Home » Air » Boeing ALMOST Picks 777 Tanker

Boeing ALMOST Picks 777 Tanker

By Colin Clark Monday, June 15th, 2009 9:08 am
Posted in Air, International, Policy, Rumors

After more than a year of speculation, Boeing appeared to drop a small bombshell at the Paris Air Show this morning, namely that the company will drop its 767 tanker and instead bid for the US tanker contract using a 777.

Bloomberg broke the story after speaking with IDS chief Jim Albaugh while Northrop Grumman was briefing reporters about its tanker efforts. Turns out that Bloomberg wasn’t quite right, according to Boeing officials. The company will offer the 777 should the RFP and the new requirements warrant, a spokesman said. The company is ready to offer the 777 should it need to. But the company certainly hasn’t dropped the 767 or decided that the 777 is the right plane for the competition.

“The announcement today was that Boeing was positioned to offer a 777 tanker IF the Air Force customer requires a tanker where they set the premium at fuel offload indicating a need for a larger tanker,” Boeing spokesman Damien Mills said in an email. “If it’s multi-role capability we still have the 767 to offer. Again, it’s all dependent on the requirements set forth in the draft RFP.”

Since Boeing has been considering the 777 at least since the contract with Northrop Grumman was cancelled, it’s not exactly news that the 777 is possibly in the cards. What does seem clear is that the company has done a great more analysis and bid preparation so it can offer either the 767 or the 777 should the occasion warrant.

Still, a Boeing 777 bid raises all sorts of questions. Given the problems Boeing has had reducing the vibrations afflicting its refueling pods on the 767, and the enormous technical and engineering challenges of refitting the 777, can the company get a plane in shape in time to fill the Air Force’s first tranche of 179 planes?

As one observer here put it, the 777 is “totally untested and unproven” as a tanker, although it has en enviable safety and efficiency record.

But it may be that Boeing is largely conceding the first tranche of planes to Northrop and aiming for the larger follow-on buy.

Meanwhile, Northrop and its European partner, EADS, have staked out much stronger public positions than they did at the Farnborough show last year.

EADS officials on Saturday said they were assuming a tanker win as part of their revenue projections. And Northrop officials, speaking less than an hour ago, noted that their tanker bid was “superior in all aspects,” as Paul Meyer, VP and general manager for advanced programs said. “We believe we will be victorious in the future,” Meyers said, a sentiment that could not have been squeezed out of Northrop officials on the rack at Farnborough.…

But there are rumors that Northrop is weighing its commitment to the tanker program, which has cost the company financially and politically. Two sources have told me that Ron Sugar, the company’s CEO, will walk away from the competition should the new RFP appear weighted too heavily in Boeing’s favor. This could, of course, be part of the company’s gaming efforts to ensure that the Air Force does include analysis such as best value as it makes its choice.

Meyers made clear, as does his colleague Janis Pamiljans in the video below, that the Air Force must include “best value” as a key component of the service’s tanker analysis. If best value is not included, given the rumors about Sugar, it seems very possible that Northrop will pull out of the tanker competition. Air Force officials must be really enjoying all this.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	LockMartSkunk June 15th, 2009 at 9:36 am So does this mean that the guys over at NG are going to use their next size up in the Airbus platform?
	Colin Clark June 15th, 2009 at 10:13 am LMSkunk, Haven’t heard anything to that effect. However, I would LOVE to see a tanker version of the 380! Imagine that thing taking off with a full load…
	Aurora June 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pm The comments on Ron Sugar being prepared to “walk away” are interesting to say the least. So their committment to the tanker program has had “political costs” and doesn’t appear to be without limit? I’m not surprised. Given NG’s large exposture on other defense programs, I think it would be extremely risky to pursue a “scorched earth” policy to win the tanker contract at any cost and alienate members of congress, who would normally be friendly to the company. Why make enemies in Congress for the sake of a European airframe? Perhaps Northrop Grumman is looking for an “out” here?
	pfcem June 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pm So ONCE AGAIN, Boeing is saying it will make a proposal based on a platform which best fits the requirements/criteria (what ever they may be) while NG/EADS is saing that it will walk away unless they see the requirements/criteria as favoring their already once rejected proposal & which the KC-X Source Selection Team could not justify how it determined that the NG/EADS proposal even meet certain requirements/criteria & for which the GAO made one of if not the most strongly worded decisions in most anyone’s memory INCLUDING that the KC-X Source Selection Team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. I especcially LOVE Colin’s wishful thinking that “it may be that Boeing is largely conceding the first tranche of planes to Northrop and aiming for the larger follow-on buy” when Boeing’s announcement indicates exactly the opposite. In related news, three of Japan’s KC-767s are now officially operational (with at least two of Italy’s expected to be by the end of the year IIRC) and the one Australian KC-30 has transfered fuel (via hose — still nothing I can find referring to boom) in flight.
	Keep It Simple June 16th, 2009 at 8:50 am I feel politics will again blur what is best for the USAF and the USA.
	Howard June 16th, 2009 at 9:05 am Well, considering that in the last go around, the NOC tanker was technically non-compliant and shouldn’t have been awarded, unless NOC and EADS have changed their plane, and their bid they will still be non-compliant (assuming the RFP is similar to the last one). Oh, and the Aussie A330MRTT hasn’t transfered fuel at all yet. The hose connections last week were dry according to the news releases. That program is already a year behind as well.
	Aurora June 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am Spot on, Howard regarding both counts. This controversy should have ended last July and had the USAF thrown out NG’s bid, they would likely have a funded tanker.
	jimbo June 16th, 2009 at 9:44 am the boeing prosal is in the same boat.. its an imaginary plane, w/untested equipment… its all blueprints and no plane…
	LockMartSkunk June 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am I gotta say it’s kinda amusing seeing what goes back and forth on these boards regarding the tanker program. I see the same boeing fanatics like pfcem and generally a couple different folks for NG. Working with both the Boeing and NG tanker teams I feel like both of you don’t really have a clue what is going on with the program and are just waiting for more clarification. What I do know is that when I met with the NG tanker teams they showed me an actual plane flying around. When I met with the Boeing team, they showed me a computer simulation. That’s all I have to say.
	Taker June 16th, 2009 at 4:10 pm An actual plane that isn’t fast enough to comply with all USAF refueling procedures. That requirement will probably be written out of the next RFP, however.
	pfcem June 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pm LockMartSkunk, NG showed you a similar tanker flying around but what they showed you was not the KC-30 they proposed. If it was their SDD time & cost would be zero… If Boeing wanted to play the game of showing similar tankers there are currently three Japanese & two Italian KC-767s flying but only one Australian KC-30 flying. Of course the Australian KC-30 is closer to NG/EADS’s KC-X proposal than the Japanese & Italian KC-767s are to Boeing’s KC-X proposal.
	james June 18th, 2009 at 5:45 am Tranche? Lol.
	afret91 July 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm Why dont we convene a panel of tanker and aircraft aircrews who have used them and offer some real world suggestions as to what a tanker should be and do and stop trying to make it another McNamara F111 yard dart. Piss on the politicians, they couldnt fly a kite much less know what to build in a functional tanker airplane.