USAF Tanker - Depoliticize The Decision

I haven't commented on the Tanker Wars in a while. However with the impending publication of the latest RFP - perhaps it is time to rethink the process.

The Tanker battle has always been a political hot potato. it has been fraught with criminal misdealings and almost constant wrangling

So I have a suggestion for the august people in the US Dept. of Defense and the Congress.

Buy both the A330 and the 767.

SAY WHAT???

Hear me out here - my reasoning is not that crazy. Let's consider this. They are not similar aircraft. The real question is the best fit for the role. So if the Air Force acquires both aircraft in limited numbers now on a lease basis - lets say a fleet of 25 Aircraft each, they could both be evaluated fairly and the USAF would get to start replacing the 600+ aging not fit for much else than the scrap heap KC135s.

Also I think the powers that be in the purchasing office should buy the COTS version. Both are currently deployed in different places and therefore they meet the NATO standard for compatibility. Thus there should be no reason not to do anything else but fly the things. Judging by recent history of US military aircraft purchases - during any life time the aircraft has been so modified from its original configuration that all the likely mods can either by developed with production experience or (as they would be leased) they could be sent back to the manufacturer as being unsuitable. The cost inefficiency of buying 2 aircraft vs one would be more than outweighed by the other cost based advantages. (If you don't believe me just ask the airlines that operate mixed Boeing and Airbus Fleets).

In my view the Air Force would get its capability earlier. The manufacturers could start delivering product and the procurement process could be one heck of a lot simpler and faster. PLUS by taking this path the politicos would be forced to make an assessment based on operational FACT as opposed to political speculation.

End result - a fleet of aircraft doing its job earlier. A cheaper product to buy. Competitive pressures maintained to keep pricing down. More flexibility in deployments. Lower risk for the user community. More resources for the hard pressed men and women who serve in the US Armed forces.

Contrast this with the continued wrangling over which aircraft is POTENTIALLY best. The constant messing with the spec. And a lot of hot air being expended in various parts of the country.

Will this happen? Nah... that's WAY too sensible a solution.

Tanker Wars Episode 5 - The Empire Strikes Back - Contract Cancelled

"So if we can't win then no-one can."

Clearly responding to intense pressure from some quarters, The Pentagon announced today that they are suspending the contract until after the next election.

There is one clear winner and one clear loser in this.

The winner is the Boeing Company. The loser is the American Armed Forces.

Some people I hope should be ashamed of themselves. It seems that politics as usual is the norm in defense contracts.

Tanker Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

So the USAF has been forced to re-open the bidding on the Tanker contract.

Bravo for the GAO for finding the errors. For those of you who believe in dark conspiracies - consider the following:

The US had to look like they were offering an opening to the international market for US military contracts. Now that they did award one contract (the Tanker to NG and EADS) they can go back to business as usual and give the real contract to Boeing.

No harm done? Not really - NG will be bent out of shape and the European will cry fowl. Too bad about Alabama.

The decision of course wont happen now until 2009 by which time there will be a new guy in the White House and occupying the DoD Secretary's chair.

So who cares?

We shall see.

787 Power on - FINALLY

So Boeing managed to turn on the lights. Finally one built (and rebuilt and rebuilt...) 787 actually works with electricity. I wonder if they can turn it off ;-)

This is very good news for Boeing if for no other reason than it is a great morale booster.

There are challenges ahead. The most significant is that all the customers are being told to plan for significant delivery delays. In the case of a small airline - though an early buyer - the date for delivery for Monarch is now 2013. Ouch!

The gap between the projected deliveries and the full on production is a gaping hole. There is a significant capacity gap in the 767/330/787 sector, new builds are scarce and Boeing is being tight-lipped about any 767 production rate ramp up. With the Tanker decision again about 12 months away, Boeing is going to be in no hurry to add capacity to this sector. As Airbus has seen with the recent inability to reach Wave 2 for the A380 - this logistics thing is not easy.

What can be learned from this? Lots of things. Now I guess we all understand why Microsoft is/was always late with its versions of Windows.

Cheers

Timothy

So the protest goes in - Now what?

Boeing - playing sore looser - has filed a a formal protest against the award of the Boeing Tanker contract to Northrup Grumman based on Airbus's A330.

Automatically the review will be conducted by the GAO. It has 100 days to review and then a possible further round could add another 100 days to the protest. This is highly likely given that Boeing will likely protest again unless of course they win in which case Northrup will likely protest.

In the mean time the Air Force has to put up with an ageing fleet of Tankers whose average age is now 40 years plus. Kudos to Boeing for building a product that has been so successful.

As a US taxpayer, I am loathe to see this process go further. We all want to see the USAF get its new tankers and for the rest of the world to get on with it.

My wish? Boeing to cooperate with NG and become a contractor to the project. NG could definitely do with some help. Airbus has a significant hill to climb with some of its other projects.

Lets hope the USAF got their numbers and criteria right in the award. If not then we should all feel concerned that the procurement process for US military is (as I believe) deeply flawed. This should be a priority to review for the next US Administration.

Cheers

Timothy

Wide ranging reports - 787 Delayed again - implications

Sadly as we have reported frequently here, the 787 is running late again. The project is still not hitting its milestones. While Boeing was quietly crowing last year when the full extent of the A380 delays became apparent and insisting that there aggressive time line was solid, it now becomes clear that this was off base.

So I will reiterate our position on the situation with the 787. It will take years to bring the project to full production run rate. Our estimate is that this will not occur until well into 2010 possibly even later. The issues yet to be resolved are numerous and complex. Even after they are solved turning the solutions into a viable production line with smooth processes is far from being assured. Boeing is very fortunate in that after the design issues are resolved they have a cadre of execs who have solid moving production line experience who came from Toyota and Ford etc. But the hump to get over is/will continue to be a big/long one. We will continue to monitor the situation and hope to report some estimates on impact later.

Lest it seem that we are beating up on Boeing alone, let me just say that these are issues that will face Airbus in much the same way with the A350. Unlike Boeing with a single current project to worry about - Airbus has 4. The A380, The A330 Tanker/Military, The A350XWB and do not forget the A400M which is a pretty sick project at the moment.

I say again...

Take the time and its actually OK to add fudge factor to the overall project. Take a deep breath and really think hard. For Boeing - you have one more chance for a schedule correction. Get it right this time. For Airbus - learn and don't get too aggressive with the schedules. For the suppliers - you have two years of missed schedules and delivery lines. Spirit in KS will be particularly vulnerable having a strong dependence on Boeing.