Posted on 08/07/2008 10:02:08 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
The Pentagon plans to take extra capabilities - including added fuel offload capacity - into account as it scores revised proposals from Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS that could lead to $35 billion in work replacing aging KC-135 tankers.
The Defense Department will consider "value over threshold" when reviewing the revised offers, said Shay Assad, director of defense procurement and acquisitions policy, during an Aug. 6 briefing at the Pentagon.
This could put Boeing's 767-200LRF-based proposal at a disadvantage as its cargo, passenger and fuel offload abilities are hampered by its size compared to the larger Airbus A330-200 design proposed by Northrop.
Today, a revised draft request for proposals (RFP) for the KC-X refueling tanker was provided to both teams, kicking off the recompetition of the controversial program.
The new draft RFP is intended to provide "clear and unambiguous insight into the relative order of importance" of various capabilities, including fuel offload, cargo and passenger capacity and survivability, among other aspects. Assad did not identify the capabilities in order of importance, and DOD officials did not publicly release the draft RFP, breaking with typical protocol, which calls for solicitations to be posted publicly online. The draft was, however, sent to Congress and is already drawing criticism because it may favor the larger A330 offering. (Click here (6.1-meg pdf) and here (1.2-meg pdf) for the documents).
For instance, an aide to Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) argued there is an obvious change inserted into the system requirements document in the revised tanker RFP that "clearly" favors the larger Airbus aircraft "even though it is not necessarily connected to any real-world use of tanker."
The congressional Government Accountability Office found that in the earlier competition the Air Force did not clearly articulate how it would score attributes that surpassed the threshold requirements for the system. This, among other irregularities, called into question the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America win of a $1.5 billion development contract for the new refueler Feb. 29.
Both teams will have about one week to discuss the draft RFP with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. By mid-month, a final RFP will be released and contractors will have about 45 days to submit their revised proposals. Source selection should be finished by the end of the year with a final winner announced by New Year's Eve, Assad said.
The existing contract with Northrop Grumman will remain in stop-work status until a winner is selected. If Northrop Grumman again prevails, its contract will be revised and restarted. If, however, Boeing wins this new competition, Northrop's contract will be terminated, he said.
The Pentagon does plan to shift the life-cycle cost estimates from an expected useful life of 25 years to 40 years on the aircraft, Assad says. And, it will take into consideration the cost of fuel and anticipated fuel burn rates of each aircraft throughout those years.
V-22 refueling was an objective KPP, not a threshold KPP. From the KC-X SRD:
3.2.10.1.1.10 The aircraft should be capable of aerial refueling all current USAF tanker compatible tilt rotor receiver aircraft using above criteria (OBJECTIVE, KPP #1).
3.2.10.1.5.2.7 While engaged, the KC-X should be capable of maneuvering throughout the entire refueling envelope, in accordance with applicable air refueling manuals and standard agreements, of any compatible current and programmed tilt rotor receiver aircraft (OBJECTIVE, KPP #1).
What UAVs currently have in-flight refueling capabilities?
Obviously, none yet. Again from the KC-X SRD:
3.2.10.1.1.11 The aircraft should be capable of aerial refueling all current and programmed USAF tanker compatible receiver aircraft using the above criteria at its maximum inflight gross weight (OBJECTIVE, KPP #1).
62 KC-135 were lost at all. Only 4 due to aerial refueling. The most spectacular loss was at Palomares, Spain.
The boom of KC-45 got a greater envelope than the proposed Boeing boom. What can be done faster - retract a boom or accelerate an aircraft?
The Australian KC-30B made several certification test flights equipped with boom and refueling pods.
The speed limits for 767 I know of are without refueling pods.
The Italian KC-767A got problems with buffeting wings due to the wing pods. One solution was to reduce speed. I don't know Boeing's final solution.
I don't think Boeing has the final solution. However, since the KC-767AT uses the -300 wing, it may not have the flutter problem - or it could be worse. We won't know until the prototype flies.
Meanwhile, EADS has completed boom testing on the A310MRTT test aircraft, and is moving to validating the boom on the first Aussie KC-30B.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.