Wichita Business Journal

While the U.S. Air Force hasn’t yet had the opportunity to evaluate tanker bids from Boeing and EADS, the fight continues to be played out publicly in the pages of industry publications such as Aviation Week and Space Technology.

The Air Force is expected to make a decision in February.

Consider the Jan. 10 Aviation Week issue, which includes a two-page ad from Boeing, complete with American flags and closeups of two crew members, contending that the 767-based tanker offering is “For tanker crews, the most capable tanker.”

The EADS North America single-page ad goes to the heart of the matter: Which aircraft will cost less?

“Do the math” says that ad, contending that the EADS KC-45, based on Airbus’ A330 twin jet, will deliver a gallon of jet fuel for 24 percent less on a 1,500 mile mission.

As aerospace analyst Scott Hamilton points out in a blog post Wednesday, these are complex computations.

While Boeing’s smaller 767-based tanker might seem inherently cheaper, Boeing still has to absorb the cost of developing the “NewGen” version it’s promising the Air Force, while Airbus’ version is already ready.

Boeing boosters continue to be frustrated that the Air Force isn’t paying attention to a World Trade Organization ruling that the A330 was built with European subsidies illegal under WTO rules. Sen. Patty Murray, for instance, has contended that the subsidies will help Airbus ratchet down its price, compared to Boeing’s.

The larger Airbus plane will be inherently more expensive to operate, and will require some adjustment of facilities used to supporting the current Boeing 707 tankers.

But Hamilton suggests the EADs aircraft’s larger fuel capacity may be seen as a benefit by Air Force planners worried that geopolitical changes will curtail U.S. use of bases closer areas of conflict. If tankers have to fly further they need more fuel to keep themselves in the air, in order to deliver the fuel where it’s needed, he said.

In addition, Hamilton suggests that the fact that the EADS plane is based on a newer A330 airframe, which continues to sell well, may make it easier to keep operational as the tanker fleet ages than Boeing’s older 767.

Currently Boeing has only 50 model 767s on order, versus Airbus’ 372 orders for various A330 versions.

The current KC 135 tankers are based on the Boeing 707, which was built by Boeing until 1991.

Boeing says its tanker program would mean 7,500 new jobs in Kansas, including many at its defense facility in Wichita.

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2011/01/13/boeing-eads-tanker-debate-pla...

Quote:

And seeing all 3 up close, the B767 wheels are closer to the KC-135's wheels but  just a little bigger, while the A330 has larger wider wheels to distribute the weight more evenly.

There has been nothing confirmed about the A340's center gear on the A330 MRTT. The original prototype built for the USAF was normal gear configuration, just like the Australians plane.

Jan 20, 2011

By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
PARIS

An Airbus Military KC-30A tanker in testing for the Royal Australian Air Force was involved in an incident with a Portugese air force F-16 during a refueling exercise Jan. 20.

More than a dozen refuelings had taken place when the incident occurred. Both aircraft sustained damage.

Details of what transpired are still under review, but the incident caused the refueling boom on the Airbus A330-based tanker to break off and fall into the Atlantic. Both aircraft returned safely to their respective bases.

Spanish authorities will lead the incident investigation, with Australian officials involved.

So far, Airbus Military does not expect any affect on the first delivery of the tanker to the Royal Australian Air Force. That handover is already behind schedule, although Airbus CEO Tom Enders said this week the milestone was imminent.

EADS
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/01/20/awx_01_2...

It was hardly the 18 1/2 -minute gap of Watergate lore.

But a Senate committee on Thursday delved into the forensics of whether a confidential data file related to a $35 billion Air Force contract was opened for 15 seconds or 3 minutes, and what did the service know about it and when did it know it.

The file was opened last November by a manager for one of the bidders, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, or EADS. That set off a furor because it contained data about the Air Force evaluation of a bid by Boeing, a rival, to supply aerial refueling tankers.

The Air Force has acknowledged that it accidentally sent each company data about the other’s bids. And once it found out that the EADS worker had briefly opened some of the data, but Boeing had not, it resent the discs to both companies to make sure the playing field was level.

But as the Air Force prepares to seek final bids, the Senate Armed Services Committee, prodded by Boeing’s supporters, demanded the investigative files and held the hearing to examine how the service could have been so sloppy, especially given that two previous efforts to award the contract had collapsed.

Steven Shirley, the executive director of the Defense Department’s cybercrime center, said an examination of an EADS computer and other records supported the company’s contention that the manager had looked at the file only briefly before realizing it involved Boeing’s data.

Pentagon officials described the document as a one-page spreadsheet with 10 lines of preliminary data about how the service scored the Boeing jet’s efficiency in sample refueling missions.

EADS executives said the employee had closed the file in less than 15 seconds and began trying to reach company security officers for help in locking up the disc. At one point, Mr. Shirley said he “roughly” agreed with that estimate. But he later said investigators had told him the file remained open for about three minutes, presumably while the employee was seeking the help.

Still, he said, “what we found on the computer was consistent” with EADS’s assertions that it had quickly reported the mistake to the Air Force.

A report from the forensics lab said that EADS had not saved or copied the data. EADS has said that it immediately took the employee off the program and allowed him to rejoin it only after the Air Force resent the data to both companies and authorized his return.

The investigative reports, released by the committee, also shed new light on how the mix-up occurred.

One report said separate groups within the Air Force wrote the transmittal letters and prepared the discs, and that instructions for packaging them were misconstrued.

The Air Force reassigned two officials involved in the mistake. But Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, where Boeing has its defense division headquarters, suggested they should have been punished more severely.

“This is a case study of incompetence in contract competition, this whole debacle, from the beginning to this very moment,” she said.

The Air Force’s first effort to replace its Eisenhower-era tankers collapsed after corruption charges involving a leasing proposal with Boeing. EADS, the parent of Airbus, was part of a team that won the competition in 2008, only to have the government block the award after Boeing protested.

The battle is also highly political, with thousands of jobs for Washington State and Kansas if Boeing wins or for Alabama if EADS does.

Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, said Boeing could have filed a protest if it was harmed by the mistake.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/business/28tanker.html?_r=1&src=busln