Tanker Contract

fisher37

Well-Known Member
So what company ended up getting the tanker contract for the Air Force? I never heard. I may be opening up a can of worms here!
 
Airbus and Boeing are so dirty on the bidding process I've heard that nothing would be done until this new sec of def gets in. Hopefully we'll hear something soon. I don't like the idea of KC-135's flying around and flying apart.
 
Airbus and Boeing are so dirty on the bidding process I've heard that nothing would be done until this new sec of def gets in. Hopefully we'll hear something soon. I don't like the idea of KC-135's flying around and flying apart.

What new Sec Def? Thought Gates was hangin' around.
 
agreed but...,
KC10 is not what really needs to be replaced as in yesterday.

The whole process is really pitiful. Pitiful!
 
Airbus and Boeing are so dirty on the bidding process I've heard that nothing would be done until this new sec of def gets in. Hopefully we'll hear something soon. I don't like the idea of KC-135's flying around and flying apart.

The KC-X selection program and entire process has been a cluster from the word go.

The Airbus version wasn't too shabby.
 
Airbus agreed to make the airplane in the U.S, somewhere in Alabama if they are awarded the bid. Either way its a win win situation for the US. It will create new jobs and those who were laid off from Boeing after the 787 disaster will simply go to work for Airbus.:D
 
Gates didn't think he was sticking around, so he had punted it to the Obama administration. Obama keeps him, so basically he just punted it to himself, haha.
 
The Airbus version wasn't too shabby.

I don't know if I buy into this multi rolled stuff for the tanker (tanker/cargo). 135 was a tanker, the replacement should be a tanker in my mind. I would have thought everyone learned with the A-10 the best solution isn't ALWAYS to multi-mission equipment.
 
The KC-X selection program and entire process has been a cluster from the word go.

The Airbus version wasn't too shabby.

That is why the bidding was so screwed up, that Tanker version of the A-330 was bigger than was called for in the bid, & then they received extra points for being bigger.

Boeing was not exactly peaches & cream, but, they did have a valid gripe...
 
From what I heard, the Airbus met more of the specifications that the Air Force set out than did the Boeing. Boeing was arrogant in assuming that they'd get the contract. It wasn't until Boeing launched a "write your Congressman" campaign that the Gov't decided to take the contract away from Airbus. Stupid really - you can't really call any airplane "American" or not - the sub contracted parts come from all over the world.
 
That is why the bidding was so screwed up, that Tanker version of the A-330 was bigger than was called for in the bid, & then they received extra points for being bigger.

Boeing was not exactly peaches & cream, but, they did have a valid gripe...

Yeah, exactly. Personally, I agree w/Jnxyjoe. There is an advantage to having more, smaller tankers to having fewer, larger ones. The -10 can hold more gas than a -135, but it can still only be at one place at a time.

Additionally, w/a smaller tanker you can park more of them at a field. I think there have been ramp space issues with the -10.
 
Airbus agreed to make the airplane in the U.S, somewhere in Alabama

KBFM-the Mobile Downtown Airport. From what I understand 18-36 was (is by now?) to be closed to build the facility. That airport is used tons by the military and is also used for heavy mtx by some major airlines.
 
From what I heard, the Airbus met more of the specifications that the Air Force set out than did the Boeing. Boeing was arrogant in assuming that they'd get the contract. It wasn't until Boeing launched a "write your Congressman" campaign that the Gov't decided to take the contract away from Airbus. Stupid really - you can't really call any airplane "American" or not - the sub contracted parts come from all over the world.

In the most recent version of the bidding process, the RFP included a minimum level of capability, and supposedly no extra points were to be awarded for exceeding the minimum level. So for example, must be able to off-load 250K of gas (I'm making up this requirement to demonstrate), but no extra points if your model can offload 500K. Or able to carry 200,000lbs of cargo, but no extra points if you can carry 300,000lbs., etc., etc.

The idea was, whoever could meet minimums at the lowest cost would win the contract. Both jets met minimums. Boeing was cheaper. But Airbus exceeded the minimums by a great deal, and won the contract. Boeing's argument was they could have provided a version based on the 777, instead of the 767 which would have competed better against the Airbus variant, but the rules the USAF set up didn't ask for that. The rules weren't supposed to award extra points for exceeding requirements. It's a valid argument.

Of course, the "buy American" argument is out there, too.
 
Hi Guys,
The military procurement system has been in a morase of corruption, inefficiency and waste for years dating back to when it was radically changed during the Kennedy administration when McNamara came on the scene. I shudder to think of the amount of wasted taxpayer dollars on weapon systems that were either cancelled or procured at the behest of the military. The Air Force tanker program stands as a classic example of my opening sentence, and driven by politicians that are looking out for their own constituencies.
Personally, I thought that "KC-767" offered a really good solution, especially if it was purchased at greater numbers than the original numbers, which I believe was 100 airframes. The Airbus solution was equally a good idea, and perhaps even a "KC-777" that Boeing has also offered. The Air Force is facing a dilemma in it's cargo/tanker force that will be VERY difficult solve in today's fiscal environment. Air Force leaders are faced with some very difficult decisions in how it re-capitalizes itself to face current and future threats. Tactical and strategic platforms that must be tailored to achieve and maintain air superiority, strategic deterence and special operations.
Air Mobilty Command forces (tanker/cargo) face a different set of challenges that have stretched their assests to the limit. With the exception of the C-17, most of the AMC's fleet of tankers and cargo aircraft are getting pretty long in the tooth. Two variables which will exacerbate AMC's challenges for the future is increasing demand for tanker/cargo assets and fleet age with no replacements in sight.
The United States military has relied upon a chain of foward bases and nations that allow our forces either overflight or landing rights. We cannot rely upon this to continue in the future. It is simply a "gun's or butter" equation that cannot be solved without some trade-offs in other parts of the Air Force and DoD budget. This problem isn't something that service chiefs haven't lobbied Congress for years over, and it is very disappointing that no reasonable solution was crafted.
What are the options? An off the shelf commercial aircraft? Well, so far we are zero for two there. A new-build aircraft? Probably not a viable solution, because it will be way too expensive. Leasing aircraft? This is a realistic possibility, and in use by some NATO nations to meet some of their tanker needs. The Air Force needs to maintain it's own organic tanker/cargo capabilty, but I think that it would be cost-effective to move more of the routine cargo/tanker missions into the private sector.
Well, this long-winded and probably not too coherent analysis and problem solving is mercifully over! What do y'all think?

Regards,

bored in crewroom
 
For the record, KC-135s are NOT flying apart. There IS a process of determining whether an airplane is servicable. The 135s are VERY low in the airframe hours department and very low in the cycles department. Because of this, corrosion becomes the biggest enemy. Eventually, some airplanes exceed limits and go to the boneyard. It's easy to maintain an airplane with few cycles as long as you can keep the corrosion to a minimum. We do need a new airplane, though. As simple as the 135 is, it's poorly integrated in the avionics department, a result of 50 years of selective modification.
 
For the record, KC-135s are NOT flying apart. There IS a process of determining whether an airplane is servicable. The 135s are VERY low in the airframe hours department and very low in the cycles department. Because of this, corrosion becomes the biggest enemy. Eventually, some airplanes exceed limits and go to the boneyard. It's easy to maintain an airplane with few cycles as long as you can keep the corrosion to a minimum. We do need a new airplane, though. As simple as the 135 is, it's poorly integrated in the avionics department, a result of 50 years of selective modification.
:yeahthat: I never flew the block 40 versions, but they look a little better. It's always been a case of new-fangled GPS system hooked in like frankenstein to a 50 year old first generation autopilot.
 
Back
Top