Pentagon Wants New Tanker Bids from Boeing, Northrop/EADS

[Matt Molnar]

U.S. reopening $35 billion aerial tanker bidding (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25607574/)
Secretary of Defense's office will directly oversee process, not Air Force

WASHINGTON - Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. will submit new offers for a disputed $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, and the Pentagon will pick a winner by the end of the year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that his office — not the Air Force — will oversee the competition between Boeing and the team of Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

The plan, which hands control to the Pentagon acquisition chief John Young and sets up a dedicated source-selection committee, shows that senior civilians at the Defense Department have lost confidence in the Air Force's ability to manage the contract. [Full Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25607574/)]

[Derf]

I am really torn, the way I see it, Boeing just looks better as it is a U.S. aircraft but the airbus would have helped the Local economy as it helps our friends over at Northrop Grumman. It is really not a US win or loose type of issue like most people think.

But then there is the fact that Boeing gave them what they asked for and the Airbus was NOT what they asked for. If they would have wanted the bigger airframe, Boeing would have converted a 777 and not the 767.

I have gotten many different views and my perspective may not be correct, but this is how I see this right now. I think it was done wrong, but I would like the deal to benefit Northrop Grumman. I would really like to SEE a Boeing tanker filling U.S. aircraft, but people that are much smarter than me will be overseeing this and being watched very carefully. Next decision will be interesting. My $.02

[cancidas]

about time! i just hope this time everybody involved plays fair and the USAF selects the better product, the 767 to soldier on for the next 50 years!

[Derf]

about time! i just hope this time everybody involved plays fair and the USAF selects the better product, the 767 to soldier on for the next 50 years!

Ummm NO? In the article it says the USAF is not selecting anything :wink:

[pgengler]

about time! i just hope this time everybody involved plays fair and the USAF selects the better product, the 767 to soldier on for the next 50 years!

Are you sure it'd be a 767 design, though? Wasn't one of Boeing's objections that they could have offered a 777-based design but the Air Force said they wouldn't award any 'points' for the larger design, but then did to the Airbus plane? Depending on what the ground rules are for the new round, Boeing might offer the 777-based one instead.

[kc2aqg]

I never could understand why Boeing would put the 767, an antiquated design compared to the 777 and A330, up for bidding, but now I know why. It definitely seems like the whole selection process was botched the first time around. Hopefully they'll do a better job this time. I personally think a 777 tanker is in a better position to replace the KC-10 tankers, but what do I know?

[moose135]

This doesn't surprise me at all. USAF procurement people have really screwed the pooch on this (as well as several other recent programs). I don't see how the USAF could have been allowed to make the decision on this going forward.

From the sounds of it, they will not be issuing a new RFP, but rather allow both parties to submit new/revised bids under the current RFP for evaluation. If that's the case, I don't think Boeing offers a 777-based tanker. The 767 really fits the requirements (as I read it). In fact, until the USAF added "extra credit" to the RFP, thanks to EADS (with support from a certain US Senator currently running for President) threatening to pull out of the bidding, the EADS proposal would have been a non-starter. I guess Boeing could offer both a 767 and 777 proposal - that would really give DOD something to think about - but the DOD has been referring to a "medium sized tanker", which would seem to preclude the 777.

Fred, I don't see an EADS-based tanker making much of an impact on the local economy. It would be a handful of local jobs at NG, it's not like they would be opening an assembly line in Bethpage again.

Keep in mind what this proposal is for - about 150ish tankers to replace the KC-135E, which are now used by the Guard & Reserve. These E-models were A-models which were upgraded in the 1980s to include TF-33 turbofan engines. The rest of the A-models were upgraded to R-models with the CFM-56 engine. These 400-odd tankers will remain in service for another 30+ years. The KC-10 fleet is expected to be replaced starting in about 10 years. The 777 would be a strong competitor for that platform.

From what I'm seeing in the various news reports today, this will be a re-evaluation of the bids against the standing RFP. I think it depends on how the DOD applies the standards in the RFP (especially the "extra credit" part) and how much they focus on overall program cost. EADS proponents keep saying the A330 proposal offers much more capability for not much more money, but they overlook the much higher infrastructure construction costs that will result from the larger airframe.

My gut feeling is that we are going to see new Boeing tankers wearing Air Force markings in a few years.