Boeing Wins KC-X Tanker Bid

[Mike W]

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/02/bds_tanker_announcement_02_24_11.html

I'm seriously gobsmacked. Everything was pointing to an EADS KC45 (A330) win yet Boeing has pulled it out of the bag.

Can't say I'm disappointed though. To me, the EADS offer smacked of unfair government support so I'm stoked at the result.

Also, the KC46A (767) looks great with those huge winglets!

[Nathan Long]

It won't have winglets, but raked wingtips.

[Mike W]

It won't have winglets, but raked wingtips.
er, Nath, yes it does. The raked Wingtips was on the previous offering from Boeing which featured the 762 fuselage and 763 wings (with 764 raked wingtips) and 764 Cockpit avionics.

The winning (and cheaper I might add) bid was a straight 762 (with Winglets) and 787 Cockpit avionics.

[Nathan Long]

I had heard otherwise. We'll see when the prototype is rolled out. :)

[Jaryd stock]

Is it any surprise boeing won the deal? We new all along that the US Goverment would pick the 76, being developed and made state side creating jobs and saving them. And the money would be kept within the US aswell, I dunno just seem that although the USAF top brass wanted it maybe the 330 was really a non contender.... Not having ago at members views just a thought..

[Ash W]

Well to start with the A330 was quite clearly a contender and was in fact chosen as the aircraft. But guess with challenges by Boeing, a changed playing field, extra time to design a 'better' aircraft (better then their orginal design) and of course US politics it had zero chance of wining, more so when Northrop Grumman pulled out of the EADS bid. Now wonder what caused them to do that?

Quite clearly a good example of US politics at work, the home of free trade agreements which are free so long as US companies don't miss out.

[Mike W]

C'mon you guys. You might looking at things too simplistically although I totally understand why you would come to these conclusions.

In actual fact, the previous tender and winning bid (the NG EADS 330 joint venture) was deemed null and void becuase of a flawed selection process. True, the 330 is likely to be the superior product, but was not in fact the best choice for the job requirements. It was too much plane. There was an actual enquiry into the process, after a Boeing (and some States) protested the whole process. Boeing felt they submitted a tender as per the RFP and NG/EADS proposal did not meet the RFP as asked. If that was the rationale, then they would have submitted a 777 based aircraft and blown the other tender out of the water.

The latest tender took into account the exact USAF requirement and the plane closest to this (and by no coincidence the cheaper option) was the Boeing offering. The EADS bid (sans Northrop) was too much plane and during the revised life of the program (now up to 40 years thanks to Washington Senator Dicks) was billions of dollars more expensive to the US taxpayers than the Boeing bid.

330 supporters will have to cop this on the chin (of one I am not mostly due the continual reliabilty issues plaguing the type, particularly with QF), athought I suppose there will be an inevitable protest from EADS backed by the Southern States with the most to gain by having a 330 production facility in their region. EADS might try again when the KC-Y RFP comes up and it comes the time to replace the larger KC-10 (DC10 based) tanker in a few years. Perhaps then it will be an A350 based offering.

[StevenW]

saga which even saw Antonov get involved with a fairly interesting (if unlikely) candidate.

From memory they missed the submission deadline by something like five minutes, thus were ineligible. Could have been interesting had they been on time!

[David Knudsen]

I thought the Antonov bid turned out to be a scam from a failing company that was chasing (or trying to trick) investors?

[Mike W]

I had heard otherwise. We'll see when the prototype is rolled out. :)

Not quite rolled out yet but...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

Boeing plans the first flight of a KC-46A in 2015, followed by achievement of initial operational capability with the US Air Force with 18 aircraft by 2017. The KC-X tanker contract, awarded to Boeing last week, worth as much as $35 billion will replace the USAF fleet of 179 KC-135 tanker aircraft.

The aircraft, equipped with winglets and a 787-derived flight deck will be assembled on the company's newly relocated lean 767 final assembly line inside the rear of its Everett, Washington factory.

[Mike W]

330 supporters will have to cop this on the chin (of one I am not mostly due the continual reliabilty issues plaguing the type, particularly with QF),

Example from today

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/cockpit-fire-forces-qantas-plant-to-divert/story-e6frfku0-1226027148946?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newscomaubreakingndm+%28NEWS. com.au+%7C+Breaking+News%29&utm_content=Twitter

[Ash W]

What exactly is the link between this incident and the bid? For fairness should we also document every 767 problem that there has been? Don't think so.

[Jaryd stock]

The airframe that Boeing presented was the fuselage based on the 76 that met each of the airforce's mandatory requirements. The cockpit adds four 787-like displays and 777-like cursor control units,we know that.

What we don't know is are the fuselage and wings based on the 767-200ER, or do they combine major elements of different models, such as the 763 or -400ER. And the answer will determine the KC-46A's range and payload capacity which have not been publicly released yet.

KEY USAF CRITERA IS:

The KC-X must deliver at least 42,675kg of fuel to offloadat a range of 1,850km after a take off from a 2,135m runway.

KC-X shall deliver fuel to all receptacle equipped receivers at a maximum rate of at 4,550 liters/min.

All KC-X drouge refuelling systems shall each deliver fuel at maximum flow rates equal to or greater than1,515 liters/min.

The KC-X shall recieve fuel at a maximum rate of at least 4,550 liters/min.

The KC-X shall provide for air transport....for 50 patients total, 24 litter and 26 amblutory patients, for a 16 hour mission.

KC-X shall provide seating for a total of 15 aircrew members.

KC-X should have minimum unrefulled ferry range of 9,550nm.

The KC-X mission capable rate shall be at least 92% at 5,000 accumalated fleet hours.

Boeing officials kept the key facts about their offer hidden from public veiw, Among those items that were undisclosed are aircraft range, payload capacity and fuel offload at a given range.
Boieng also has not disclosed if the KC-46A is based on one model or assembled from major elements of different models. Even the identity of the refueling systems, including the boom, [ although the boom is to be a derived version of the KC-10 fly by wire system and not the the "fifth gen" boom installed on the KC-767J of the JASDF ] centerline drouge and wingtip hose and drouges, all of which has not been made public.

So it's a wait and see game until these have been made public to see what it will look like.

[A McLaughlin]

Jarryd

It doesn't matter whether the KC-767AT's performance/range figures are publicly released or not. The USAF set out a set of criteria, and the KC-767AT met those criteria. The rest is irrelevant.

Andrew

[Jaryd stock]

I knew you would of replyed Andrew, obvious it met those requirements or it wouldn't have won the contract if you have looked at the previous posts there was some argument to what model the 767 would be. And since the details are not released we don't know what model or models the fuselage will be based on..... Hence the post.