Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley (at podium) answers a question from a reporter after he announced during a press conference in the Pentagon Feb. 24, 2011, that the KC-46A tanker contract was awarded to The Boeing Company. Behind Secretary Donley (from the left) are Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn and Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter. (U.S. Air Force photo/Jim Varhegyi)
by Capt. Chris Sukach
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
2/24/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Air Force and Defense Department officials announced the award of an engineering and manufacturing development contract valued at more than $3.5 billion for the KC-46A aerial refueler to The Boeing Company Feb. 24.
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said in the briefing that many factors were evaluated during the tanker selection process.
"This selection process determined whether or not the proposals demonstrated the ability of an offerer to deliver all 372 mandatory requirements and whether non-mandatory capabilities would be addressed," said Secretary Donley, emphasizing that both offerers met the mandatory requirements. "It also took into account fleet mission effectiveness in wartime, and life cycle costs as embodied in fuel efficiency and military construction costs."
Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn noted the "competition favored no one except the taxpayer and the warfighter."
The Air Force-led selection effort included experts from the larger DOD community, including staff from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and independent review teams during each step of the process.
The thorough and transparent selection process was marked by continual dialogue with offerers to ensure Air Force officials had a clear understanding of their proposals and the companies clearly understood the service's analysis of their offers, Secretary Donley said.
Secretary Donley also highlighted that the warfighter was in charge of stating the requirements for the tanker, and that meeting those requirements enables the aircraft to go to war on day one.
"General Schwartz and I are confident in the fact that when our young pilots, boom operators and maintainers receive this aircraft, they will have the tools they need to be successful at what we ask them to do," the secretary added.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz shared the secretary's sentiment.
"I'm pleased with how this has produced an outcome after an exhaustive effort by hundreds of the department's very best people, that we will get about delivering the capability that's long overdue," General Schwartz said.
While the focus of the briefing was on the award of the contract, Secretary Donley addressed basing considerations for the aircraft, stating that those decisions involve other organizations and will take place over the next couple of years.
Secretary Donley also reiterated the service's commitment to provide quality equipment to the warfighter.
"To the men and women of our Air Force, today's announcement represents a long-overdue start to a much-needed program," Secretary Donley said. "Your Air Force leadership, supported by Dr. (Ashton) Carter and others throughout the Department of Defense, is determined to see this through, and we will stand behind this work."
Air Force and DOD officials complemented both offerers and thanked congressional oversight committees and their staffs for working with the department during the contract process that served the warfighter and taxpayers well.
The program expects to deliver the first 18 aircraft by 2017.
3/21/2011 11:28:29 PM ET I invite everyone to dig up the 030711 edition of AIR FORCE TIMES. The editorial AGAINST Boeing was on page 4. The announcement for a 35 billion dollar contract in favor of Boeing is on page 24. GO FIGURE The editorial will explain all the sad faces at the podium.
John Rytkonen, Sulphur LA
3/7/2011 5:36:42 AM ET EADS North America on Friday March 4 announced that it won't protest the Air Force's award of the KC-X tanker contract to Boeing.
Dan Halen, England
3/5/2011 7:44:51 AM ET TankerIPEP: So you know, the 767 we will get is different from the 767 that Japan and Italy are flying. We will have a different boom capable of a higher fuel output. Japan and Italy have a KC-97/KC-135 boom. Also, the cockpit will be closer to the 787 than the 767. Just wanted to keep you up on the RnD.
DOG, Japan
3/4/2011 4:57:51 PM ET The chief said people have a narrow view of a larger strategic issue. The actual problem is too many strategic decisions are made by congressmen and women CEOs and other folks who should not be involved in final decision making. Let the military decide what's best for the military.
John G, Langley
3/4/2011 8:09:30 AM ET 2017 before we see one of these? That's funny. Japan and Italy have been flying KC-767s for years now. The RnD is basically already done and the real thing is already flying...I've been on one. It's already on-the-shelf technology. What's the delay now? Slapping a boom on an Airbus is new, so I can see that causing delays in RnD but it's already been done on a 767. More wasted time and money.... Let's just drop the idea and restore the 135s like we restore a classic car; they were built to last and nobody builds them like that anymore. By the time we actually get a new tanker fleet the AF will be asking for UAV tankers anyway.
TankerIPEP, Forks
3/3/2011 12:15:44 PM ET You folks complaining about spending money on a new bird have a very small view of a strategic issue. The 135 is old. It takes a lot of maintenance money to keep them flying. This new bird will reduce time money and manpower to keep strategic refueling available. As for jobs yes Wichita and Seattle will likely see jobs stay in thos town and they may even add positions but Boeing is a global company. Foreign factories will also provide parts. Just look at the Dreamliner. This KC will be built much the same way. Bottom line tanker crews and maintainers have been waiting a lot longer then they should have for a new plane. I hope the new ones serve as well as the venerable 135.
Retired CMSgt, Florida with the rest of the retirees
3/3/2011 10:49:10 AM ET The refueling workhorse the KC-135 went operational in 1956. I have talked to maintainers and aircrew to include boomers during the time we had the aircraft at Robins. It is time for a new tanker. The budget cuts and drawdowns come and go but our mission stays steady. We must take the steps to equip our future Air Force. If we limit our capabilities to handle today or just ten years from today we are already behind.
Jay M, Warner Robins
3/3/2011 6:19:03 AM ET You're getting force shaped because the AF has too many people, not too little money.
Diego, Texas
3/2/2011 10:57:01 AM ET For the guys wondering if the Boeing plane is still on the drawing board... Some aspects of it, I'm sure, are. However, the KC-767 is an operational airplane and is flown by the Japanese and Italians, to name a couple. The Boeing plant in Wichita, Kansas, does the refueling modifications and I have seen the jet flying around. It looks good.
former135IP, Laughlin AFB
3/2/2011 10:26:59 AM ET Here we are awarding multi billion-dollar contracts for new equipment. At the same time we are forceshaping, also delaying promotions of people already selected for promotion because we don't have the money. At this time can we really afford to be spending billions on new stuff? Doesn't make sense.
Capt, Nebraska
3/2/2011 9:31:17 AM ET Don't count your planes before they fly. What are the chances EADS will file a protest? My guess is this will go back through the bidding process again and we will be having a news release in about 3 years with EADS being awarded the contract with BOEING then filing a protest.
Jerry, Oklahoma
3/1/2011 6:52:28 PM ET I for one am glad the Air Force is getting a replacement for the KC-135. I grew up in the days of SAC crewing the 135. Even though she is old she is still a capable airplane but not as capable as the KC-10 which I flew for 7 1/2 yrs as a FE. I think the Air Force did the right thing by selecting Boeing over the French Airbus. We need the jobs to be kept here in the US and awarding this contract will surely will help put people back to work.
Greg Weber, Avondale AZ
3/1/2011 3:26:05 PM ET How about Strato-Toad? The tanker guys will understand.
Tanker Dad, Washington DC
3/1/2011 3:21:50 PM ET Regarding off-the-shelf, that may not have been the status for Boeing when this whole competition started but their aircraft is not just on the computer-aided drawing board. The KC-767 has been in use by Japanese Self-Defense Forces since 2009 and is now in use by the Italian Air Force as well. While I suspect some modifications may be required to meet the USAF specs, I doubt it's the undertaking that might have been in the first round.
Tom, WPAFB OH
3/1/2011 8:27:18 AM ET As for the name, in 2008 the AF held an e-mail contest for the name for the new tanker. It's going to be three years and so far there has been no announcement of who won the contest and the name selected. I still have a copy of the e-mail I sent at that time. I wonder if they are going to open it again or select from the ones sent.
FNR, MD
3/1/2011 7:54:43 AM ET Lets just hope that some members of Congress will not impede this already stalled process just because their respective district won't benefit from the contract award.
BF, IN
3/1/2011 4:24:30 AM ET I think the important thing is the 135 fleet was as old as dirt. Regardless which aircraft was picked, it will be an upgrade there. I wonder if the new bird will have the same issues with landing weight and in-air fuel dumps...
Alex, Spang
2/28/2011 7:55:52 PM ET Well I'm just glad that the guys flying at 35-40 thousand feet are going to have quality equipment. When will the DOD decide to give quality equipment to the guys who are flying below 500'?
paul, afg
2/28/2011 6:52:45 PM ET Texas Pete and all others bashing the recompete and award to Boeing. Your comment clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Perhaps you should search for the GAO's ruling on the protest and then read all 46 pages. In it you'll see that the GAO upheld the protest and you'll see that the N-G/EADS proposal was CLEARLY the inferior aircraft. In fact IMO based on FAR rules, the N-G proposal should've been ruled ineligible since it did not meet many of the requirements of the RFP. I suppose their current proposal may have been better but regardless, the EADS aircraft was still inferior. While it may not be perfect, Boeing's is the better aircraft. It's also fitting that an American manufacturer got the contract. I welcome your arguments. Note. I am not an employee of Boeing nor am I affiliated with Boeing in any way shape or form.
JP, Utah
2/28/2011 5:30:43 PM ET Based on the history with this particular aircraft/contract, they should call it the KC-46A Albatross.
CW, Huntsville AL
2/28/2011 5:24:26 PM ET Isn't the EADS aircarft already flying? Which means the Boeing plane is still on the computer aided drawing board. Good choice AF. Wonder what the cost overruns are going to be on this one.
Retired, AZ
2/28/2011 2:27:58 PM ET For once the AF did not go with the lowest bidder instead they went for the lesser aircraft. Why pay the same price for an aircraft that exceeded every requirement when you can go with Boeings barely meets all requirements offer. Aim High but always allow for drop. The AF has dropped the ball on this one.
Retired, Ohio
2/28/2011 9:02:33 AM ET How about KC-46A Condor? They are both big and ugly and can fly a long time........
Fighter Guy, Ga
2/28/2011 9:00:10 AM ET How about the K-46A Global Warmer? It's humor people. I'm all for it. I just wish the bureaucracy didn't stretch it out so long. You'd never think we were in the middle of a war. However, these types of delays have been around since the days of Benjamin Foulois.
John, D.C.
2/27/2011 11:49:17 PM ET Finally, we've settled with the only politically correct and acceptable choice of manufacturer. EADS is well aware that the first Source Selection choice was about as fair as you can get although politically unacceptable.
Maj, overseas
2/27/2011 6:24:43 PM ET Boeing won Congress won The USAF.. It's an American aircraft that's important for the economy and votes.
eric, CA
2/27/2011 12:16:26 PM ET @Dan Anywhere USA -- KC-46A will be the military designation for the model released. The bird itself will receive a name not unlike every other-plane at a later point down the road. 30 seconds of research will show that almost all of them have names. Here are a few suggestions: The KC-46 kegger; The KC-46 Extender II; The KC-46 SuperTanker; The KC-46 StratoTanker II, or III, depends on your interpretation; The KC-46 Two-Fan-Gas-Can. Any other ideas, Dan?
Dave T, Southwest
2/27/2011 9:54:33 AM ET eric and others. The $3.5 billion mentioned in this article is correct.. It's for the initial phase -- the engineering and manufacturing contract. The $35 billion is for the entire contract The figure is correct.
rt, Missouri
2/27/2011 8:25:31 AM ET Great another aircraft. Do you wonder how is going to be paid? I guess we are going to be Force Shaped again. Excellent.
Michael, Japan
2/27/2011 7:53:17 AM ET So first we were going to lease tankers from Boeing...until the shenanigans were discovered. Then EADS...I'm sorry Northrop Grumman won the contract in a shady fashion just to make sure we weren't biased towards Boeing. Now Boeing wins the contract again. It sure would be nice if we let acquisition people run the acquisition process instead putting people in those positions just to get them promoted.
CKJ, SWA
2/26/2011 10:23:52 AM ET So when's the protest/appeal/next re-bid? If the competition learned anything from Boeing, they need to start waving the "that's not fair" flag soon...
Stuart, Planet Earth
2/26/2011 12:32:43 AM ET It is companies like Boeing that have whittled our once mighty country down to nothing. EADS won the contract over two years ago with a superior off-the-shelf product and all Boeing has to do is whine that the selection process is unfair and the acquisition process is forever altered. If the average American really understood what was going on they would be enraged. Integrity First........
Texas Pete, Texas
2/25/2011 5:02:42 PM ET KC-46A Aerial Refueler. Really? What happened to the Naming Competition roughly a year ago? The AF was looking to name this illustrious bird. KC-46A? Really ? That's the best we can do?
Dan, Anywhere USA
2/25/2011 2:40:17 PM ET According to all other media the size of the contract is 35 billion NOT 3.5 billion as this story says. Well I guess 35B is more than 3.5B. Slightly.
eric, San Antonio TX
2/25/2011 2:34:11 PM ET Que the pro-BoeingUnion comments. Boeing will once again drag us taxpayers through the coals with their corrupt management and workforce like they have with every contract they have been handed.
Taxpayer, USA
2/25/2011 12:13:26 PM ET Finally. Too bad the initial evaluation was run in an amateurish fashion. This decision could have been made a year ago.
Marc Harv, Valhalla TX
2/25/2011 7:08:15 AM ET Congratulations! It is the best deal for the USAF, American Worker, and people, but also a great deal for Boeing. The best aircraft for the best Air Force. Gerardo Seorns Barcala, Politologue - Defense Expert - Journalist
Gerardo Seorns Barcala, Bremen Germany
2/25/2011 1:51:57 AM ET And cue the EADS whining protest in 5 4 3...
BR, Calif
2/25/2011 1:41:49 AM ET The selection of Boeing to provide our next tanker is not only the right decision for our warfighters but for our country. We could not depend on any foreign country to provide one critical component for such a critical part of our Air Force. Although it took 10 years. Well done.
Craig Bergman, Tucson AZ
2/24/2011 9:56:34 PM ET 2017? After waiting all these years it will be another 6 years to get a dozen and a half tankers? What happened to off-the-shelf capability?
