Boeing: USAF Had Worries About EADS Boom

Aviation Week ^ | Apr 4, 2008 | Amy Butler

[MHalblaub]

Members of the U.S. Air Force’s source selection group raised concerns about the performance of the EADS refueling boom design during the KC-X tanker competition, according to Mark McGraw, Boeing’s tanker executive.

The Air Force officials were “speaking loudly” behind closed doors in meetings about their worries, and this information found during the discovery phase of Boeing’s protest of the award to Northrop Grumman/EADS is “very encouraging” support for the company’s protest, McGraw told reporters during an April 3 teleconference.

[...]

Air Force worries about the risk associated with EADS’ boom performance, however, weren’t included in the final assessment of scoring for the team, McGraw says. This is one reflection of how McGraw says the Air Force unfairly docked Boeing’s proposal for cost and risk while ignoring potential pitfalls with the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America KC-45 design.

[...]

[MHalblaub]

Where is the risk for the US Air Force with the EADS' boom?

EADS has to deliver 5 A330 MRTT with a boom to Australia in 2009. So years to test before the US Air Force will get the first KC-45.

If EADS fails to provide an operating boom there will be another boom supplier.

A real risk is if a refueling wing pod causes vibrations to a wing.

[A.A. Cunningham]

EADS: USAF Has Worries About Boeing Not Being Able to Meet Schedule or Budget As It Has Failed to Do With Japanese And Italian Tankers.

[jaydubya2]

I have been told that EADS has never built an in flight refueling tanker, Can anyone confirm that?

[MHalblaub]

I have been told that EADS has never built an in flight refueling tanker, Can anyone confirm that?

The Canadian and German A310 MRTT are in service since 2004.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mrtt/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mrtt.htm

[Doctor Raoul]

Eurpoean designed boom probably wasn’t stiff enough...

[jaydubya2]

Tanks!

[A.A. Cunningham]

You were lied to.

A310-MRTT

[MHalblaub]

“The first in-flight wet contact of the EADS MTA Air Refuelling Boom System (ARBS) has successfully been performed using an F-16 aircraft.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/03/mil-080304-eads01.htm

That happened right at the day the Air Force announced the deal. Therefore Air Force couldn’t take this test into account for the bidding contest.

Well, Air Force was right to think the boom won’t be a great risk.

[norton]

So:
Airbus has built tankers and they are in service.
To date they are strictly drogue and probe equipped.
Sometime in 2009 they are scheduled to deliver their first boom equipped tanker - using a boom that was first tested this month.

At least there will be some time in operations to prove the design.

However, this is one on me - I'd thought that both designs would use essentially the same components and not two different delivery systems.

PS: "Lied to" might be a bit harsh;
this is a new line for Airbus' and the boom was not up and going when selected - so it did imply risk.
That said, it's not unusual to be fixing things right up to delivery.
Boeing's prtotest seems more related to misapplication of specs, revising some critera, and on failing to apply the same subjective criteria to both bidders.
I doubt it will have any effect on the outcome.

[CarrotAndStick]

What are the porthole windows on the refueller for?

Do these planes carry a large crew?

[Oztrich Boy]

this is a new line for Airbus' and the boom was not up and going when selected - so it did imply risk.

Neither was Boeing's Generation 6 boom. In fact it hasn't been built. Both companies implied risk. But Boeing was going to take longer to find any problems.

[Doe Eyes]

Do these planes carry a large crew?

They have extra space when fully loaded with fuel, so they can also ferry passengers.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I have been told that EADS has never built an in flight refueling tanker, Can anyone confirm that?

PS: "Lied to" might be a bit harsh;

What would you call that lie, a Hillaryesque "misspeak"?

Any idea of the number of aircraft that utilize hose and drogue refueling as opposed to boom?

[A.A. Cunningham]

Multi-purpose. They can be used as refuelers or freighters or transports.

[norton]

If the source KNEW otherwise, he lied.
If the source believed otherwise and passed it on, he didn't lie.
That is somehow a difficult concept?

Considering the Navy, Marines, and early USAF add-ons, there are more probe/drogue refills overall.
However, the USAF (and NATO) requirements were for both...another reasonably simple concept that Airbus seems to take seriously, if belatedly.

[MHalblaub]

An A330 with boom?

http://www.videocentre.eads.net/cutv/cms/_vm1500//_vv_1207640585117/fa_playlist/_skin_eadstv/1870/play?show=now&startClip=0&playSpecial=6994

I can’t see the boom.