegally subsidized company at the sacrifice of American servicemembers."

"While unemployment remains high and our economy is still sluggish, nothing is more welcome news than a possible 7,500 jobs coming to Kansas. An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers -- and that is the Boeing 767 -- made by our highly skilled workers here in Kansas," said U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt. "I will continue to press the Pentagon for a fair and level playing field for our American workers. With an equal competition, there is no doubt that U.S. workers can compete and win this tanker contract. I look forward to seeing these high-quality jobs come home to the Sunflower State very soon."

Boeing employees working at the Wichita, Kan., site will play an important role in modifying commercial 767 airplanes into NewGen military tankers if the company is selected for the contract. This is highly skilled work that Boeing workers in Kansas know well, having performed similar modifications in recent years on eight 767 tankers for Japan and Italy.

In addition to the 2,586 Boeing employees in Kansas, the company also works with 464 suppliers/vendors around the state, resulting in an estimated $3 billion in annual economic impact and supporting an estimated 125,000 direct and indirect Kansas jobs.

And here is today's message for the region:

WICHITA, Kan., Jan. 4, 2012 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that the Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) facility in Wichita will close by the end of 2013. The Wichita facility currently employs more than 2,160 employees.

"The decision to close our Wichita facility was difficult but ultimately was based on a thorough study of the current and future market environment and our ability to remain competitive while meeting our customers' needs with the best and most affordable solutions," said Mark Bass, vice president and general manager for BDS' Maintenance, Modifications & Upgrades division. "We recognize how this will affect the lives of the highly skilled men and women who work here, so we will do everything possible to assist our employees, their families and our community through this difficult transition."

Boeing Wichita is the base for the company's Global Transport & Executive Systems business and its B-52 and 767 International Tanker programs. The facility also provides support for flight mission planning and integrated logistics.

Over the past five years, contracts in Wichita have matured, programs have come to a close or are winding down, and the site does not have enough sustainable business on the horizon to create an affordable cost structure to maintain and win new business.

"In this time of defense budget reductions, as well as shifting customer priorities, Boeing has decided to close its operations in Wichita to reduce costs, increase efficiencies, and drive competitiveness," said Bass. "We will begin program transitions in the coming months, with the complete closure of the site scheduled for the end of 2013. We do not anticipate job reductions as a result of this decision until early in the third quarter of 2012."

Bass said that Boeing will continue to have a significant impact on the Kansas economy and the health of the state's aerospace industry.

"The company spent more than $3.2 billion with approximately 475 Kansas suppliers in 2011, spanning its commercial and defense businesses, making it the fourth largest state in Boeing's supplier network," said Bass. "Based on Boeing Commercial Airplanes growth projections for the next few years, Boeing anticipates even more growth for suppliers in Kansas. Boeing values its long-term partnership with Kansas, and we will continue to work with all of our stakeholders in Kansas in support of a robust aerospace industry in the state."

Future aircraft maintenance, modification and support work will be placed at the Boeing facility in San Antonio. Engineering work will be placed at the Boeing facility in Oklahoma City. Although work on the KC-46 tanker will now be performed in Puget Sound, Wash., the 24 Kansas suppliers on the program will be providing vital elements of the aircraft as originally planned.

Boeing is providing employee assistance including retirement seminars, job search resources, and financial counseling, as well as help finding jobs inside or out of Boeing.

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 12:19 AM

Boeing Shuts Kan. Factory Expected to Work On Tanker

By DAVE MAJUMDAR and KATE BRANNEN

Published: 4 Jan 2012 13:33

Boeing has gone back on its word, gee what a surprise............NOT! A whole bunch of Republican pollies now stand there with egg all over their communal faces..........ye reap what ye shall sow! :violent

The Boeing Co. will shutter its enormous Wichita, Kan., factory by the end of 2013, dashing hopes that the company would perform work on the U.S. Air Force's new KC-46 tanker there.

Above, an artist's rendering of the KC-46 tanker. (The Boeing Co.)

Under the company's original plans, the tanker's military hardware would be installed at the Wichita plant. Boeing already does similar work for international tankers based on the 767 aircraft in Kansas. The 767 airframe would be built in Washington state.

However, the company announced Jan. 4 that the factory will be shut down.

"In this time of defense budget reductions, as well as shifting customer priorities, Boeing has decided to close its operations in Wichita to reduce costs, increase efficiencies, and drive competitiveness," said Mark Bass, the Boeing vice president who oversees the Wichita facility.

Work on the tanker will now be done at Puget Sound, Wash., but 24 Kansas suppliers on the program still will provide parts, Boeing said in a news release. Boeing's Wichita plant employs 2,160, and more jobs had been expected to be added.

Bass said during a Jan. 4 news conference that keeping the KC-46 "finishing" line in Kansas would render the aircraft unaffordable to the Air Force. He did not offer any indication of what kind of savings moving the work might deliver, nor did he elaborate as to which business opportunities had failed to materialize between when company had promised to add 7,500 jobs to the facility in 2010 and the present.

Boeing spokesman Jarrod Bartlett said there were few opportunities for new work at the Wichita facility. "We have won a modification contract for the 747-8 Aeroloft modification through Greenpoint Technologies Inc," he said. "There was no other new work planned for the Wichita facility."

Kansas' congressional delegation, which had been a forceful advocate for Boeing's victory over rival EADS' Airbus A330-based proposal, expressed its disappointment. The Airbus-based tanker would have been assembled in Alabama.

"Boeing's statement confirms that it will indeed break years and years of promises," said Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who represents Wichita. "As I have said repeatedly - both publicly and to Boeing - Boeing, like every company, has the right to change its business plans and operate in the best interests of its stakeholders.

"What neither Boeing, nor any other company, has the right to do is make false statements, violate long-held commitments to communities or to receive federal contracts based on representations that it knows are not accurate."

In an interview, Pompeo said upcoming defense budget cuts are completely unrelated to this decision, despite Boeing's claims otherwise.

"They've made allusions to the facility not being cost-competitive, but they bid the tanker knowing full well what the costs were in Kansas," he said. "They believed it was competitive when they submitted their bid and so did the Air Force."

The freshman congressman is up for re-election in November. He succeeded former Rep. Todd Tiahrt, who was an outspoken Boeing advocate in the tanker contest. Tiahrt gave up his seat to run for Senate and lost to fellow Republican Jerry Moran.

"It is hard to believe that conditions would have changed so rapidly over the past few months to bring about the decision to not only move the tanker finishing work elsewhere, but to also close down the entire facility," Moran said in a statement.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Boeing chairman W. James McNerney promised him, former senator and current Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Tiahrt in 2010 that if the firm won the tanker contract, Boeing would stay in Wichita.

"The chairman again promised the entire delegation the work would remain in Wichita just last February, when the tanker contract was settled in Boeing's favor," he said in a statement.

Brownback said his administration would seek opportunities with Boeing and Airbus going forward.

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 01:29 AM

Top weapons tester says KC-46A schedule is unworkable

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

4 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force's plan for testing and evaluating the Boeing KC-46A tanker is "not executable" and could overrun the schedule by at least eight months, the US military's top weapons tester said in a new report.

Michael Gilmore, director of the office of test and evaluation for the Department of Defense, sharply criticized the USAF's ability to certify the KC-46A for military operations by the end of Fiscal 2017.

USAF and Boeing officials were not immediately available to comment on Gilmore's report.

Gilmore rejects the USAF's apparent planning assumption that the KC-46A schedule can be more aggressive than most military aircraft programmes.

The USAF assumption is flawed even though the KC-46A is based on the 767-2C, a new derivative of the certified commercial airliner, Gilmore said.

Gilmore cited the US Navy's experience with the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, a submarine-hunting variant of the commercial 737-800 fuselage. Like other fixed-wing military transports, each aircraft in the P-8A test fleet averages fewer than 30 flight hours per month, Gilmore said. The USAF schedule however, schedule requires each KC-46A to average 42h per month during flight-testing.

The KC-46A also built in an "optimistic" re-fly rate of 15%, meaning the number of tests that have to be repeated due to unexpected results, Gilmore said. The P-8A refly rate is averaging 45%, he noted.

The USAF also allocated 750h to the operational test programme, but Gilmore estimates the minimum necessary to complete the schedule is 1,250h of flight tests.

If the KC-46A flight test programme achieves no worse than the P-8A's average, the schedule could be delayed a minimum of eight months, Gilmore wrote.

The USAF selected Boeing's proposal last year over an EADS North America bid. Boeing is expected to build 179 KC-46As to begin replacing the USAF's aging fleet of KC-135 tankers.

The KC-46A integrates a new refueling boom, wing-mounted refueling pods and a new cockpit system.

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 02:58 AM

U.S. Air Force Disputes Testers on KC-46 Tanker

Jan. 19, 2012

By DAVE MAJUMDAR and MARCUS WEISGERBER

The U.S. Air Force disputes the assessment by the Pentagon’s top tester that the test program for its prized KC-46 tanker program is not executable.

“The Air Force respects the opinions of the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, but does not agree with its assessment that the KC-46 test program is ‘not executable,’” Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy said in an email. “The Air Force does acknowledge that Boeing’s overall KC-46 program schedule is considered medium risk, in part due to its aggressive flight-test schedule.”

Cassidy wrote that the service worked with plane-maker Boeing, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and the Pentagon’s operational and developmental test force to build a plan that is comparable to the flight test programs for other commercial-derivative aircraft. She cited the KC-10 tanker program as an example.

“The Air Force structured the KC-46 program to ensure that no decision to enter operational test or production would be made without first meeting specific and measurable flight test results,” Cassidy wrote. “The Air Force also structured the KC-46 development contract as a fixed price contract to protect the DoD and taxpayers from any cost growth on the program if the test program is not executed as planned.”

Earlier in the month, J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s chief tester, found in his annual report that the program will likely need at least eight more months than planned by the Air Force and the prime contractor Boeing. That test schedule for the KC-46A tanker is far too ambitious and “not executable,” Gilmore said.

According to the report, the test program includes several “deficiencies.” The number of proposed flight hours per test aircraft, per month, exceeds “the historical average that the Air Force and Navy have experienced during other large aircraft test programs,” the document says.

In addition, the monthly schedule “is far too aggressive for flight tests that are more specialized, higher risk and more resource-intensive” than Federal Aviation Administration certification, the report says. The Air Force acknowledged last fall that Boeing’s flight test schedule is so aggressive; the company stands to lose money early on.

The development portion of the KC-46A contract — which the Air Force awarded to Boeing last February— has a ceiling of $4.83 billion. Boeing estimates the program’s cost at $5.2 billion, which means that the company will swallow a loss of about $300 million unless it can bring costs down, Shay Assad, the director of defense pricing, told lawmakers in October. The entire program, including development and production of 179 aircraft, is valued at more than $30 billion.

Boeing officials said they were unable to comment by press time.

Cassidy said, “The Air Force will continue to work with the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation and all our test stakeholders to ensure the test program is executed in an effective and efficient manner.”

buglerbilly

24-02-12, 11:36 PM

A year after victory, Boeing says tanker is on track

By Philip Ewing Friday, February 24th, 2012 11:03 am

Future generations will look on with amazement when we tell them that we survived the Tanker War.

The scandal … the money … the political grandstanding and gamesmanship … it’s been long enough since the saga ended that one almost doesn’t even believe one’s own memories: The ad blanketing by EADS and Boeing on every surface and screen in Washington. The hearings and speeches on Capitol Hill — the charges and counter-charges of unfair business practices and subsidies. An unending tailspin of dysfunction. As we’ve observed, it would make a great movie — though there are probably only a few hundred people who’d actually see it.

All that’s dead and gone, Boeing seemed to say Friday, and everything today with its KC-46A tanker is hunky-dory. The company marked the year since it won the award with an announcement reaffirming that it’s on track to execute its contract as agreed and deliver its first airplanes on schedule:

KC-46 Tanker program today marked the first anniversary of receiving a U.S. Air Force contract to build the next-generation aerial refueling tanker, the KC-46A. Over the past year, the program has completed key milestones in support of the design and development phase on or ahead of schedule, and is now preparing for a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in March.

“The KC-46 program is on a good path. Boeing’s performance thus far has been solid,” said Maj. Gen. Chris Bogdan, KC-46 Program Executive Officer, U.S. Air Force. “Our commitment is to deliver the KC-46A to the nation’s warfighters, on schedule and ready to go to war on day one, as the world’s most advanced tanker. I’m pleased to report that Boeing is meeting its commitments.”

Since receiving the contract on Feb. 24, 2011, the Boeing KC-46 team has completed several major milestones, including a System Requirements Review, Integrated Baseline Review, 767-2C PDR, and Firm Configuration Reviews for the 767-2C and the KC-46A Tanker.

“I’m very proud of our joint team,” said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing KC-46 Tanker vice president and program manager. “We’re drawing on the best of Boeing’s industry-leading commercial airplane and defense expertise as we design and develop the KC-46A, which is a next-generation derivative aircraft. We remain on plan to deliver the first 18 combat-ready tankers by 2017.”

The PDR, which will ensure that Boeing’s design meets system requirements, will be followed by a Critical Design Review (CDR) in the third quarter of 2013. The CDR determines that the design of the KC-46A is mature and ready to proceed to the manufacturing phase of the program.

Boeing will build 179 next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft that will begin to replace the Air Force’s fleet of 416 KC-135 tankers. Based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane, the KC-46A tanker is a widebody, multi-mission aircraft updated with the latest and most advanced technology to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future, including a digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays and a flight control design philosophy that places aircrews in command to maximize combat maneuverability. The KC-46A also features a modernized KC-10 boom with a fly-by-wire control system, and a refueling envelope and fuel offload rate that is greater than the KC-135 it will replace.

To be sure, Boeing’s first year hasn’t been all tea and cakes — the company announced it would close its plant in Wichita, Kansas, which was to have been instrumental in tanker production, and it became crystal clear that Big B is taking a bath on its early airplanes. The company’s bid to defeat EADS was so low, and its actual costs could grow so much, that it may make no profit on the initial tankers for the Air Force. It will have to depend on good longer-term performance to recoup those costs, because the deal means it’s responsible for all costs beyond the ceiling, and it can’t just bill Uncle Sam. (Allegedly.)

Overall, however, DoD and Air Force officials probably breathe easier every day there’s a tanker program, as opposed to open tanker warfare.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/24/year-after-victory-boeing-says-tanker-still-on-track/#ixzz1nLTMyigO
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

28-02-12, 10:08 PM

Scrapped Northrop-EADS Tanker Deal Still Unsettled

Feb. 28, 2012 - 09:05AM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Northrop released this photo, showing an A330 tanker it was developing with EADS for the U.S. Air Force tanker program, during the competition. (NORTHROP GRUMMAN)

On Feb. 29, 2008 — four years ago this week — the U.S. Air Force selected a Northrop Grumman-EADS team to build its next-generation tanker after a heated, multiyear battle with Boeing for the $35 billion contract.

The companies immediately began working on a $1.5 billion development contract that included four test aircraft, which were to be based on the commercial Airbus A330 airframe and given the designation KC-45.

But the contract was short-lived. A mere 11 days after the contract was awarded, Boeing contested it. Months later, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled the competition and told the Air Force to start from square one. When it did, Boeing prevailed.

What few people know is that the Air Force still partly owns two of the four Airbus A330 airframes that were produced as part of the original contract.

Four years later, the Air Force still has not settled termination-fee negotiations with Northrop and EADS.

One aircraft is in storage at the Airbus Military facility in Getafe, Spain. Another is in Toulouse, France — home to Airbus’ A330 production line, according to James Darcy, a spokesman for EADS North America.

Pictures of the aircraft in Toulouse have popped up on plane-spotter websites in the past few years. Photos from 2010 show a gray jetliner, with protective plastic wrapped around its landing gear and tape sealing its doorjambs.

Its wings are engineless. The cockpit windows are covered in plastic. The remnants of a temporary registration number — taped beside the left rear cabin door — still feature the plane’s production number, 925.

The plane, which was once powered by two General Electric engines, flew for the first time April 18, 2008, according to aircraft tracking websites.

The two additional aircraft that were part of the original development contract were still in the early stages of production when the program was canceled and have since been diverted to other customers, according to an industry source.

“We and prime contractor Northrop Grumman remain in discussions with the Air Force as we work toward a fair and appropriate settlement of the termination for convenience,” Darcy said of the talks.

Northrop Grumman spokesman Randy Belote declined to comment on the termination negotiations and referred questions to the Air Force.

Air Force officials said they expect the contract termination issues to be settled soon.

When the Northrop-EADS team was selected in 2008, they had planned to build components of the tankers at existing production facilities in Europe and assemble the plane at a new plant in Mobile, Ala.

After Boeing contested, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress that independently reviews government procurement contracts, said Boeing’s argument was valid and recommended a new competition. Instead, senior Pentagon leadership canceled the program as it was structured and started from scratch.

During a subsequent competition, which included a new acquisition strategy, Northrop opted not to compete and EADS proposed the same A330-based aircraft in a solo bid. On Feb. 24, 2011, Boeing, pitching a smaller 767-based aircraft, won.

Early last decade, the Air Force planned to lease 767-based tankers from Boeing, but the deal fell apart after conflicts of interest came to light between the Air Force’s top acquisition executive and a senior Boeing official. Government and industry executives went to jail, and the procurement was delayed.

The Air Force launched a competition for procurement, and modified its bidding parameters to allow Northrop and EADS to bid the larger A330-based aircraft.

Minutes before the Air Force announced Northrop and EADS had won the tanker competition in 2008, some reporters in the Pentagon briefing room joked whether the decade-long battle would be settled the next time the calendar again read Feb. 29, a date that occurs every four years.

Turns out, it has not.

Milne Bay

07-03-12, 07:54 AM

Airbus pitches RAAF sixth MRTT

Item by australianaviation.com.au at 1:46 pm, Wednesday March 7 2012

Airbus Australia Program Manager Valentin Merino has told Australian media that the company has made an unsolicited offer to the Royal Australian Air Force for a sixth MRTT/KC-30 tanker.

The ‘green’ Airbus-owned aircraft was built for the US KC-X program, which was originally awarded to Airbus before being cancelled on appeal. Mr Merino said the company had received interest from Spain and France for the tanker, but had made an offer to Australia, as a preferred customer.

“The original contract signing in 2005 was for five airplanes with options on three more, but that expired in 2006,” Mr Merino said. “The RAAF originally saw a requirement for eight tanker aircraft, and so we made them an offer of a sixth.”

Mr Merino said Airbus would require a decision from the Department of Defence by June 2012 at the latest, but the first customer to make an affirmative decision would get the aircraft.

“The tools for MRTT conversion at our Brisbane facility are already being disassembled and sent back. If the RAAF purchase the sixth MRTT, we can leverage existing knowledge and infrastructure, as well as keep up to 200 people employed,” Mr Merino said.

The Brisbane conversion facility for the existing five KC-30 tankers is operated by Qantas Defence Services and employs both Qantas staff and contractors.

The tanker has an estimated cost of between $150 million and $200 million, and could be ready for service 12 months after starting conversion.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/03/airbus-pitches-raaf-sixth-mrtt/

Unicorn

08-03-12, 02:35 AM

Interesting offer, but I wonder if the RAAF has the money for it.?

They would probably like another C17 or Wedgetail more urgently than another tanker / transport.

.

buglerbilly

27-03-12, 05:42 AM

Boeing KC-46 tanker may be delayed -GAO report

* GAO report notes program already $900 mln over cost target

* Program has significant overlap between development, production

* Air Force says risk of delay "moderate"

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

March 26 (Reuters) - One year into its development, the Air Force's new KC-46 refueling tanker being developed by Boeing Co faces "significant schedule risks" and technical challenges, and is already $900 million over budget, a congressional report found.

The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said the Air Force had limited its liability for cost overruns on the $51.7 billion program by using a fixed-price contract, but schedule delays were still possible.

"Even with these safeguards, it is important to note that one year into development, Air Force and contractor development cost estimates exceed the development contract amount and significant schedule risks have been identified," GAO wrote in an annual report on the program required by Congress.

The program is already $900 million over the target price of $4.4 billion for the initial development contract, and $400 million over the contract's ceiling of $4.9 billion.

The contract calls for the government to cover 60 percent of overruns up to the ceiling. Boeing has to cover any overrun beyond that level, unless the government changes its requirements for the tanker and renegotiates its contract.

Boeing beat out Europe's EADS to win the contract in February 2011, capping a decade of failed Air Force attempts to start replacing its aging fleet of KC-135 refueling planes, which are now 49 years old on average.

GAO said the program had an accelerated schedule with significant overlap, or concurrency, among the development, testing and production of the new 767-based planes.

The issue of "concurrency" has troubled another big Pentagon weapons program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp. The Pentagon has restructured that program three times in recent years to reduce the overlap between development and production.

GAO said the tanker program was not as challenging as an all-new weapon system since it used a modified commercial platform, but it still faced risk on three critical technologies that had not been tested in a realistic environment.

It noted that the Air Force and Boeing were both concerned about risks to the development and test schedule for the new planes due to a tight flight testing schedule, work on the commercial Boeing line to prepare the aircraft for military modifications, the need for two Federal Aviation Administration certifications, and software challenges.

GAO said Boeing's recent decision to shut down its Wichita, Kansas, facility where it had planned to militarize the planes added a further complication, despite the government's insistence that it will hold Boeing to its contractual obligation to deliver 18 aircraft by August 2017.

"If the provisions in the current contract remain intact, the government's cost liability will be safeguarded ... However these provisions cannot prevent delays in delivering aircraft should problems be discovered late in development or while production is under way," it said.

Only about 60 percent of the flight testing of the new planes is planned to be competed when the Air Force plans to start low-rate production of the new tankers in August 2015.

GAO identified three technologies that still needed to be demonstrated in a realistic environment, including a new three-dimensional display for the crew members who operate the plane's refueling boom and several software issues.

It also raised concerns about the plane's weight, which is already near its limit, and instability of the hose used on new refueling pods.

The Air Force acknowledged that there was some concurrency on the program, but said it was "nowhere near as much as most other major aircraft acquisition programs," adding that it viewed the risk of schedule delays as "moderate."

"The Air Force clearly recognizes schedule as the top risk on the KC-46 program ... however the Air Force believes the GAO assessment that the KC-46 program has 'significant concurrency' overstates the actual level and impact of schedule concurrency between development, testing and production activity," it said in a response to the GAO report.

McDethWivFries

27-03-12, 07:44 AM

gee, who'd've thought Boeing would have issues with the KC-46....

buglerbilly

27-03-12, 11:40 AM

USAF, Boeing Deny GAO Warning on Tanker Program Test Schedule

Mar. 26, 2012 - 05:58PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

The Government Accountability Office said the U.S. Air Force’s KC-46A tanker program test schedule is too aggressive, a claim the service claims is being overblown.

In a March 26 report to Congress, GAO said “significant concurrency, or overlaps, among development and production activities add risk to the program.”

The Air Force and Boeing, the KC-46A prime contractor, said the schedule risk is moderate, “citing concerns about software and the ability to complete development flight testing on time,” the report states.

In a response to GAO, Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the KC-46A program manager, said the agency’s assessment of “significant” concurrency “overstates the actual level and impact of schedule concurrency between development, testing and production activity.”

Boeing was awarded a fixed-price development contract for the tanker program in February 2011. Since then, the program office has developed an acquisition strategy for development and production.

The Air Force is using a $4.4 billion fixed-price development contract that gives Boeing incentives to lower its costs and limits the Pentagon’s liability.

“While estimated development costs are currently $900 million higher than the February 2011 contract award amount, the government’s share of these extra costs is limited to about $500 million,” the report states.

Asked about the status of the KC-46A program during an interview earlier this month, Air Force acquisition executive David Van Buren said, “I feel very good about the program. It is definitely what you would call a green program.”

Dennis Muilenburg, the president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, during a February interview said the company “submitted an aggressive bid, but it’s an executable bid and one that, in the end, will be good business for Boeing and good business for our customer.”

buglerbilly

31-03-12, 02:29 AM

USAF promotes 767-2C as civil freighter

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

3 hours ago

Source:

Utterly irrelevant to the shit thats happening on this programme, and the Civvie market is driven by hugely different factors to the MilTanker one..........

The US Air Force's KC-46 programme manager says that Boeing could market a freighter derivative of the tanker's 767-2C airframe to civil operators.

"That potentially is an airplane that Boeing could with--minor modifications--market as a 767 freighter," says Major General Peter Bogdan. "We've already seen some of that, as you may recall, about a month-and-a-half ago, FedEx made an order for 767 freighters."

Federal Express has ordered 30 Boeing 767-300F freighters which will help mature the production line for the service's next-generation tanker.

Some of the design and engineering features including the cargo door and cargo floor are the same as for the KC-46, Bogdan says. "So there is obviously some synergy for Boeing there," he says.

"The other good thing for our programme is FedEx is going to get delivered their cargo freighter airplanes before ours," Bogdan says. "So that means that Boeing's going to have to mature the production line for that airplane before our airplane goes down the production line."

That should help reduce the risk to the USAF programme.

"That's a very good risk reduction for us," he says. "There will be lessons learned from the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] testing that Boeing's got to do for the model version of the FedEx airplane."

80% of the KC-46 is derived from civil hardware that is common to Boeing commercial aircraft.

The 767-2C-on which the KC-46 is based--will have a fully-stressed cargo floor, a cargo door, and the entire aircraft has a "beefed-up structure," Bogdan says.

"The first flight of the 767-2C is going to be in the [third quarter] of 2014," Bogdan says.

buglerbilly

13-04-12, 11:06 PM

Boeing Wichita Closure Adds RiskTo KC-46A

Apr 13, 2012

By Amy Butler
Washington

Boeing’s decision to close its Wichita facility by the end of next year may be good for the company’s books, but a senior U.S. Air Force official says it adds risk to its ability to execute the KC-46A aerial refueling contract.

The Wichita facility was “well-suited” for militarizing the 767-2C aircraft, including adding the refueling equipment, owing to decades of experience, says Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the USAF’s KC-46A program executive officer. Now, however, that work is being set up between Boeing’s Puget Sound and Everett facilities, both in Washington.

This move, announced nearly a year after the company won the contract over an EADS A330-based tanker entry, will introduce risk in three key areas, Bogdan says. They include the transfer of refueling boom assembly work, shifting oversight of the FAA supplemental type certification (STC) and moving the military modification and finishing center.

“Without a doubt, closing Wichita is a change to the plan, and any change on a program like this is going to introduce some uncertainty and some risk,” Bogdan tells Aviation Week. “We are adding some oversight.”

The government has asked for details on how Boeing plans to ensure the STC will be addressed, Bogdan says. Also, “Boeing owes us [a] more detailed report on the Wichita move [and] progressively more details on their plans for integrating the boom and other aspects of the schedule,” says Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

“The fact that they chose to close Wichita was not part of the original plan. And so—quite frankly—we’re going to hold them accountable to make sure that risks don’t manifest themselves,” Bogdan says. “We are involved in the oversight of that move . . . under the same cost structure, under the same schedule, with the same requirements,” he says.

Boeing opted to close the facility by the end of 2013 due to a lack of “sustainable business on the horizon,” company officials say. Additionally, “this action will ensure that Boeing is competitive in the aircraft maintenance, modification and support business and will place the company in a stronger position to win new business,” says company spokesman Jerry Drelling.

The move, however, does not necessarily bode ill for the KC-46A program.

“If Boeing can make this transfer from Wichita . . . without introducing any risk in cost or schedule . . . the program will be less risky because they are going to build the boom in the same place where they build all of the other military [tanker] stuff,” Bogdan says. “The consolidation of all of those elements in one place is really a good thing . . . The problem is that they have got to make the transition now while they are designing the airplane.”

Refueling boom assembly work that was shifted to Puget Sound is slated for completion by October 2012, Drelling says. The finishing center move is scheduled to wrap up by the end of 2013. “Any risk associated with the move would be mitigated by early next summer, at the latest,” Drelling says.

Timely certification and flight testing are key risky areas in the program, as noted by both Bogdan and a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The auditors note that 50 testing and certification flight hours for each of four development aircraft are required per month. But, Bogdan notes, commercial certification is often a “high-intensity, rapid” operation, including six-day-a-week schedules at Boeing. Military-type certifications, however, are laborious, highly bureaucratic and not under the sole control of the contractor’s team. “Can they transfer some efficiency to military testing” from the commercial work, Bogdan asks. Slow testing as a result of procedures at Edwards AFB, Calif., has caused delays in other programs, such as the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft, and could impact the KC-46A fielding dates.

Boeing officials say the flight-test schedule “will rely heavily” on use of its flight-test facilities. “By operating primarily from contractor facilities, we are confident we will be able to conduct flight test of the aircraft at closer to historical Boeing Commercial flight-test rates,” Drelling says, adding that the schedule has five months of management reserve built in.

The fiscal risk to the government, however, is negligible owing to protection from a fixed-price, incentive-fee contract. Financial risk would only be introduced if the government and Boeing opted to change requirements or reopen negotiations.

The real problem is that development snags could prolong deliveries, forcing the Air Force to keep aging and maintenance-hungry K-135s in service longer than planned. This is especially true should problems arise late in development or while production is under way, the GAO auditors say.

The development contract requires that 18 combat-ready aircraft be delivered in fiscal 2017 at a cost target of $4.4 billion. However, owing to a government estimate of $5.3 billion at completion of the work, the Air Force is anticipating paying the total amount allowable on the contract, which is $4.9 billion (the Air Force and Boeing share cost overruns 60/40, respectively, up to the ceiling). Any additional overage—estimated by USAF as $400 million—is Boeing’s responsibility.

Thus far, the government has paid $558 million in seven progress payments. Bogdan says the government withholds 20% of Boeing’s billing requests, which is payable at completion of development. Additionally, USAF is withholding another 9% from each payment as a loss ratio since Boeing is expected to burn through the government money in advance of completing development.

Boeing officials decline to discuss the specifics of their independent cost estimates for program completion, but GAO auditors report that the company estimates its overrun to be about $187 million less than the Air Force’s estimate. “We remain on target with our initial estimate of the cost of developing the KC-46 tanker. Initial cost productions are just that, projections,” Drelling says. “Should we be able to reduce the costs of the program—and Boeing has both the opportunity and incentive to do so—it will benefit both [USAF and us].” Boeing officials have not outlined how they plan to reduce the cost of the overrun.

The Air Force estimates the development and procurement cost of all 179 KC-46As as $51.7 billion.

Bogdan and GAO auditors are watchful of the concurrent KC-46A development and production phases. Concurrency refers to the risk associated with producing aircraft before discovering all possible defects in a design through testing.

Bogdan also notes that the government has leverage over Boeing in that its production decision is event-driven. “If the test program doesn’t go well or is delayed, we are not going to make a production decision and that is at great risk to Boeing for two reasons: One, it is a fixed-price contract so as long as EMD [engineering and manufacturing development] continues, they are going to have to pay anything above $4.9 billion. Two, the longer we wait to get into production, the longer Boeing waits to make money on this program,” he says.

The KC-46A contract also contains a deficiency clause that is “the most airtight I have ever seen,” Bogdan says. The language was drawn in part from lessons gleaned from the F-35 experience. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 development program is fraught with concurrency anomalies, exposing the government to hundreds of millions—and potentially billions—of dollars of liability in the form of retrofits. The KC-46A contract stipulates that if any deficiencies are found in the six years of development, Boeing is required to design a fix, gain Air Force approval for it, retrofit it into delivered aircraft and insert it into the production line at no cost to the government.

Bogdan says Boeing has set aside three system-integration laboratories specifically for KC-46A work. Additionally, Fedex has ordered 27 767 freighters that Bogdan suggests will provide some risk-reduction work leading into the build of the first 767-2C (the baseline for the tanker). The freighter will have a cargo door and structurally enhanced floors, tail, wings and empennage—as will the 767-2C. The 2C, however, will include such tanker-specific equipment as specialized wiring and plumbing, a refueling receptacle and boom equipment.

The GAO auditors note that the “aircraft weight forecast is near the aircraft’s weight limit,” a potential concern. The design now has about 2,000 lb. of margin after having grown 600 lb., Bogdan says. However, if Boeing exceeds the 2,000-lb. limit, the aircraft still has margin to meet the performance requirement for range and offload. The risk, he says, would largely be to Boeing’s ability to meet a contractual requirement, not its ability to meet the performance standards.

During a requirements review, the Air Force and Boeing had an “absolute meeting of the minds” on what the “secondary requirements,” which are design elements derived from the key performance parameters, would be for the KC-46A design, says David Van Buren, the outgoing Air Force senior acquisition executive. In the past, a misunderstanding on these “derived” requirements has driven the cost of programs up. In the case of the KC-46A, however, USAF is working aggressively to control requirements in order to avoid reopening the contract for negotiation.

A KC-46A preliminary design review is expected to be completed at the end of the month.

Boeing Concept

buglerbilly

23-04-12, 12:36 PM

IN FOCUS: Boeing must deliver on KC-46, USAF says

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

31 minutes ago

Source:

Boeing must perform on the new KC-46 tanker programme, the US Air Force is warning the company as the aircraft enters its preliminary design review (PDR). Otherwise the service could walk away.

"We could buy more KC-46s or - make no mistake about it - if Boeing doesn't perform, we'll just start another competition," says Maj Gen Christopher Bogdan, the USAF's KC-46 programme executive officer.

© Boeing
The KC-46 represents the first step in the USAF's plans to replace its ageing fleet of Boeing KC-135 tankers

The KC-46 effort is the first phase of a three-step programme to replace a geriatric fleet of 416 Boeing KC-135 tankers that have been flying since the Eisenhower administration.

The USAF wants a total of 179 KC-46 tankers eventually, but initially Boeing is obligated to deliver the first batch of 18 combat-ready KC-46As by August 2017.

The first production aircraft deliveries are expected in early 2016, Bogdan says.

"If they don't give us the 18 airplanes by August of 2017, I have the option to withhold payments [and] I have the option not to approve any of the further production options," Bogdan says.

With a production rate of 15 aircraft per year, Boeing will be building the KC-46 until 2028. But the contract has a mechanism to vary production rates. For example, in years three, four and five, the USAF has the option of buying between nine and 18 jets and would still get good prices, Bogdan says. "We got a really, really good deal," he adds.

However, 179 aircraft will only cover the replacement of 33% of the KC-135 fleet. If Boeing fails to deliver on the contract or the USAF is not happy with the aircraft, the service has the option to start the follow-on KC-Y and KC-Z tenders early, Bogdan says.

But pressuring Boeing to perform is not the only reason for the relatively small order: technology is likely to have evolved by 2028, when the last production KC-46 from this buy rolls off the production line.

CHANGING LANDSCAPE

Moreover, the threats the USA will be facing by then might be very different and there new requirements may have to be incorporated. While it is not part of the current requirements, the KC-46 cannot refuel unmanned aerial vehicles. In the future that would almost certainly be a requirement, Bogdan says.

"We wanted to have the opportunity later on down the road to incorporate any of that in a new design," he adds.

Keeping open the prospect of two additional contests also provides an incentive for Boeing and competitor EADS to keep investing in and developing new technologies for a future tanker design.

As such, the USAF strategy is to maintain a level of ambiguity about its plans for follow-on competitions.

"If it were up to me today, I would tell you that I want to keep it vague as to what we do for KC-Y," Bogdan says.

© Boeing
The KC-46's refuelling boom is a new version of the KC-10 tanker's boom, modified with a digital fly-by-wire system

The threat of walking away from the contract is not the only stick the USAF has in its arsenal as it prods Boeing into maintaining discipline on the KC-46. The contract is structured so that the USAF's liability is strictly limited.

Boeing has to pay for every penny the KC-46 project goes over the contract-ceiling price for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase.

Although the KC-46 programme is a $4.4 billion fixed-price incentive development contract, it limits the government's liability for costs over $4.9 billion.

The tanker's estimated development costs are currently around $900 million higher than the February 2011 contract award value, but the USAF is liable for only about $500 million of this total. The remaining $400 million is Boeing's responsibility.

"It's no surprise to us that the programme has hit the ceiling because we already planned for that and we already budgeted for that," Bogdan says. "The only surprise is that Boeing told us that so soon, quite frankly."

The KC-46 contract has another unusual feature. Unlike for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme, US taxpayers are protected from concurrency costs.

Boeing is obligated to incorporate any modifications that may arise as a result of problems found during flight-testing or operational testing into the production line at its own cost. But it also must retrofit those modifications to any previously delivered jets without any additional cost to the USAF.

"In other programmes, once the airplane is delivered, if there is a problem with it, then it's the air force's issue to get it fixed," Bogdan says. "Not so on this contract."

By contrast, on the F-35 programme the US Department of Defense was forced to slow down production of the fighter because of the enormous cost of retrofitting early model aircraft rolling out of the factory.

However, the KC-46 tanker programme cannot take sole credit for developing a more favourable contract vehicle for the new aircraft - the DoD has learned over the years from previous efforts.

"We took a lot of good ideas from a lot of people," Bogdan says. "We just kind put it together in a way that all fits."

Analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia, says the USAF had a decade to work out the details of the KC-46 programme. As such, he is not surprised that it is being well executed.

Contracts such as the KC-46 effort are part of a broader move by the DoD to shift more of the risk to contractors. "To a certain extent this is the future," he says.

But this type of fixed-price contract does not work for a new clean-sheet developmental effort. "There is all sorts of mayhem that can be produced by an all-new clean-sheet-of-paper design," Aboulafia says. "Especially for a combat aircraft where you have three services weighing in."

Bogdan agrees: "I wouldn't tell you that every programme could be like this, because we're using a commercial derivative airplane."

Meanwhile the KC-46 has entered its PDR phase, which is split into two phases.

"The first step has already occurred," Bogdan says. "That's where we jointly with Boeing reviewed the entrance criteria to kinda start the PDR review."

ATTENTION TO DETAIL

That review started in the week of 18 March and Bogdan says he spent three days at Boeing's facilities reviewing 89 criteria for the PDR. Those criteria range from manufacturing plans to the minutiae of the integrated designs for the aircraft's fuel system. "We went through one by one to make sure Boeing met the criteria for the government to say: 'Yeah, that's good enough to move on to PDR.'"

What is unique in the case of the KC-46 is that the USAF jointly reviewed those requirements with Boeing. That afforded Bogdan the opportunity to hear from both Boeing and USAF experts at the same time and gave him a broader understanding of the PDR details, he says.

"As far as I can tell right now in my assessment of that, Boeing met all 89 of those criteria," Bogdan says.

© Boeing

The next step will take place during the last week of April. There are eight exit criteria for the programme to move out of the PDR stage.

"The most stringent of those is [that] all the sub-systems on the airplane have to go through their own individual mini-PDRs and then they have to be rolled up into a big, integrated 'here is the preliminary design of the airplane'," Bogdan says.

Assuming Boeing meets the USAF's requirements, the service will clear the company to start detailed design of the new tanker. That process of detailed design, integration and assembling manufacturing drawings should take roughly 13 months.

The next step after that would be the critical design review (CDR) that is currently scheduled for July 2013.

"Once you get to CDR, you should have significant drawings completed so they can start building the first test articles," Bogdan says.

Boeing will build four test aircraft for the KC-46 programme at its factory in Everett, Washington. The first two aircraft are new versions of the venerable 767 called the 767-2C. The new model will have a cockpit derived from Boeing's state-of-the-art 787 airliners, a fully stressed cargo floor and a cargo door. The entire aircraft has a "beefed-up structure", Bogdan says.

"Those will undergo FAA [US Federal Aviation Administration] testing," he says. That will include an "amended type-certification testing and supplemental type-certification testing."

Boeing is contracted to deliver an aircraft with a FAA type-certificate. There are two parts to this requirement: firstly, the baseline 767-2C must first get its amended type-certificate (ATC), as all new variants of existing civilian aircraft must. Secondly, the jet must also get a supplemental type certificate (STC) for all of its various military modifications.

TESTING TIMES

The USAF could simply issue a military type-certificate, but then the service could not use the testing already done by civilian users. This would make operating the plane more expensive.

Boeing, in partnership with the FAA, is efficient at testing new civilian aircraft, but testing military aircraft is a far more complex endeavor - which might cause delays.

The first flight of the 767-2C is expected in the summer of 2014.

The next two aircraft will be built as 767-2C aircraft but will immediately begin modifications to turn them into true KC-46 tanker flight-test articles at another plant in Everett. The aircraft is being designed to offload 212,000lb of fuel and double as a cargo transport. The aircraft is also being designed with a 40-year lifespan.

Earlier Boeing plans to install military hardware in Kansas were shelved when the company decided to shut down its Wichita facilities.

If all goes according to plan, the first KC-46 will fly in January 2015.

© Boeing
On the KC-46, the USAF and Boeing have to integrate military and civilian software

"We'll have four airplanes in the test programme," Bogdan says. "Two of them initially focused on FAA testing and two of them initially focused on military testing."

But there are several potential problem areas as the KC-46 navigates though development and tests. Of these, software development and integration is one area Bogdan is particularly worried about. Indeed software development and testing has bedevilled many prominent programmes including the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and the F-35.

"I've never been on any aircraft programme - and I've been in acquisitions for 25 years - where software shouldn't be a major focus and doesn't cause some kind of disruptions," Bogdan says. "I made that an emphasis item from the very first day on this programme."

On the KC-46, the USAF and Boeing have to integrate military and civilian software, which can be challenging. However, Boeing has taken some steps to mitigate potential problems, including setting up three dedicated software integration labs (SILs).

"That's really good because other programmes I've been on have sometimes had to share time in a software integration lab with other programmes," Bogdan says.

Moreover, one of those labs will be a full-up hardware and software-integrated pilot-the-loop rig, which will allow the KC-46 programme to do much more realistic testing on the ground. "You don't want to find problems necessarily on the test airplanes," Bogdan says. "You'd rather figure them out in the SIL."

The USAF has also mandated that Boeing use the Department of Defense's "best practice" guidelines for software development and for the metrics with which they benchmark their performance. "We've also made sure that those practices and processes have been slowed down to their sub-tier software suppliers," Bogdan says.

On the manufacturing side, the USAF is hoping that Boeing will be able to leverage production experience on the cargo variant of the 767 - which has many of the same features as the KC-46.

Those features include the cargo door, cargo floor and much of the airframe, Bogdan says. As much as 80% of the KC-46 is derived from civil hardware that is common to Boeing commercial aircraft. "So there is obviously some synergy for Boeing there," he says.

Federal Express has ordered 30 Boeing 767-300F freighters, which will help mature the production line for the service's next-generation tanker.

"The other good thing for our programme is FedEx is going to get delivered their cargo freighter airplanes before ours," Bogdan says. "That means Boeing's going to have to mature the production line for that airplane before our airplane goes down the production line."

That should also help reduce the risk to the USAF flight test programme.

"That's a very good risk reduction for us," he says. "There will be lessons learned from the FAA testing that Boeing's got to do for the model version of the FedEx airplane."

But there are other aspects of the KC-46 development and test effort that might prove to be more difficult.

The KC-46's refuelling boom is a new version of the Boeing KC-10 tanker's boom, but it has been modified with the digital fly-by-wire system found on Italian and Japanese 767 tanker booms.

"We're integrating old software on old hardware," Bogdan says. "That always creates some risk, but I think they're both known quantities."

CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE

Unlike the KC-10 or the older Boeing KC-135 tanker, the boom operator does not refuel aircraft by looking through a physical window. Instead that operator looks at a 3D video-display system similar to modern cinemas - not unlike the movie Avatar.

Last December in Saint Louis, Missouri, Boeing built and test flew the 3D-display and associated optical and infrared cameras on a Hawker-Beechcraft King Air aircraft. USAF and Boeing boom operators proved that the sensors and displays both work by conducting mock aerial-refuelling with Boeing F-15s and F/A-18s.

"Although that's a prototype, and although it's not on the KC-46," Bogdan says, "we know they can integrate the sensors, the screen and all that software."

However, the KC-46 is also required to support the US Navy's hose-and-drogue refuelling system though wing-mounted refuelling pods. Boeing had encountered difficulties with aerodynamic buffeting on the Italian 767-based tanker's pods and has instead picked Cobham to build the KC-46 pods. Cobham had the engineering expertise needed to change the outer mould-line of its pods to tailor them to the requirements of the USAF tanker, Bogdan says.

© Boeing

"They already reshaped the pod," he says. "The buffet problem that they saw on the Italian tanker has been pretty much mitigated."

If there are further problems, Cobham has the ability to reshape the pod again if a problem is discovered in testing - which is not true of the other pod-maker, Bogdan says.

The USAF test programme will run until the end of 2017. The last major event prior to the KC-46 joining the combat air forces is operational testing, which will happen that year.

But recent reports from both the Government Accountability Office and J Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, say that Boeing and the USAF are underestimating the difficulty of flight-testing the KC-46. Both decry the level of concurrency in flight tests between the FAA certification and the military flight tests.

Bogdan says the two reports are overstating the problem. He says that the risks are mitigated because most of the systems on the KC-46 have flown in one form or another on other aircraft. Moreover, much more of the flight-test programme will be completed before the tanker heads to production than for previous military aircraft.

"We're going to have over 60% of all of our flight-testing completed before we ever give the permission to start production," Bogdan says. "That's an awful lot of testing compared to most other programmes."

In another break from tradition, the KC-46 production start is not based on a specific calendar date. Boeing has to meet certain criteria tied to successful flight-testing. The longer it takes to get the KC-46 into production, the longer it will take for the company to make a profit on the programme.

"It's an event-driven requirement," Bogdan says. "If they don't get that flight-testing done and are successful, I won't give them permission to start production."

Boeing declined to comment for this article when contacted.