KC-X winner announced!

[afgeo4]

Northrop-Grumman named winner of the KC-X project for USAF. The new aircraft, KC-45A will replace the aging KC-135 and provide refueling and airlift capability well into the 21st century. The aircraft is based on the Airbus A-330 airliner and is currently in use by the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Air Force (UK), United Arab Emirates, and  Saudi Arabia.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088392

[JohnKachenmeister]

And... it will mean more than 1500 jobs here in Melbourne, Florida!

[_]

I have yet to hear mention of the KC-10.  As far as I know, most of the KC-135's are with guard units and not active duty where as the KC-10's are with active duty units.  When the 135's were transfered out of active duty use they were transfered to the guard.  Wouldn't this new tanker then be put into use by active duty units and the 10's go to the guard or are they planning to have everyone use the KC-45?

[DNall]

That's not not really how things work anymore under total force. There's a lot of stuff going on to even things across the board. I could try to explain, but I'm not an authority on it, where there are some others around here that are directly involved with joint units & such.

[♠SARKID♠]

Geez, 80 years on the 135s before complete phase out.  Those birds won't exactly be chics by then...

[afgeo4]

KC-135s are still flown by active and reserve units as well as ANG. The active and reserve units fly the R version while Guard flies the R and older E versions. E versions will be replaced first, of course.

The 135 is a very capable aircraft with a long and distinguished history. With the re-engining (R version), it would serve for many more decades to come if it wasn't for corrosion. The aircraft was based on the 707 platform which is shared with many other USAF aircraft and Boeing produces tons of spare parts for them and their civilian counterparts which still fly passengers in 3rd world countries. The major operational problems with the 135 are the now small fuel payload, slow transfer, lack of automation, and inability to convert from boom to hose and drogue system which Navy and many NATO use within the same mission. The 45 will solve all those problems and add on a good amount of payload. They're much more fuel efficient themselves and offer longer range, pax/cargo payload, more litters for medevac and fairly easy maintenance through existing Airbus infrastructure.

Fortunately for Florida, about 1500 new jobs. Unfortunately for Washington, a lot more jobs lost than 1500.

The KC-10 issue isn't an issue here. Only 8 squadrons in USAF fly the KC-10. That includes 4 active duty and 4 reserve (associate) squadrons. 2 each at McGuire AFB, NJ and Travis AFB, CA. The aircraft are owned by the active duty Air Force and the associate units augment the aircrews and maintenance. I believe there are still only 59 in service with the USAF which makes it pretty useless to distribute them among Air National Guard. The other issue is that these aircraft need to be stationed at the atlantic/pacific oceans because they specifically exist to refuel over the oceans. Something KC-135's cannot do well because of their limited range.

KC-10A Extender is still the longest range aircraft int he world because its bladder fore and aft refueling systems are connected with its standard fuel tanks allowing the aircraft to use the gas it could have otherwise passed to other aircraft. The KC-10 is also one of the newest aircraft in the USAF inventory, activated first in 1981.

[Gunner C]

KC-135s are still flown by active and reserve units as well as ANG. The active and reserve units fly the R version while Guard flies the R and older E versions. E versions will be replaced first, of course.

The 135 is a very capable aircraft with a long and distinguished history. With the re-engining (R version), it would serve for many more decades to come if it wasn't for corrosion. The aircraft was based on the 707 platform which is shared with many other USAF aircraft and Boeing produces tons of spare parts for them and their civilian counterparts which still fly passengers in 3rd world countries. The major operational problems with the 135 are the now small fuel payload, slow transfer, lack of automation, and inability to convert from boom to hose and drogue system which Navy and many NATO use within the same mission. The 45 will solve all those problems and add on a good amount of payload. They're much more fuel efficient themselves and offer longer range, pax/cargo payload, more litters for medevac and fairly easy maintenance through existing Airbus infrastructure.

Fortunately for Florida, about 1500 new jobs. Unfortunately for Washington, a lot more jobs lost than 1500.

The KC-10 issue isn't an issue here. Only 8 squadrons in USAF fly the KC-10. That includes 4 active duty and 4 reserve (associate) squadrons. 2 each at McGuire AFB, NJ and Travis AFB, CA. The aircraft are owned by the active duty Air Force and the associate units augment the aircrews and maintenance. I believe there are still only 59 in service with the USAF which makes it pretty useless to distribute them among Air National Guard. The other issue is that these aircraft need to be stationed at the atlantic/pacific oceans because they specifically exist to refuel over the oceans. Something KC-135's cannot do well because of their limited range.

KC-10A Extender is still the longest range aircraft int he world because its bladder fore and aft refueling systems are connected with its standard fuel tanks allowing the aircraft to use the gas it could have otherwise passed to other aircraft. The KC-10 is also one of the newest aircraft in the USAF inventory, activated first in 1981.

Being a little long in the tooth (54), it's interesting to look back to when I was 3 or 4 years old and the same tanker was flying back then, along with the KC-97.  My dad was a radar navigator in B-52Ds and the KC-135 in the late 1950s was a huge thing.  Having jets refueling jets was pretty important - the old 97s had to speed up and the 52s had to slow way down, not to mention the extended range.

Dad got bored on one of the long airborne alert flights and ran all of the numbers on their mission profile.  With the fuel they had on board, they could fly to the target and make it back to a KC-97 tanker.  He said that's where it got dicey - the bomber could take on enough fuel to make it back, but then the tanker would have to ditch - not enough fuel left on board to get home.  Of course, if the bomber didn't get refueled, the same would happen to them.  Right then he knew that it was pretty much a one-way trip.  Those guys were amazing back in those days.

The KC-X is going to be that sort of leap forward for the strategic forces.

GC

[BuckeyeDEJ]

What's regrettable about this contract win is that the airframe is made by a foreign manufacturer, and no amount of lipstick will make that pig an American bird.

I'm going to bet that Boeing is going to contest the award, since there's law that foreign contractors can't compete for American defense contracts. Reading between the lines of Boeing's reaction, I could see that coming.

Get ready for more left-handed tanker pilots, if the KC-45 sees the light of day.

[mikeylikey]

^ We need to make sure that replacement parts are readily available in the United States (preferably manufactured by 100% USA Business)!  To award a defense contract to a company that has foreign owners is absolutely not right, it should be illegal, and the AF needs a freaking kick across it's teeth for what it did.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

MikeyLikey, that's fine, but ostensibly, the contract was awarded to an American company -- Northrop Grumman. Airbus (EADS) is a subcontractor, never mind the fact they're contributing the largest component of the weapons system -- the plane itself!

You know they're partying in Toulouse right now, while Americans in metro Seattle are angry.

I can't imagine Boeing's bid wasn't tainted by the corruption in the previous bid process, when a few Boeing employees were found with their hands in the cookie jar. I'd speculate it's an Air Force smackdown for Boeing.

If Northrop really wanted to get the contract honestly, they'd develop their own plane, not co-opt the European Union. My two cents.

[DKruse]

You know they're partying in Toulouse right now, while Americans in metro Seattle are angry.

Not if you believe this story:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FrenchJobsLostByWinningTankerContract_197280-1.html

[DNall]

I'm going to bet that Boeing is going to contest the award, since there's law that foreign contractors can't compete for American defense contracts. Reading between the lines of Boeing's reaction, I could see that coming.

Several stories out about that already. Boeing talking about a protest. Early word from inside the bid process is NG/EADS beat Boeing on every item of the bid, including price, while providing a more capable bird. Bid deal was Boeing delays in tanker deliveries to Japan & somewhere else. While NG/EADS had delivered on time or ahead on six tanker contracts. They cited a delivery rate issue as well... as of 2013, Boeing could put 19 birds in service, while NG/EADS could do over 30 or something along those lines.

Apparently the formal briefing to Boeing on all the reasons they lost is going to be around the 12th, then they have 5-10 days to lodge a protest. That'll stop work for a review, but unlikely to change the result.

Word from congress about hearings as well. I don't think that'll change anything either though. The delivery rate is the clincher here. This contract has been a really long time in the making. It got sidelined over the scandal when Boeing hired some acquisition folks that had worked on the pgm for the AF. That hurt them a lot in this process too. It's really Boeing's own fault they lost this contract. It's too bad we have to go with a foreign manufacturer, but Boeing doesn't deserve a free ride just cause they're based in the US.

[Hoser]

The same thing happened when the Coast Guard purchased the HH-65 from Aerospatiale in the early 80s. Bell hopped up and down because they French won the bid. Aerospatiale met the Buy American Act by installing American made avionics and American made powerplants which made the helicopter 51% American made, therefore Bell had no gripe. I suspect that's what Airbus will do also. Then it will be 51% American made and legal under the Buy American Act.

[mikeylikey]

Aerospatiale

Isn't that a store in the mall???

[MIKE]

Aéropostale

[mikeylikey]

Aéropostale

Ah.....since I have never ventured inside (too scared, too many HOT looking people), I am corrected.  Thanks Mike!

[afgeo4]

The same thing happened when the Coast Guard purchased the HH-65 from Aerospatiale in the early 80s. Bell hopped up and down because they French won the bid. Aerospatiale met the Buy American Act by installing American made avionics and American made powerplants which made the helicopter 51% American made, therefore Bell had no gripe. I suspect that's what Airbus will do also. Then it will be 51% American made and legal under the Buy American Act.

Similar action was taken with the more recent Augusta (MH-68A). The aircraft was designed in Italy by an Italian company, but through opening a factory in the US, they were able to bypass the restrictions. The MH-68A is in service as armed intercepts with HITRON squadrons in Jacksonville, FL.

[sardak]

Don't forget the new VH-71 US Presidential helicopters are EH101s designed by AgustaWestland, a UK company now owned by the Italian company Finmeccanica.

The prime contractor is LockMart, AgustaWestland  formed a joint US venture with Bell Helicopter called AgustaWestlandBell (catchy name) and is the prime sub, so the helicopter is now the US101.  The first test aircraft flew from the factory in the UK last summer, but "when assembled and integrated in America, the US101 will source more than 65 percent of its content from American suppliers, creating hundreds of high-technology jobs."

Good, bad or indifferent, multinational programs are the way of the future.

Mike

[afgeo4]

Don't forget the new VH-71 US Presidential helicopters are EH101s designed by AgustaWestland, a UK company now owned by the Italian company Finmeccanica.

The prime contractor is LockMart, AgustaWestland  formed a joint US venture with Bell Helicopter called AgustaWestlandBell (catchy name) and is the prime sub, so the helicopter is now the US101.  The first test aircraft flew from the factory in the UK last summer, but "when assembled and integrated in America, the US101 will source more than 65 percent of its content from American suppliers, creating hundreds of high-technology jobs."

Good, bad or indifferent, multinational programs are the way of the future.

Mike

Same company, same manufacturer. Same plant actually. Texas, I believe.

[afgeo4]

I just hope the A-400M doesn't end up replacing a lot of C-130 procurement in the future.

[NIN]

The same thing happened when the Coast Guard purchased the HH-65 from Aerospatiale in the early 80s. Bell hopped up and down because they French won the bid. Aerospatiale met the Buy American Act by installing American made avionics and American made powerplants which made the helicopter 51% American made, therefore Bell had no gripe. I suspect that's what Airbus will do also. Then it will be 51% American made and legal under the Buy American Act.

Yeah, the Allied-Signal powerplants they wedged in there were significantly underpowered versus the Turbomecas they replaced.  As a friend of mine, a CH-47 driver turned HH-65 victim pilot, reported: "The second engine is just there to ensure we make it to our own crash scene.."  According to him, with a full bag of gas, a co-pilot, a SAR tech and SAR gear, the words "Effective Transitional Lift" and "rolling takeoff" were in their SOP.  And forget hovering until you burned off enough gas.   

Two years ago, the Coast Guard undertook the process to upgrade the powerplants in the HH-65 with.. (insert drumroll here, please!) Turbomeca Arriel 2C2s (hint: the original non-American  powerplant for the SA-365 Dauphin was the Turbomeca Arriel 1C, later upgraded to the 1C2 and thence the 2C2 )

Where is that "I coulda had a V-8!" head smacking similey when you need him?

[NIN]

My AEO, a retired O-6 F-15 driver, suggested perhaps that the Airbus/EADS selection was the AF kicking Congress in the teeth for forcing them to recompete the contract and that since this decision would not play well in home districts with lost jobs, they could answer to their constituents....

I need to ask him about that, cuz I swear he was suggesting that the AF did that intentionally to make Congress look stupid, and I don't remember over what, but I think it was the whole KC-767 thing...

[mikeylikey]

^ And to get even Congress appropriates 20 percent less next year to big blue.  Officers are Rif'ed, Civilians are cut, bases fall apart, and Oversight committees press for AF leaders to resign early for "stuff".   

[A.Member]

Early word from inside the bid process is NG/EADS beat Boeing on every item of the bid, including price, while providing a more capable bird...

... It's too bad we have to go with a foreign manufacturer, but Boeing doesn't deserve a free ride just cause they're based in the US.

This is exactly right.  The AF has actually recieved a fair amount of praise for it's acquistion process for this program.  Mission capability, proposal risk, and past performance were given greater weight than cost.  Isn't that the way it should be?  In addition, the AF agreed not to go with a split winner approach that potentially would've led to compromises in the final product.  Competition is good. 

The simple fact is that the A330 platform that was proposed seems to be the better platform in this situation.  Now, the key is to get a new tanker into service ASAP because NKAWTG...nobody!  The 135's are 45+ years old on average and make up the vast majority of our tanker fleet.  Hopefully any protests are kept to a minimum because they only serve to delay the delivery of a critically needed solution...and that benefits no one. 

[Hoser]

No it's Aerospatiale, Aeropostale is some clothing brand. google it

[bosshawk]

I watched the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on this subject yesterday and came away with some interesting information.  The two House members who had the most to say and the most criticism were, strangely enough, from Washington and Kansas(two big Boeing states).  Other members of the subcommittee had very little to say in the way of criticism.

The proposed buy is for 179 aircraft.  The AF testified that their planned build is for 15 per year: do the math and see that the contract will run for over 10 years.  It is designed to replace only the KC-135E models, not the R or the KC-10.  This simply means that some of the E models will be over 60 years old when they are replaced.

Sue Payton, the AF Acquisition Executive, who was in charge of this source selection, pointed out that the law governing these sorts of things, equates about 15 NATO nations(including France) to US manufacturers.  That simply means that the Buy American Act says that stuff made in France is considered to be as legal as stuff built in America.  Perhaps the law needs to be changed: but it is too late for this procurement.  In another life, I knew Sue and she is one first class lady.

[afgeo4]

I watched the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on this subject yesterday and came away with some interesting information.  The two House members who had the most to say and the most criticism were, strangely enough, from Washington and Kansas(two big Boeing states).  Other members of the subcommittee had very little to say in the way of criticism.

The proposed buy is for 179 aircraft.  The AF testified that their planned build is for 15 per year: do the math and see that the contract will run for over 10 years.  It is designed to replace only the KC-135E models, not the R or the KC-10.  This simply means that some of the E models will be over 60 years old when they are replaced.

Sue Payton, the AF Acquisition Executive, who was in charge of this source selection, pointed out that the law governing these sorts of things, equates about 15 NATO nations(including France) to US manufacturers.  That simply means that the Buy American Act says that stuff made in France is considered to be as legal as stuff built in America.  Perhaps the law needs to be changed: but it is too late for this procurement.  In another life, I knew Sue and she is one first class lady.

Not a completely accurate assessment there. The INITIAL contract is for 179 aircraft at 15 per year to replace all KC-135E. The remainder of E models will be reengined into R models. The R models will be replaced by follow-on contracts for the same KC-45 and that will take up to 30 years. KC-10 is a completely different aircraft with different mission and will not be replaced by the KC-45.

Here's my question... with other Boeing 707 based aircraft getting very old as well (Sentry, JSTARS, and Rivet Joint), will USAF contract the same EADS A-330 to replace them or will they throw a bone to Boeing and accept B767s?

The mission requirements for those aircraft are quite different from the tanker and Boeing does already sell 767 based AWACS aircraft.

[MajFitzpatrick]

As long as they can get tankers in the air soon. I waited in Maron Spain for 13 days before getting tanker support. And we were priority because we were returning from desert duty.
With Ops Tempo like it is, we just need more Tankers. The thought of technological multiplier is great, but lets do simple math. 1 thing can't be in two places at 1 time. And when you have so few numbers, when one goes down because of maintenance/accident/combat, you have a larger proportion of less capability. There needs to be more numbers, more attrition reserve, and more people. People and Aircraft, face it, get tired and burned out. Spread it out a little, and life will be much easier.

Now if I could explain that to civilian law makers.....

[Fifinella]

NKAWTG!

[Gunner C]

NKAWTG!

^^OK, I'll bite . . . ? ? ?

[MajFitzpatrick]

it must be nice to pass gas all day and get paid for it....

[jimmydeanno]

NKAWTG!

^^OK, I'll bite . . . ? ? ?

Nobody Kicks A()() Without Tanker Gas!

[afgeo4]

As long as they can get tankers in the air soon. I waited in Maron Spain for 13 days before getting tanker support. And we were priority because we were returning from desert duty.
With Ops Tempo like it is, we just need more Tankers. The thought of technological multiplier is great, but lets do simple math. 1 thing can't be in two places at 1 time. And when you have so few numbers, when one goes down because of maintenance/accident/combat, you have a larger proportion of less capability. There needs to be more numbers, more attrition reserve, and more people. People and Aircraft, face it, get tired and burned out. Spread it out a little, and life will be much easier.

Now if I could explain that to civilian law makers.....

Gotta ask... you were on the ground in Maron, Spain for 13 days, not in the air, right?

If so, you weren't priority. 1st, priority goes to birds running low on fuel that are currently in the air. 2nd, priority goes to people stuck in combat zones. 3rd, priority goes to people in hardship/harsh environment zones.

13 days in Spain sounds more like a vacation to me.

However, you were looking for some gas to go across the pond? If so, you were probably waiting for a KC-10 to be freed up. 135's can't go out far enough over the Atlantic and pass enough gas to cargo aircraft to be useful.

[scooter]

As a former SAC Tanker driver I am sorry to see the old bird go. Flew the A model for 10 years, some of those years before the Collins FD109 flight director. Converted lots of JP4 and water into black smoke and noise, not a whole bunch of thrust though. Made for long slow takeoff rolls, some almost two minutes long. I saw the departure ends of long runways from very low altitudes/high speeds and was amazed the performance data worked. Managed to move to Airborne Command Post ECs with TF33 engines and what a difference the extra 20000 pounds of thrust made. Felt like a sports car in comparison to the water wagon. However this shakes out with the KC-X, I hope the airplane is as reliable as the old Boeing 717. Thats what the Boeing data plate said in the crew entry chute. It was the missing number.

[afgeo4]

As a former SAC Tanker driver I am sorry to see the old bird go. Flew the A model for 10 years, some of those years before the Collins FD109 flight director. Converted lots of JP4 and water into black smoke and noise, not a whole bunch of thrust though. Made for long slow takeoff rolls, some almost two minutes long. I saw the departure ends of long runways from very low altitudes/high speeds and was amazed the performance data worked. Managed to move to Airborne Command Post ECs with TF33 engines and what a difference the extra 20000 pounds of thrust made. Felt like a sports car in comparison to the water wagon. However this shakes out with the KC-X, I hope the airplane is as reliable as the old Boeing 717. Thats what the Boeing data plate said in the crew entry chute. It was the missing number.

I gotta give it to Boeing engineers and USAF maintainers... the 707 has the longest and most useful career of any aircraft EVER (C-130s that fly now have almost nothing in common with the original versions, so they don't really count).

[MajFitzpatrick]

KC-10 wasn't the problem for our C-17, But as an ESTA Team member (Jet Catcher) we needed the KC-135s for at least part way of the pond for our Vipers. Finally a 135 from one of our squadrons in the UK picked up our Vipers, and a couple hours later we departed on our C-17 for a base state side.

You are correct we were not number one priority, we were out of the hot spot and returning CONUS, but if you remember Maron is a Trans base, and the AF doesn't like keeping large numbers of stagnent assets on trans in foreign countries. Even if there is a decent US Presence. (unless is say, Spang, Mildenhal, or Rammstein...)

[PHall]

As a former SAC Tanker driver I am sorry to see the old bird go. Flew the A model for 10 years, some of those years before the Collins FD109 flight director. Converted lots of JP4 and water into black smoke and noise, not a whole bunch of thrust though. Made for long slow takeoff rolls, some almost two minutes long. I saw the departure ends of long runways from very low altitudes/high speeds and was amazed the performance data worked.

Raise your hand if you have left tire tracks in the overrun during a KC-135A takeoff on a hot day with a max fuel load.
(i.e. Red Flag TTF at March in August.)

[afgeo4]

KC-10 wasn't the problem for our C-17, But as an ESTA Team member (Jet Catcher) we needed the KC-135s for at least part way of the pond for our Vipers. Finally a 135 from one of our squadrons in the UK picked up our Vipers, and a couple hours later we departed on our C-17 for a base state side.

You are correct we were not number one priority, we were out of the hot spot and returning CONUS, but if you remember Maron is a Trans base, and the AF doesn't like keeping large numbers of stagnent assets on trans in foreign countries. Even if there is a decent US Presence. (unless is say, Spang, Mildenhal, or Rammstein...)

What happened? They usually route through Turkey, Germany and the Azores. That routing reduces the need to refuel in air (a not so fun task for a tired pilot).

[scooter]

Raise your hand if you have left tire tracks in the overrun during a KC-135A takeoff on a hot day with a max fuel load.
(i.e. Red Flag TTF at March in August.)

Left a few at a place called U Tapao and launched uphill over the cliff at Guam.

Tags - MIKE

[Fifinella]

Raise your hand if you have left tire tracks in the overrun during a KC-135A takeoff on a hot day with a max fuel load.
(i.e. Red Flag TTF at March in August.)

Back when man thought he could burn water...

[PHall]

Raise your hand if you have left tire tracks in the overrun during a KC-135A takeoff on a hot day with a max fuel load.
(i.e. Red Flag TTF at March in August.)

Back when man thought he could burn water...

It wasn't called the "Steam Jet" for nothing!

And when that water ran out after 2 minutes you had a over 40% reduction in thrust!
(J57-43-PW engine with water, 13,850 pounds of thrust, without water, 8,500 pounds of thrust.)

Hot and heavy takeoffs were a "controlled thrill".

[MajFitzpatrick]

From what I hear, Tactical Jets go to Spain usually when heading to the kitty litter.