Dicks Cries ‘Allelujah” If NG Drops KC-X

Dicks Cries ‘Allelujah” If NG Drops KC-X

UPDATED: Boeing “Disappointed” WTO Subsidies Not Addressed In RFP; NG Does Not Pull Out … at Least Not Yet.

First reactions are in from lawmakers who were briefed on the Air Force’s new Tanker RFP this morning. Colin Clark caught up with Congressman Norm Dicks (D) from Washington state, chairman presumptive to replace the late Rep. John Murtha on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, who said the final RFP is “a fundamental plus for the smaller aircraft.”

Boeing’s tanker is based on the 767 airframe — parts of which are expected to be built in Everett, Wa., near Dick’s home district — which is considerably smaller than the Northrop Grumman offering, which is based on the A330.


“I will say hallelujah,” Dicks said when asked his opinion on what he would do if Northrop makes good on its threats to drop out of the bid because they believe the RFP is weighted heavily in favor of rival Boeing. “Everybody would like to see competition,” he quickly added.

Northrop didn’t pull out right away. The company’s tanker spokesman Randy Belote issued this terse comment hours after the tanker RFP briefing was out on the street: “Northrop Grumman will analyze the RFP and defer further public comments until its review of the document has been completed.”

Boeing beat the subsidies drum in its statement. “While we appreciated the open dialogue with the Air Force throughout this process, we are disappointed that the RFP does not address some of our key concerns, including Airbus’ unfair competitive advantage derived from subsidies from its sponsor European governments — subsidies that the World Trade Organization has found to be illegal and harmful to U.S. workers and industry — and how fuel and military-construction costs over the life of the tankers will be factored into consideration of the competing bids,” Jean Chamberlin, tanker vice president, said in a statement.

Dicks also pointed to the final RFP’s cost assumptions as good news for Boeing. “I think this new RFP has a 40-year lifecycle cost assumption. I like that!” He also likes the proposed concept of the Air Force adding more planes to their annual buy. Dicks added that he thinks Congress can quickly move the program forward.

An emailed statement from House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) reads:

“The Air Force has made a strong case for recapitalizing our nation’s aging airborne tanker inventory, and I support this requirement. The tanker replacement process has gone on for eight years, and we need to move forward this year to award a contract to provide our service members with the tools that they need to succeed in today’s conflicts. DOD has worked diligently to set the stage for a fair and open competition for the KC-X Tanker contract, and I hope the process moves quickly to provide the best tanker for our Air Force.”

Washington Senator Patty Murray (D) issued the following statement:

“I’m glad that we finally have an RFP so we can at long last move forward with a competition to get these critical aircraft into the hands of our men and women in uniform. I will be looking over the details of this final RFP to ensure that it is fair and transparent and that it provides an even playing field for our state’s workers.

Given a fair shot, Washington state’s workers will bring home this contract. We have the skills, the technology, and the experience of having built the only combat-ready tanker to prove it. Our workers have done it before and I know they’re ready to do it again. With today’s RFP we now have the process in place that will allow our workers to deliver for our economy, military, and country.”

Join the Conversation

Good Morning Folks,

If you can’t win by the rules, simple hand out a lot of cash and change the rules. Welcome to full court press corruption.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I can’t wait to see Dicks squirming when Boeing horks this up. Norm! You’re putting a lot of stock in Muilenberg. Recall Muilenbergs resume and his resounding success at the wheel of FCS? Way to pi$$ away billions of tax dollars and get nothing in return.

Last time around the frenchies produced a proposal that dwarfed your crap response with a more capable aircraft AND at a price tag of 3 billion less.

Agree with Byron.

Yeah the “Frenchies ” are so good at delivering the price they commit to like the A400m price committment for plane one. let alone the last plane delievered.

More capability. Price tag was $3Billion less! At least if EADS doesn’t deliver the taxpayers dont get hosed quite as much.. How many $billions did Muilenberg burn on FCS and what did the taxpayers get?. Oh, I forgot. they got flat bottom vehicles and SoSCOE.

I love how everything now has to have a V hull now even if it makes sense or not. We will soon have ground vehicles that are 10 feet off the ground that roll constantly but will survive a 10Kton blast from an IED. insert sarcasm.

At least the rudders don’t fall off on the Boeing aircraft

Actually, when you figured life cycle cost, the Boeing proposal was evaluated as cheaper because it used far less fuel per flight. Its like going to a car dealer to buy a Focus and looking at the Taurus. Lots more car, no question, and it may even be cheaper to buy. But you pay for it every day at the gas pump.

I think they should just go sole source to Boeing and be done with it!!!!

Well “the DICK” might have helped in the new RFP. That is why it looks so one sided. Only thing I can say is what happens if Boeing falls behind, like they did with the two other tankers they delivered, and over budget. Guess “the DICK” will defend them. Too bad Murtha could not still be alive to ensure a almost fair competition for the tanker

What about the fuselage, or have you forgotten about the Aloha Air flight

Then Boeing will be like Lockheed, Over budget and behind schedule, Wait they were like that on the Japanese and Italian Tankers

The thought that Jack Murtha would have “ensured an almost fair competition” is ridiculous. He was a corrupt lying thieving ba****d, a disgrace to the Marine Corps

REP.NORM DICKS FROM BOEINGS STATE WILL BE 100% FOR THEM ON ANYTHING.….NORTHROP/GRUMMAN WON THE TANKER PROGRAM FAIR, REP.MURTHA AND BOEING CRIED SO MUCH THEY GOT THERE WAY FOR A NEW BID CONTRACT,N/G HAD THERE PLANE FLYING FROM THE START,BOEING DID NOT.…..SO LET ME TELL YOU WHO EVER GETS THIS TANKER,BY THAT TIME, WE WILL NOT HAVE A MILITARY IN THIS COUNTRY ANY MORE WITH THIS GOVT.RUNNING IT NOW AND OUR GENERALS WITH “NO” BACKBONES .…..

Clear example of how War Fighter needs come in second to the re-election interests of a single corrupt politician. Boeing is backlogged with orders so I don’t think they would need to lay anyone off if they lost the competition. The Northrop buy would of added 48,000 jobs to states that needed them, the Boeing buy would of called for about 50,000 jobs.

We have all reviewed comparisons of the two airframes. the KC-45 was defiantly a better value and anyone who feels bad for Boeing should do a little research on their contract performance on the KC-135 sustainment.

Bad day for defense acquisition

Yes–bad day for defense contracting! This is an outright screw job for Northrop Grumman who won this proposal outright for all the right reasons — better aircraft at a better price. I can’t beleive the proposal was rewritten to favor the Boeing aircraft and Boing is still crying for more unfair advantage. I would love to see a fair and open competition for the new tanker contract, oh, that’s right — we already did and Northrop Grumman won! Boing didn’t like the results, so our wise law makers changed the rules.

Given the requierments for the original bid, Boeing should have won. Now Northrop may very well have had the better plane, sweetend with extra size, features, and more economical by illegal practices, but Boeing had a more mature design that met the requirement with a cheaper service life and requiring more minmal changes to infrastucture and ground equipment and facilities.

If we want to get into politics. This will set the standard for NATO, so whatever company wins here wins double. Thats why the Europeans are willing to so heavily subsidize the Northrop bid.

And that doesn’t even count the waiving of taxes and additional subsidees Northrop was getting to bring its price down as did. Both of which violate international trade laws.

Exactly… EADS was able to submit a cheaper bid because Airbus was providing a subsidized aircraft. No analyst thought they would be able to hold to that price. The 767 conformed better to the original RFP… but the A330 was bigger and more powerful and by the end of a completely hosed evaluation process the bigger, non-conforming aircraft won. Boeing rightly argued that if the Air Force wanted such a heavy lifter the RFP should have clearly stated such, and in response they would have offered a B777 tanker which would out-perform the A330 based aircraft.

Yes, this process was totally botched by the Air Force, but not for the reason a lot of people here assume.

And you all think Boeing is not subsidized? Hello, Washington State gives breaks, Kansas gives breaks, King County WA gives breaks all are no different than what Airbus gets? It is a global world and global economy so please drop the illegal subsidized talks, focus on a jobs stimulas and that would be to build both tankers and get war fighters planes now not later. A real jobs stimulator as it also will require the USAF bases to upgrade hangers and runways. Now that would put people to work. I would love to know how much Boeing stock Mr Lynn has and the kick backs Dicks is going to get?

lets not talk about susidies until someone could unravel the truth behind the amount of subsidies Boeing has received.

more capable, $3B less in total cost, and subsidized by a government other than our own? a government thats already facing huge deficits?

best value? least cost? doesnt matter to corrupt organizations.

I tired of everyone whinning about the 767–200/300/400 Frankentanker Boeing was offering. If you want this to be fair Boeing should have offered its 767–400 which is almost the same size as the A330. Then you would have had a really fair competition. Boeing 777 is too big. Also donot forget how the other Tankers they built were Behind Schedule and over Cost and how Italy Sued Boeing for this late and cost overrun and WON

Spot on Josh.

To which corrupt government are you referring? Germany? France? Spain? or the UK?

There is the additional cost of new building for a bigger faciltiy, less room on the tarmac for larger aircraft and my personal favorite, fewer aircraft. This of course would cause problems for missions being flown in multiple places.

You forgot to include the US Government

Hey A Small and Robertro2, shut the hell up, Boeing’s the ONLY company with a proven tail boom design and successful tanker program, PERIOD.

D-man, I have flown the UAE KC version of the NG/EADS offering and can tell you to get your facts straight, Boeing is old technology and the A330 MRRT which will be the KC45 is much more superior to Boeing and is passing all fuel transfers and the reciever plane pilots all love it very much…

So D-man get your facts straight before trying to comment

Far superior? The KC-45 was only superior if you compared it to a smaller tanker like the KC-767 proposals. Yet considering KC-X was supposed to replace the KC-135, the KC-767 was similar in size and actually fit in KC-135 hangers. The original contract should have been more specific, because Boeing could have offered the KC-777.

Hey guys, see my postings under “Tanker RFP Brief” article. I included a link to the RFP and my summary of the evaluation criteria.

robertro2,

No, NG/EADS DID NOT win the previous solicitation fair. Read the GAO ruling which prompted its cancelation.

Boeing has 3 KC-767 IN SERVICE with Japan with the 4th & at least 2 (of another 4) with Italy by the end of the year. There are NO KC-30 in service ANYWHERE — the closest being with Australia.

***

Sgt JFK,

Stop drinking the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid. There is NO WAY that the <58% US content KC-30 employs as many US workers as the >85% US content KC-767.

The KC-30 IS NOT the KC-45! The KC-X (what ever it ends up being) is the KC-45.

Funny even the KC-X Source Selection Team (which ‘selected’ the KC-30 by NOT assessing the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation) admitted (coincidently shortly before the GAO ruling) that the Boeing offer was in fact the lower cost bid (& that was even using their bogus cost evealuation).

YOU should do a little research on their contract performance of NG/Airbus/EADS…

Old Tanker Guy,

Read the GAO ruling which prompted its cancelation.

The requirements this round are fundamentally THE SAME as the last round (it is the way the bid are evaluated which has changed). And according to all the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid you drink the KC-30 is less costly so HOW is this round’s RFP “rewritten to favor the Boeing aircraft”?

***

Old391,

I love how your idea of a fair competition is to FORCE Boeing to offer an aiframe closer to the size of the A330 when the 767 is already BIGGER than necessary for the requirements.
Food for thought…

KC-10:
L x WS: 181′ 7″ x 165′ 4″
OEW: 240,000 lbs
MTOW: 590,000 lbs

A330-200
L x WS: 193′ 7″ x 197′ 10″
OEW: 265,000 lbs
MTOW: 513,000 lbs

767-400ER
L x WS: 201′ 4″ x 170′ 4″
OEW: 229,000 lbs
MTOW: 450,000 lbs

777-200ER
L x WS: 209′ 1″ x 199′ 11″
OEW: 314,000 lbs
MTOW: 656,000 lbs

Old391,
You mean the Aloha flight accident that was caused my bad maintenance on the part of the airline, and airframe that was well past its expected service life. That is the most structurally damaged civillan aircraft to ever land safely, so that says something pretty good about boeing airframes.

.…of course that plane landed safely! a testament to the strength of the airframe. AirBus blamed their rudder falling off on too much pilot input. I call it bad engineering when you design a control surface that can have a failure mode of being ripped apart by too much pilot input. I’ve worked with French engineers and their skill doesn’t match their arrogance.

Of course it is weighted toward Boeing. They are most probably offering a medium tanker which is what the USAF asked for. Since Airbus doesn’t have a airframe they want to convert to a medium tanker, they want the USAF to buy a bigger tanker. Kind of like a car salesman, sell the customer what you have not what they want. Bigger is only better if you can actually transfer the fuel. Since the vast majority of KC-135s missions return with lots of fuel left, the possibility of passing more fuel is very unlikely and you end up with more fuel burn, bigger hangers, etc. Lets face it, the 767 is a better size than the A330 for what the USAF asked for in the KC-X. Now the KC-Y tanker is another question. Most likely the A330 is a better sized, but then again Boeing doesn’t have to offer another 767 based tanker for the KC-Y.

Welcome back pfcem, The Japanese and Italian tankers are no where the same ones Boeing will be submitting for the KC-X program. Also remember these are behind schedule and over cost. So if you use that for basing Boeing KC-767 tanker they will be behind schedule and over budget on this tanker. So quit using oranges when we want apples

But you have to remember this, Boeing had no studies on this at the time of this problem. It only came to light when the accident occurred. Boeing then came out with guidelines. If my memory serves me right, but them sometimes it does not

Boeing should win simply because Byron thinks they shouldn’t.

Yes, while true your point is irrelevant. By that logic, since a B-52 or B-1 can carry far more bombs a lot farther than a F-15E we could use them instead and get rid of a bunch of fighters. If you need more fuel offload, you use a KC-10 or a KC-Y. That is why the USAF intends to have 179 KC-Y as well. Simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the current sorties don’t even use the full capacity of the KC-135, so for the KC-X, anything more is just added cost.
NG/Airbus wants you to buy a Taurus that doesn’t fit in you garage when you came in to the dealership to buy a Focus. The Taurus is a good car and can do more than a Focus but it burns a lot more gas and your wife already has a Taurus that she plans to replace in a few years anyway.

You also forgot the Range (based on fully loaded commerical version) 767–200 is 3950 mi, 747–400 is 5625 and the A300-200 is 7770. If this translated over to the Tanker, the Airbus could take a lot more fighter aircraft across the pond than the Boeing aircraft could and land with then with fuel on board.

Old391,

The Japanese & Italian tankers are closer to the KC-767 Boeing has & will offer for KC-X than EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers try to fool people into believing. AND the Australian KC-30 (which is behind schedule & over cost) isn’t the same tanker NG/EADS has & might offer for KC-X.

Try some intellectual honesty (& correct data).

Commercial 767-200ER (160,000 lbs of fuel) — Boeing has NEVER offered a tanker based on the older 767–200.
6590nm
Note however that WHATEVER KC-767 Boeing offers it will have a fuel capacity of 200,000+ lbs…

Commercial A330-200 (246,000 lbs of fuel)
6750nm

To put the fuel offload figures into perspective (not that the fuel offload of ONE tanker is all that impoortant) see Sect L Atch 4 Figure 1 of the RFP.
KC-135 = Minimum
KC-767 ~ B line
KC-30 ~ D line

Are you sur about that. That means Boeing would have to use the 767–300 airframe to be able to handle a 200,000 + fuel load. Now there is only about 13 feet difference between the 767–300 model and the Airbus. There is a 21 foot difference between the 767–200 and 300 models. So now the footprint that Boeing has been talking about is larger than they led us to beleive. The way Boeing was pitching the 767-KC tanker it had a smaller footprint than the A330 but now that seems to be in question. Oh well do not worry Boeing lovers “the Dick” will make sure you will win by any means

Doesnt matter if Boeing didnt have studies of the problem. The main fault of the incident was corroding rivets due to the high salt content in the air around the islands it was based at. Any good maintainer knows if your that close to the ocean you should be looking out fot corroding metal from salt, just like people up north know to keep an eye on their car frames from the salt put on the road.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement