USAF Tanker Competiton - EADS vs. Boeing

[smokejumper]

The USAF tanker saga has gone on for 10 years and, may or may not have ended. Perhaps we should start a new thread?

Anyway, here is my take on the situation:

A. Rational Arguments:
1) I have no direct knowledge of the procurement, but I’ve read all accounts available.
2) This is the third attempt to get a new tanker for the USAF – the first ended in scandal (several folks went to prison, the second ended when the General Accountability Office ruled that the USAF tilted the evaluation toward one competitor, and finally, this one.
3) In the second procurement, the AF gave credit to aircraft capabilities and minimized purchase, operating and infrastructure costs (the latter are significant over a 30+ year lifetime).
4) For this attempt, the AF listed a set of pass/fail capabilities that de-emphasized capabilities that exceed the basic need. If a capability exceeded the minimum by a certain amount, credit would be given. If not, no additional points would be given. (I might like a Mercedes due to its capabilities, but I only need a Ford at lesss cost.)
5) Therefore, the decision point was heavily dependent on cost – initial cost, operating cost and additional infrastructure required over the 30+ year life of the plane (based on experience, these planes will probably last longer in service).
6) Based on the pass/fail capability requirement, both aircraft were deemed acceptable, so this will not be an issue for any challenge.
7) Turning to initial costs, I estimate that the EADS KC-330 entry would probably cost more to build (larger, more materials, higher thrust engines, etc.), but this could be offset by a low-ball bid.
8) Looking at operating costs, it has been noted that the EADS KC-330 aircraft burns one ton more fuel per hour than the Boeing 767 entry. Using the formula: [1 ton per hour] X [number of annual hours flown] X [179 aircraft] X [30 years] X [escalating fuel costs] = a very high life cycle cost which must be borne by the US taxpayer, an every increasingly unhappy supporter of 48% of the entire world’s defense budgets!
9) Considering infrastructure costs, I understand that the larger KC-330 will not fit existing hangers used to house the KC-135, nor turn on existing runways and taxiways. This would necessitate additional USAF funding to replace the hangers and enhance the infrastructure. The Boeing 767 entry fits both the existing hangers and the taxiways.
10) Anyway, the US taxpayer, represented in the Congress, wants to reduce spending, not add to it. Then the EADS entry was at a disadvantage.

B. Subjective Arguments (JUST PERSONAL OPINION and probably biased):
1. It has been estimated that the Boeing entry will result in more US jobs than the EADs entry – I don’t know if this is a fact, but I have read it.
2. EADs has no major direct presence in the US currently. They do have a small helicopter plant producing helicopters for the US military that employs folks in Mississippi, but it is relatively small. Were they building a plant in the US too produce aircraft (rather than promising to build one IF they got the tanker contract), their US presence would have been enhanced and more credible.
3. BAE has done just such a thing. In its web site, BAE says: that they employ (currently) 50,000 people in the US and have a current major presence.
4. Jobs are needed in the US; we are (as is the world) experiencing a major recession. US jobs generate the tax revenue that the US and state governments need to provide for defense, social and national debt purposes. More tax revenue will come from workers in Washington State and Kansas than from Toulouse.
5. These observations are personal and if they were factored into the AF evaluation, would result in the evaluation being thrown out and we’ll be starting Round Four!

C. Observations regarding the Boeing tanker.
1. Several members of this forum have referred to the 767 as a piece of obsolete junk and the A-330 as state-of-the-art.
2. I believe that both are good planes that are much different than they were at the time of their introduction (Airbus A-330 first flight in 1992 and Boeing 767 first flight in 1981).
3. The A-330 has digital flight controls while the B767 uses hydraulic controls. The Airbus uses a computer to control the aircraft (the pilot flies the computer, the computer flies the aircraft). Boeing’s control philosophy allow the pilot to have ultimate authority over the plane (I favor a trained pilot over a software engineer’s programming).
4. Both aircraft use modern materials in their fabrication; neither has extensive carbon fiber as primary structure.
5. As for electronics, both are equal and continue to be updated.
6. In my opinion, they are equal aircraft. One is larger and has greater carrying capability while the other is less expensive to operate.
7. If EADs chooses to protest this award, they have to do so on the cost evaluation (since both were judged acceptable). Unless the USAF made a cost calculation error and the Airbus is less expensive to buy, maintain and operate, I don’t see what their protest might be. EADs will take advantage of the USAF debriefing in which the decision will be explained in detail, and of course, they have the right to lodge a protest.

[Desert Rat]

If EADS would have had the contract, a plant would have been built in Alabama, to assemble these tankers +++ the new A330F, and there's a lot of people who thinks that Airbus would have moved the all LR assembly line from Toulouse to USA(meaning the 330 pax version), indeed having the FAL in the USA and to pay the worker's ,etc...in USD$ is one of Airbus dream...

Now if you allow me, I personally think that this is all about protectionism, nothing else!

[smokejumper]

If EADS would have had the contract, a plant would have been built in Alabama, to assemble these tankers +++ the new A330F, and there's a lot of people who thinks that Airbus would have moved the all LR assembly line from Toulouse to USA(meaning the 330 pax version), indeed having the FAL in the USA and to pay the worker's ,etc...in USD$ is one of Airbus dream...

Certainly! EADs was PROMISING to build a plant in alabama IF they won the contract and hire US workers who are not now on thier payroll; Boeing already has employees on their payroll who might have been laid off if EADs got the contract. As the saying goes, "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush". I'll bet on a solid, concrete thing, not a promise.

The A-330 production will eventualy end and the major production activity will focus on the new A-350. Now, if Airbus would have promised to shift the production of the A-350 to the US, we might have a cat fight!

[Desert Rat]

To convert a 330FAL to 350 FAL (for the US ordered A/C's for instance)was a probable option...don't forget that the 320's are currently assembled in France,Germany and China.

[smokejumper]

Yes, but the A-320 series is a higher production aircraft,thus allowing multiple efficient factories. Larger aircraft generally are not produced at 30+/month over the long term,

[sn26567]

See Boeing press release: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=44392

[tapclassic]

As a European I hate to see this decision.

But a guy like Obama has the duty to make this public money be invested in his own country.
There is no way to justify letting tax payer money of these figures leave the country in a recession time.

Full support for him, from my side.

[Desert Rat]

Ok, let's review the A/C's subpart's
Engines GE = US
APU, Hamilton SundstrandS or Honeywell = US
Flight Management System = Honeywell = US
Radio-Nav = Rockwell collins or Honeywell = US
Air data's and Inertial refence Unit ADIRU =Rockwell Collins = US
etc...
etc...
etc...

US SFE on the 330 can be at more than 50 % when you include the engine and APU.

final assembly line in the US...

I really think that the USA made a big mistake because EADS was going to invest a lot in the US and they were there to stay!

The fuel tanker was a big chunk of the business case but their secondary aim was to start a big plant in the US!

[tapclassic]

Those are parts.
The core project is still Airbus.

[smokejumper]

Let's look at the situation this way:

The USAF operates world-wide. It needs to be able to simultaneously refuel multiple planes operating over the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and the Middle East, while also conducting training over the continental US and elsewhere. This requires a large number of tankers; the 179 of the initial buy is just the start. The final number may well exceed 500 over the next 40 years.

Aside from the purchase price (not inconsequential), the operational and infrastructure costs must be added. As I noted in my original post (see above in this thread), the Boeing KC-46A burns about one ton of fuel per hour less than the EADS KC-45A – multiply [the higher fuel burn] times [179-500 aircraft] times [the annual flight hours] times [40 years] times [an escalating cost of fuel] and you’ll get an astoundingly higher operating cost for the KC-45A. Add to this the cost of new hangers (the KC-45A will not fit into the existing KC-135 hangers, but the KC-46A will), plus new taxiways to accommodate the wider turn radius of the KC-45A and the cost disadvantage will get even higher.

As we all know, the US is facing a national debt problem with interest on the debt consuming an ever-growing portion of the discretionary budget. The recent election has shown the American public’s concern for the impact on the US economy with the election of fiscal reduction hawks. I am not going to argue the validity of all the arguments here, but it is a big concern.

Faced with budget limitations and the need to buy a large number of expensive planes (both initial cost plus operating cost), the Air Force did what it had to do. Life cycle costing is a way to consider the whole cost of buying and operating any product and, this is what the USAF did.

The USAF defined the minimum capabilities required (they required more than the KC-135 could do, but less than a proposed Boeing KC-747 or KC-777 could do) and initially (10+ years ago), they decided the the Boeing 767 represented an ideal platform. EADS (with Northrop Grumman) offered the larger, more capable and more expensive Airbus 330 as a tanker platform. Of course, the USAF always wants more capability so long as the taxpayer will pick up the tab (this reminds me a girl I dated 45 years ago who always ordered steak when I was paying, but hamburger when she paid)! Once the taxpayer said “Buy what you need, but no more – OR take it out of something else”, reality hit and realistic decisions had to be made. In my case, I’d sure like a new Mercedes “S” class to drive to work; but a small compact will get me there just as fast for lower initial and operating costs. (GUESS WHAT I DRIVE!)

Faced with a cost/affordability decision, the USAF got real and set the minimum requirements and specifications.

Make no mistake; the EADS KC-45A is a VERY capable plane. It can offload more fuel, carry heavier loads, fly further, etc. It also has a more modern digital flight control system. But it is more expensive to buy and operate, so a given number of dollars will buy and operate fewer of them. With the need to buy a very large number of tankers, the USAF had to minimize the total cost to the taxpayer, or face the wrath of the taxpayer. Perhaps the nations that buy the more capable, but more expensive KC-45A (or KC-330) are (1) more wealthy than the US or, (2) buy small enough numbers that higher costs do not matter or (3) do not need to operate world-wide simultaneously.

[tapclassic]

Fair and square view, smokejumper.

I would also add that most of the 767 development costs are already spent, so this will only further help the project to be profitable.
The assembly line (tools, procurement procedure, trained personnel) will also be kept in use, otherwise would be dismissed. Old 767s maybe will have a raised value, due to spares etc.
Boeing has admitted, in the WTO, that it had recieved US subsidies. This will also help to avoid losses.
There are delays in the 787 and the 767 employees will have work to do.

The KC-45 argument of using US made parts makes no sense. If the 767 uses GE engines, and the A330 does what the same, where is the advantage? It is the same...

The A330 is a european project, and most of its patents, intelectual property rights, suppliers management etc would still be controlled overhere in TLS.
This would help again to increase profit on an already developed airframe, and to somehow extend the (profitable) lifetime of the 330 production until the A350 comes in.

Taking away money from Boeing trying to hold until the 787 comes alive, while financing EADS in a similar situation with respect to the A350, could be considered a crime against the USA.

Remember: the Bush government approved the NG/Airbus bid, just before leaving the office. It has been the Obama(munist they say) to take it back to Boeing.
Now, who is the patriot?

[regi]

I checked the previous subject, on which this new one is based. And at several times I said: "It will be Boeing, whatever EADS does"
But this sounds too much frustrating.

I hope that this website will still exist for many years, and this subject remains open. So we can post the follow up.

I think that it finally comes to an end here. And it will have far reaching consequences:

• European politicians will use it to accuse the USA of protectionism.
  Boeing will use it to accuse EADS of subsidies if somebody dears to order the A330 tanker - because EADS has lost the advantage of the numbers.
  It will be more difficult for EADS to set up a airplane manufacturing site in the USA. EADS themselves had anounced that they wanted to work in the dollar market. This project would have been a major introduction.
  Boeing will never commit itself to the contract. Fact. Just look at the past ( just as EADS is way too late with the A400 )
  Boeing will ask for more money, way more money, with all kind of excuses. The same excuses that EADS also uses btw.

But I do not want to sound too negative. The decision is made and the USAF will get its needed new tankers. And many jobs are secured for the next 15 years. ( if Boeing will not subcontract too much to China or Japan ...)

[smokejumper]

I checked the previous subject, on which this new one is based. And at several times I said: "It will be Boeing, whatever EADS does"
But this sounds too much frustrating.

I hope that this website will still exist for many years, and this subject remains open. So we can post the follow up.

I think that it finally comes to an end here. And it will have far reaching consequences:

• European politicians will use it to accuse the USA of protectionism.
  Boeing will use it to accuse EADS of subsidies if somebody dears to order the A330 tanker - because EADS has lost the advantage of the numbers.
  It will be more difficult for EADS to set up a airplane manufacturing site in the USA. EADS themselves had anounced that they wanted to work in the dollar market. This project would have been a major introduction.
  Boeing will never commit itself to the contract. Fact. Just look at the past ( just as EADS is way too late with the A400 )
  Boeing will ask for more money, way more money, with all kind of excuses. The same excuses that EADS also uses btw.

But I do not want to sound too negative. The decision is made and the USAF will get its needed new tankers. And many jobs are secured for the next 15 years. ( if Boeing will not subcontract too much to China or Japan ...)

Reggi – let’s discuss some of the issues you raise here.

1) “European politicians will use it to accuse the USA of protectionism.”
How did the US engage in protectionism? The USAF needed a new tanker to replace the 50 year old KC-135’s. They need a lot of them and must be able to afford them. They defined the minimum need and said that additional capabilities then needed at higher cost would not be rewarded. Life-cycle cost was the determining factor; less expensive to own and operate wins.
2) “Boeing will use it to accuse EADS of subsidies if somebody dears to order the A330 tanker - because EADS has lost the advantage of the numbers.”
If another country wants the greater capabilities (range, payload, cargo) of the KC-330 and wants to pay for them – then go for it. I’d be very disappointed if Boeing were to use the argument you mention.
3) “It will be more difficult for EADS to set up a airplane manufacturing site in the USA. EADS themselves had announced that they wanted to work in the dollar market. This project would have been a major introduction.”
It will be no more difficult than it was a few days ago, but not impossible. The land is available, the labor is available and, the city of Mobile and State of Alabama would dearly love for them to be there. What is missing is a subsidy by the US taxpayer to help them set up a plant. Now, I have no objection to the French government subsidizing Airbus to set up a plant in Mobile (we’ll call it an investment) so they can compete within the airbus family to keep costs under control. Boeing did this with 787 plants in Everett (Washington) and Charleston (South Carolina). Or, EADS can borrow the money at commercial rates and build the plant
4) “Boeing will never commit itself to the contract. Fact. Just look at the past ( just as EADS is way too late with the A400 )”
Boeing needs to fully commit itself to the contract in terms of engineering and management effort; otherwise they will be in default of the contract and pay big penalties. I don’t know how they will approach this, but I know they will. This does not mean that they won’t be late, but they can not threaten to walk away from the contract, as EADS did when its A-400M customers balked at higher prices. The penalties would be in the billions.
5) “Boeing will ask for more money, way more money, with all kind of excuses. The same excuses that EADS also uses btw”
I am certain that Boeing would like to ask for more money, but once the contract is signed, it is a done deal – no more money for the items covered under the contract. Now the way they can get more money is if there are any changes to the contract. Examples of this would be improved engines, new packages of avionics, etc. – anything that is not included in the contract. Then, they can inflate (within audited costs) the cost and get more money, but these are rather limited, perhaps a half-million per aircraft.

Finally, the European nations opted to not buy the already-in-service C-17 in favor of starting a new cargo aircraft program – the A-400M. This (I believe) is a similar situation to the tanker procurement. The C-17 was being produced, is more capable (in terms of range, cargo, etc.) and was immediately available. The less capable A-400M was selected because it promised a less expensive alternative. If I recall correctly, several Europeans stated that they just did not need the greater capabilities of the C-17 and did not want to pay for more.

[Desert Rat]

So be it...

Next...

[regi]

I checked the previous subject, on which this new one is based. And at several times I said: "It will be Boeing, whatever EADS does"
But this sounds too much frustrating.

I hope that this website will still exist for many years, and this subject remains open. So we can post the follow up.

I think that it finally comes to an end here. And it will have far reaching consequences:

• European politicians will use it to accuse the USA of protectionism.
  Boeing will use it to accuse EADS of subsidies if somebody dears to order the A330 tanker - because EADS has lost the advantage of the numbers.
  It will be more difficult for EADS to set up a airplane manufacturing site in the USA. EADS themselves had anounced that they wanted to work in the dollar market. This project would have been a major introduction.
  Boeing will never commit itself to the contract. Fact. Just look at the past ( just as EADS is way too late with the A400 )
  Boeing will ask for more money, way more money, with all kind of excuses. The same excuses that EADS also uses btw.

But I do not want to sound too negative. The decision is made and the USAF will get its needed new tankers. And many jobs are secured for the next 15 years. ( if Boeing will not subcontract too much to China or Japan ...)

Reggi – let’s discuss some of the issues you raise here.

1) “European politicians will use it to accuse the USA of protectionism.”
How did the US engage in protectionism? The USAF needed a new tanker to replace the 50 year old KC-135’s. They need a lot of them and must be able to afford them. They defined the minimum need and said that additional capabilities then needed at higher cost would not be rewarded. Life-cycle cost was the determining factor; less expensive to own and operate wins.
2) “Boeing will use it to accuse EADS of subsidies if somebody dears to order the A330 tanker - because EADS has lost the advantage of the numbers.”
If another country wants the greater capabilities (range, payload, cargo) of the KC-330 and wants to pay for them – then go for it. I’d be very disappointed if Boeing were to use the argument you mention.
3) “It will be more difficult for EADS to set up a airplane manufacturing site in the USA. EADS themselves had announced that they wanted to work in the dollar market. This project would have been a major introduction.”
It will be no more difficult than it was a few days ago, but not impossible. The land is available, the labor is available and, the city of Mobile and State of Alabama would dearly love for them to be there. What is missing is a subsidy by the US taxpayer to help them set up a plant. Now, I have no objection to the French government subsidizing Airbus to set up a plant in Mobile (we’ll call it an investment) so they can compete within the airbus family to keep costs under control. Boeing did this with 787 plants in Everett (Washington) and Charleston (South Carolina). Or, EADS can borrow the money at commercial rates and build the plant
4) “Boeing will never commit itself to the contract. Fact. Just look at the past ( just as EADS is way too late with the A400 )”
Boeing needs to fully commit itself to the contract in terms of engineering and management effort; otherwise they will be in default of the contract and pay big penalties. I don’t know how they will approach this, but I know they will. This does not mean that they won’t be late, but they can not threaten to walk away from the contract, as EADS did when its A-400M customers balked at higher prices. The penalties would be in the billions.
5) “Boeing will ask for more money, way more money, with all kind of excuses. The same excuses that EADS also uses btw”
I am certain that Boeing would like to ask for more money, but once the contract is signed, it is a done deal – no more money for the items covered under the contract. Now the way they can get more money is if there are any changes to the contract. Examples of this would be improved engines, new packages of avionics, etc. – anything that is not included in the contract. Then, they can inflate (within audited costs) the cost and get more money, but these are rather limited, perhaps a half-million per aircraft.

Finally, the European nations opted to not buy the already-in-service C-17 in favor of starting a new cargo aircraft program – the A-400M. This (I believe) is a similar situation to the tanker procurement. The C-17 was being produced, is more capable (in terms of range, cargo, etc.) and was immediately available. The less capable A-400M was selected because it promised a less expensive alternative. If I recall correctly, several Europeans stated that they just did not need the greater capabilities of the C-17 and did not want to pay for more.

Yes SJ, we discussed all these points before and it is all right. I am not against the fact that the UASF choses a Boeing . I just give my personnal impression what will happen in the future.

[tsv]

C. Observations regarding the Boeing tanker.
1. Several members of this forum have referred to the 767 as a piece of obsolete junk and the A-330 as state-of-the-art.

Well I wouldn't say the A330 is state of the art, the design is quite old now and the bird is much heavier than what a modern State of the Art Aircraft would be. But the 767 is most undoubtedly obsolete junk.

6. In my opinion, they are equal aircraft. One is larger and has greater carrying capability while the other is less expensive to operate.

Man whatever you are smoking I want some. Check the sales figures for 767's and A-330's. No operator (Civil or Military) would order 767's in favour of A-330's unless they either had a Political Motive to do (as in this case) or they only need a handful of Aircraft and preserving Fleet Commonality is more beneficial than gaining more efficient Aircraft (see LA's recent order).

I checked the previous subject, on which this new one is based. And at several times I said: "It will be Boeing, whatever EADS does"
But this sounds too much frustrating.

Exactly. I'm surprised that Airbus bothered to try to win this contract. The result confirms that despite all the US bleating about free trade the Country is still as corrupt and protectionist as ever.

[regi]

I don't want to sound too political. But now that Boeing has won the contract and has to fulfill its obligations for the next X years , Airbus has its hands free.

I bet that some people wished they had the new tankers already with the ongoing activity against Lybia.
The UK airforce flew the Tornado's up and down from the UK for an aborted strike.

If this specific conflict continues, the coalition forces will feel the pain for delaying their tanker programs so long - not only the USAF.

[smokejumper]

C. Observations regarding the Boeing tanker.
1. Several members of this forum have referred to the 767 as a piece of obsolete junk and the A-330 as state-of-the-art.

Well I wouldn't say the A330 is state of the art, the design is quite old now and the bird is much heavier than what a modern State of the Art Aircraft would be. But the 767 is most undoubtedly obsolete junk.

6. In my opinion, they are equal aircraft. One is larger and has greater carrying capability while the other is less expensive to operate.

Man whatever you are smoking I want some. Check the sales figures for 767's and A-330's. No operator (Civil or Military) would order 767's in favour of A-330's unless they either had a Political Motive to do (as in this case) or they only need a handful of Aircraft and preserving Fleet Commonality is more beneficial than gaining more efficient Aircraft (see LA's recent order).

I checked the previous subject, on which this new one is based. And at several times I said: "It will be Boeing, whatever EADS does"
But this sounds too much frustrating.

Exactly. I'm surprised that Airbus bothered to try to win this contract. The result confirms that despite all the US bleating about free trade the Country is still as corrupt and protectionist as ever.

I think your limited knowledge of military aircraft operations is showing. I'm not sure where too start with this, but let's go:

1) “But the 767 is most undoubtedly obsolete junk".

Except for using hydraulic rather than digital flight control systems, the 767 is just as state-or-the-art as the A-330; same materials (aluminum and steel), same avionics, same design and manufacturing parameters. How is it obsolete?

The A-330 does have a longer range and greater payload capacity, but these are not needed for this application. Many KC-135’s return to base with fuel remaining in their off-load tanks, so there is little need for much greater capacity. Even according to Airbus numbers, the A-330 uses considerably more fuel (1 ton) per flight hour than the smaller 767; it costs more (bigger engines and more materials), it cannot use existing USAF infrastructure and will require new hangers, taxi-ways, and parking areas. Also, fewer A330’s can be parked at an airfield than 767’s. The A-330 would cost more to operate and, since the USAF needs to eventually buy and operate about 500 new tankers, it would be unaffordable in todays more cost conscience era and higher fuel costs.

Your use of the term “obsolete junk” confuses me. There are many 70+ year old DC-3s still providing valuable service and they are certainly not considered “obsolete” or “junk”. Age does not make an aircraft obsolete, economics and changing operational needs do. The 767 offers the range and payload that the USAF defined 20+ years ago as required; more and larger is not an advantage. By the way, the extra cargo capacity of the A-330 would be rarely used as US law requires the use of the “Civil Air Reserve Fleet”. To keep these planes available, all but the most outsized (e.g., tanks and special cargo) must be shipped via these airlines by law.

2) “Check the sales figures for 767's and A-330's. No operator (Civil or Military) would order 767's in favor of A-330's unless they either had a Political Motive to do (as in this case) or they only need a handful of Aircraft and preserving Fleet Commonality is more beneficial than gaining more efficient Aircraft”.

The needs of civil airlines who need to fly longer distances and carry more revenue paying passengers is different that for a military tanker. Airlines want to offer non-stop flights; a military is less concerned about a few hundred more miles in the tanker application. Since KC-135’’s return with unloaded fuel, a much bigger capacity is not needed; so why pay for it with greater acquisition and operating costs? With an eventual fleet of 500 new tankers, the extra cost of acquiring and operating the larger, heavier A-330 would be prohibitive in an era of fiscal concern.

Also, the A-330 requires longer runways (EADS numbers) than the 767 and cannot operate from some USAF bases that the 767 can. To keep EADS viable, the USAF allowed EADS to use bases further from the battle field (thus negating the longer range) in the modeling of the plane’s capabilities.

Was there a political motive? This is argumentative as the procurement actually came out as “cost shootout”. Any product that would cost more to buy, cost more to operate and cost more to build new infrastructure (hangers, taxiways and parking ramps) is not a good buy, and EADS was not willing to be cost competitive. And, speaking of political, why did the Europeans develop the A-400M when the more capable C-17 was available (was it bigger than needed)?

3) “The result confirms that despite all the US bleating about free trade the Country is still as corrupt and protectionist as ever.”

The US procurement process is one of the most open and fair systems in the world. Specifications are developed, publically issued and, any qualified bidder can participate. The fact that the US prosecuted and jailed Boeing executives shows the length that the systems will go to ensure fairness. Had EADS offered a plane that could do the job (without asking for credits for capabilities that exceeded the need), was priced competitively (including all costs – acquisition, operating and infrastructure); they would have increased their standing.

Finally, the USAF has a global need to refuel planes, not just a theatre need. It will eventually need about 500 tankers to fill the need. A plane that costs more is just not going to cut it.

46 years ago I flew an F-100C from the US to Vietnam and refueled a number of times on the 7,000 mile trip. It takes a large number of tankers to simultaneously refuel such flights globally and the KC-135 filled the need and I’ve been told that if a fuel efficient tanker with the same capabilities was available today, it is what the Air force would have ordered. Since the 767 was in production (and a KC-135 size was not), its capabilities became the standard; a larger aircraft was not needed.

[tsv]

I think your limited knowledge of military aircraft operations is showing. I'm not sure where too start with this, but let's go:

1) “But the 767 is most undoubtedly obsolete junk".

Except for using hydraulic rather than digital flight control systems, the 767 is just as state-or-the-art as the A-330; same materials (aluminum and steel), same avionics, same design and manufacturing parameters. How is it obsolete?

It's heavy, it's not fuel efficient, yes it doesn't have Fly By Wire, but more importantly it doesn't use Carbon Panels. But the overwhelming proof that it is obsolete is that nobody buys it. Anyone whose job depends on procuring competitive wide body aircraft order A330's, 787's, 777's or A350's.

The A-330 does have a longer range and greater payload capacity, but these are not needed for this application. Many KC-135’s return to base with fuel remaining in their off-load tanks, so there is little need for much greater capacity. Even according to Airbus numbers, the A-330 uses considerably more fuel (1 ton) per flight hour than the smaller 767; it costs more (bigger engines and more materials), it cannot use existing USAF infrastructure and will require new hangers, taxi-ways, and parking areas. Also, fewer A330’s can be parked at an airfield than 767’s. The A-330 would cost more to operate and, since the USAF needs to eventually buy and operate about 500 new tankers, it would be unaffordable in todays more cost conscience era and higher fuel costs.

For the sake of being concessionary I'll admit that the existing USAF infrastructure may struggle to deal with the slightly larger A-330's at some of their airfields. But if it was a big deal the A330 would never have won the original competition. So therefore it is not a big deal. Similarly for your point about the A330 using so much more fuel. Either the original Panel who chose the A330 are a bunch of brainless twits or the fuel issue is not a major issue. I think the latter is more plausible! If both aircraft are fully loaded obviously the A330 will burn more fuel because it's carrying more payload. But how much more fuel will it use if it's only half loaded for example? Someone has made a horrible mess of their sums here.

Your use of the term “obsolete junk” confuses me. There are many 70+ year old DC-3s still providing valuable service and they are certainly not considered “obsolete” or “junk”. Age does not make an aircraft obsolete, economics and changing operational needs do. The 767 offers the range and payload that the USAF defined 20+ years ago as required; more and larger is not an advantage. By the way, the extra cargo capacity of the A-330 would be rarely used as US law requires the use of the “Civil Air Reserve Fleet”. To keep these planes available, all but the most outsized (e.g., tanks and special cargo) must be shipped via these airlines by law.

By obsolete I mean it no longer makes economic sense to purchase new examples of the aircraft. Obviously if you already own a DC-3 which is fully paid for and it still flies safely then fine, continue to use it. But I wouldn't suggest ordering new examples and restarting the production line!

The needs of civil airlines who need to fly longer distances and carry more revenue paying passengers is different that for a military tanker. Airlines want to offer non-stop flights; a military is less concerned about a few hundred more miles in the tanker application. Since KC-135’’s return with unloaded fuel, a much bigger capacity is not needed; so why pay for it with greater acquisition and operating costs? With an eventual fleet of 500 new tankers, the extra cost of acquiring and operating the larger, heavier A-330 would be prohibitive in an era of fiscal concern.

Of course Civilian Needs are different to Military ones. But it is impossible to escape the basic fact that the original competition was won by the A330. The original decision was not taken lightly, it took considerable time for the best US Defence experts to come to this conclusion. In my eyes their decision gives the game away about which was the best A/C for the job. The fact that the decision was overturned after Political pressure was applied to buy the local product in no way proves the 767 is a better aircraft for the mission. It is just the predictable result when corrupted Politicians and corrupted Business Leaders get involved in tenders. BTW the fact that the US Political System is so corrupt doesn't really bother me, most Political Systems are corrupt including ours here in Australia. But I do find the Hypocrisy annoying. It's just so blatant and unapologetic.

Also, the A-330 requires longer runways (EADS numbers) than the 767 and cannot operate from some USAF bases that the 767 can. To keep EADS viable, the USAF allowed EADS to use bases further from the battle field (thus negating the longer range) in the modeling of the plane’s capabilities.

EADS was more than kept viable! For heaven's sake the original Panel selected their aircraft! Man you can put a spin on things!

Was there a political motive? This is argumentative as the procurement actually came out as “cost shootout”. Any product that would cost more to buy, cost more to operate and cost more to build new infrastructure (hangers, taxiways and parking ramps) is not a good buy, and EADS was not willing to be cost competitive. And, speaking of political, why did the Europeans develop the A-400M when the more capable C-17 was available (was it bigger than needed)?

3) “The result confirms that despite all the US bleating about free trade the Country is still as corrupt and protectionist as ever.”

The US procurement process is one of the most open and fair systems in the world.

You still believe in Santa Claus? Everyone knew that Airbus could never win such a major US defence order especially during a major recession. To allow it to happen would have been Political Suicide.

The Europeans developed the A-400 to bolster their Aviation Industry, not sure there's much controversy about that.

Specifications are developed, publically issued and, any qualified bidder can participate. The fact that the US prosecuted and jailed Boeing executives shows the length that the systems will go to ensure fairness. Had EADS offered a plane that could do the job (without asking for credits for capabilities that exceeded the need), was priced competitively (including all costs – acquisition, operating and infrastructure); they would have increased their standing.

You win a tender. The local team whinges and calls for a replay. This time they win. Can we have a replay? Sorry no.

Don't you get it? The process was not related to fairness, it was about the home team getting the points. It always is with these things. For both sides I should add, I'm not suggesting the US has a Mortgage on Hypocrisy. But they were the first to perfect it.

Finally, the USAF has a global need to refuel planes, not just a theatre need. It will eventually need about 500 tankers to fill the need. A plane that costs more is just not going to cut it.

Interesting point - I guess that depends on how you define "need". The USAF could adequately defend all US Territory with about 10-15% of their current Force. However if they wish to continue to control every corner of every Country in the World indefinitely then yes - they may well "need" 500 Tankers.

By the time they are all delivered most US civilians who don't work for Boeing or the Defence Forces will probably be jobless and queueing for Bread & Rice handouts but hey who cares, at least they won't be copping any crap from those pesky Somalians and the like.

46 years ago I flew an F-100C from the US to Vietnam and refueled a number of times on the 7,000 mile trip. It takes a large number of tankers to simultaneously refuel such flights globally and the KC-135 filled the need and I’ve been told that if a fuel efficient tanker with the same capabilities was available today, it is what the Air force would have ordered. Since the 767 was in production (and a KC-135 size was not), its capabilities became the standard; a larger aircraft was not needed.

How long does it take to fly an F-100C 7000 miles?

[smokejumper]

The replies and counter- replies are getting too long, so I’ll paraphrase some comments here. In the interests of brevity, I’ll assume that you’ve read my previous comments so I do not need to repeat them fully here. First of all, I apologize for the lengthy reply here, but it is not a simple situation.

Tsv said: (the 767) does not use carbon panels so it is not state-of-the-art.
Reply: The only aircraft flying today with structural carbon panels is the B787 and it is not certified yet. Given the need to develop and deliver the tanker quickly, Boeing would have been foolhardy to try to develop a tanker 787 at the same time as getting a certification program completed. Consequently, only a conventional aluminum and steel aircraft could be offered.

Tsv said: Using the existing infrastructure was not a big deal or the A330 would not have won the original competition.
Reply: The USAF defined the tanker requirements in the early 1990’s. They wanted the same or a little better capability as the KC-135, but the aircraft had to use existing bases. By the time the RFP was initially released, the KC-135 (which is smaller than the 707) was out of production and the 767 fit the bill and gave a little more capability, so the RFP was written around it. John McCain does not like Boeing (you can research the reasons which are not connected to the tanker effort) and wanted to expand the competition – Airbus is the only other viable candidate. EADS made overtures too Alabama to build a plant in the state and Senator Richard Shelby went to bat and demanded that an Airbus entry be allowed. The USAF thereupon allowed the larger than specified plane to compete. This was the initiation of the political fight. Shelby further demanded that Airbus be given additional credit in the performance rating since it is more capable, even though the smaller plane satisfied the need. Again, politics won out and Airbus was given additional credit for a capability that would be rarely used. And remember, the KC-135’s return with significant fuel not off-loaded.

Tsv said: if the higher fuel consumption was an issue was a big deal, why did the A330 win the original competition?
Reply: Again, the A-330 tanker greatly exceeded the specified requirements. It also exceeded the evaluation criteria that would have penalized a larger plane by requiring the USAF to build new hangers, new taxiways and add parking areas or reduce the number that could be based at a base. Shelby again demanded (and his demands are documented) that no penalties be assessed for higher costs and simultaneously, additional credit be given for greater capability. Once the USAF allowed the A330 to participate, they were obligated to change the evaluation criteria or EADS/Northrop threatened to withdraw.
Reply: When the original competition was held, the USAF was not facing the severe budget shortage that it now faces. It just assumed that the US taxpayer would pony-up for the higher bill, just like in the past. Taxpayer anger, as shown in the November 2010 election, has shown that we need to reduce spending, deficits and debt. All costs need to be considered in selecting any product (both military and civilian).

Tsv said: regarding fuel consumption, what if both aircraft were fully loaded?
Reply: The A-330 airframe is larger and heavier than the B767. It has a larger wing and a greater fuselage diameter, all of which contribute to higher fuel burn. If you are carrying a full load of paying passengers over a long distance, the extra revenue offsets the higher fuel burn, but a larger, heavier plane will have higher fuel burn (1 ton more in the A330 case and at projected fuel costs this is a lot of money). Until the reality of the new Congress and lower budget dawned on the USAF, they did not really care – but now they do, in a big way!

Tsv said: EADS was more than viable. The original Panel selected their aircraft.
Reply: The original Panel did NOT select the A-330; the evaluation computer model that had been altered to give additional weight to a higher capacity aircraft did – it presented numbers saying that the larger plane was the winner without considering the higher costs of operating it. The outcome was model driven.

Tsv said: This time they win. Can we have a replay? Sorry no.
Reply: When Boeing lost the evaluation, they (as was Airbus this last time) entitled to a debriefing. They learned that the USAF CHANGED the evaluation criteria once the evaluation had started to accommodate Senator Richard Shelby’s demands; this is not legal, so they protested and the GAO overturned the decision (see: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rotest.htm ). Boeing offered to tender the 777 as a tanker candidate if size was important and the USAF said no (see: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ker26.html and http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/b ... ker26.html ). And of course, the Iranians flew a B747 tanker!

Tsv said: The USAF could adequately defend all US territory with about 10-15% of their current force …
Reply: YES, we could defend the US with a smaller force; the US alone currently accounts for 48% of the entire world’s defense expenditures and this must change. We do need to restrict ourselves and not go to the aid of earthquake victims, invasions of foreign nations, wide-spread massacres and other things we now respond to; we just have to let other nations (who spend much less on defense), step up and do their share. Frankly, I am tired of paying bushels of taxes to help others and getting criticized in the end for doing so.

Tsv said: How long does it take to fly a F-100C 7000 miles?
Reply: In 1965, we (a flight of 4 planes) flew it in stages over 3 days (Spokane to Fairbanks (1600 miles) to Tokyo (3500 miles) to Manila (1900 miles) to Saigon (1000 miles). The ferry range of the F-100C is just over 1300 miles (ferry tanks), so we refueled every 900 or so miles by meeting up with KC-135’s sent out to meet us (it takes a large tanker fleet to do this). I don’t recall the amount of time we spent in the air, but assuming an average speed of 500 mph, you can figure it out (ignoring taxi and approach time). Night time refueling in bad weather is not walk in the park; may hat is off for all the KC-135 crews who did this regularly.