Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won

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.

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.

Something more:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-23-2008/0004798846&EDATE=

Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won - Versatility

Highlighting reasons the U.S. Air Force selected the KC-45 Tanker as best for our men and women in uniform.

WASHINGTON, April 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman's (NYSE: NOC) 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 even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in the Mission Capability section of a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.

Versatility

The Air Force found Northrop Grumman provides tremendous versatility in its aircraft, including “Better airlift efficiency, cargo capability, pallet capability, passengers and aero-medical capability.” Although refueling is the primary mission, the KC-45’s excellent mobility capability will provide future commanders with increased operational flexibility.

The Air Force concluded that Northrop Grumman's plane was superior because it could transport more cargo pallets, carry more people and evacuate more wounded soldiers than Boeing's, depending on which of these critical missions the Air Force would need to accomplish at any given time.

In choosing Northrop Grumman, the Air Force was being entirely consistent in what it told both bidders it was looking for all along. When its Request For Proposal (RFP) was finalized in Jan. 2007, the Air Force made clear it expected its new tanker to be versatile, noting that its evaluation would include “Airlift efficiency, cargo, passengers, aero-medical evacuation, ground turn time, and cargo bay reconfiguration,” adding that greater flexibility and efficiency than the previous aircraft “Will be viewed as advantageous to the government.”

These desires were also documented in a public white paper the Air Force produced a month later entitled “The Need For A Flexible Tanker,” in which the Air Force wrote that it was looking for “A flexible aerial refueling aircraft that can operate throughout a battlespace to deliver fuel and/or cargo and/or passengers.”

That same paper quoted Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, as saying he was seeking flexibility. “I am looking for versatility; single-mission airplanes don't give that,” said Schwartz, who later also said he wanted the new tanker to “Have a dual-role use” and be a “Game-changer over time.”

Sue Payton, the Air Force's chief acquisitions officer, summarized the superiority of Northrop Grumman's plane this way in the document she provided to the bidders in which she explained her decision: “In my judgment, Northrop Grumman's ... aircraft offers significant advantage in the important areas of aerial refueling and airlift and represents superior value to the government.”

The results are clear: Men and women of the Air Force who have a solemn responsibility to protect those fighting to defend freedom at home and abroad, as well as provide taxpayers the best possible value, concluded that Northrop Grumman's plane passed these two crucial tests with flying colors.

As the New York Times put it in a recent editorial, opponents of the Air Force's selection “Would rather have the Air Force buy a more expensive plane, and one that ... doesn't meet its needs nearly as well.”

About the KC-45

The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-45 team will employ 48,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.

News?

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141108

Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won -- Greater Range
Highlighting Reasons the U.S. Air Force Selected the KC-45
Tanker as Best for Our Men and Women in Uniform

WASHINGTON - April 28, 2008 - The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) 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 even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in the Mission Capability section of a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.

Greater Range

To ensure maximum refueling flexibility in a wide-ranging battlefield, the Air Force made clear it was seeking an aerial refueling tanker that had the ability to deploy up to 9,500 nautical miles from its take-off base. The Air Force selection document says Northrop Grumman's KC-45 exceeded this threshold. In contrast, Boeing's protest submission indicates the KC-767 failed to meet it.

In a section explaining its conclusions, the Air Force wrote: "Benefit: (Northrop Grumman) can deploy to more locations from a given starting point un-refueled" with "Better range capability" than its competition.

The KC-45's superior range is a product of its large fuel load (20 percent more than a KC-767), greater fuel efficiency, and exceptional take-off performance. The technical Air Force document points out that this combination of attributes provides the Air Force the ability to refuel aircraft -- or transfer fuel to other tankers -- at greater distances, concluding that "Northrop Grumman provides better fuel offloads at all distances from bases."

Compared to the KC-767, the KC-45 can deliver more fuel at equal ranges (decreasing the number of aircraft required to meet mission requirements) or the same fuel load from greater distances (increasing potential Air Force basing options).

In its decision document the Air Force said that Northrop Grumman offered "Significant refueling advantages" and that the KC-45's "Aerial refueling capability was compelling to my decision."

Furthermore, the Air Force added that the KC-45's greater refueling capability "Enables it to execute (the mission) with 22 fewer aircraft than Boeing's...an efficiency of significant value to the government."

That's why, in a Feb. 29 Pentagon news conference announcing Northrop Grumman's win, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Duncan McNabb said Northrop Grumman's tanker, "Will keep us global by extending the range and persistence of our aircraft."

This is another reason why, as USA Today concluded in a recent editorial, "The available evidence indicates that the 7Air Force got the best airplane for the money."

But don't miss the add answer:
http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/index.html
(You can leave comments)

Well, the answer to Boeing's add already exists:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/ads.html

NG is looking at take-off performance and Boeing makes some remarks about the boom.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141392

Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won — Takeoff Performance
Highlighting Reasons the U.S. Air Force Selected the KC-45 Tanker as Best for Our Men and Women in Uniform

WASHINGTON - April 30, 2008 - The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE:NOC) 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 even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in the Mission Capability section of a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.

Takeoff Performance

The Air Force concluded that the more capable Northrop Grumman KC-45 featured better takeoff performance. This capability, in combination with the other characteristics of this modern airframe, provides the Air Force with greater basing and operational flexibility than Boeing’s proposed KC-767.

Specifically, the Air Force found that Northrop Grumman’s superior aircraft “Can take off with more fuel load from a 7,000 foot runway” than the KC-767.

Superior takeoff performance provides many operational advantages.

Compared to Boeing’s KC-767, the KC-45 can launch with more fuel from the same length of runway, providing longer range, more time aloft, and the ability to refuel more aircraft per sortie.

In military operations, the KC-45 can launch with a fuel load equal to the KC-767’s maximum fuel load using a takeoff roll over 1,000 feet shorter.

The KC-45 can take off from more airfields around the world than the KC-767 carrying a fuel load equal to or greater than Boeing’s maximum. Greater airfield availability increases the Air Force’s future basing and operational flexibility.

This means that in the critical matter of refueling — the primary mission of a tanker — Northrop Grumman’s plane can carry more fuel, fly greater distances, stay airborne longer, and refuel more aircraft in combat operations than Boeing’s proposed aircraft, providing what the Air Force termed “Significant refueling advantages” over Boeing.

Northrop Grumman’s takeoff superiority is one reason why Gen. Duncan McNabb, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, told reporters when Northrop Grumman’s win was announced Feb. 29 that the KC-45 “Will provide global reach.”

“In short, these new tankers will keep us global by extending the range and persistence of our aircraft and those of our joint and coalition partners,” McNabb said.

http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/index.html

Refueling Booms

Northrop Grumman asserts that it has built and passed fuel through its boom refueling system for the KC-30. The company goes on to say the aerial refueling boom system it offered has also performed in-flight refueling.

But do the facts fully support these claims?

First of all, Northrop Grumman has NEVER built or tested an aerial refueling boom. All of the KC-30 refueling boom technology resides in Spain, inside the offices of European, Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company.

What’s more, EADS overstates its experience and its achievements in the world of military refueling booms.

Fact No. 1: Contrary to the impression NG/EADS has attempted to create, EADS has never passed fuel through a boom attached to its A330 aircraft –the platform upon which the KC-30 would be built – while in flight. EADS has been flying a boom on an A310 demonstrator that company engineers were hoping to have fully qualified by the end of 2006. That didn’t happen. The first dry contact with an F-16 was made in late 2007 and it finally passed fuel to an F-16 in late February 2008. What’s more, questions persist about how the boom actually performed in flight as only still photography had been released from the flight, until 43 seconds of edited video were released by Northrop two months after the test flight.

Fact No. 2: The first A330 tanker for the Australian Air Force has been flying with its boom stowed. It has yet to deploy the boom in flight. And the only time fuel has been passed through the boom was when sitting on the ground.

Fact No. 3: The tanker competition assessment of the EADS boom expressed concerns that it may never work. In fact, it identified three “weaknesses” with the approach. In contrast, Boeing has successfully built, tested and delivered 5 generations of refueling booms. Its 6th generation boom, the baseline in its Air Force tanker bid, is an incrementally improved derivative of the 5th generation boom flying today on the KC-767J tankers that were delivered to Japan earlier this year. Boeing successfully tested the 5th generation boom first with a B-52 and then moved onto day- and night-time operations with fighter aircraft.

Fact No. 4: Clearing a boom requires extensive flight testing at different refueling aircraft weights, airspeeds, altitudes and lighting conditions such as daytime and nighttime. What’s more, one of the most challenging parts is fielding a boom that can safely maneuver quickly when needed in situations like an emergency breakaway and also be able to be precisely controlled to be guided into the receptacle. This challenge gets harder as the boom gets bigger. With thousands of tankers built and generations of boom-building experience, Boeing has proven repeatedly it knows how to get this job done.

Where to start...

NG is looking at take-off performance and Boeing makes some remarks about the boom.

Apparently, neither Boeing nor Northrop Grumman is keeping their promise to tone down the rhetoric.

Boeing won't back down, but civility is key in tanker dispute

Specifically, the Air Force found that Northrop Grumman’s superior aircraft “Can take off with more fuel load from a 7,000 foot runway” than the KC-767.

Well, yeah, because both the Boeing and the Northrop Grumman aircraft can take off at MTOW within 7,000 ft, but of course the KC-45A holds more fuel at MTOW, so by definition it can take off with more fuel from a 7,000 ft runway.

I've pointed that out in post #33 above.

EADS has been flying a boom on an A310 demonstrator that company engineers were hoping to have fully qualified by the end of 2006. That didn’t happen. The first dry contact with an F-16 was made in late 2007 and it finally passed fuel to an F-16 in late February 2008.

It is the same boom that will be on the Australian KC-30 and the KC-45A. Boeing has passed how much fuel through the 6th generation boom they bid for the KC-767AT? (Hint: It's not even built yet. The Japanese and Italian KC-767s have a 5th gen boom.)

The first A330 tanker for the Australian Air Force has been flying with its boom stowed. It has yet to deploy the boom in flight.

Australian KC-30 Undergoing Modification

Clearing a boom requires extensive flight testing at different refueling aircraft weights, airspeeds, altitudes and lighting conditions such as daytime and nighttime.

Thank God that nobody else in the entire world has ever attempted to design and build a refueling boom. Oh wait, McDonnell Douglas built one for the KC-10 back in 1980 without any help from Boeing...

Another one:

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141715

Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won - Air Refueling Efficiency
Highlighting Reasons the U.S. Air Force Selected the KC-45 Tanker as Best for Our Men and Women in Uniform
WASHINGTON - May 2, 2008 -

The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE:NOC) 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 even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in the Mission Capability section of a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.

Air Refueling Efficiency

Boeing asserts its 767 aircraft is more fuel efficient than the KC-45. The Air Force found the opposite, concluding that the KC-45 is more fuel efficient.

Based on the Air Force formula, the KC-45 is six percent more fuel efficient than Boeing’s aircraft at a distance out to 1,000 nautical miles, and becomes even more efficient as the distance increases, up to nearly 30 percent at a distance of 2,000 nautical miles.

Boeing clearly did not like the results provided by the Air Force formula specified in the Request For Proposal and thus invented its own, which just measured fuel burn. But measuring fuel burn without relating it to mission requirements is meaningless. By Boeing’s formula, a Piper Cub is more “efficient” than a KC-767, as is a KC-135R.

The Air Force used a common-sense method to measure fuel efficiency: How much fuel does the Northrop Grumman KC-45 use to execute its refueling mission, compared to Boeing’s aircraft? The Air Force’s conclusion is crystal clear.

The KC-45 “Provides better fuel offload per fuel used compared to the KC-767.”

The reason for the difference is that the Air Force specified a formula related to mission execution to measure efficiency: how much fuel is burned compared to pounds of fuel offloaded at a variety of distances.

By using the Air Force evaluation standard, the results are clearly in Northrop Grumman’s favor, and the KC-45 provides benefits in other areas as well.

In its selection document, the Air Force wrote that “Northrop Grumman’s offer was clearly superior to that of Boeing’s for ... aerial refueling and airlift.” The Air Force also concluded that the KC-45, with greater fuel efficiency and greater range, in a realistic operational scenario “Enables it to execute (missions) with 22 fewer aircraft than Boeing’s ... an efficiency of significant benefit to the government.”

Past Performance

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141922

Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won - Past Performance
Highlighting Reasons the U.S. Air Force Selected the KC-45 Tanker as Best for Our Men and Women in Uniform

WASHINGTON - May 5, 2008 -
The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE:NOC) 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 even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.

Past Performance

A contractor’s past performance on related projects is a critical element in the Air Force’s assessment of competing proposals. Because replacing America’s fleet of aerial refueling tankers is the number one acquisition priority for the Air Force, it paid special attention to Boeing’s assertions that it could complete the contract on time and on budget. While Boeing likes to claim that it has a better track record than Northrop Grumman in building tankers, the Air Force determined that Boeing’s past record actually meant it was riskier to do business with Boeing than Northrop Grumman.

According to an Air Force document assessing the two bids, in program management “ ... There was a notable difference between the two offerors. Northrop Grumman received a rating of ‘Satisfactory Confidence,’ while Boeing received a rating of ‘Little Confidence.’”

A rating of little confidence means the Air Force concluded that “Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.” The reasons for the Air Force’s poor rating of Boeing were redacted for business competition reasons.

The Air Force stated that Northrop Grumman received a superior rating because of its “Excellent and satisfactory (risk) ratings on six (other) contracts.” The Air Force document concluded “The higher confidence rating for Northrop Grumman ... was a discriminator” because “This difference in the program management provides better overall confidence. Northrop Grumman (was) more advantageous.”

It is worth noting that while Northrop Grumman has built, flown and tested a prototype aircraft and conducted a successful fuel transfer through its boom, Boeing has not yet built, flown or tested its proposed new design KC-767 aircraft. In addition, Boeing has been late in delivering tankers to Italy and Japan. These aircraft are significantly different from the design proposed to the Air Force.

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.