Trade Barbs Over Costs, Mission Suitability
"In this corner: the
scrappy hometown contender, the favorite of apple-pie Americana and
various congressional compatriots! Weighing in at a svelte 400,000
lbs -- including fuel -- this once favorite-turned-dark horse
candidate is going up against a larger, heavier... and
FOREIGN!... challenger, that's already won the first round of
our competition... and is only waiting for the bell to ring to get
down to business!"
Sorry. We tend to get wrapped up in the whole KC-X mess here at
Aero-News. This week, Boeing and Northrop/EADS issued new volleys
in the ongoing war of words between the two heavyweights, regarding
their KC-767 and KC-45A aerial refueling aircraft. As ANN reported, Boeing is
challenging the US Air Force's February decision to award a
lucrative tanker contract to the Airbus-derived KC-45A.
In its latest statement questioning the USAF's logic in ruling
in the KC-45A's favor, Boeing claims its offering was better
optimized to the parameters originally spelled out by the KC-X
bid... before the Air Force changed the rules slightly, to make the
larger Northrop/EADS offering more competitive.
"Despite the fact that the stated parameters for evaluating the
aircraft said no extra credit would be assigned for exceeding
certain requirement objectives, the Northrop Grumman and European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) team received such
credit," Boeing said Wednesday. "As a result, the oversized Airbus
A330-based KC-30 was selected. Boeing has protested the decision to
the US Government Accountability Office.
Boeing adds the KC-767 meets the documented mission requirements
for KC-X, "while also exceeding the highest requirements for
airlift, passenger and aeromedical evacuation capabilities."
"Tanker flight crews are asked to bring the right amount of fuel
to the fight in the most efficient, reliable manner, and the KC-767
meets that fundamental requirement," said Mark McGraw, vice
president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "Asking these aircrews to fly
longer missions in larger, less survivable planes with more fuel
capacity than needed and vast amounts of unused cargo and passenger
space just doesn't add up.
"The Boeing KC-767 exceeded the requirements in a manner that
still kept the plane right-sized and efficient," McGraw said. "Our
competition likes to talk about offering more, more, more -- but in
reality, the KC-30 will cost more to operate, more to maintain, and
more to house, with the US taxpayer footing the bill."
Not surprisingly, Northrop/EADS dispute Boeing's assertion its
plane is less efficient, and more costly. The KC-45A team notes
"the Air Force concluded that Northrop Grumman's development and
production costs were lower and the total life cycle cost (which
includes development, procurement, military construction, and
operations and support) for each system would be about the same.
Accordingly, the Northrop Grumman KC-45 offered significantly more
capability for the same cost, thus providing the Air Force and
taxpayer with the best value."
Pointedly, Northrop also notes the Air Force said its entrant
posed a "low" risk of exceeding costs estimates... but gave Boeing
a "moderate" rating, indicating the USAF believes Boeing might not
be able to stick to budgetary guidelines.
"According to the Air Force source selection document, a
"Moderate cost/price risk" is assigned "Only if some difference
exists between the offeror's proposed cost/price and the
government's probable cost/price that is not reasonably explained"
in the offeror's proposal," Northrop writes.
Directly contradicting Boeing's claims the KC-767 is the less
expensive choice, Northrop also said the Air Force estimated
"substantially less funds required to develop and buy the first 68
aircraft," and that the cost for each KC-45 was significantly less
expensive than each KC-767.
The Government Accountability Office is set to rule on Boeing's
protest by mid-June.