Air-to-Air Tanker Aircraft:
Northrup Grumman/EADS vs. Boeing
By Scott Clay, Bishop & Associates Inc.

From 2007 to 2008, U.S.Air Force officials held a bid and technology contest to offer a contract for 179 in-flight refueling aircraft to serve the Air Force, and occasionally, the Navy and Marines. Northrup Grumman teamed with the European Consortium, European Aeronautic Defense and Space (EADS), to offer the military version of its Airbus A330 two-engine aircraft built in France. This aircraft is already a successful commercial airliner, and has been purchased by more than 12 airlines around the world. EADS is also building the “air tanker” version for Australia, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Boeing offered its tanker version of the venerable 767 aircraft, designated as its “next generation” tanker because it is similar to the current KC-135 tankers currently used by the Air Force, and was built on the old 707 airframe. Consideration was given to offering a tanker version of the 777, an aircraft similar in size and capacity to the EADS A330, but Boeing decided against it. Boeing has contracts for its version of the KC-767 for Italy and Japan, but these contracts have had some serious delays in completion. Boeing felt that with its 767 platform experience, it would be easier to continue work on the existing platform, already designed for the fuel bladders, wiring, plumbing, and aerial boom that deploys to the rear of the aircraft for Air Force refueling.

In truth, a tanker/airlifter is a commercial airplane, like a 767, with most of the seats, overhead storage, bathrooms, in-flight entertainment equipment, and creature comforts removed. It is built with the standard wiring and connectors used in a normal aircraft. Additional instrumentation, radios, and monitoring systems are added to the cockpit, but the aircraft looks very similar. Most of the windows are removed, fuel tanks and bladders are added, more plumbing and electrical lines are added, and an extendable, telescoping refueling “boom” is added to the bottom rear of the fuselage. New tankers are also equipped with deployable fuel “drogues" under the wings. These are flexible fuel lines with basket locators to refuel Navy and Marine aircraft, helicopters, and many aircraft from NATO countries. These changes mean hundreds of connectors and wiring systems will be added to each aircraft, no matter who wins this final program.

The reason the program is back into the “bid and proposal” status is that when the program was awarded to EADS in June, Boeing filed a formal protest with the Government Affairs Office (GAO), as it was felt that the Air Force was biased towards the European plane. In fact there were several areas in question, including scoring on the bid, and even outright withholding of information from Boeing on the bid process. The government ordered a new bid process from which another decision for awarding the contract will be made. This is due by December 2008.

This program is more than five years old. It started with an agreement between the Air Force and Boeing to lease tankers. This was opposed by a group of senators, led by John McCain, and the deal was cancelled. Later, further investigation showed some illegal activity between Boeing top management and a key Department of Defense procurement person, for which several parties ended up in jail. This soured the entire program for several years. It is being resurrected by the Air Force due to the advancing age of the current fleet of KC-135 tankers; the newest is more than 40 years old. They simply need to be replaced. Maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) for these planes is costly, and just to keep them flying on training missions costs hundreds of millions of dollars. With air operations over Iraq and Afghanistan, even on a lesser scale now than in the past three years, the existing KC-135s have rotated from the Air Guard and Reserves, to try to spread out the use and flying time. It costs close to $20,000 just for a short training flight, and almost all of the aircraft require at least four hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.

From a connector perspective, Boeing stands to win whichever way the contract goes. Boeing is the sole “rebuilder” of the 500 in-service KC-135s and the KC-10 (the tanker version of the DC-10 passenger plane), of which there are 59 in service currently. The Boeing plant in San Antonio, Texas, is booked full with these aircraft in various stages of repair and rebuild. This situation will continue for many years, even with the rapid order and build of the 179 new tankers. A large portion of the existing fleet will need to be in service to the year 2040 and beyond. An aircraft rebuild means more wiring, more replacement harnesses, new electronic systems and upgraded avionics, replacement of worn and frayed harnesses, and additions to current systems in every airplane. Harness shops and connector makers will be busy for years on just this program. And remember, the Air Force is also in the process of upgrading almost every aircraft in its fleet, from the A-10 to the F-15s and F-16s. The only airplane not being rebuilt at this current time is the F-22, and those currently in production are getting upgrades, which means all the current planes will also need avionic and system upgrades.

These systems will include using the decades-old 38999, 26482, and even 5015 circulars, military D-subs, and some of the most modern new connectors. The new EADS or Boeing aircraft will have Fiber Channel, VME, embedded systems, ARINC 429, USB ports, PCI 104, VXS (VITA 41), XMC (VITA 42), and other types of interconnects. The new parts will be needed to support the multi-function displays, mission and data computers, navigation and radar upgrades, countermeasures systems, new electrical and fuel management equipment for the aircraft and for its onboard fuel used for transfer to other aircraft. Special heavy-duty circulars are needed to direct and power the landing gear, engine function, and fuel-pumping equipment.

Even small things, such as explosive charges on the doors and access panels, are updated in the event the crew needs to leave the aircraft in an emergency situation. Most of the positions have ejection seats, or at least access doors, for the crew to parachute to safety. Such things, of course, would never be included in a civilian aircraft.

The power and electronics for the re-fueling boom and system is a separate program for each aircraft. Both competitors have selected another supplier to provide all of this equipment and help integrate it into the aircraft. As with all aircraft programs, dozens of suppliers will build parts and systems for the final aircraft assembler. Boeing plans to build the plane either in Washington, or possibly at a new plant in the Carolinas. EADS will expand its smaller facility in Mobile, Alabama, into a large factory, and is planning to also build the freight version of the A330 at this plant. It will mean jobs and development opportunities for each area, whoever gets the program. And remember, this is only the first buy for 179 planes. There will be two more contracts for approximately the same number of planes in the years to come.

And some may ask, why a new tanker aircraft? What are they used for? Since 9/11, Air Force tankers have passed nearly 1.2 billion gallons of fuel in-flight to U.S. and Allied airplanes.

Scott Clay, Director Military & Aerospace, Bishop & Associates Inc.
Scott Clay has worked for more than 25 years in the connector and wiring systems markets. He has held various positions in field applications and marketing for Molex, Tyco, Methode, and ITT. For the past 15 years, Clay has focused on the military/aerospace sector, and five years ago formed his own company for consulting and application engineering. He has worked on design-in and electronics on F/A-18E/F, F-22, F-35, C-130J, C-5M, C-27, P-8, A-10, and numerous other aircraft. Some of the Navy programs Clay has participated in are SSN-774 Virginia class subs, CVX, DDG-1000, and the Littoral Combat Ship class. He has extensive expertise in land vehicle systems, and has worked closely with the worldwide locations of GD, BAE, AM General, and other key manufacturers. He is currently working on variations of MRAP, JLTV, upgrades for the Bradley fighting vehicle, M-88 recovery vehicle, FMTV, and other platforms in the wiring and systems areas, plus portions of the future combat systems.