KC-X - Boeing Protest Factor 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY
In analyzing Mission Capability, the most important evaluation factor, Boeing received the highest possible rating, meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters.Boeing scored "Blue (Exceptional) and Low Risk" in this area -- the highest possible rating in the most critical "factor" in this competition. Among other measurements, the Air Force identified positive "discriminators" as well as "weaknesses." While the KC-30 had 30 discriminators and five weaknesses, among them its aerial refueling boom, the KC-767 had 98 discriminators and only one weakness. The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives). The Air Force evaluated Boeing as having significantly more strengths (discriminators) than the competitor.
AERIAL REFUELING CAPABILITY. The requirements for aerial refueling identified six key thresholds and five key objectives. The KC-767 met all of these thresholds and objectives with key strengths including the ability to refuel the V-22, the ability to offload multiple fuel types on the same mission, a better refueling receptacle, and a superior Aerial Refueling Operator Station. By comparison, the KC-30 failed to meet three of the key objectives-and had multiple weaknesses associated with its refueling boom.
GAO found that the Air Force's designation of Aerial Refueling as a "compelling" discriminator was improper because it is based on an interpretation of the RFP that conflicts with the plain language of the solicitation. NG/EADS was given consideration for exceeding the fuel offload at radius objective requirement, when the RFP precludes consideration above the defined objectives. The Air Force concedes in its Memorandum of Law that there is a point at which marginal additional fuel offload capability "does not warrant additional expenditure - relative to other design and performance attributes such as aircraft and weight and flexibility." The fuel offload at radius objective, if properly applied, should have prevented NG/EADS from receiving unbounded evaluation credit for excess capacity.
GAO found that the Air Force's designation of Airlift as a "compelling" discriminator was improper because it is based on an interpretation of the RFP the conflicts with the plain language of the solicitation. The AF awarded additional consideration to NG/EADS for "exceeding" the Aeromedical Evacuation capability objective in violation of the solicitation. Airlift analysis ignored weaknesses that show the KC-30 does not satisfy all KPP threshold requirements, contradicting the award of "major discriminator" insofar as its inability to fit seamlessly into the Defense Transportation System, as well as limitations in airlift efficiency.
FUEL OFFLOAD CAPABILITY. The KC-767 met or exceeded every requirement for offloading fuel. In November of 2007, the Air Force identified the KC-767's "Fuel Offload vs. Range" as a "Strength." Still, some have pointed to the KC-30's larger fuel capacity as an advantage. However, historical data since the Vietnam War demonstrate that the average amount of fuel offloaded per mission is just 60,000 lbs.-only 25% of what the oversized KC-30 can carry. In other words, the taxpayer is paying for unused, excess capacity - capacity that brings with it excess weight and significantly higher operating costs. Under real-world conditions based on real-world mission data, the KC-767 is far more fuel and cost efficient.
AIRLIFT CAPABILITY. As made clear in the Air Force Statement of Objectives for this competition, air refueling is the primary mission of the KC-X tanker. The Secretary of the Air Force reiterated this point unequivocally when he said, "We do not want to buy a cargo airplane that tanks, we also do not want to buy a passenger airplane that tanks. We want to buy a tanker." However, Boeing states that, in addition to being the superior tanker, the KC-767 provides 69% greater Airlift Efficiency than the tanker it's meant to replace, a particular "Strength" as noted by the Air Force in 2007. Furthermore, the floor of the KC-767 is a true cargo deck and much stronger than the floor of the KC-30-so while the KC-30 has more cargo volume, the KC-767 can carry approximately the same cargo weight and transport it more efficiently.
SURVIVABILITY. To be survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and mitigate threats and protect the crew in the event of attack. Aircraft size is also a factor; the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the target, the more vulnerable it is. In this critical area, the Air Force found the KC-767 to have five times as many "Strengths" as the KC-30. During the Air Force debrief following the selection of Northrop/EADS' Airbus A330 derivative over Boeing's 767 derivative, the Boeing team discovered the KC-767 outranked the KC-30 in the critical survivability category. The KC-767 achieved a total score of 24 positive discriminators -- including 11 described as major -- while the KC-30 scored five, none of which were major.
Boeing said the U.S. Air Force's decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) was at odds with the fact that the Northrop/EADS team's KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker. The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators found the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability discriminators as its competitor.
Major survivability discriminators for the Boeing KC-767 included:
- More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
- Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable flight crews to better see and assess the threat environment
- Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is better able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
- Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected
- Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and critical aircraft systems
- Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.
Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in tanker survivability superior to all current Air Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767 also includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the tanker crew.
Speaking at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group (ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker. "When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker," Fogleman told the ARSAG audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing's tanker effort. "To be survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack. The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
