Tanker RFP Brief

Tanker RFP Brief

We got our hands on the Power Point slides from today’s Tanker RFP brief from Deputy SecDef William Lynn, chief weapons buyer Ashton Carter and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

Tanker RFP Final Power Point

Join the Conversation

why not buy 5 or 10 of each get them in to service and see how they really preform get the real
numbers let it’s up time performace speek for its self, if I was buying 200 cars I would buy 5 or 10 of each model and looked at how they work and total cost of owener ship I just dont see the problems here
I dont think that this is rocket science these planes are currently flying,

That’s completely unrealistic to ask each company to tool up for a 10 ea. production run of a heavy aircraft for what is essentially a “test drive”. Even building the bid samples is a large commitment on what may turn out to be a zero gain for the company. There’s nothing that can be proven from 5 or 10 aircraft during testing that can’t be evaluated in 1 or 2.

I find it very odd that the Northrop/EAD design initially met all AF design specifications while Boeing’s version was too small to meet the AF’s specifications yet now, after all the political wrangling, Boeing’s plane is the one that has the better chance to “win” the newly revised contract. It would be far better if politicians weren’t able to influence what the military says they need and couldn’t add non-relevant riders to the defense budget.

you folks dont under stand that boeing is already selling the tanker and so is airbus there both selling there models, there is no toolup cost so forget that argument„,
to the number of aircraft , agree as long as you get real #‘s
but as I said there already flying

so where am I wrong

this has been going on for 20+ years someone needs to make a decision our militare buys are out of date before they are conceved

please understant that both of these planes are in current production

the fact that the gov wants to factor in fule cost is dumb fuel cost what it cost
you pick the best as it now stands

if I knew what fuel would cost 30–40 years from now I think that I might be worth 8 figers and could retire

forgive my spelling some times I miss a key

They use fuel cost because it figures into the life cycle cost. When you are buying a new car, you should consider things like fuel cost, maintenance, whether it fits in your garage, etc. Same with tankers.

In an Air Force AiM Point article it said, “The Air Force expects a first flight for its KC-X tanker by 2012 and hopes to have the plane flying refueling missions by 2017, service officials said Thursday” Boeings tanker is still a paper design. I bet 100 to 1 if they win the contract they will not make the 2012, afterall look at their past performance on the 2 foreign tankers they built and they can not use that design for their AF tanker. Least NGC/EADS has a flying tanker that meets it RFP proposal and can go into production with little problems. Boeing does not know if all their parts from their 767–200/300/400 will fit

Sorry Larry but you don’t quite have the facts right! Boeing DOES NOT have their KC-X Tanker in Production. They do have 767–100, 767–200, 767–300 and 767–400 aircraft flying but not what is being called the FrankenTanker. The Boeing FrankenTanker for the US Air Force is to be patched together from parts of the 767–200, 767–300 and 767–400 to meet all the requirements. This concept is now a paper airplane only and I doubt the design work has even been completed. That doesn’t worry Boeing though since meeting a schedule never has been important to them! The Pentagon is calling for first flight in 2012 so if that is a requirement then NGC clearly wins, but with Congress involved 2020 is close enough for Boeing.

From my reading of the RFP, competition is based on three factors: (1) mission capability (technical merit), (2) total proposed cost; and (3) non-mandatory requirments (additional capabilities). The cost factor is further broken into the (a) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) — how many new KC-Xs does it take to do the same mission as the KC-135; (b) Fuel Usage Rate Assessment (FURA) — whether the engines are gas guzzers or not; and © a Military Construction Assessment. Instead of just throwing the aircraft spares into the deal, they are also throwing in construction of bed down facilities for 164 aircraft (so the aviation companies will now have a very big construction company bidding with them). I basically see a level playing field. Which plane operates better at a cheaper 40-year life cycle cost.

Here’s the web site for the RFP: https://​www​.fbo​.gov/​i​n​d​e​x​?​s​=​o​p​p​o​r​t​u​n​i​t​y​&​a​m​p​;​m​ode=

The evaluation factors are included in Sec M, Evaluation Factors for Award

It is a level playing field unless you want to sell the government a heavy tanker instead of a medium tranker like they want.

Eyecare,

The KC-767 meets or EXCEEDS all KC-X requirements.

***

BS_Buster,

Sorry BS_Buster but YOU do not have the facts right! NG/EADS DOES NOT have their KC-X Tanker in production. Boeing HAS 3 KC-767 IN SERVICE with Japan with the 4th AND 2 of Italy’s 4 adding to the list by the end of the year. There are NO A330 MRTT/KC-30 in service ANYWHERE — the closest is with Australia & it will be interesting to see if Italy or Australia get their tankers IN SERVICE 1st.

***

Old391,

Yes Boeing DOES know all the component parts to the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT will fit. AND Boeing may not offer the KC-767AT this round but rather a varient based on the Italian KC-767A.

The last factor — non-mandatory requirements (of which there are 92 or 93) seems to be the tie-breaker, but can’t be used to decide the winner if the other two major factors result in a winner.

If Airbus gets the contract over Boeing, we have to import parts from a semifriendly nation. If this semi firendly nation get POed at us we are at their mercy for support of our airplanes. Think People, we need to pull back and quit supporting the world with our business. We have become a service oriented nation, not an industrial nation.

As to who is international or not, can anyone provide a breakdown by country and dollar value for Boeing’s current commercial fleet? It’s not just the U.S. and Canada. I recall seeing something about Taiwan, Mexico, and a dozen other countries. So, Boeing is not just an American company any longer, which, like Totota, my explain if their quality control issues.

By Semi-Friendly I sure hope you are talking about Boeing getting their parts from China! You are correct about being a service oriented nation. At least if NGC gets the contract the airplane will be assembled by Americans in Alabama, instead of the INTERNATIONAL Association of Areospace Workers (IAAW) union in Seattle. Ever wonder why that union is INTERNATIONAL? Canadians and other NON-AMERICANS assemble Boeing aircraft!

*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

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.