Friday, July 18, 2008

Tanker News 18 July

The following tanker related items caught our eye:

The Guardian: EU leaders lobbied White House on tanker contract
Key Passage:
European newspapers have reported for months that Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel have lobbied Bush, writing letters and raising the issue in direct talks.

Initially the leaders lobbied for the contract and more recently, according to the latest reports, they have expressed concern that the Pentagon decision to reopen the tanker competition could jeopardise Airbus jobs in Europe.

"He will support the Airbus bid in any way he can," an unidentified spokesman for Brown told The Times of London last week, adding that 11,000 jobs were at stake in Britain, where the wings for the A330 are built.

According to a report in the International Herald Tribune, Tom Enders, a top EADS executive, accompanied Merkel to one meeting with Bush at the White House.
TWB has witnessed how the KS and WA Congressional delegations have been panned for merely standing up for the home team. How is it that the European politicians get no criticism for their near constant lobbying for EADS? (Thanks to George H. for sending us this article.)

CNBC: Protectionism Not Good in Tanker Deal
Key Passage:
Northrop Grumman CEO warned of a "political overlay" in the US defense procurement procedure, where, he said, a small number of members of Congress were merely looking out for their constituencies, particularly to keep jobs in their districts.

Both executives stressed that the aerospace industry is becoming increasingly global and that EADS should be not be viewed through protectionist lenses.

EADS should be "considered as an American citizen," Gallois said.
If Gallois really wants EADS to be considered an American citizen he should demand the quick passage of Rep. Tiahrt's Tanker Recompete Act. That way his company will finally be treated like a US company. It will also be held accountable for US laws/regulations including cost accounting standards, Buy America provisions, specialty metal provisions, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Acts, and compliance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation.

Our guess is that he wants all the benefits of citizenship without the responsibilities. At Tanker War Blog we believe, based on its well documented shady past alone, EADS should not even be issued a tourist visa to get into the country, much less be able to apply for citizenship. (Thanks to Bobby L. for sending us this article.)

Reuters: Airbus writes off 9-year-old Saddam plane order
Key passage:
Nine years after France's top plane executive shook hands in Baghdad on a $500 million deal to sell airliners to the government of Saddam Hussein, Airbus finally conceded on Thursday the deal was off.

Airbus sales chief John Leahy ordered the deal removed from its backlog in response to an inquiry from Reuters about the long-forgotten deal at this week's Farnborough Air Show.

The deal to supply five A310 passenger jets had been on the Airbus order book since its then director Jean Pierson clinched the deal in 1989, as Iraq's skies reopened following travel curbs imposed during its eight-year war with Iran.
We admit that this article is not tanker news, but it was too interesting to pass up. The deal looks more like it was 19 years ago rather than 9, but maybe they kept moving it forward on their books. In the article Airbus complains that they did not get to bid on the last Iraqi plane contract. No kidding; perhaps the Iraqis remembered France opposed their liberation and was heavily involved in propping Saddam up with the oil-for-food scandal.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

EADS shure has Balls to do what they did I just cannot understand how Northrop Joined with them. Its all about themselfs, they talk about protecionism with Boeing. Just for all this they should be disqualified.

Anonymous said...

Does this really surprise any of us?

Anonymous said...

There really isn't all that much to say right now. The devil, as has been mentioned, is in the details. It really comes down to DOD priorities.

If they repeat this process with the original RPF, given the findings of the GAO, it becomes a slam-dunk for Boeing. Given their mission needs document, that's really what they ought to do. But somehow in the previous process, I'm not sure if it was just to make the process competitive, or if they really became enthralled with the opportunity to jump ahead to the Large tanker KC-Z program, the USAF for sure (and possibly the DOD) opted to forget about the validated RFP and opt for something else in source selection.

But if they have decided to make this the defacto KC-Z procurement program, they have to be looking hard at just what they think they can get away with and, from my perspective, that really doesn't appear to be much.

If they try to change the RFP into a KC-Z type to go for the larger aircraft without giving Boeing time to compete with the 777, the DOD procurement people are going to get just as big a reaming from the GAO for their playing fast and loose with the procurement law as the USAF just did if Boeing protests, and BOEING WILL PROTEST. They have now made that abundantly clear.

Yes, DOD has played fast and loose with procurement programs for decades, but they did that largely by paying off the losing contractor by favoring their (often inferior) future bid on the next weapons system. It's different this time. Faced with seeing their only real international competitor in civil aviation get a foothold in the US, Boeing has already demonstrated their refusal to roll over on this. What's more, they have publicly stated they will fight it if the DOD tries it.

So it's gut-check time in DOD procurement. While Congress' popularity is approaching an all time low, it probably exceeds that of the DOD procurement people. What's more, a few good TV shots of Congress doing due diligence... ripping the heads off DOD procurement officials publicly before committees for neither understanding nor complying with procurement law, might get some approval back for Congress.

The fact is that the longer this goes on, the worse DOD looks, and they know that. They'd desperately love to put this behind them quickly but are starting to realize that isn't going to happen, at least not unless they make this back into the KC-X program, and possibly not even then.

But DOD put themselves in this hole, and I imagine right now they are debating every possible option with their JAG and procurement law specialists. I believe I know what the legal people are saying ... that their best option when they are this deep in the hole is to stop digging. But will the senior people listen?

Anonymous said...

From the current on-line Air Force Times:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx

“If you aren't finished by the end of the year, then this thing is going to start all over again and it's going to take a heck of a lot longer.”
—Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chairman of the House Armed Services AirLand subcommittee, speaking to Pentagon acquisition boss John Young during an oversight hearing on the urgency of choosing a winner in the KC-X tanker contest, July 10, 2008.

Anonymous said...

I really want to see Boeing get this contract. They did great with the KC-135, and the 767 is a better fit than the 330. However, I’m very concerned with how this seems to be going.
- Rate of purchase is way to slow to replace a larger fleet that was build in the spam of 10 years
- USAF/DoD trying to keep NG competitive
- Boeing apparently not bringing their A-game
- DoD not just reevaluating the current bids and following the original RFP guidelines (would go to Boeing if they did that)
- Sec. Young now wanting to give extra credit for exceeding the available fuel parameters

The 330 is a larger plane than the KC-10 in wingspan and length. But using the MGTOW, the 330 is a “medium” size aircraft, where as the KC-10 is a “large” aircraft. That means that the KC-10 has more lift than the 330. It is also why the KC-10 can carry over 100,000 pounds more fuel than the 330. I think Boeing and Congress need to call attention to the comparison to the KC-10 even though this is a KC-135 replacement project. What they are looking at (330) is larger than the KC-10 in foot print, yet the 330 is a far less effective tanker than the KC-10. When we rely on host nations for basing like we have done lately, ramp space is a very valuable commodity. You can’t waste it like would be done with the 330. If you consider the ramp foot print each aircraft would take, and divide it by the total fuel capacity at MGTOW you come up what I’ll call a “ramp utility factor”. The KC-10 is the best. The KC-135 is 2nd best, the 767 follows, and the 330 is dead last. The facts are simple, the 330 wastes too much ramp space. The 330’s ability to get 25% more (than the KC-135) un-refueled tanker fuel in the air comes with too high a price. My contention is does it really matter since KC-X will be refuelable anyway. It is less efficient to have a huge tanker airborne for a day with a days supply of fuel than it would be to use smaller tankers and either rotate them or refuel it to keep it airborne. There is a huge price to be paid for carrying all that fuel if you’re not going to be getting rid of it quickly.

Anonymous said...

Good comparison between the 330 and the KC-10. You just left out, I believe, important aspect.

The KC-10 has 3 engines compared to the 330 2 engines which might give it more lift and carrying capacity.

Anonymous said...

My contention is does it really matter since KC-X will be refuelable anyway. It is less efficient to have a huge tanker airborne for a day with a days supply of fuel than it would be to use smaller tankers and either rotate them or refuel it to keep it airborne.

It all depends on the mission, of course. If the mission was to get a squadron of fighters from a big ConUS base to a big foreign base, the A330 MRTT might do just fine. The last trip across the pond I made this way was with four KC-10s dragging a squadron of fighters from Saudi Arabia. But even then, the fighters landed at Shaw and the tankers landed at Seymour-Johnson, because there simply wasn't ramp space enough for the KC-10s, which as you note are considerably SMALLER (despite a greater fuel offload) than the A330.

It depends ENTIRELY on the mission. The Navy did carrier refueling ops for years with KA-6s and A-7s with buddy stores. The F-18 still has this capability:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/12269911l.jpg

But the key question is: What is the mission?

If the mission requires a small footprint, the A330 probably isn't the answer. If it requires a REAL small footprint, the 767 probably isn't either.

Anonymous said...

A recent posting on the Freerepublic is instructive:

"A330 is a non-player for a myriad of reasons. Size is its biggest constraint (I won't even mention that the boom on the A330 is a new creation from a rookie in the field and has not been tested over time like the Boeing built boom). Of the 2 existing tankers, KC-135R and KC-10, and the two competitors, A330 and Boeing 767, anyone who has been in the tanker business will say the KC-135R is the perfect tanker. The KC-10 has been a great compliment and very strong player in the strategic, dual role, boom/drogue world. To have a fleet of KC-10's would be impractical on size alone. With that being said, the A330 is 8,000 sq feet of ramp footprint larger than the KC-10 and 13,000 square feet larger than the 767, and 20,000 square feet larger than the 135. When you look at fuel loads, offload potential, fuel flow per hour, and several other factors, the Boeing 767 offers more fuel offload potential than the A330 per square foot of ramp space that it occupies. If anyone believes MOG is not an issue, (max on ground), or the number that can bedded down, does not fully understand tanker employment in combat operations. The A330 can accommodate 28 to 32 463L pallets while the 76 can hold 19 463L pallets. Why is this significant? The C-17 only can carry 18 463L pallets. We are buying a TANKER, not an airlifter, though economy says that dual role is smart business. I can tell you from first hand experience and 30+ years in the tanker business, that I don't want a tanker with ~28+ pallet positions when I go to combat."

Anonymous said...

When we rely on host nations for basing like we have done lately, ramp space is a very valuable commodity.

It's a tanker. The most valuable commodity is fuel. Additional ramp space can be build easily.

The 330’s ability to get 25% more (than the KC-135) un-refueled tanker fuel in the air comes with too high a price. My contention is does it really matter since KC-X will be refuelable anyway.

Yes, it matters. You'll need a tanker to refuel the tanker. During refueling both tankers are not available for refueling other aircrafts. At a range of 1,000 nm a KC-45 provides over 30 % more fuel than a KC-767.

It is less efficient to have a huge tanker airborne for a day with a days supply of fuel than it would be to use smaller tankers and either rotate them or refuel it to keep it airborne.

Tanker on way back and forth are not available for refueling and just wasting fuel. It's not useful to refuel a tanker to keep him on station. The tanker on station would pump its expendable fuel to another tanker and fly back to base. The refueling option is very useful for KC-45/KC-767 acting as cargo lifters.

There is a huge price to be paid for carrying all that fuel if you’re not going to be getting rid of it quickly.

True, this is the problem for tankers flying back and forth to station. Tankers in the air don't waste ramp space.

Anonymous said...

The fix is still in, folks!

Why did the competition switch from AF to DOD? To make it easier to fudge the numbers.

What is the real purpose of the award? To provide Hurricane Relief for New Orleans, Mississippi and Alabama.

Whose willing to build their factory in that area? Sarkozy, Merkel, and Brown. It’s just like BMW, Mercedes, Honda building an automobile factory in Alabama or South Carolina. The Govs and Senators are still lobbying hard…

And now, why is the Reqt staying a Large Airplane? To make it easier for the Airbus plane to get more credit.

Seems like the Boeing bid should include:
Factory in Mobile
Emphasize the European content
And bid a plane able to carry cargo…

Unfortunately this is not about the Warfighter or Taxpayer, its Jobs and Political Subsidies.

See this article, dated 7/21/08:

Air Force still leans toward Northrop tanker plane
Boeing could offer its larger 777 plane, but analysts have doubts
By Christopher Hinton, MarketWatch

Anonymous said...

There is a huge price to be paid for carrying all that fuel if you’re not going to be getting rid of it quickly.

True, this is the problem for tankers flying back and forth to station. Tankers in the air don't waste ramp space.


So you are recommending a return to the "chrome dome" days of a continuous airborne posture?

All because you want to sell an oversized tanker?

Anonymous said...

The Boeing team keep bringing up size as a major constraint, however, runway length is a bit of large constraint too, and the Boeing design simply can't take off fully loaded from a 9,000ft runway, which many of these smaller airfields near the front are.
When the RAF were comparing the two, they found the KC-767 could operate from very few expeditionary airfields, and was unable to operate fully loaded from their main tanker base at Brize Norton fully loaded also. The Italians also had to lengthen their main tanker base runway to deal with the 767.

So you can park the 767 closer to the front ( and take up valuable space that is normally reserved for front line aircraft), which will then not be able to take off fully loaded, and still deliver LESS fuel than an KC-30 flying from several hundred miles away (even if the 767 was fully loaded!)!