Home » Air » AF Studying Tanker Options

AF Studying Tanker Options

By Colin Clark Monday, September 15th, 2008 4:05 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

Leaning forward and speaking with some intensity, Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters today that the tanker deal “is not dead” and that the Air Force is studying what kinds of options the next administration might be able to pursue to get the $35 billion, 179-plane contract going again.

Schwartz said nothing could happen with a new tanker competition for at least eight months after the next administration takes up the effort. And it could take a lot longer –as long as 48 months to put together a new competition.

That will depend on whether the next administration decides to tweak the existing approach or come up with something entirely different. Schwartz seemed to indicate he might prefer the more radical approach when he noted that the current effort required 800 criteria to tell industry what the service wanted. “Perhaps going forward we could find something less complex,” he said, adding that the complexity was driven in part because the Pentagon was looking at two pretty different commercial planes.

If the next administration decides to craft new requirements, perform a new analysis of alternatives and issue a completely new request for proposal that would take 36–48 months, Schwartz said.

Talks are ongoing with Northrop Grumman about possible termination of the current award, Acting Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told us, but he would not discuss — no surprise — how much the company might get should the contract be terminated.

During his state of the service speech before the Air Force Association conference here, Donley said that the Air Force would be meeting with Government Accountability Office experts next week to discuss ways to improve how it documents competitions. The hope is that this will allow the Air Force to avoid a repeat of the CSAR-X and tanker contract awards, both of which were effectively overturned by the GAO. A bit of good news — Donley said the helicopter contract might be awarded “in a couple of months,” before the end of the Bush administration.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	pfcem September 15th, 2008 at 10:31 pm Being as how Rand really did us a disservice by defining the most cost-effective aircraft as between 300,000 & 1,000,000 gross maximum takeoff weight [a HUGE disparity in size & weight with no way of being even close in cost-effectiveness] now would be a good time to do a REAL Analysis of Alternatives.
	jpwk September 16th, 2008 at 8:56 am pfcem, Just go away thanks
	Old391 September 17th, 2008 at 3:57 am Well we will not see anything during the Obama admistration if he is elected. Boeing had better hope he is, but then he dislikes the military and we all shall suffer from that. He has said time and time again we will “review” and you know what that means
	Sgt JFK September 17th, 2008 at 8:00 am He doesn’t dislike the Military you Jack A. Sounds like you have crossed the “Bridge to more of the same”
	XAF September 18th, 2008 at 6:14 am I don’t get it. Boeing cries “Foul” and the whole thing grinds to a halt ? Pure Madness.
	Old391 September 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am pfcem Read this John Young, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in an interview at the Pentagon yesterday that under the tanker proposal from Northrop Grumman and its partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space, developing the first 68 aircraft would have cost $12.5 billion, compared with $15.4 billion under Boeing’s plan. Young said that Northrop promised earlier delivery and that its aircraft “provided more tanker capability and offload rate and was substantially cheaper to develop.” “Frankly,” he said, Boeing’s tanker “was smaller and should have been cheaper.… A member of the American public might conclude that Boeing sought to charge more than the Defense Department reasonably expected” to pay.
	pfcem September 18th, 2008 at 12:23 pm XAF, Boeing didn’t cry foul, it asked for 6 months to do the proper studies to develope the BEST proposal for the new requirements (changes ONCE AGAIN to FURTHER accomodate the KC-30 even though the requirements were NOT what were protested or sustained). *** Old391, Airbus/EADS often underbids Boeing (making up its initial “losses” on the back end) & can afford to given that their aircraft are built in Europe rather than in the US. The KC-X source selection team FORCED Boeing to alter its proposal with a 2-year delay despite Boeing saying it could meet the same delivery schedule as NG/EADS. Is $15.4 billion from the CORRECTED calculations for Boeing’s cost or is it the INCORRECT calculations? Nobody ever said that the NG/EADS KC-30 proposal would not be less costly to develope. Besides, we all know full well (OK EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid driinkers might not) that the KC-X is NOT going to meet cost projections (part of Boeing’s higher initial cost likely includes more relaistic cost projections). And of course it is the total life cycle cost which really matters…
	Buzzknight September 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm pfcem, So your latest argument is that Boeing’s cost estimates are more “accurate”. That is quite a reach. Also do you think that Boeing promised both the Japanese and Italian governments that their tankers would “meet the delivery schedule”. Bottom line is that Boeing saw “the writing on the wall” and threatened to protest the award again and basically got it defered to the next administration where they will try again.… Luckily for Boeing, guess who gets the big new check to keep those KC-135s flying.…..
	Old391 September 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm Actually they were demanding 6 months so they could find an aircraft closer to what the A330 offered. At first the Air Force were going to rebid and judge on the 8 areas the GAO pointed out in their findings. But things change and it blew out of control No matter will not see a new tanker if Obama wins the election
	pfcem September 18th, 2008 at 8:59 pm Buzzknight, Keep drinking that EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid. What Boeing “saw written on the wall” was that Under Secretary Young was changing the requirements ONCE AGAIN to FURTHER accomodate the KC-30. Mmoving still FURTHER away from what the USAF made so clear that its requirements actually were & TOWARDS what the USAF had rejected in 2002. Boeing DID NOT threaten to protest, it said that it needed 6 months to do the proper studies to develope the BEST proposal for the new requirements (since the KC-767AT was SPECIFICALLY OPTIMIZED for the 2007 KC-X RFP). Boeing is & was going to get big checks to keep the KC-135s flying for several decades reguardless of what happens/happened with the KC-X. In the long run even a 5 year delay in tanker recapitalization will mean next to nothing to KC-135 program (all KC-135E are set to be grounded by the end of 2008 & are unlikely to ever be operational again). *** Old391, No the USAF wasn’t doing anything. The USAF was tanken completely out of the loop & the sole source selection authority was given to Under Secretary Young. The rebid and judging WAS NOT on the 8 areas the GAO pointed out in their findings. In fact Congress saw that & put language into the appropriations bill that the rebid HAD to be done in accordance with the GAO’s recommendations or funds would not be released.