Fixed-price tanker contract at risk

Fixed-price tanker contract at risk

Air Force acquisition leaders worked hard to land a fixed-price contract for the KC-46 refueling tankers. The defense spending cuts dictated by sequestration could put that contract in jeopardy, said Maj. Gen. John Thompson, the tanker program executive officer.

If enough money was cut and the tanker contract is scuttled, the Air Force would have to renegotiate the contract without any certainty it could keep its fixed-price status, said Thompson, who took over the tanker acquisition program five weeks ago.

“Depending on how sequestration is implemented, I might have to break my fixed price contract that I got such a good deal on,” Thompson said. “I don’t want to break my contract and I’m fearful that sequestration may force me to do that.”


The fixed price contract protects the Air Force from spiraling costs. Thompson warned in his speech Tuesday at the Air Force Association’s annual conference that sequestration would result in “catastrophic” effects for the tanker program scheduled to replace the aging KC-135 Stratotanker.

Air Force acquisition officials signed a $4.9 billion engineering, manufacturing and development contract with Boeing in Februarary 2011. The Air Force plans to buy 179 tankers to bolster their fleet.

Thompson said in his speech that the Air Force must not get complacent and simply hand the program off to Boeing. A senior Air Force official explained after Thompson’s speech that when the tanker program office tried to hire new people, leaders there were told: “You have a fixed price contract, so you have nothing to manage.”

“That couldn’t be farther from the truth,” the senior official said. “We’re in a good place right now, but we’re in a good place because of a lot of really hard work.”

Although Thompson confirmed the tanker program is “in a good place from a cost, schedule and tech performance standpoint,” an early warning sign of trouble was uncovered Tuesday. Boeing is burning through its management reserve for the KC-46 program faster than expected.

A management reserve is an extra fund set aside if problems that occur early in development. Boeing said this has occurred to pay for expedited risk-reduction efforts on the program.

““We have brought forward the allocation of management reserve largely in order to expedite risk mitigation opportunities, such as system integration laboratories,” said Damien Mills, a Boeing spokesman. “However, the total management reserve budget remains unchanged.”

There was good news for Boeing Tuesday. Thompson said his program office was contacted by Singapore leaders with interest in buying their own fleet of KC-46 tankers. The Singapore air force also flies the KC-135 Stratotanker.

International sales could stem any losses Boeing absorbs early in development with its fixed price contract.

Join the Conversation

I’m sorry, but this is getting tiring. The Tanker contract, like the F-35 contract, are fundamentally unsustainable and simply unrealistic in the real world going forward. This revision of analysis and conclusions should have been assessed at the least, 3–4 years ago. I’m sure top brass decision makers have been aware at least in private of the real fiscal conditions going forward, but naturally they will need to publicly support and defend the pre-conceived and lofty Program objectives and expectations to the very end. That’s their job.

But no, the ‘original’ Tanker expectations are simply not sustainable, nor realisitc given the austere budget environments going forward (ie. not the assumed, indefinite, year over year baseline increases) and given the other competing Programs and requirements needing funding as well.

Besides, with a radically reduced TACAIR and Bomber force structure and hence, reduced national strategy requirement by default going forward, there would not be such a requirement for the significantly large Strategic Air-refueling replacement fleet to begin with. By the 2030, there simply won’t be 2,100 USAF fighters and 700 USN/USMC fighters requiring to be zipped around the globe and country on a continuous basis, nor a 140 bomber fleet.

This is not being critical, it’s just the strategic reality.

Personally, I’d contemplate examining a revised acquisition and requesting a price-quote for something like a split Buy/Lease Tanker deal, possibly 50/50… with the Leased Tankers possibly being a cheaper and accelerated Commercial derivative KC-767 Tanker Transport (for added flexibility) variant, similar to the Italian KC-767 Tanker Transport?

That might free up enough annual Procurement funds to recapitalize/upgrade the other competing requirements too over the duration of the acquisition and under said austere budget environments?

“A management reserve is an extra fund set aside if problems that occur early in development. Boeing said this has occurred to pay for expedited risk-reduction efforts on the program.”

Wow. You mean to tell me that Boeing is actually spending its own money to compensate for unseen problems? I wonder whose money Lockheed Martin used for the F-35’s unseen problems…

Starting in the late ‘90s, passenger airlines began to retire large numbers of DC-10 widebody airframes with plenty of usable time left on them.

I averred at the time that this was a potentially enormous bargain for USAF. That the service should buy up as many well treated preowned DC-10 frames as they could, give them a glass cockpit conversion, and install the well understood and quite capable KC-10 Extender tanker package in each.

The Extender carries a whole lot of fuel, and carries it an impressively long way. Loiters damn near forever. It fits superbly into a theater model that’s shifting from an Atlantic to a Pacific focus, with the much longer transit distances implied by the latter.

USAF couldn’t be bothered to consider such silly ideas. Instead they interminably wasted time with overcomplicated tanker RFPs. Followed by a stupidly long new-build tanker competition that is now, finally, after various comic-opera interludes, coughing up a less capable long range tanker at a high price tag, that won’t be available in substantial numbers until the end of this decade.

In the meantime, guess who figured out that the high quality retiring DC-10 frames were a colossal economic bargain? FedEx. Who bought them all up and gave them a glass cockpit overhaul and who are flying the blazes out of them as highly reliable, highly capable players in the FedEx global air logistics network.

Of course, FedEx actually understand competitive dollar value economics and FedEx actually understand basic engineering rules. Unlike USAF.

Vigorously apply head (H) to wall (W). Repeat.

No you don’t understand, Managment Reserve is a fund that is established with Contract Money early in a program to deal with unknown problems, It is usually a percentage of the contract (typically around 10%) taken off the top. Boeing is not spending its own money, yet!

Okay. Thanks for the explanation.

Lul…!

Anyways. After 9/11 a bunch of airlines began to shed aircraft, merge or go under.

Do you think there’s opportunity there to recapitalize on airframes? They wouldn’t be DC-10s and it wouldn’t be plug and play as the example you mention…

Additionally, might canning KC-135s and the older tankers free up funds to save the new tanker contract?

Those of you who are so ready to give up our share of the international markets should ask your fellow citizens if our country is ready to slide back into slime of second place. Budget priorities are obvious but we have yet to relinquish our appetitie for international trade. If we step back one step, others will step forward; a vacumn is “unnatural”. We should maintain our military position of strength, and only shed it after the plowshares have been created by “ALL” of our foes (those opposed to our existance!). The military programs as they exist, should continue into the forseeable future. Perhaps, investing in increasing the education of the 46% would spark an increase in our economy, taxes and funds for all of our military programs. :)

This Tanker Fiasco as gone long enough. The USAF should suck it up and take the Boeing KC-767 or turn a Boeing — 777 into a Tanker transport. At the Same time all USAF top Leadership should tied to Congressional and presidential approval. Which would mean the USAF leadership would be replaced every time a new congress is in session.

Also there are lots and lots of used pickup trucks out there. The Army should consider bolting machineguns on them and putting guys in the back with bazookas. That would save $$$$ on tanks and APC’s!!

imagine that… i wonder how this will factor in when sequestration hits

Like many others I too am frustrated with the way this and other USAF programs have been run. It appears the USAF wants a “perfect and fully developed” aircraft when the first squadron reached IOC/FOC level. Instead at least in the tanker aircraft they should have made it a Block/Spiral program to start. Block 0 would be used to prove the refueling, and basic systems systems. Basic systems being “combi” related that allow the aircraft to be used in the transport and cargo roles. These initial Block 0 aircraft would later upgraded to higher blocks. Other capabilities such as Medevac, networking, self defense, and others would be added in higher block numbers. At least under this process we see aircraft and program progress sooner. We should have seen KC-46A Block 0 aircraft delivered and conducting refueling test by now. After all the Italians and Japanese Air forces flying a similar aircraft now. Also IAI’s Bedek Aircraft division is offering a boom option to it’s 767 MRTT conversion.

The “KC” meant Tanker/Cargo, the KC 135 could only do 1 of the 2 letters effectively but not quite as effectively together

This article got it wrong. The threat of sequestration only effects time and delivery dates of the KC-46. And not all KC-135 will be replaced a number will be up graded and fly till the 2040s.

Sequestration affects how many they can buy and when. I’m guessing the fixed price contract says “USAF will buy 50 aircraft at $30 million each at 5 planes per year” or something like that. If the Air Force doesn’t have the money anymore and has to change a single word of that statement then the entire deal has to be renegotiated.

I dunno, how about a KC-17? Either dedicated or quick install kits. It seemed to work pretty well for the C-130.
Imagine how much fuel that sucker could haul.

Ah, yes the Air Force wants new fuel tankers. If you read what the General said, it would cause me to break my fixed priced contract. Question ? Your telling me the manufacturer can raise his prices during production of your SIGNED CONTRACT really!!!. Then the article says Boeing got a 4.9 BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT for Engineering (What BOEING is saying is we have no idea what were going to build and not even have a drawing on paper yet) and then Development ( What that means is YOU need to BUY the TOOLS and MACHINERY FOR US to build what I have no plan for yet to sell to you) and finally Manufacturing ( Once we get here you have 4.9 BILLION into it so we know you will not stop, so we“ll charge you as much as we want after we decide how many 100’s of MILLIONS of DOLLARS profit we want to make). This is the why and how the MILITARY is getting hit hard, people are finally had enough of the abuses the Defense Industry does. Why should we the taxpayer pay for all the research and development and equipment and the Industry doesn’t spend there own money to compete to build a piece of military equipment. And finally when the MILITARY needs a better toy let the public in on it, I know they would get better ideas and designs from the public than from a Industry that only wants everything there way. WAKE UP MILITARY PROCUREMENT, KEEP THIS UP AND YOU WILL SEE CUTS YOU WOULD NEVER IMAGINE. YOU EITHER PROTECT THE TAXPAYER AND GET THE BEST PRODUCT AT THE CHEAPEST PRICE OR YOU’LL HAVE CIVILIANS DOING YOUR JOB AND IT WON’T BE PRETTY. The country is on a path of fiscal suicide, and the MILITARY and SOCIAL PROGRAMS WILL GET HIT HARD FIRST.

Meanwhile, Airbus has a tanker acutally flying in the Austrailian Air Force. I don’t see the need for a lot of development costs, etc to line Boeing’s pockets when we could order a proven aircraft and paint U.S. markings on the side.

Pardon me Droc, but no one forces the military to accept any contract. They either deny or accept. How is it that your fantasies include contractors hosing the govt.? That’s like saying that bad ol’ car dealership sold me something I didn’t want at too high of a price. That would make me a moron wouldn’t it? BTW, the folks building this stuff pay taxes and have families too. Would you prefer them on the street?

My point was the system, and what I wrote is the way it happens. If you don’t believe what I said check into it. We are paying ALL the COSTS associated with anything that’s important to the defense and protection of our soldiers and country. My guess is you work for that industry or you would agree with me. It’s no longer acceptable to the general population that the military get a open checkbook or not be able to justify or prove what they buy. There is just to much evidence that the military orders things first and then thinks about costs later. You know what I’m talking about, as it’s in the military news and on this website. The military must become fiscally responsible.

Let’s not Mention the fact that Airbus had a Boom that fell off of the Tanker during testing in the air.

The airbus kc-x was actually ok.. They have had many sucessfull flights already made and delivered to other airforces to date. One mishap is better than spending billions for something the AF wont see for years with boeing… Lets face it.. usaf made a bad choice…

It would be nice if someday Congress and these Defense contractors would stop and think of a better way to do this, they might be able to think more clearly if they were to put the defense of our country over the defense of their profits.

The KC-46 is an updated KC-767 design. Updated avionics, but structurally a 767.

I don’t understand why nobody else seems to get this, but “fixed price” contracts for weapon systems procured over periods of several years can be a guarantee of higher unit cost overall. Companies cannot produce aircraft or anything else at a sell–price that doesn’t meet actual cost. To protect themselves from risk, it is thus inevitable that contractors will bid higher unit prices when they must anticipate parts replacements and re-engineering that won’t otherwise be reimbursed 7 to 10 years downstream.

Unlike civilian mass markets, military systems procurement almost never benefits from economies of scale. Production quantities are too small and occur over much longer periods than in the civilian sector. If you wonder about that, just try to find a civilian airliner that has flown in numbers for as long as a B-52 or even a B-1B.

Likewise, while taxpayers may complain that the profit goes in before the name goes on, reality is much different: if companies aren’t profitable, they don’t attract new capital or renew their facilities. Companies that fail to attract investment will shrink or die. Profit is not of itself a dirty word, even if 15% profit might legitimately be in today’s economy.

“just try to find a civilian airliner that has flown in numbers for as long as a B-52 or even a B-1B“
DC-3, and the 707 to name just two. The DC-3 is still in small airline and cargo service many places in the world. The B-52 has gone through several major changes, making it quite a different airplane. Even a few of Tom Clancy’s fictional ideas have been implemented. The B-52 is still in service because it’s less expensive than the replacement costs, and still capable of doing a job that needs to be done in modern times.

I love this reply!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) Seems to work for the enemy. Only problem is the military-industrial complex will not be spending-making billions of dollars on the project. So Congress will never buy it.

How dare you talk badly about our acquisition programs. The people of this forum will surely vote your comment down.

Upgraded –135’s? First I’ve heard of it and I work about 50 feet from the KC-135 depot line and program office.

And guess what aircraft was shed by almost every airline and was sitting at lots thru out the West? The Boeing 767. Why? Poor Performance, Very unreliable and Always poorly supported by Boeing. So now the USAF is going to make it all better. What did my employer do after 9/11? We replaced 28 Boeing 767 with 18 Airbus A-330s. We carry more passengers & significantly more cargo with less maintenance, parts and fuel, all done with 10 fewer aircraft
PS there are 16 MD-11s sitting in Kingman, AZ that all have less than 6 years of use on them, Do the conversion, 8 on each coast, kill the Boeing contract.

“PS there are 16 MD-11s sitting in Kingman, AZ that all have less than 6 years of use on them, Do the conversion, 8 on each coast, kill the Boeing contract.”

I was the person who had been talking up taking good condition used DC-10 frames and making them into KC-10 tankers (to match the existing KC-10s that were bought new).

It would be nice if a similar KC-11 conversion of retired MD-11s made sense. But there are some serious unanswered questions about safety.

McDonnell-Douglas made a bunch of major changes while designing the MD-11. It is a very different animal in terms of its flight dynamics than the DC-10. Despite their similar appearance.

The MD-11 has a truly frightening track record of crashing while landing, esp. when landing at high gross weights. Not that tankers ever do that. The DC-10 was relatively forgiving to fly on final approach. The MD-11 is unforgiving, sometimes lethally so.

No, lets mention the over 500 refuelings now completed by the KC-30MRTT without any problems. And also that the Royal Air Force just recieved their 4th complete ready to fly and fuel aircraft wjile the USAF’s winner is “under developement”.

Examine a revised a acquistion… your name is appropriate then… as you are not from this world… acquistions are so full of pitfalls and setbacks that I believe to abandon a good FFP contract and go back to that is being extremely short sighted.
.

*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 | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.