USAF Tanker Selection In Trouble Again

[Pooky 3,807]

KC-X competition delayed as evaluation process complicated 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."

Flighglobal link

You'd think after trying to bid this twice before and having the first result overturned due to Boeing's corruption, while the second result was thrown out by the GAO, that the USAF might have learned the right way to do this. Apparently not.

The last new-build KC-135, the plane this KC-X program is to replace, rolled off the production line in 1965. That's 45 years ago. These planes are basically flying gas cans and they're getting dangerously close to the end of their airframe life. The replacement program has been running for almost 10 years now and the USAF is no closer to getting new tankers.

These tankers are probably the most important asset in the USAF, not because of their fighting capability, because they have none, but because they allow the USAF to fly anywhere in the world.

So why is it so hard to select a replacement and get the deal over the finish line?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well I assume that as this drags out any new Airbus bids will climb as the Euro strengthens?? Seems like a forgone conclusion....

[Pooky 3,807]

Well I assume that as this drags out any new Airbus bids will climb as the Euro strengthens?? Seems like a forgone conclusion....

Not quite that simple, as assembly of the Airbus offering would likely be in the US. Then there's the fact that the Boing option hasn't even been finalised on paper, while the Airbus is basically the same as the one the Australians have in flight testing.

All that is immaterial, though, because if the USAF is found to have leaked proprietary information on one plane to its competitor, any award will be challenged in court (again) and the USAF loses another 3 years. Just how long can you keep a fleet of aircraft that are all over 45 years old airworthy? Does one have to break apart in mid-air before the USAF and DoD take this seriously?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't think its as bad as you make it sound. There are aircraft in service that are pushing 60.

[Pooky 3,807]

I don't think its as bad as you make it sound. There are aircraft in service that are pushing 60.

Ask those that serve in the USAF. There's not much you can do when an airframe runs up against its design limit, which the KC-135's are encountering. There comes a point when maintenance and parts replacement become so costly that buying a new plane is the cost effective option. With the tankers, it soon won't be an option, but the only choice available.

The B-52s, on the other hand, have no replacement in sight. When they're gone, they're gone.

[scandal 951]

Ask those that serve in the USAF. There's not much you can do when an airframe runs up against its design limit, which the KC-135's are encountering. There comes a point when maintenance and parts replacement become so costly that buying a new plane is the cost effective option. With the tankers, it soon won't be an option, but the only choice available.

The B-52s, on the other hand, have no replacement in sight. When they're gone, they're gone.

I'm not as informed on this as you are. If it's as bad as you say, that is indeed scary and unacceptable.

Yet if what you're looking for is proof that our politicians see nothing wrong with playing politics even when national security and real life and death is at stake, you need look no further than the stalling on ratifying the START agreement by Jon Kyl and the GOP. Just when do these guys realize it's not all about them?

[Ban Hammer 13,404]

many b-52's are being flown by people younger than the plane.

[Pooky 3,807]

I'm not as informed on this as you are. If it's as bad as you say, that is indeed scary and unacceptable.

Yet if what you're looking for is proof that our politicians see nothing wrong with playing politics even when national security and real life and death is at stake, you need look no further than the stalling on ratifying the START agreement by Jon Kyl and the GOP. Just when do these guys realize it's not all about them?

No, it's not about them at all. It's about the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces risking their lives daily using equipment that is old and has been patched-up and retrofitted to fly a bit longer, so that the politicians can fight over whether the next piece of kit has an American or European name on it, completely missing the point that the number of Americans employed building the damn things would be roughly the same whichever one they choose.

So, it's not about the jobs, which means it's all about the money. With the 787 in trouble, at least as much as the A380, if not more so, Boing need this carrot to retain their prestige. Given that the Frankentanker, as Boing's KC-X proposal has been dubbed, doesn't even have a confirmed design yet, it certainly isn't about how soon these aircraft will see service.

And when you consider that in the last round of the competition, Airbus had teamed up with Northrop-Grumman to assemble every A330 freighter, both civilian and military, in the USA at a purpose-built plant to be sited in Alabama, you have to wonder if the Democrat support of the Boing bid at all costs ever took into account benefit to the country as a whole.

Irrespective of politics, however, there is only one side who is suffering in all of this - the USAF. And that's a disgrace.

many b-52's are being flown by people younger than the plane.

Considering what age most pilots graduate to flying desks through seniority, I'd wager that most B-52's are flown by pilots younger than the planes. Same with the KC-135's.