If you've been following the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition, you might be aware that the next major milestone is the release of the final Request for Proposal (RFP). Late yesterday afternoon we saw a notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website alerting industry that the final RFP could be released in a couple of weeks.
Here's an excerpt:
The KC-X Program Office plans to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the KC-X Program not earlier than 23 Feb 2010. This acquisition will be a full and open, best value competition conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15, contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented.
Couple of key things to point out in this 15-day notice:
- It reminds readers that the new tanker's primary mission will be to provide aerial refueling support to joint and allied forces engaged in homeland defense, global air-bridge deployments, and theater conflicts.
- The new KC-X tanker fleet will provide an enduring cargo capability for material, passenger and medical/humanitarian aid transportation.
- Industry proposals will be due no earlier than 75 days after the release of the final RFP.
- The estimated date to award the contract is in the fourth quarter of this fiscal year.
We have to prove we are worthy of building this nation's new generation air refueling tanker. Boeing will bring together the brightest in the aviation industry and we will show our competitors and the world that we deserve the honor and privilege of providing the selfless military men and women serving our country with the best equipment the world has to offer.
We must offer and deliver an American designed and built combat-ready tanker at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. And in 15 days, Boeing will do just that.
Comments
In a recent article titled, “Aerospace Alliance Wants Tanker Project Split”, one can apply the old adage, “the competition has blinked”. Several factors why, all of which have value for a later discussion, however, if you are scrambling to get a "piece of the pie", you might be willing to compromise on this vital Air Force weapon system decision by treating it as though it were a “piece of pie” rather than a weapon system for our fly and fight aviators. This will only serve to drive the cost higher for Air Force and the taxpayer, and in the end, pander to an inferior weapon system.
Stated in the article, and on several radio promotions I might add, “Should Congress opt for a dual buy contract with both Boeing and Northrop Grumman building the aircraft, the Northrop Grumman operation in Mobile will be constructed and the Boeing operation in Fort Walton Beach will benefit,” Wenstrand said. “For Northwest Florida, this situation is a win-win rather than an all or nothing approach to supporting either Boeing or Northrop Grumman.”
One could argue for a dual buy, if it meant, hypothetically speaking, a B-757 and a B-767, or like aircraft. You would have an intra-theater/tactical and strategic fleet, crews “could” be dual qualified to fly in the 757 or 767, avionics similar, flight characteristics nearly the same, interchangeable parts, to include a smaller global logistics pipeline, and the list goes on. But to buy two entirely different aircraft, B-767 and A330, you are buying two aircraft with little in common. It would be analogous to apples and oranges.
This only serves to take the focus away from what is being sought…a weapon system for our air refueling warriors that is right sized, and the right fit for the fight, now and in the future. This is not a jobs program; it’s about Air force combat readiness! This is not to belittle the need for American jobs, or the severely wounded United States job situation. Whichever aircraft is chosen, jobs will be created! And though the congress can influence the buy, hopefully, they will have an informed, sound operational basis on the right weapon system for the right reasons. So why drive the cost up with a dual buy?
Specifically, on a buy of 180 aircraft, and assuming a buy of 90 aircraft each from two different vendors only serves to drive the unit cost higher. Additionally, you have to maintain two different logistics pipelines for global support, different ground support requirements, maintenance support, as well as flight crew training. You can’t safely consider dual flight qualifications. I would be very uncomfortable with airplanes of such a size difference and flight characteristics, fly by yoke, fly by joystick to name a few, that dual qualifying would be a safety risk. There would be very few, if any, commonalities in makeup and parts that would make a dual buy anything but prudent.
There is no sense dwelling on the impact to the United States job situation. As I said earlier, either way, American jobs will be created. So let’s focus on the right weapon system for the men and women who have to employ these aircraft and fly them into harm’s way, without a political appeasement decision. The Boeing 767 is the right size and the right answer for America, the Air force, the taxpayer, and the war fighter!
Stu Pugh is an independent operational voice, former Chief of Tanker Operations, Air Mobility Command, 30 plus years of tanker experience, and not influenced Boeing or any other outside source. It’s about what’s right, not what’s politically right.
From an aircraft design perspective, what would be the form of the most efficient purpose designed tanker? Back in the day, in an effort to produce a medium range jet, the Russians, the British and the Americans all came up with a tri-jet. Either they were copying, or independently arrived at the same logical end to fulfill the task. What form would an air refueler naturally take? I'm guessing the KC-135 comes prettty close. Fifty years later, take off four engines and put on two and there lies the answer. Those old Boeing engineers knew what they were doing.
In my RFP, the 767 is larger than the ideal solution. But it looks like a railroad tank car with wings and a cockpit, which tells me that it is the right plane for the job.