Posted on 04/21/2008 10:44:59 AM PDT by MHalblaub
Highlighting reasons the U.S. Air Force selected the KC-45 Tanker as best for our men and women in uniform.
WASHINGTON, April 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman's bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing's in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman. Starting today and regularly in the coming weeks, “Why We Won” will provide detailed examples of why Northrop Grumman was selected, drawing on facts listed in a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document. We begin with Mission Capability, which includes the crucial function of aerial refueling.
Mission Capability
The Air Force found the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases,” “Better air refueling efficiency,” “Better offload rate and receive rate,” and has “A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing.”
This means the Northrop Grumman plane can provide more fuel at greater range, is more fuel efficient when executing the tanker mission, can perform many refueling operations faster, and can connect to receivers over a greater volume of airspace behind the tanker than Boeing's aircraft.
In a written explanation of the Air Force thinking on this subject, Sue Payton, the Air Force's chief acquisition officer, said the Air Force determined that Northrop Grumman provided “Significant refueling advantages.”
Payton added that Northrop Grumman's aircraft's “Refueling capability was compelling to my decision.”
“Northrop Grumman's offer was a superior solution to the air refueling requirement, which is a key performance parameter,” Payton wrote.
Despite this, Boeing's defenders in Congress are now demanding that the fair and transparent bidding process that led to the Northrop Grumman selection be overturned to ensure that Boeing is given the contract, in spite of the clear inferiority of the plane it offered to our men and women in uniform.
In fact, Boeing disagrees with the Air Force formula for air refueling efficiency that shows the winning Northrop Grumman tanker as six percent more efficient in relation to fuel delivered versus fuel consumed, so they invented their own.
As the Wall Street Journal concluded in a recent editorial, “There's a word for that, but it's not patriotism.”
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579800395343581.html]
Great! Keep ‘em comin’! Thanks for posting this, and I’d love to be pinged with updates if you post those, and if you are willing to do so.
A HUGE strategic mistake to give the lilly pad sitters any stake in our national security.
There are other issues involved that contradict Nothrup Grumman’s self back-patting. For example, there is the appearance (if not outright evidence) that the AF rigged the specs to favor the Airbus over Boeing’s 767 platform. Also, the AF has workd with Boeing for so long, it is clear that familiarity has bred contempt.
As an American taxpayer, I object to MY tax dollars being sent offshore so that EADS can build an Airbus aircraft for the US Air Force. Congress should nix this one and demand that the Pentagon spend their share of American tax dollars to purchase American aircraft for the American military unless they can objectively demonstrate that the foreign competitor’s product is clearly superior.
I got news for you 90 percent of the Boeing Novelty and Toy Factory aircraft are built from parts all over the world but mainly in ready for it CHINA JAPAN GERMANY SPAIN thats Boeing not Northrop builder of the B52 and the wings of every Boeing Aircraft ever built.
But how many foreign aircraft will we be building UNDER LICENSE from people that hate us? I am well aware of the subcontractor situation in our defense industry, thank you.
“As an American taxpayer, I object to MY tax dollars being sent offshore so that EADS can build an Airbus aircraft for the US Air Force.”
EADS has a North American division...are they being given any work from this contract?
does N-G not use the Canadian airframe manufacturer Bombardier simply because they don’t have a model ready for this job, or do they just love the Euroweenies frame more?
I’ve wondered by we couldn’t keep entire projects like this amongst actual allies and closer to home when we need to compete with the Boeing monolith. I’m not for giving Boeing anything - just because.... But N-G and anybody else out there who isn’t Boeing, doesn’t really have much of a shot at aircraft contracts unless they have a maker of aircraft, it seems to me.
I’ve been concerned about the dwindling number of major defense contractors and they ability to actually compete and not just become a Boeing - where the US taxpayers pay a huge price for something which may or may not even be the best option but its the only ‘U.S.’ option so Boeing gets to run over costs, timetables and regulations to eventually finish and all of us get to just suck it up.
I’d love for somebody infinitely more involved in this subject to inform and correct me about this kind of thing.
The Northrop part gave us these:
Grumman also built the Navy’s A-6 and EA-6B.
I agree. I don't even think we should have a competitive bid process at all. Just give everything to Boeing regardless the technical specs, mission, or cost.
Everyone knows monopolies are ultimately good for all.
Oh and if we aren't going to buy things from potentially unfriendly outside sources, we also shouldn't sell to anyone else either. Of course we might lose a few defense industry jobs that way but so be it.
And the E-2C Hawkeye, which is still serving.
I would like to know which aircraft has the fewest critical parts from potential enemies of the United States...and what those parts are ...and if there is a US supplier for said critical parts....
The Avionics, refueling system, and engines for either aircraft will be built in the United States.
Once the basic airframe is built, any aircraft company can repair or modify it. For example, the A10 Thunderbolt II was built by Fairchild, but Boeing won a multi-year contract to manufacture new wing assemblies for it.
Northrop completed its debriefing with the Air Force on Monday, and said the Air Force called its winning bid "more advantageous to the government" in the key areas of capability, past performance, cost and refueling performance.
Under its plan, EADS will assemble Airbus A330 freighters at a new plant in Mobile, Alabama, while Northrop turns them into military tankers at an adjacent facility.
On Monday, Los Angeles-based Northrop said the assembly and militarization of the tankers would create 1,500 jobs in the United States. EADS has said assembly work in Mobile would create 1,300 jobs.
The first of the tankers will be assembled at a plant in Melbourne, Florida, but that work will be transferred once the Mobile facilities are up and running, probably around 2010, a Northrop spokesman said. The first tanker is due to be delivered to the U.S. Air Force in 2013.
According to Northrop, its handling of the work will create 14,000 direct jobs and 34,000 indirect jobs in the United States. Major suppliers to the Northrop/EADS team include General Electric Co (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Honeywell International Inc (HON.N: Quote, Profile, Research), AAR Cargo Systems, Sargent Fletcher and Knight Aerospace.
Another interesting article:
Personally, I think the AF is punishing Boeing for their bad faith lease deal.
For the record, I own Boeing stock and bonds.
Yeah thats right. They also won a contract to build wing assemblies for the A-6 and failed miserably.
Why would they change the spec to include a smaller airframe? The NG offering is much larger than boeings. What advantage? The competitors wer informed about all changes during the proposal process.
Now suppose for a minute that congress overturns the award and forces the AF to buy the losers airframe. You don’t think that the europeans aren’t going to be a little miffed at that? They may just turn around and say if our aircraft aren’t good enough for you then your aircraft aren’t good for us. So no more exports of E-2, C-130, F-35, F-18, C-17, F-16, AH-64, UH-60. Thats just military airframes. Maybe they might start caneling 787, 777 and 737 orders. How will your boing stock like that?
And new models are being built and bought by the French.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.