Posted on 09/24/2009 10:28:25 AM PDT by jazusamo
WASHINGTON — The Air Force is poised to reopen a troubled $35 billion contract competition for mid-flight refueling tankers between Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp.
"After eight years, we can finally get on with this program," Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., said Thursday.
Murtha chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense. He was one of several lawmakers briefed by Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and other Pentagon officials on the latest request for bids — due out Friday — on the tanker competition.
Washington Democrat Rep. Norm Dicks, a Boeing supporter, said the Air Force is seeking to reduce the number of requirements to replace its aging tankers to 373 from 800, in a bid to make the process more transparent.
The department also changed course on two other issues. It will select a winner based on "best value" and not price, and made the deal a fixed-price contract. The switch from a cost-plus pact means the contractor will be paid a negotiated amount regardless of extra expenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
“After eight years, we can finally get on with this program,” Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., said Thursday.
So... the check cleared? Someone ask Murtha not to spend it all in one place.
Well, there's always changes.
Vegas odds on this deal? 100 to 1 bet that this competition fails too.
Bring it on down to Alabama. We’re a right to work state - NO UNION!
I would guess some of Boeings subcontractors that Fat Jack Murtha is in cahoots with have made large campaign contributions to him, maybe much more than that.
http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/drfp-hill-brief.pdf
I can’t see Boeing going for fixed-price on a aircraft they haven’t yet designed. Unless they have a bailout guarantee already sorted.
Either make a retrofit tanker version of the C-17 or go with the Boeing Blended Wing Body.
Use the C-17 Retrofit to also have a "block" for a growth version of Pratt's new Geared Turbofan for a 15% fuel consumption reduction.
Thanks for linking.
I agree unless they’re banking a lot on past performance of plane they are going to bid.
Use the C-17 Retrofit to also have a "block" for a growth version of Pratt's new Geared Turbofan for a 15% fuel consumption reduction.
The C-17 might be OK for hose-and-drogue refueling, but cannot be used with a flying boom. The Blended Wing Body doesn't even exist as a design yet, so it has no chance of even being in prototype form by the time the contract specifices in-service date.
Pratt's Geared Turbofan is a very small engine, around 20,000 lbs/thrust each, whereas the C-17 uses four 40,000 lbs/thrust PW F117 engines.
No, it will be a split deal. Each contractor will get 50% and we’ll inherit higher maintenance and logistical costs as the legacy.
How many DC-10/MD-10's are in mothballs in Arizona? How much would it cost to refurbish each and recommission as KC-10's? The Air Force's own website says that 90% of the components are identical between the civil aircraft and the military tanker. Adding or modifying the remaining 10% - the necessary avionics, boom and controls, fuel tanks, etc. - has to be cheaper than buying new.
The problem is if this was Reagan not Obozo the why not we can do great things some of my hair-brain ideas would be a go flight.
The point is they would push the envelope.
A growth GTF is not out of the question, use one of the cores from East Hartford.
BWB? They are flying large scale models, keep tweaking them and make this the launch platform.
The C-17, I know someone who was on inital flight test. It is a better aircraf than people give it credit for being. I say why not try a boom? If we can't do it give it to the Israeli Firm IAI they would make it happen....
In order to meet the mission requirement specifications of the KC-X, boneyard DC-10-30Fs would have to be stripped down to bare metal and completely rewired, replumbed, an all new digital flight deck designed, etc.
No, it wouldn’t be any cheaper than starting with a newly manufactured green airframe, and at the end of the process you have a zero hour airframe, not a refurbhised thousand hour airframe.
So you're saying it'll cost a hundred million or so per airframe to refurbish them? I find that very hard to believe. And as for a thousand hour airframe, how many hours to the KC-135s have on them? Tankers take off from a prepared runway, land on a prepared runway, and don't do much in the way of stressful maneuvering in between. Refurbishing existing airframes will most likely put several hundred tankers in the air for a fraction of the cost and in far less time than building from new will do. And the KC-10 is a known platform that has performed solid service for 20 or more years.
My point is that the biggest item of a geared turbofan is in fact the gearbox, and that item is the highest wear item, causing a lowering of the time on wing of the engine due to maintenance, and does not scale up easily. Just ask the Europeans who are trying to build the world's second largest geared turboprop engines for the A400M.
My point is that Boeing is 2 1/2 years behind getting the Boeing 787 into the air, an aircraft that should have been in service with All Nippon Airways in October of 2008. Starting from scratch, it will be a decade at least before a full scale BWB could fly.
In case you missed it, at the planned replacement rate of 15 KC-Xs per year, the last KC-135 replaced under this contract will be 80 years old. We need new tankers NOW, not in a decade.
If we can give a Trillion dollars in stimulus money to Zero's buddies, we can spend 35 billion on new tankers, split the buy between Airbus/Northrop and Boeing, and double the acquisition rate to 30+ per year.
Boeing has dropped their “6th generation” refueling boom that they bid last time, sticking instead with the 5th generation boom that they delivered to the Italian and Japanese air forces (four years late) so hopefully they can quickly produce a US Air Force KC-767.
Airbus has also built A330 MRTTs for Australia (also years behind schedule) and have contracts to build them for the UK, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Hopefully they also can quickly produce a US Air force KC-30.
I was all for the Boeing KC-767 bid last time, right up until the bids were opened. All along the KC-X program was being described as a $40 billion program, until Airbus/Northrop came in with a $35 billion bid. The KC-30 could deliver more fuel, work from shorter airfields at higher altitudes, and carry more cargo than the KC-767, and do so at a lower price tag.
There was merit in the objections that the KC-30 would have required increased ramp space and larger hangers, but there is no question that especially in the first 48 hours the increased cargo capacity of the KC-30 would have been invaluable in any massive deployment.
I think there is room in the Air Force inventory for both aircraft, as long as they are acquired twice as fast as either one alone could be delivered to the USAF.
Yes, logistics costs would be increased, but not that dramatically compared to flying exactly two VC-25As, for example.
The KC-10 is based on the DC-10-30CF convertible freighter. Only 26 non-Air Force DC-10-30CFs were built. There were only 163 DC-10-30P passenger versions built. The passenger versions would have to have their floors strengthened for the cargo role specif iced in the KC-X contract.
There simply aren't enough airframes around to fulfill the KC-X contract. And based on previous experience, it would not save much if any money by starting with a used airframe, considering all of the new systems that have to be installed.
Read the KC-X requirements document when it is posted. I read the last one, and the KC-X is supposed to be a tanker, a freighter, a passenger aircraft, a self-contained forward refueling station, a medivac aircraft, an airborne communications relay node, and an electronics reconnaissance aircraft.
Years? That's the Boeing Wedgetail AWACS.
The A330MRTT was due to be delivered early 2009. It's slipped about a year - at least 6 months of the time is because the RAAF decided after contract sighting that it would like two boom operator stations instead of one. Also some delay because Australia agreed to allow Airbus to show Aircraft#1 off at the Paris Airshow.
I wasn’t sure how long the delay was on aircraft #1, but it was at least a year behind in boom development. Aircrafts 2-5 will be converted by Qantas, I believe.
Has the KC-30A #1 passed fuel through it’s boom yet? I know the A310MRTT boom demonstrator has.
As for Wedgetail, that’s been a well documented fiasco.
Thanks for linking!
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.