Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won - Mission Capability
The Earth Times ^ | April 21, 2008 | Northrop Grumman Corporation

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]


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: aerospace; airforce; boeing; eads; kc45; northropgrumman; tanker; usaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last
More to come...
1 posted on 04/21/2008 10:44:59 AM PDT by MHalblaub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
Is this the same Northrop Grumman that gave us these?


2 posted on 04/21/2008 10:52:00 AM PDT by wolfpat (If you don't like the Patriot Act, you're really gonna hate Sharia Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

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.


3 posted on 04/21/2008 10:52:35 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

A HUGE strategic mistake to give the lilly pad sitters any stake in our national security.


4 posted on 04/21/2008 10:55:50 AM PDT by infantrywhooah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

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.


5 posted on 04/21/2008 10:58:33 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infantrywhooah

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.


6 posted on 04/21/2008 10:59:49 AM PDT by straps (Off the coast of Florida is enough oil and natural gas to take care of us. Period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: straps

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.


7 posted on 04/21/2008 11:01:57 AM PDT by infantrywhooah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

“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?


8 posted on 04/21/2008 11:03:16 AM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

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.


9 posted on 04/21/2008 11:04:17 AM PDT by bpjam (Drill For Oil or Lose Your Job!! Vote Nov 3, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfpat
Well, the Grumman part anyway.

The Northrop part gave us these:


10 posted on 04/21/2008 11:06:48 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolfpat

Grumman also built the Navy’s A-6 and EA-6B.


11 posted on 04/21/2008 11:26:28 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: infantrywhooah
A HUGE strategic mistake to give the lilly pad sitters any stake in our national security.

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.

12 posted on 04/21/2008 11:32:59 AM PDT by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

And the E-2C Hawkeye, which is still serving.


13 posted on 04/21/2008 11:38:49 AM PDT by infantrywhooah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr; infantrywhooah; MHalblaub; AFPhys

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....


14 posted on 04/21/2008 11:46:37 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
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.

15 posted on 04/21/2008 11:56:35 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment; Slapshot68
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.

{Sigh}...

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:

Democrats for Boeing-The truth about the tanker deal

16 posted on 04/21/2008 12:04:44 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
Read the article. Called a friend who has intimate knowledge of the details of the RFP/bidding process. He told me that the Air Force changed the specifications in the middle of the process to include specifications for a smaller, more economical airframe. This change caught Boeing by surprise and threw the advantage to EADS. He says Boeing can easily meet the revised specifications. That's why they are protesting the award of the contract.

Personally, I think the AF is punishing Boeing for their bad faith lease deal.

For the record, I own Boeing stock and bonds.

17 posted on 04/21/2008 12:11:24 PM PDT by oneolcop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Yeah thats right. They also won a contract to build wing assemblies for the A-6 and failed miserably.


18 posted on 04/21/2008 12:13:14 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: oneolcop

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?


19 posted on 04/21/2008 12:23:41 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: infantrywhooah

And new models are being built and bought by the French.


20 posted on 04/21/2008 12:24:25 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson