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.

[Eye of Unk]

Boeing was going to offer the 777 but last minute changes in the bidding screwed that up.

[Eye of Unk]

[AFreeBird]

Based on that graphic, and if in fact they did play games with the specs; they should re do the bidding.

[Jeff Head]

Yes it is. Having worked for Vought Aerounautics before it was gobbled up, I know how the consolidation of the industry has changed things and brought a lot of old rival companies together.

Did not mean to slight or leave out the fine employees of Grumman...and stand therefore very justifiably corrected.

[CAluvdubya]

I work for NG but not that sector. There was no "messing" with the specs. This info is all out in the open. Boeing did not have the right combination of airframe, cost and lots of other factors.

Read the analysis when it comes out. This was checked extensively. USAF knew this would be contentious and locked it down.

[MSF BU]

Perhaps they will be built in Alabama by nonunion labor; perhaps that is what some of the crowing is about.

[tlb]

>>>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.

I think the move had more to do with Boeing bigshots wanting to stay out of touch of North Korean nukes. Seattle was in range and Boeing a prime target.

[Thud]

Thanks. The aft boom issue alone would do it.

[Yo-Yo]

That's Northrop/Grumman, Hemingway.

Geeze, I've made that same spelling error on about a dozen posts in the past two days. Thanks for pointing it out. Now I feel even more stupid than usual.

[FreeReign]

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

Northrop? Don't forget Grumman.

Anyway, the BAMS award was just delayed but I would guess Northrop Grumman beats Boeing again and wins it in April.