Tankers Tomorrow
TANKERS TOMORROW
With a recent hold by the Department of Defense on the next round of the KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition, what direction is the saga to replace the KC-135 likely to take?
by Christian Sheehy, MLF Editor
The U.S. Department of Defense has postponed the latest round of a disputed $35 billion, first of three-phase competition to supply the U.S. Air Force with 179 next-generation aerial refueling tankers to next year. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers that he decided to cancel the current round of bidding on the plane, a competition that has stretched seven years, because the Pentagon’s plan to award the contract by the end of the year no longer seemed practical.
Following the August 6 issuance of DoD’s revised draft Request for Proposals (RFP), the Pentagon was considering an extension on turnaround time for draft proposal submission when Secretary Gates stepped in with the decision to terminate the recompete until 2009. Prior to DoD’s decision to terminate the current rebid, KC-X competitors Boeing and the team of Northrop Grumman and Airbus parent EADS were in the process of considering the proposed draft RFP before offering platforms for consideration.
THE REVISED DRAFT RFP
Following the original KC-X compete which concluded with award to Northrop/ EADS the GAO upheld a Boeing award protest on multiple grounds, one which indicated that the Air Force unfairly gave Northrop extra credit and did not make it clear that size and the ability to carry more fuel would be a bonus. Changes in the draft request for proposal make that clearer, saying “additional value” will be given to any proposal that can carry more fuel than required. It will also evaluate the cost of each program on the expectation that each plane will last 40 years, longer than the earlier proposed 25-year life cycle.
Pentagon officials said the revamped competition would give more credit for an aircraft’s ability to offload fuel beyond the required amount, a decision that could favor the larger A330-based plane offered by the Northrop team, said two congressional aides.
The proposed new RFP indicated a longer lifecycle requirement which would seem to benefit Boeing’s 767 platform, a smaller aircraft requiring less fuel. On the other hand, extra credit for additional fuel offload capability is an apparent plus for the Northrop-EADS offering. Northrop’s A330 derivative can hold about 250,000 pounds of fuel, compared with the 205,000 pound capacity of a Boeing 767. The rebid was not to take into account the “industrial base” numbers or the World Trade Organization subsidy dispute between Airbus, Boeing, the U.S. and the European Union.
BOEING COMMENT
As it appears that with this cancellation of the KC-X procurement the process will start from square one under the new administration, Boeing indicates that it feels this will best serve the warfighter by allowing the appropriate time for this important and complex procurement to be conducted in a thorough and open competition. “At this time there is no way to know what the Air Force’s new requirements will be, said Boeing spokesperson Dan Beck. “As we await the new competition and a new set of requirements, Boeing’s tanker team will continue to do engineering and trade studies of different configurations so we are prepared to meet whatever requirements our customer sets. Until then any speculation about specific airframes is premature,” Beck added.
Boeing will continue to work closely with the Air Force on maintenance, modifications and upgrades for the existing fleet of KC-135s and KC-10 to keep them flying safely and reliably.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN COMMENT
Northrop Grumman believes that it is vital to expedite a process whereby the tanker replacement program is restarted as quickly as possible. “It is very disappointing for the defense acquisition process and the nation as a whole that Boeing’s political muscle beat out merit,” said Northrop Grumman spokesperson Randy Belote. “The fact is that Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology John Young stated that Northrop Grumman promised earlier delivery of a replacement tanker and a tanker that offered more capability and offload rate that was substantially cheaper to develop. He said, ‘Frankly, Boeing’s tanker was smaller and should have been cheaper’. A member of the American public might conclude that Boeing sought to charge more than the Defense Department reasonably expected to pay,” Belote added.
Northrop Grumman’s plans will be shaped by how quickly the government is able to get the Air Force’s badly needed tanker replacement program back on track. ♦