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.

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

Latest - GAO sides with Boeing in Tanker Contract

In a big blow to EADS - the GAO (whose decision is not binding on the Air Force) has confirmed that the complaints filed by Boeing in the contract award are indeed valid.

While much of the noise will be focused on the protagonists - the real loser here is the US Defence Department procurement process which once again shows itself as being less than competent.

The USAF Tanker deal - some thoughts

Quite frankly I was shocked to learn that the US Air Force had decided to select the Northrup Grumman/EADS team over Boeing. The decision had a seam of inevitability in it that was a train going to Abilene.

However in today's global economy where the words "National" and "Interests" are not always synomomous, this is a positive trend. But the decision criteria was not based on anything but the previously stated (and in my understanding) and fair set of rules. According to the statements from the USAF committee, Airbus won on all criteria accounts. The fall out in both Washingtons is going to reverberate for a long time.

Boeing would do well to accept the decision. If the criteria was flawed or if the result were not so clear cut then a protest should be conducted. However given the background and the time taken to make the decision, one can only believe that the review was conducted in the most strict of circumstances.

One of the arguments I have seen against the award has been the notion that high tech jobs are being outsourced to foreigners. Frankly I believe the opposite is the case. An industrial base of additional understanding especially in composites will be a direct result of this award.

Perhaps now that the decision has been made then we can only hope that there are some lessons to be learned here. One of the biggest lessons that should be learned is that the US Defense Acquisition process is flawed and needs rework.

One final thought is that there is a bad knock on effect within the airline industry. The 767 production line has been hanging on with some cargo based sales but very little new sales as customers wait for the 787. There is already a very big shortage of 767-300 size aircraft and the probably 18 month to 2 year total delay in the 787 program means a strong shortage of this size equipment. This is not good and will need monitoring in the coming months.

Boeing vs Airbus - Tanker (PR) Wars

Monday was a great day for people who read and write blogs. Boeing and Airbus were having a bad PR haircut day.

Airbus is trying to win (against the odds) the Tanker contract based on the A330 Airframe. Boeing is trying to keep the contract based on the 767 Airframe they already won once but were disqualified due to some rather nefarious practices which resulted in Jail time for two of their former execs.

So Airbus thought they could raise the stakes by offering some political value in a backdoor offset. The offer is to position an additional A330 civil production line (for Freighters only) at the same plant in Alabama. Currently Airbus has a backlog of 65 of these aircraft.

So back to the war - yesterday was Airbus's big announcement. All the politicos who wanted news ink showed up. Hoping for some good positive stories to put the pressure on the Tanker Selection Committee to choose the European subsidiary of EADS rather than the normal US Contractor choice.

Some little dickie birdie decided yesterday was the perfect day to look at Airbus's first military program - the A400M and see how well they are doing. Or not doing as the case may be. So rather than Airbus scoring a nice PR coup - the focus in the papers this morning was on Airbus's problems not the positives.

The article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal today was less than complementary about EADS's Airbus division. Pointing to Project Management, Politics and Technology complexity as the chief causes of the A400M's woes.

In here is a little nugget that everyone should be paying attention to; a global supply chain for aircraft is by no means a trivial task even for experienced hands such as at Airbus. For Boeing there is a lesson here too. The long software integrated supply chain has incredible complexity and is very hard to get right particularly when politics and expedient choices are made.

Lessons learned. I think we will all so some more rhetoric before the decision is announced. Even then it is likely to get appealed.