KC-767 Presents 'Lower Risk;' EADS Offering More Versatile

Show of hands -- which contentious, ongoing struggle are you more tired of reading about: the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for the US presidency... or, the equally snarky war of words between Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS over the US Air Force KC-X tanker contract?

Alas, politics will always lose out to airplanes, at least in this group. But with a Government Accountability Office ruling on the horizon -- one that could once again throw open the oft-debated, and twice-awarded, tanker competition -- this week Boeing and Northrop continued to make their respective cases for why their aircraft should be selected to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135 tankers.

As ANN reported, the Air Force ruled February 29 to award the KC-X contract to the Airbus A330-derived KC-30, which was subsequently renamed the KC-45A. KC-X came about after the initial 2003 contract to build tankers for the Air Force, awarded to Boeing, was cancelled after evidence of impropriety in the bidding process came to light.

Boeing said Thursday its KC-767 presents the "lowest risk" to the Air Force, and to taxpayers. "We offered a tanker that exceeded the mission requirements, kept the manufacturing risk as low as possible and offered an aircraft that saved billions of taxpayer dollars," said Gregg Rusbarsky, director of Boeing's US  Air Force Tanker Program. "Compare that with EADS-Northrop, who have never delivered the core technology for aerial refueling -- a working air-to-air refueling boom."

The American planemaker asserts when the USAF calculated risk, the contract decision failed to account for multiple manufacturing challenges the A330-based tanker might encounter. EADS and Northrop will need to integrate different corporate partners, numerous factory sites, different cultures and technical standards, all into a single enterprise that is expected to deliver aerial tankers on time and on budget.

As examples, Boeing cites EADS' own plan for its first tankers. KC-45A production will be managed by two companies on two continents in five countries, separated by one ocean. According to EADS-Northrop, the initial production plan will build the first six aircraft in five different ways. The first tanker will be assembled as a passenger plane by Airbus in Toulouse, France, converted to a freighter in Dresden, Germany, converted to a tanker in Madrid, Spain, and flown to Melbourne, FL for finishing.

For aircraft 2 and 3, Madrid's involvement will be eliminated, and Melbourne will do the tanker conversion -- for the first time. By aircraft 4, Mobile, AL will replace Melbourne, and for the first time, begin the tanker conversion. Boeing remarks production will "vastly" change when the process converts from a modification to an in-line production system at the start of low-rate assembly. Finally, the basic aircraft will likely change from the passenger A330 to the A330 Freighter, which Boeing asserts could pose a rash of operational and certification-related issues.

In contrast, Boeing says its KC-767 is comparatively easy to come by: the airframes would be built in Everett, WA and then flown to Wichita, KS to be outfitted with tanker-specific hardware. Boeing also notes it's already built and delivered two KC-767s to Japan.

In countering Boeing's arguments, EADS/Northrop chose not to use the American planemaker's own words against it... but rather to rely on what the Air Force had to say about its KC-45A. Northrop notes its offering won on four of the five criteria the Air Force used to select its next tanker, including on the matter of which aircraft was more versatile.

"Better airlift efficiency, cargo capability, pallet capability, passengers and aero-medical capability," is what the USAF had to say about the KC-45A, according to Northrop. Although refueling is the primary mission, the KC-45's excellent mobility capability will provide future commanders with increased operational flexibility.

The Air Force concluded Northrop's plane was superior because it could transport more cargo pallets, carry more people and evacuate more wounded soldiers than Boeing's, depending on which of these critical missions the Air Force would need to accomplish at any given time.

Sue Payton, the Air Force's chief acquisitions officer, summarized the superiority of Northrop's plane: "In my judgment, Northrop Grumman's ... aircraft offers significant advantage in the important areas of aerial refueling and airlift and represents superior value to the government."

The GAO is due to rule on Boeing's protest of the KC-45A win on or before June 19. May we suggest a coin flip?

FMI: www.globaltanker.com, www.northropgrumman.com/kc45