Well where do we start with this? Let's try starting at the beginning! USAF's main tanker aircraft is the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, which was the service's first jet powered tanker going in to service in 1957. Over the years the aircraft has received major upgrades including re-engining with more powerful and more fuel efficient CFM56 turbofan engines.
By the turn of the millennium the aircraft were flying more hours than had been planned and maintenance time and costs were increasing so a maximum end of service date was calculated of 2040. Forty years to replace a tanker fleet should be more than adequate, shouldn't it?
The first attempt to replace the KC-135 was with the "Commercial Derivative Air Refuelling Aircraft". In 2002 the USAF announced that it was entering in to negotiations with Boeing to lease 100 767 based tankers to replace the oldest KC-135s, rejecting a bid from Airbus with the KC-330. According to the Air Force statement released, the results of its request for information from the two airframe manufacturers "have clearly demonstrated that only the Boeing Corp. can currently meet the requirements". So with the deal "done" what could go wrong?
Over the next year the US Congress deliberated over funding for the lease deal, and Senator Jon McCain was one of the biggest critics. The Congressional Budget Office criticised the draft leasing agreement as "fiscally irresponsible" which led to a new deal.
In the compromise deal struck in November of 2003, under a $27 billion agreement, the USAF would lease 20 KC-767 aircraft and purchase 80 more. The first four would be delivered in fiscal 2006 and another 16 by the following year. All 100 would be in service by 2014, introduced at a rate of about a dozen a year. "Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the critical need for new air refuelling tankers and the constraints on our budget," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz wrote to the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on November 5th 2003. So with the deal "done" again, what could go wrong?
In December 2003, the Pentagon announced the tanker project was to be frozen while an investigation into allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) began. Reporter Joseph Galloway wrote that some documents found in the congressional investigation indicated the A330-based tanker met more of the USAF specifications than the Boeing tanker and had a lower proposed cost. Druyun pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company". Additional fallout included the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit and the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears and the payment by Boeing of a $615 million fine in recompense for their actions related to the contract. In January 2006, the lease contract was formally cancelled.
In January 2007 the US DoD released a new Request for Proposal (RFP) for the KC-X tanker programme. The KC-X's main requirements were "Fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135", airlift capability, ability to take on fuel in flight, and multi-point refuelling capability. The initial order would be for 179 aircraft (about one third of the tanker fleet) and prior to proceeding with a follow-on order, the Air Force would conduct analysis to determine if a new platform type is warranted, or whether to continue with the current production aircraft. If the KC-X was no longer viable, the KC-X programme would end and a separately competed, KC-Y programme would begin.
Two contenders put forward designs for the KC-X programme, Boeing with the 767 based KC-767 and EADS teaming up with Northrop Grumman with the A330 based KC-30, which would be built in the USA.
During 2007 it was decided that there would be no split-manufacturer order and the competitors submitted their final bids in January 2008 for the aircraft that would be called KC-45A regardless of which company won. According to Boeing, its final submission for the KC-767 "is tailored to meet or exceed all of the Air Force's mission requirements." Northrop called its KC-30, "the most modern tanker ever built."
The DoD anticipated that the KC-45A would start to enter service in 2013. On February 29th 2008, the US DoD announced that Northrop Grumman/EADS's KC-30 was the winner of the KC-X programme. So with the deal "done" what could go wrong?
"According to the Air Force, Northrop Grumman's KC-45A was selected because it is more advantageous to the government in the key areas of mission capability, past performance, cost/price, and integrated fleet aerial refuelling assessment," says Paul Meyer, KC-45A programme manager.
Boeing says it continues to "evaluate with growing concern" the information provided by the US Air Force. "As we have gone through this process it has become clearer that this competition was much closer than has been reported, and that raises the stakes if the process was flawed and unfair in any way," according to Mark McGraw, KC-767 programme manager. "We have serious concerns over inconsistency in requirements, cost factors and treatment of our commercial data," he says in a statement.
On the March 11th 2008 Boeing protested to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) over the award of the contract to the Northrop Grumman/EADS team, arguing that its rival had been able to offer a more compelling bid by offering a larger aircraft. It claimed that USAF officials had indicated that the aircraft's size was an unimportant factor. Their protest was upheld by the GAO on 18 June 2008, which recommended that the USAF rebid the contract.
During September 2008 the US DoD cancelled the KC-X contest, because it would not be able to complete the process before a new presidential administration took over in January 2009. The DoD said that defence secretary Robert Gates decided that "rather than hand the next administration an incomplete and possibly contested process... the best course of action is to provide the next administration with full flexibility regarding the requirements, evaluation criteria and the appropriate allocation of defence budget to this mission".
In September 2009 USAF announced a new effort for the KC-X programme, the selection process would be under USAF control with a "robust oversight role" by the Office of the Secretary of Defence to prevent a repeated failure. This time the programme was set with a completely different set of criteria, valuing price over capability. This was expected to favour Boeing, which, with a smaller aircraft, was likely to be able to produce a cheaper bid. It also caused Northrop Grumman to walk away from the bidding process, saying it wanted no part of a price war with Boeing.
On February 24th 2010, the US Air Force released the revised RFP for KC-X with the winning aircraft to be known as the KC-46A. The RFP called for the KC-X tanker to first fly in 2012 and aircraft deliveries to begin in 2013. Boeing again entered the competition with a 767 based tanker and this time EADS would go it alone with its A330 based offering. A surprising counter bidder was US Aerospace who had teamed up with Antonov, but their bid was discounted by the USAF after allegedly arriving five minutes after the deadline!
Meanwhile the bid process has become ever more convoluted, with USAF officials inadvertently sending performance evaluations of the integrated fleet air refuelling assessment (IFARA) for each aircraft to the wrong bidders, leading to a congressional hearing and an inquiry by the inspector general into the blunder. Boeing and EADS finally submitted their final bids on February 10th 2011.
On February 24th 2011 at a press conference held at the Pentagon it was announced that the KC-X winner was Boeing. Boeing's actual offer came in lower than its competitor by more than 1%, or at least about $330 million, says Michael Donley, secretary of the Air Force. That allowed USAF's evaluation team to bypass a set of 96 non-mandatory requirements that would only have been triggered if there was less than a 1% differential between the two bids, Donley says.
USAF's decision was met with "disappointment and concern" by EADS, which says its review of the decision "will take some time". The KC-X bid offered the company an opportunity to establish a new manufacturing base in Mobile, Alabama, as well as forge a network of suppliers across the country. "We owe it to them to conduct a thorough analysis," said EADS chairman Ralph Crosby.
Donley urged the losing bidder to respect the decision and allow the process to move forward, "We hope that all parties recognise the thorough process and intense, multiple levels of review that have gone into this source selection and will respect this opinion and allow this important procurement to proceed unimpeded."
Boeing has decided not to publish performance details for its KC-46A though some details are already known. It will be powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4000-series engines. The KC-10 based refuelling boom will feature a full-time automatic load alleviation system. Boeing also says the Wing Aerial Refuelling Pods (WARPs) include a "simplified system" to improve reliability. The cargo compartment will reuse the passenger seats from the Boeing C-17, but further details about cargo, passenger and aeromedical capacity are not disclosed. The KC-46A digital flight deck incorporates displays developed from the 787.
2011-03-04 - Paul Dopson
To follow up my article here is the latest news:
On March 4th EADS North America held a press conference to announce it will not be contesting the award of the KC-X tanker contract to Boeing.
"EADS North America has decided not to protest the KC-X contract award," EADS NA Chief Executive Ralph Crosby says. "The acquisition architecture was quite mechanical and mathematical," Crosby says. "The outcome was decided by price and Boeing's offer was lower than ours." Boeing's proposed price was $4 billion less than EADS' offer, Crosby says, "and is much lower than we would have gone".
There is speculation that Boeing have offered a cut price deal, both to win the contract and to prevent Airbus from building aircraft in America.
So there we have it, the long running KC-X saga is finally and I mean finally over!
Now who wants to bid for the follow up KC-Y?
If you would like to discuss using any of our imagery or feature content please contact us.