TANKER COMPETITION: NORTHROP WON BY A WIDE MARGIN

lexington Institute ^ | Mar 3, 2008 | Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

[Perdogg]

Last week Northrop Grumman and European partner EADS confounded expectations by beating incumbent Boeing for the contract to build the Air Force's next-generation aerial refueling tanker. The initial contract will be for 179 modified wide-body jets, but eventually the entire fleet of 600 cold-war tankers will need to be replaced, making this one of the biggest marketing coups in defense-industry history. However, that is just the beginning of what Northrop Grumman has achieved, because Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop in a single measure of merit. Here's how they were evaluated...

1. Mission capability. Arguably the most important factor, this metric compared the teams on performance requirements, system integration & software, product support, program management and technology maturity. The teams tied in most measures, but the Northrop offering was deemed to offer superior refueling and airlift capacity at 1,000 nm. range and substantially superior refueling and airlift capability at 2,000 nm. range. The superior airlift capacity of Northrop's plane was deemed a "compelling" consideration in giving Northrop the edge for this factor.

2. Proposal risk. This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did so only after being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker. The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost. The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive schedule, adding cost.

[airborne]

Very good information. Thanks.

[Jeff Head]

For the KCX competition, Northrup proposed the KC-45 which is derived from the Airbus 330. It is used by the English, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc.:

Boeing proposed the KC-767 derived from the Boeing 767. It is used by Italy and Japan already as a tanker.

The Northrup proposal has been selected, as stated in this article.

[Thud]

Was there any reason for not considering the C-17 beyond that the Fighter Pilot Mafia wants to steal C-17 funding for the F-22?

[Zuriel]

That’s a ‘fast shutter speed’ artist rendering of the KC-45. Note the hi-def turbine fan blades. Or maybe they’re shut down and the B-2 is pushing it. ;)

[TalonDJ]

The C-17 would not be able to mount the normal aft boom. It is lower to the ground. Plus I think it is a lot bigger then they wanted. Not to mention having 4 engines instead of 2 which costs more the maintain. The C-17 was not even remotely considered.

[TalonDJ]

It is a very noticably computer generated image.

[SueRae]

Loern Thompson is an excellent (if not the best) defense industry analyst.

[wolf78]

That’s a ‘fast shutter speed’ artist rendering of the KC-45. Note the hi-def turbine fan blades. Or maybe they’re shut down and the B-2 is pushing it. ;)

IMHO a pretty ugly computer rendering. Airliners.net has much better photos of the actual plane (the A330 MRTT, like the one for the Aussies, that is):

A330 MRTT

[Yo-Yo]

The Russians use cargo aircraft for refuelers, but a C-17 would be a very poor choice due to it's cost of both purchase and operation.

IL-78 Tanker

[Red6]

Boeing has the F15 (still built), F22, C17, KC-10, CH47, Osprey, F18SH, F18, AH-64 etc etc etc.

Sometime there are variables that are considered that are not obvious or public. I imagine the risk associated with a single source supplier is fairly large, and for the DoD keeping Northrup Grumman as major player in the game might sound appealing. Boeing is in the realm of large jets pretty much the only show left in town and if NG looses this deal they too fade from the picture. -IMHO

Another consideration is that ultimately airframes intended for the civilian domestic or international markets may be built there. Not only do you have the USAF being supplied, but possibly Australia and others. The US is a highly competitive location for production.

In the end, it's NG that is the system integrator and assembly will be in the US, many of the subcomponents on an Airbus even built in Europe are North American anyhow. The big gripe I would have had, is if this plane were built in Europe. I'm all for free trade, but national security/defense related industry should not be off-shored. Furthermore, those who over years have benefited from protectionism and subsidies keeping US goods and services off their market should not be rewarded with US tax money.

[Red6]

But you now have a tanker that could land on crappy airfields, short landing strips, and even backup by itself while on the ground. You’d have more commonality logistically, and even the cost per unit for the C-17 would go down. You’d now have a machine which really has the potential to be multipurpose, something these modified but efficient commercial jets only attempt.

[A.A. Cunningham]

That's Northrop/Grumman, Hemingway.

[Oztrich Boy]

Another consideration is that ultimately airframes intended for the civilian domestic or international markets may be built there. Not only do you have the USAF being supplied, but possibly Australia and others.

Not Australia, Delivery date of the final KC-30B on the order is next year. May be a chance on UK, Saudi, or UAE orders.

[CAluvdubya]

Go Northrop! I hope this is just the beginning of the “wins”!

[CAluvdubya]

I thought Lockheed had the F22?

[Red6]

LH = F35
B = F22

[CAluvdubya]

LH = F35
B = F22

Lockheed Martin Aero in Ft. Worth builds the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II jet fighters. The F-22 deployed squadrons in Nevada and Florida a couple of years ago and Alaska is next. My husband works on both programs for Northrop Grumman.

[Red6]

You’re correct.

[steve86]

I have to wonder if Boeing having moved its headquarters away from its manufacturing facilities several years back had something to do with their becoming as out of touch as they were on this project.