Military AI Works

DoD Announces Termination of KC-X Tanker Solicitation

Today, the Department of Defense notified the Congress and the two
competing contractors, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, that it is
terminating the current competition for a U.S. Air Force airborne tanker
replacement.

Secretary Gates, in consultation with senior Defense and Air Force
officials, has determined that the solicitation and award cannot be
accomplished by January. Rather than hand the next Administration an
incomplete and possibly contested process, Secretary Gates decided that
the best course of action is to provide the next Administration with
full flexibility regarding the requirements, evaluation criteria, and
the appropriate allocation of defense budget to this mission.

Secretary Gates stated, "Over the past seven years the process has
become enormously complex and emotional -- in no small part because of
mistakes and missteps along the way by the Department of Defense. It is
my judgment that in the time remaining to us, we can no longer complete
a competition that would be viewed as fair and objective in this highly
charged environment. The resulting 'cooling off' period will allow the
next Administration to review objectively the military requirements and
craft a new acquisition strategy for the KC-X."

In making this decision, it was concluded that the current KC-135 fleet
can be adequately maintained to satisfy Air Force missions for the near
future. Sufficient funds will be recommended in the FY09 and follow-on
budgets to maintain the KC-135 at high mission-capable rates. In
addition, the Department will recommend to the Congress the disposition
of the pending FY09 funding for the tanker program and plans to continue
funding the KC-X program in the FY10 to FY15 budget presently under
review.

This thing is going to drag out forever. Since no one can win this thing without political ramifications on either side, I predict a split buy when it's all said and done.

You have got to be kidding me. What has this country come to?

From AF Daily Report 11 Sep 08

Thursday September 11, 2008

Missed It by That Much: Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday terminated the $35 billion KC-X aerial tanker competition, admitting defeat in trying to find a viable way to fix the tempestuous program's contractual and political difficulties. (The initial word posted on our online column yesterday morning.) He will leave it to the next Administration and Congress to sort it out. Gates said the seven-year quest to identify the replacement to the KC-135—USAF's top acquisition priority—has become "enormously complex and emotional, in no small part because of mistakes and missteps along the way by the Department of Defense." He gauged that the Pentagon wouldn't be able to issue a new solicitation or award by January, and "rather than hand the next Administration an incomplete and possibly contested process," he will let the incoming President start fresh on requirements, evaluation criteria, and appropriate funding. "It is my judgment that in the time remaining to us, we can no longer complete a competition that would be viewed as fair and objective in this highly-charged environment," he said. He continued, "The resulting cooling-off period will allow the next Administration to objectively … craft a new acquisition strategy for the KC-X." This is the second time Gates has punted a major Air Force program to future decision-makers, with the first instance being continued production of the F-22.

Brevity in Blue: The Air Force issued only a terse statement upon yesterday's news that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was abandoning plans to try to resolve the KC-X tanker competition before the end of the year (see above). "The Air Force supports Secretary Gates' decision to withdraw the [request for proposal] and give an incoming Administration a clean start," said service spokeswoman Lt. Col. Karen Platt. "We look forward to working with [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] to obtain a tanker for the warfighter." Gates' decision means that the Air Force will be flying KC-135s for longer. But Gates said, in announcing his action, that he concluded the tanker fleet "can be adequately maintained to satisfy Air Force missions for the near future." Further, he said, "sufficient funds will be recommended in the [Fiscal 2009] and follow-on budgets to maintain the KC-135 at high mission capable rates." Air Mobility Command has previously said that, due to questions about their safety, all remaining KC-135Es in active service will be grounded by the end of this month, and the KC-135R versions and KC-10s will have to pick up the slack.

Yin Said, Yang Said: Northrop Grumman and Boeing yesterday issued fairly predictable responses to the KC-X decision (see above). Northrop Grumman, which won the contest in February, but had the prize snatched away when Boeing's protests were upheld by government auditors in June, said in a statement it was "extremely disappointed" by the move, "especially on behalf of the men and women in uniform who will now be denied a critically needed new tanker for years." The company noted that, as recently as last week, the Pentagon "stated the urgency to replace the Eisenhower-era fleet of refueling tankers," and noted that the KC-135s may now have to serve past their 80th year. The company said "while we understand, we are greatly concerned about the potential future implications for the defense acquisition process." Conversely, Boeing, which had hinted that it needed six months to pull together a new bid in the reopened contest, said through a spokesman it "welcomes" Gates' decision and "believes that it will best serve the warfighter in allowing the appropriate time for this important and complex procurement to be conducted in a thorough and open competition." The company is looking forward to working with the Air Force to offer "a next generation tanker that meets the long-term requirements" of the service members who rely on tankers, the spokesman said. Boeing also pledged to help keep the KC-135 fleet—built by Boeing more than 45 years ago—"flying their missions safely and reliably."

What that actually means is because Airbus has appeared to win it...Boeing have conned the military into restarting the whole thing so they can buy it back again....they are unbelievable.

Nick

i can't believe this, do they not know how old our current 135's are? guess this means i won't be getting back to GF any time in the near future.

Mate the RAF's tanker fleet should have been retired about 20 years ago but they are still pounding them. Expecting them to fly non-stop to and from operational theatres. Its only a matter of time before one drops out of the sky full of troops and then the government will be lambs to the slaughter.

Nick

There are two idioms that apply to these idiots.
"Kick the can down the road" and "let someone else do it." At this stage of the game it is all politics.

I'm so sick of politics getting involved with this type of $h!%. It's not Boeing or Northrop that loses, it's the warfighter....



It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the future if McCain is elected President, since it was he and his inquiry that found the flaws in Boeing the first time around that sent the USAF chief aquisition's officer to jail and one of Boeing's top execs along with her.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the future if McCain is elected President, since it was he and his inquiry that found the flaws in Boeing the first time around that sent the USAF chief aquisition's officer to jail and one of Boeing's top execs along with her.

Quite true, but not the first time around on this contract bid. The above was on the Air Force try to lease a tanker in order to get a tanker quickly into service. That failed because McCain and other members of Congress thought it was way too expensive. That later led to revelations on the above scandle with the USAF contracts officer and Boeing's CEO.

The USAF then put out a contract for bid, which was lost by Boeing. They protested that the USAF did not follow their own criteria, and the GAO backed them up.

The USAF then puts out another contract for bid upsizing the tanker. Boeing states it needs more time then required to bid on a completely new aircraft then they originally bid, or they may not bid at all.

This leaves Sec of Def Gates with no choice but to cancel the contract bid for the next administration because:

1. If only one company bids on a contract as large and highly politically charged as this one is, Congress will not approve or fund it.

2. If Boeing is given more time, there would not be time to get the contract done in this administration.

It is true, this contract is in a mess! But IMHO the "warfighters" were shot in the foot by their own USAF contracts personnel and the upper echelons of the USAF, and DOD that were supposed to be supervising it. With as much money as is at stake here, the contract bid not only has to pass DOD, but the Congress as well. That is real world, and that has not changed here in the USA since 1776.

We should have bought more KC-10s back in the late 70's.

Boeings invention of the 'flying boom' was key to AR. I don't know who invented the probe and drogue. Those can be hung on about any platform to make it a tanker. The boom is the key, the platform is the 'add-on ' Looks like the planners have it backwards.

The boom is the key, the platform is the 'add-on

You got that right!

I think the ole hose and droque almost goes back to the biplane days and Hap Arnold, if I remember correctly. They tried aerial refueling by dropping a hose between two aircraft.

Think the "boom" could still be patented? Maybe, with probably all the upgrades, software, etc? Or, is it USAF property? Has Airbus even tested a boom arrangement yet?

In 1917, a pilot in the Imperial Russian Navy, Alexander P. de Seversky, proposed increasing the range of combat aircraft by refueling them in flight. De Seversky soon emigrated to the United States and became an engineer in the War Department. He applied for and received the first patent for air-to-air refueling in 1921.

The first actual transfer of fuel from one aircraft to another was little more than a stunt. On November 12, 1921, wingwalker Wesley May climbed from a Lincoln Standard to a Curtiss JN-4 airplane with a can of fuel strapped to his back. When he reached the JN-4, he poured the fuel into its gas tank.

-- according to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... Tech22.htm
--------
The first mid-air refueling between two planes occurred June 27, 1923, between two Airco DH-4B biplanes of the United States Army Air Service -

In the late 1940s, General Curtis LeMay, commander of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), asked Boeing to develop a refueling system that could transfer fuel at a higher rate than had been possible with earlier systems using flexible hoses. Boeing engineers came up with the concept of the “Flying Boom” system.

--at least according to wikipedia.

[/quote]Think the "boom" could still be patented? Maybe, with probably all the upgrades, software, etc? Or, is it USAF property? Has Airbus even tested a boom arrangement yet?[quote]

Yep

http://www.eadsnorthamerica.com/800/en/ ... anker.html

Looks like the fly by wire is the tech advance. Grumman appears to have the lead on that part of the project. Seems to be the next logical step.