Why is it so hard to find some new aerial tankers?

I've seen reports about how long it takes to find and order some aerial tankers. And they need to replace the old ones soon, but it seems that DoD seems to freaking take its time to find one. Whats the hold up?

Well the first attempt at a fair competion failed when there was some illegal money swaping from what I remeber reading.

A links to some of the politics.
www.worldpoliticsreview.com...

another link into the invesigation
www.reuters.com...

Aso fo right now they have restarted the programmes and are attempting again to deside on one design. I forget the exact details but I think its Boeing offer that has little cargo capacity and lots of fuel and the Airbus oppotion has tried to give a little more cargo space. I'm going to try and find the links to this info.

The next is a link I just founf on Air Attack that details the info about the current selection. I didn't see a date in the info and I havent heard anything so therr hasn't been a disicion yet.
www.air-attack.com...

The source-selection process is rigorous, requiring months of preparation and several more months of evaluation in a tightly controlled environment. Prior to official source selection start, KC-X program officials had continuous dialogue with industry representatives. This dialogue continues through the evaluation process.......

Federal Acquisition Regulations limit information exchanges or discussions with potential offerors solely to the procuring contracting officer inside the formal source selection process. These regulations also prohibit Air Force officials from disclosing the number or identity of offerors, or discussing source selection progress.

Contacts concerning the KC-X program by participating offerors are no longer permitted outside the formal source selection process.

They are trying their best to make sure they don't have problems again so they can finally retire the KC-135 fleets that are almost as old as the B-52 fleets.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Well the first attempt at a fair competion failed when there was some illegal money swaping from what I remeber reading.

The problem with the KC-767 deal earlier this decade was that the DoD procurement officer, Darleen Druyun, was in Boeings boat - there were multiple memo's from her detailing Airbuses offer and granting Boeing exceptionally favourable terms on several deals allowing them to inflate the price.

Darleen Druyun was then hired by Boeing on very good terms at the close of the KC-767 deal - she eventually served 9 months in prison for corruption and several significant Boeing executive officers had to resign, with their chief financial officer Michael Sears serving 4 months in prison and Boeing settling with the Justice department to the tune of $615million.

This was the second of several major scandals involving Boeing in recent years, putting every one of their military contract proposals under a very very large microscope (the other major scandal was the Lockheed industrial espionage case, which Lockheed sued over and won).

The current two proposals are vastly different to the aircraft proposed 5 years ago - the KC-767 is based on a different version of the Boeing 767 and the KC-330 now about to go into service with multiple airforces, giving EADS and Airbus the knowledge and experience that many said they lacked in the first procurement round - the KC-330 shares its own fuel load with the aircraft it refuels, allowing for a greater cargo capacity (no fuel tanks in either hte main compartment or the underfloor cargo areas), and a greater troop carrying capacity on the main deck.

That is why its taking so long, the proposals have to be reevaluated completely from scratch, because they are nothing like the previous ones and also because there has to be absolutely no ability for suggestion for improprietory on either Boeing nor the DoDs part, the deal has to be completely and utterly, undeniably above board.

I hope that answers your question, if not then please ask me to clarify.

I have had a huge confusion under this thread waiting experts here come to answer: Why USAF always chose an inferiorer platform refitted to be an aerotanker? Last time they selected DC-10, abandont Boeing 747, this time the treamline was abandoned. But both of two times, the latter obviously better than previous one, with carring more fuel, longer range, wider span to could be fitted more refueling probes. If I am the decision maker, I'd rather to use An-225 than any others.

Originally posted by emile
I have had a huge confusion under this thread waiting experts here come to answer: Why USAF always chose an inferiorer platform refitted to be an aerotanker? Last time they selected DC-10, abandont Boeing 747, this time the treamline was abandoned. But both of two times, the latter obviously better than previous one, with carring more fuel, longer range, wider span to could be fitted more refueling probes. If I am the decision maker, I'd rather to use An-225 than any others.

Emile -

I think the real question you are trying to ask is infact 'Why didnt they choose a cool aircraft like these ones ....?'

The KC-10 is not an inferior aircraft, at the time it was infact the best choice. The fuel and cargo capacity of the aircraft are not the only factors taken into account for tanker conversions, the aircraft also has to pass a certain number of groundhandling criteria - theres a certain turning circle the aircraft must not go outside of, theres a maximum width of the aircraft to ensure engines do not overhang the narrower runways and taxiways where they can pick up FOD and a maximum loaded weight that the aircraft cannot go over since the runways and taxiways might not take it.

No one really needs the capacity of the Boeing 747 when the negatives of choosing such a platform for tankering are so great - the KC-10 has nearly the same fueling capacity, nearly the same high density seating and there are no advantages to the main deck when it comes to cargo since the KC-747 would not have a nose door as they were to be commercial passenger conversions.

The KC-10, through the placement of the number 2 engine on the tail, has a reduced wake in the area where an aircraft would be positioned to receive fuel, while the 747 has an increased wake in that place.

The KC-10 is also the longest range production aircraft - over 11,000 miles, beating the commercial 777.

The KC-787 and KC-777 were discarded for different reasons - the KC-777 was deemed too large and fell outside the ground handling criteria (it was too heavy), while not enough is known about full largescale CFRP fuselages to satisfy the DoD in the longterm to take the KC-787. The next tanker after this will probably have a CFRP fuselage in some form, but much more will be known about longterm care and fatigue in a practical way (Im not saying that there will be problems in the commercial sector, but the USAF likes to be able to operate totally independantly).

The An-225 would not make a good tanker at all - its too large, it produces a massive wake that would be extremely hard to refuel in, and it has too many engines and is most certainly too heavy.