GovernmentExecutive.com

The Air Force on Tuesday released a long-awaited document asking for reaction from industry on a wide range of options to replace the service's fleet of 1950s-era aerial refueling tankers.

The "request for information" is the first official outreach to industry in a yearlong process to select a contractor, or perhaps contractors, to update the tanker fleet. As expected, the document explores purchasing both new and used commercial aircraft, as well as leasing tanker services from contractors and upgrading engines and other parts in some of the Boeing KC-135s now in use.

A Senate aide called the document a "good first step" and lauded the Air Force for considering several approaches to upgrading its tanker fleet.

But the so-called RFI may not reveal what the Air Force ultimately wants in its long-sought fleet of modern tankers. The document is "comforting to those that want the Air Force to pursue a wide range of options and not to walk down a particular path prematurely," said Christopher Bolkcom, a Congressional Research Service analyst who monitors the Air Force.

"Those people who want them to keep a wide view should not be too encouraged, however, because ... just because the Air Force throws that net out there doesn't mean they have to keep everything they catch." Indeed, the Air Force clearly states in its solicitation that the "government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this advertisement."

But the breadth of the request could indicate that the Air Force may opt for a mixed fleet of new and used aircraft augmented by leasing some services, the Senate aide said. The goal should be to find the most efficient and cost-effective solution, the aide added.

However, the document appears to leave the door open for a tough competition between Boeing and Airbus. The request "gives everybody a window and a possible victory to only two players," said Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft analyst at Teal Group. Other companies, including service providers Omega Air and Atlas Air, may have a "niche somewhere," he added.

In the rush to acquire new planes in 2003, the Air Force tried to lease Boeing KC-767s before reviewing other options. The $23.5 billion deal collapsed after congressional critics, led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., forced the Pentagon to weigh alternatives to the Boeing aircraft.

The original tanker-lease deal collapsed in the biggest Pentagon procurement scandal in more than two decades, prompting the resignation of Air Force Secretary James Roche and convictions of two Boeing executives, ex-Air Force acquisition official Darleen Druyun and Michael Sears, the firm's chief financial officer.

The Air Force, which gave companies a June 9 deadline to respond to Tuesday's request, plans to release a draft request for proposals in September, followed by a formal proposal by January 2007. The contract award is expected next summer.

Given the high stakes of the program, as well as its checkered past, the tankers will likely generate "the highest ratio of paperwork to concrete results in the history of defense," Aboulafia said. "Everyone is going to make sure their t's are double crossed, and their i's are double-dotted."

COMMENTS

• Why is refueling a military function? Shouldn't this be contracted out to the private sector or doesn't the administration have anyone in this area of activity? Taxpayer Posted May 3, 2006 7:49 AM
• Why are these reporters focused on tankers? The Air Force is planning a total reorganization of the service to eliminate personnel (particularly enlisted personnel) to gain funds to finance new weapons and other toys. The service is shooting the people to get new toys to modernize! The modernization is to be able to fight a World War II type war! Anyone signing up for the Air Force is nuts! The all volunteer military has led to this situation because no one in the military will challenge the decisions until they are out of the service and not hired as a contractor to work for the Air Force. Now the NSPS system for civilians will lead to the same situation for civilians and the new system is going into effect as we speak! Congress really should examine the question of whether we really need an Air force at all. The existing Air Force should be moved back into the Army were it was and the tremendous overhead necessary for a second service should be eliminated. Please note that the only generals to speak out on Iraq and Rummy are those out of the services and no longer working for DoD. No one inside is going to speak out because that puts their entire career and pay at risk of loss! I find it most interesting that now Colin Powell speaks out that he thought there were not enough troops sent into Iraq at the start of the war -- why didn't he raise the issue publicly when he was involved? There appear to be several Generals that agree with him but he and they never made this an issue until we were there for three years. Is this hindsight or did they really believe it then? Taxpayer Posted May 2, 2006 7:33 AM
• I read in Aviation Week a proposal to build C-17As with a tanker option. Why not give that a shot? Another option is to buy used 767 or A330 airframes and convert them. Phil Posted April 25, 2006 9:07 PM