However, a smaller plan is what is really needed to meet the primary objective of refueling. The major problem is not that tankers run out of fuel, but having enough of them. There are significantly more runways in the world that can handle the smaller plan. So a larger plan that is more fuel efficient is really not the requirement, but a lot of planes adds increased operational flexibility, that is what the air force really needs. More planes not less more capable planes.

However, on the other side there was the one report released by the DOD in 06. It stated that there was very high inverse relationship between Arial refueling demand verse air transport in a conflict. That is when Arial refueling was needed the most air transportation was needed the lest and vise verses. Not sure what the Air Forces current position is but from what I was able to read it seems they weighted the secondary capabilities of transportation s mission of tankers more heavily mostly for long term cost savings (although one could argue the cost saving is minimal and add very little operational flexibility since commercial is substantial more flexible and cheaper to fill in any need transport needs.)

Although I was no longer in the industry when the previous bid was awarded, what I was able to read indicated this helped Northrop’s case (the primary was technical risk was significantly less with the Northrop/EADS team which effected the price per plane).

Northrop originally tried to go with a computerized 3D boom control joystick interface which should of substantially improved the capabilities. The only problem was the Air Force wanted back-up with fly-by-wire system incase the primary system went down, this greatly increased the cost. So they went ahead with the old Fly-by-wire.

All of this has all been public knowledge to anyone who has followed this (with maybe the exception of computerized boom operation). Assuming the Air Force was correct in penalizing Boeing for perceived technical risk and the increased cost due to this risk close enough(which most comments on the board tend to agree with) then the only downside to the Airbus solution was the requirement for a longer run-ways thus fewer location the tanker could operate out of (that and it being a Subsided foreign corporate which is very subjective so I think should be ignored). I am ignoring politics of it because it should not matter (not that that ever happens with large defense contracts).

I did agree with Boeing protest on how the Air Force changed the rules mid stream to award the contract, that I think was a valid protest point and it should have been rebid. All there other points were just silly.
The RFP should of stayed the same, I fail to understand why they felt the need to change the requirements other than so Northrop would not drop out in round 1. The technical risk cost per plane they added I think is to subjective that one would have to be a subject matter expert and be close to the Air Forces decision process to know if they was any. So we re-bid.

As far as I am concerned this should be the primary three criteria for awarding a tanker with the same budget. Cost per unit and operation cost differences (for TCM), technical risk to deliver solutions at cost, and runway size required (smaller is better). The real issue become weighting the cost verse technical development risk. Mostly how many units can one expect to get based on the risk differences between the two solutions. The air transport capabilities should only be taken into consideration from what I know in operating in wartime verses using commercial. Not if there is that much of a shorterm emergancy operational advantages in using military hardware verses commercial and how much this should be weighted.

From what I can tell with the new RFP the cost saving from transportation was left out of the bid criteria unless the difference was less than 1%. I think this is a mistake. However this great article http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usafs-kcx-aerial-tanker-rfp-03009/ appears to say that the requirements did not change to much under the Feb 24/10 timeline section. However, it seems to also state the selection criteria model of what would be primary verses secondary changed drastically. So it sound the RFP stayed the same but the award weighting changed drastically.

I honestly think Northrop when they bid in the first round, just had nothing better to bid on. There were very few new RFP R&D project comming out for their Airplane related product line divisions when they bid in 06/07. They knew the government would cover most of the bid cost so even a 20% win chance was worth the cost. However, now there are better opportunity (mostly the long range bomber next year) to spend the negotiated bid and proposal budgets on after the weighting criteria was changed. So they drop out.

Then again I am a little biased because I think a firm who commits corruption should not benefits on the product it committed corruption on. Also Boeing has pissed me off with their press releases. Trying to influence the public, the after voter should have absolutely no say on who should build the product. They are completely ignorant of the cost and operation requirements with the rare exception of the very few of use who actually have the background to understand. The only reasons voters should have any say is if the process is tainted and demand a fair competition from the government. Boeing history of the press releases on the tanker is substantially worse than the typical B.S. press releases we see coming from corporate America. Northrop has released their own but they were typical. On the other hand Boeing releases where extremely emotional, read like political party press releases for jobs, and takes on a religious tone as it is evil and unpatriotic to pick anyone but Boeing. For example “The 3rd thing Boeing’s official release emphasized was a pointed reference to the flight control computers that may have been a major cause of Air France Flight 447’s A330 crash over the Atlantic in 2009, with all hands lost”. How much more in gutter can you get with press releases?

There public sites to try to get voters to put pressure on congress were just plan sick, and it what is wrong with the whole apportion process in this nation.

Boeing win will yet again prove how little real competition there is in the Aerospace industry and having congress in your pocket is more important than delivering the best product for large ticket items.

The 767 is a capable basic design, however, technology has left manny of its systems behind.

Get your facts straight. Only skins, door panals & such airframe components are manufactured oversees on Boeing airframes (787 being the obvious exclusion) NOT entire airframe sections.

No, the USAF will now FINALLY be getting the overperforming, more capable, bigger than necessary but not too big tanker that EXCEED its stated requirements that it has wanted since prior to 9/11/01.*

Old391,

Stop drinking the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid! The KC-767 IS a multi-role tanker.

*

Tremain,

The only thing ‘new’ about the NewGen Tanker vs the previously offered KC-767AT is utilizing 787 cockpit technology & a boom which ‘looks’ different.

*

George Pinkham,

Therte are no operational tankers that reflect the configuration NG/EADS bid either.

*

Cocidius,

NG, Airbus/EADS’s record of late is WORSE than Boeing’s.

*

Thunder350,

They are using the 767 because it is closest size Boeing airframe to the optimum size for KC-X.

*

Old391,

Less than 30% of the 767 airframe is manufactured outside the US (& Boeing retains the ability to manufacture 100% if necessary) vs 95+% for the A330.

It is over with, I hope in 1 or 2 years that you will not be eating your words, wait I hope you do. Also to amazing that now Boeing is claiming it will create approx 60,000 jobs now that NGC/EADS is not in the picture. Sounds like Obama Stimulus package jobs he has created

He also did nothing when Cessna announced moving the Sky Catcher and jobs from KS to CHINA, who is this guy, Chet your a shrill for these fools if you think he is good for KS and American workers you are wrong.

Lou Dobbs, Last I checked he is no longer on TV, plus Lou had an idea to go to Victorville CA and take the 767’s in the desert and use them. Yeah he is qualifed to make a statement…

He also did nothing when Cessna announced moving the Sky Catcher and jobs from KS to CHINA, who is this guy, Chet your a shrill for these fools if you think he is good for KS and American workers you are wrong.

Lou Dobbs, Last I checked he is no longer on TV, plus Lou had an idea to go to Victorville CA and take the 767’s in the desert and use them. Yeah he is qualifed to make a statement…

For future ref, to save time, the Pentagon might as well just write all its future large aircraft contracts worded so as to adhere to what Boeing says it can offer, and any fighter aircraft programs written for Lockheed Martin.

On that note, General Dynamics get all wheeled combat vechicle contracts, BAE gets all tracked AFV contracts, and Oshkosh gets all the logistics trucks.

Let’s just do away with bidding altogether: it’ll save a lot of time, and money won’t be wasted constantly re-writing contracts when competitors cry.
Plus, it’ll shut the GAO up because they’ll no longer have a job listening to competitors’ contract appeals.

Unreal.