Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- The Boeing 767 Cross Section, Part 1 November 24, 2022
- Movie Review: Devotion November 21, 2022
- China will accelerate development of its commercial aerospace sector November 21, 2022
- Bjorn’s Corner: Sustainable Air Transport. Part 46. eVTOL comparison with helicopter November 18, 2022
- The economics of a 787-9 and A330-900 at eight or nine abreast November 16, 2022
Snapshot: EADS press conference, mainly on Tanker and USAF faux pas
We attended a press conference today in Washington (DC) with Sean O’Keefe, CEO of EADS North America, that covered a variety of issues but focused mainly on the KC-X tanker competition and most particularly the news last week that the USAF had sent proprietary information about the Boeing and EADS tanker bids to the wrong company.
First, O’Keefe remains in the neck collar from his near-fatal airplane accident in Alaska August 9 in which former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and three others were killed. Sean and his teenage son, Kevin, were about five survivors. O’Keefe’s spirits are good and he expressed that the random nature of those killed and who survived is proof that divine intervention is “real.”
Having interviewed O’Keefe on previous occasions, we are gratified to see his recovery progressing and him back at work.
Here is a quick snaphshot of O’Keefe’s remarks:
How many ways can the USAF screw up KC-X?
Defense News has this story about the USAF sending Boeing and EADS proprietary information about each company’s bids to the other by mistake.
How else can the government screw this competition up?
If you read the post carefully, the USAF also acknowledges for the first time what we have been saying for quite a while: the award will slip to early next year.
Update: It gets worse. Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times said the information including pricing data from each company, which is key in what is a price shoot-out competition.
This could have serious ramifications.
Tanker shortage cancels Red Flag exercise
Update, Nov. 17: EADS now is predicting the tanker contract award will slip to next year. This is entirely consistent with what we have been hearing (first quarter) and what we understand Boeing believes as well.
Original Post:
A shortage of KC-135 refueling tankers, because of the high demand in Afghanistan and Iraq, forced the Air Force to cancel Red Flag, an annual exercise.
The Army Times first reported this event November 9. Strategy Page has an analysis about the aging tanker issue.
Strategy Page has a couple of obvious errors in its analysis, but the overarching point is well taken.
This illustrates the need for aerial tankers and how warfighting capability can be affected by a shortage of tankers. While the exercise was not canceled due to aging tankers, but rather competing interests, the point is nonetheless made.
Another KC-X deadline passes
Today was supposed to be the day the KC-X contract was to get its go-ahead, but as has so often been the case, another deadline has come and gone.
The USAF suggests it will be done this fall, which is through December 20. We’ve previously written we believe the award will slip to the first quarter.
Meantime, here is an interesting story on the KC-X saga. Hat-tip to Flightglobal’s Steve Trimble for spotting this one.
Elections results and the KC-X
The election results could have a major affect on the KC-X tanker competition.
The headlines are:
- The Republican takeover of the House means Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA) loses is chairmanship of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, a position from which he could conceivably block any funding of a USAF award of the contract to EADS;
- Todd Tiahrt (R-Boeing/KS) lost his primary bid to move over to the US Senate, so he’s out of Congress altogether. This is a key Boeing ally.
- Patty Murray (D-Boeing/WA) widened her razor-thin lead in Washington State over Dino Rossi (R). Although Rossi fumbled a key question about the tanker competition during the race, there really was never any doubt that Rossi would support Boeing’s bid. But if Murray wins her fourth term, and the Democrats retain control of the Senate, both of which now appear likely, Boeing retains a powerful voice in the Senate to block any EADS contract; Read more
New delay likely in tanker competition
We have been told by two sources, including one that is very close to the competition, that the Air Force is likely to announce a new delay soon in evaluation and award of a contract in the long-running KC-X tanker competition.
One source says the delay will be until the first quarter; the other didn’t have a new timeline but said the USAF was preparing to notify the competitors any time now.
Air Force chief ambiguous on tanker selection timing
The Hill, a specialty publication reporting on matters of “the Hill,” aka Congress, reports today that the chief of the US Air Force won’t confirm selection of the winner for the KC-X program will be selected this year.
Heidi Wood, the aerospace analyst at Morgan Stanley, concluded some time ago that the selection would slip to 2011. There have been previous hints at this.
Also while we were on holiday: the Government Accountability Office rejected that final elements of the protest by US Aerospace for its late filing of a bid. We don’t think this silly proposal wouldn’t have gained traction even if the filing had been on time. This leaves Boeing and EADS as the only bidders for the KC-X.
Here is a link to a piece we did for Armed Forces Journal magazine’s October issue.
EADS reveals its analysis of tanker fuel use; says KC-45 is more efficient than KC-767
- EADS reveals its study–countering two Boeing-commissioned reports–about fuel usage of the KC-45 vs the KC-767;
- EADS says it delivers more bang for the buck than Boeing;
- Flight Global has a good story detailing some of Boeing’s KC-767’s technical specifications;
- Boeing is prepared to deliver its first two KC-767s to Italy by year-end, at long last, five years late.
After two years and two studies commissioned by Boeing promoting the KC-767 as less costly to taxpayers over a 40-year period, EADS has provided its analysis to us of the operating costs of the EADS/Airbus KC-45 tanker vs. the Boeing KC-767. The EADS analysis rebuts the two studies commissioned by Boeing in support of its tanker bid.
EADS and before it went solo, Northrop Grumman, has largely ignored the Boeing studies other than to generally dismiss the veracity of them. In doing so, both said the USAF would run its own analysis and determine the KC-45 delivered more bang for the buck, which is what happened in the 2008 competition won by Northrop. The KC-45 achieved an IFARA (efficiency) score of 1.9 vs. 1.71 for the KC-767.
But EADS and Northrop missed the point of the Boeing studies, and that was to influence Congress, not the Air Force. EADS finally got it, and released the following data.
EADS’ internal study, based on requirements and criteria in the USAF Request for Proposals, says the KC-45 will use 3% less fuel per gallon of fuel delivered on refueling missions than the KC-767 on 500nm trips and 31% less on 2,500nm trips. Thus, using USAF criteria, EADS says on a 2,500nm mission with 250 sorties, the KC-45 will save about $25.8m in one day alone, based on assumed fuel-per-gallon pricing disclosed by the Department of Defense.
Using USAF Net Present Value criteria in the RFP; 500nm increments for missions, and other factors, EADS ran several different scenarios with variable factors based on RFP criteria and concluded that mission-driven factors—and not solely training scenarios on which Boeing studies are essentially based—means the KC-45 $1.37bn to $16.5bn on an NPV basis over the 40 year life cycle.
This compares with Boeing’s AeroStrategy study that concludes the KC-767 saves taxpayers $11bn-$36bn over the same period, but not on an NPV basis.
EADS uses USAF criteria and the cost to deliver a gallon a fuel as the basis for its study compared with the Boeing approach, using commercial airline fuel consumption data filed with the US government.
The distinction compared with Boeing’s methodology is important, as we will explain. Read more
KC-767 cost advantage over KC-45
Boeing has released the results of a study it commissioned on the life-cycle cost advantage of the KC-767 vs. the KC-45, this time using a firm we’ve actually heard of and greatly respect: AeroStrategy.
AeroStrategy analyzed 10 scenarios, fuel price escalation, maintenance, and a variety of other factors to conclude that over the life of the program, the KC-767 will cost $11bn-$36bn less than a fleet of KC-45s.
Tanker update
It’s been a while since we’ve talked about the KC-X tanker competition, which is coming to the forefront again with the issuance of the Interim Report on Boeing subsidies by the WTO.
- Flight International has this story citing Ralph Crosby, chairman of EADS North America, talking about costs and process in the competition.
- The Telegraph of the UK has this story about the boondoggle lease deal of A330 MRTTs for the Royal Air Force. A reminder of how lease deals such as that proposed by Boeing in 2001 for the USAF (and killed because of the pricing and improprieties) can be way too costly, the UK MRTT deal is also an example of how dopey specifications can ruin a good idea. The UK DOD didn’t require combat-ready specifications (note to critics: this wasn’t an Airbus failing but a Department of Defence failing) for the MRTT. The UK situation also is indicative of old tanker-transports in need of replacement, just like the US KC-135. Most notably of the parallels is this statement in The Telegraph’s story: But in an era of budget shrinkage, how we buy equipment is as important as what we buy. The AirTanker deal is only the most obvious example of a procurement process that takes too long, costs too much and, even then, doesn’t always give us what we’re supposed to get.