by Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world by awarding the contract for its next-generation aerial-refueling tanker to Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus. Throughout that time, service officials have insisted that the process by which the winner was chosen was transparent and fair. But the service has failed to answer even the most basic questions about how the decision was made to deny the contract to Boeing, the widely favored incumbent. The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue a ruling on Boeing’s protest of the outcome in mid-June. Whatever it finds, the Air Force has some explaining to do… 1. The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers, regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus A330. But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. With fuel prices headed for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount to build and operate over their lifetimes? 2. The Air Force says it would be equally risky to develop the Boeing tanker or the Airbus tanker — after forcing Boeing to substantially increase the time and money required to develop its version. But Boeing proposed to build its tanker on the same assembly line where it has already constructed hundreds of the same airframe, whereas Airbus proposes to build its tanker at a plant and with a workforce that don’t yet exist in Alabama. How can the risks be equal? 3. The Air Force says that a computerized simulation of how the competing tankers would function in an actual wartime scenario strongly favored the larger Airbus plane. But the simulation assumed longer runways, stronger asphalt and more parking space than actually exists at forward bases, and failed to consider the consequences of losing bases in wartime. How can such unrealistic assumptions be relevant to the selection of a next-generation tanker? 4. The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of programs deemed similar to the future tanker. But Boeing built all 600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the refueling boom the Air Force requires. How can Northrop and Airbus have superior past performance? I could go on. The Air Force refused to consider Boeing cost data based on 10,000,000 hours of operating the commercial version of the 767, substituting instead repair costs based on the 50-year-old KC-135 tanker. It said it would not award extra points for exceeding key performance objectives, and then proceeded to award extra points. It said it wanted to acquire a “medium” tanker to replace its cold war refueling planes, and ended up picking a plane twice as big. Whatever else this process may have been, it definitely was not transparent. Even now, neither of the competing teams really understands why the competition turned out the way it did. It would be nice to hear from the Air Force about how key tradeoffs were made, because at present it looks like a double standard prevailed in the evaluation of the planes offered by the two teams.
Atom
Comments (19)
Dr. Loren Thompson's epistle provides a succinct and compelling argument that speaks volumes for the AF's inequitable assessment of the proposals.
On the surface one can only question why it takes 100 days to recognize such.
Posted on May 27, 2008 15:19
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3548400&c=AME&s=SEA
As this link indicates, there is something seriously wrong with the entire US military re: procurement and planning.
The KC-767 fiasco is telling as it illuminates gross, wholesale negligence, even sheer, unabashed incompetence.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3549014&c=AME&s=AIR
If the USAF can't even write a proper contract just to support the Thunderbirds, how can it possibly handle a big contract like the KC-X tanker? Um, it can't.
The next President ought to appoint a tough Defense secretary who has the vision -- I think it's clear something is seriously wrong inside the five-sided building.
BTW, Airbus just went back to its sugar daddies for more Euros to fund the A350... how can the USAF even consider such a pathetic company to do business with?
http://tinyurl.com/3mq7zc
Posted on May 27, 2008 21:11
The KC-X Files.
The truth is out there.
Posted on May 28, 2008 14:48
Boeing has always built, and continues to build, the best airplanes in the world. It's military history goes back before the days of WW II, can Airbus say that? Then again, there is the spectacular acheivements in civil aviation. Can Airbus say that? Can they even match it? If someone has a question about flying an airplane, Boeing can come up with a very good and plausible answer.
Like the old T-shirt used to say - "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going."
Posted on May 28, 2008 16:51
A point not taken in this eloquent article is why are we out sourcing at a time when our economy can't afford to lose 40,000 jobs. As an American, I'm sickened at the thought of our military flying French Airplanes. I'll bet the French are gloating at this one.
Posted on May 29, 2008 11:09
The government Economic Stimulus Package can actually continue for several years.........assuming the award for the next generation tanker is made to the right company.....where's the DOD initiative to rebuild the USA manufacturing base?
Posted on May 30, 2008 14:58
Boeing needs to just "GET OVER IT". What is done is done. Move along.
Posted on June 9, 2008 06:41
The Air Forces decision to award the tanker contract to Airbus is unfathomable. I've always admired the United States military, but the persons responsible for awarding the contract to a foreign manufaturer and the #1 competitor of the United State's chief exporter - Boeing - need to have their heads examined. I've sent letter after letter to Congressional representatives asking for an investigation of the contract award, and asking why this foolish decision had been made. Would France or Germany, which subsidize Airbus, given such a contract to Boeing? Not likely! By supporting Airbus through this contract, all the Air Force has done is made it easier for Airbus to compete against Boeing.
I've always supported the Air Force, but Congress holds the purse strings, and I've made it clear to my Congressman that the Airbus deal is a no go!
Posted on June 11, 2008 14:33
I happen to strongly disagree with a large number of the comments which are appearing of this blog, some of which are insular and bordering on xenophobic.
Both France, Germany , Spain and the UK, (NATO nations who are involved in the manufacture of EADS and Airbus aircraft), operate US manufactured kit. Are the contributors to the blog suggesting these European nations should only buy European rather than place orders for US built aircraft (Chinook, JSF etc), with "a foreign manufaturer and the #1 competitor" to their own industry?
All of these nations procure and operate military equipment manufactured in the US. The E3 Sentry AWACS is a good case study. The E3 is a military aircraft developed from a civilain baseline (707), which coincidentally is a Boeing aircraft which was heavily subsidised during development through US DoD contracts. Ring any bells, specifically contributor Blake Davis?
Surely the priority is to get the equipment manufactured and available to your troops when it is required (i.e. now) rather than procrastinating and wasting time and money with these challenges and reviews.
Posted on June 18, 2008 01:48
Just for the record, Mike B is dead wrong on the heritage of the 707. The 707/KC-135/E-3 were all based on Boeing Model 367-80. The Dash 80 was fully funded by Boeing out of company profits. Boeing bet the company on the Dash 80 and won through superior engineering. Not a dime of taxpayer money was spent subsidizing Boeing's development of this world changing aircraft. That's not something you can say about Airbus.
Posted on June 18, 2008 15:56
Sorry Tracy from Nashville & Mike from the UK. I don't want the U.S. Air Force to have to rely on such nations as France, Germany, Spain or even the UK for our national security.
End of discussion!!!
Posted on June 19, 2008 08:38
To Piggyback on Bruce R. comment. The -135 was acually produced first, with the idea that once the Air Force orders were filled Boeing would purchase the rights from the USAF and use the same tooling to build the 707. However once orders started coming in for the 707 at a much faster rate than Boeing planned, coupled with the fact that by the time the 707 actually got off the ground it was substantially different than the -80, made it so the commonality of parts and tooling was next to nothing. So Boeing ended up not using any Air Force resources to produce the 707. That's not to say that they did not apply knowledge learned from the -135 to the 707, but I'm not sure there is a way to avoid that.
Posted on June 19, 2008 09:37
This is mostly accurate - the one point I would clarify is that the reason that the 707 did not use the 135 tooling was due to the major configuration changes brought on by enlarging the plane to compete with the DC-8.
The 707-120 had five-abreast seating and the DC-8 had six. When orders started flowing in at Douglas there was a bit of a panic at Boeing because still fresh in the mind of Boeing leadership was the earlier Boeing 247 vs.. DC-2/3 competition that ended with Douglas having a monopoly on the commercial airplane business.
Boeing had to make the tough decision to forgo recovering developmental cost through the use of common tooling and keep the 707 competitive by essentially re-designing the plane.
The redesigned airplane was the 707-320 Intercontinental, with a longer fuselage that was also widen 4 inches to make it one inch wider than the DC-8 (sometimes referred to as the "1 inch decision"), it also had a larger wing and tail surfaces.
The decision to make the redesign meant that the 707 program would not be profitable for a long time (decades), but the decision had other long term benefits that we are still reaping today, unlike the debacle of the 247 vs. the DC-2/3, the 707 vs.. the DC-8 resulted in Boeing becoming the leader in commercial airplanes.
It was also a good decision, although unforeseen at the time, because there can be no claims of government assistance in the development or production of the 707 - which certainly helps us with our current debates over government support for Airbus.
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/december/i_history.pdf
Posted on June 20, 2008 11:27
Response to Mike S (US) (Portland, OR), post "I don't want the U.S. Air Force to have to rely on such nations as France, Germany, Spain or even the UK for our national security"
Sorry to disappoint you but you already are. F-35/JSF has significant elements manufactured by BAE SYSTEMS in the UK -
"BAE Systems’ involvement in the F-35 Lightning II involves businesses based on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to design, development and manufacturing activities in the United Kingdom,the Company’s American businesses deliver key capabilities including electronic warfare, advanced low observable apertures, advanced countermeasure systems, the platform management computer and active inceptor systems, among others."
Looks like your national security is now doomed due to the involvement of non-Americans!!
Posted on June 25, 2008 03:29
In response to Mike B's June 25, 2008 post:
Touche!!!!!!!!!!
Additionally, because of the UK, the US Marine Corps flies the Harrier!!!! Great plane!!!
Posted on July 2, 2008 15:40
Brits and Americans have bled together on the battlefield. The British especially have shown themselves to be very reliable allies. I don't think the fact that Air Force goofed on the procurement is a reason to insult our friends in Europe.
And that is really what this is about - an Air Force goof. Probably because of past sins, the Air Force was biased against Boeing. They tilted the competition against Boeing until they could justify the NG/EADS bid. The essay by Dr. Thompson raised legitimate issues which the GAO ultimately confirmed.
Is there anyone who reads this blog who believes that the American military should have the #2 airplane as determined by a fair competition? Hopefully not. This procurement was not a fair competition. How else could you explain the airframe selection by the two teams? Either one or the other team couldn't read, or they were operating on two sets of requirements. Having participated in government procurements in the past, I know they are painfully detailed and precise. The Air Force was telling a different story to each team.
Posted on July 4, 2008 04:37
The BOEING name and the Tankers flying were built for the AF under the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, now a part of the BOEING team.
BOEING Team followed all the rules set forth by the USAF officials for this bidding procedure.
The current 2008 Dept. of Defense secty, has rectified the decisions of other Secty of Defense and pentagon USAF officers who now have been glorified with recent retirements.
It was very painful for all true Americans that read about the infamous new award to Airbus. Those who built the current USAF inventory knew BIAS was present in the USAF from particular Officers in charge of Bidding and awarding contracts from their superiors. KEEP AMERICA WORKING FOLKS inside its borders.
Posted on July 10, 2008 10:32
The one Great Principal is the Customer is Always Right, so tread lightly. If you disagree devation is possible after receiving the Contract, but then you have to prove you are right. Good Luck in your efforts.
Posted on July 17, 2008 05:24
Northrop's KC-X will be built in MOBILE, ALABAMA and finished there! The boom has been tested on over 100 aircraft. Boeing cant get booms to work for Italy and Japan with 3 years of delay. Northrop is getting an aerbus platform from EADS. The engines and many other parts are being made in the US. Over 65 companies from around the US and world will move to Mobile and hire workers there. Northrop's Mobile, Alabama plant will be state of the art. Before all of you in Seattle and Kansas get too paranoid and cry buy American to support Boeing which outsources much to Korea and other countries when they can, take a look at living in Fairhope and Daphne, Alabama and commuting 15 minutes to work for Northrop in Mobile. You would love the life there, and the beaches and fishing is great.
Posted on July 25, 2008 08:59
We welcome your comments. However all comments are moderated and may not post immediately. Offensive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not treat any comments you submit as confidential information. Please do not submit comments that contain any confidential information belonging to anyone else.
By submitting a comment to Tanker Facts, you agree to our site terms and privacy policy, and to having your name displayed with your comment. All or part of your comment may be posted or cited in the blog. Your name and personal information will not be used for any other purpose, and we will not publish your e-mail address.