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

Skip to comments.

Northrop Grumman won't bid against Boeing for tanker contract
Seattle Times ^ | March 8, 2010 | Dominic Gates

Posted on 03/08/2010 11:28:46 AM PST by jazusamo

Northrop Grumman has decided not to bid in the Air Force refueling tanker contract, leaving Boeing's Everett-built 767 as the sole airplane competing for the $40 billion program.

A person familiar with the details said Northrop will announce its decision after the market closes today...

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: aerospace; boeing; defensespending; northrop; northropgrumman; tanker; tankers; usaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: jazusamo
I agree...Though everything isn’t built here from my understanding, there’s a great deal more of the plane built here and this will keep more money at home as well as more Americans employed.

There is, however the NG/EADS proposal is mostly American when it comes to where the sensitive and expensive parts are produced, i.e. engines, tanker equipment etc.. What's European about the aircraft is mostly aluminium / CFRP panels.

Also, this most likely means that Airbus will not move the A330/340 line to the US for freighter production once the A350 takes over the passenger segment. So macroeconomically it's probably a wash. A decision in Boeing's favor will keep union jobs at Boeing but will also keep Airbus jobs that could have moved to America in Europe.
41 posted on 03/08/2010 1:30:40 PM PST by wolf78 (Inflation is a form of taxation, too. Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Bad news for the country, because sole-bid contracts are not as likely to turn out as cost-effective as when two companies are fighting each other for a contract.

One thing is certain now, these planes will cost a lot more than they would have, and will likely be delivered much later than they would have been.

And some democrats are going to get some nice campaign contributions when this is all done.


42 posted on 03/08/2010 1:41:14 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Statement from Northrop Grumman 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - March 8, 2010 - The following is a statement from Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC), concerning the U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker program.

"After a comprehensive analysis of the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program. We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing's smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity.

"Northrop Grumman fully respects the Department's responsibility to determine the military requirements for the new tanker. In the previous competition, Northrop Grumman was selected by the Air Force as offering the most capable tanker for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer. However, the Northrop Grumman and EADS team is very disappointed that the revised source selection methodology now dramatically favors Boeing's smaller refueling tanker. We agree that the fundamental military requirements for the new tanker have not changed since the last competition, but the Department's new evaluation methodology now clearly favors the smaller tanker.

"We continue to believe that Northrop Grumman's tanker represents the best value for the military and taxpayer – a belief supported by the selection of the A330 tanker design over the Boeing design in the last five consecutive tanker competitions around the globe. Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our Allies in this vital mission area.

"Our prior selection by the Air Force, our firm belief that we provide the best value offering, and the hard work and commitment of the many individuals and communities on our team over many years made this a difficult decision for our company. But we have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to prudently invest our corporate resources, as do our more than 200 tanker team suppliers across the United States. Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly.

"We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest. While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America's service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly.

"We recognize that our decision likely creates a sole-source outcome for Boeing. We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement contract. In the previous round, the Air Force, through a rigorous assessment of our proposal, determined that it would pay a unit flyaway cost of approximately $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers, including the non-recurring development costs. With the Department's decision to procure a much smaller, less capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less."

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

43 posted on 03/08/2010 1:44:52 PM PST by Mr.Unique (Global Emergency!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

Thanks for posting.


44 posted on 03/08/2010 1:54:41 PM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
The govt will probably have to rewrite the RFP as they cannot have a sole source for a $40 billion contract.

It's now a $50 billion contract.

45 posted on 03/08/2010 2:08:26 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (great thing about being a cynic: you can enjoy being proved wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; Mr.Unique
Statement from EADS North America

ARLINGTON, VA, Mar 08, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Today EADS North America released the following statement from Ralph D. Crosby, Jr., Chairman of the Board.

"Five years ago EADS partnered with Northrop Grumman, as prime, to pursue the U.S. Air Force KC-135 modernization program. Two years ago our team was selected and awarded the contract. Today Northrop Grumman has decided not to submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program.

"As a team, our serious concerns were expressed to the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force that the acquisition methodology outlined in the request for proposal (RFP) would heavily weigh the competition in favor of the smaller, less capable Boeing tanker. Northrop Grumman's analysis of the RFP reaffirmed those concerns and prompted the decision not to bid.

"The source selection methodology clearly signals a preference for a smaller aircraft. This is particularly disappointing given that the Air Force previously selected the A330-based KC-45 because of its added capability, lower risk and best value for both the warfighter and U.S. taxpayer. The Defense Department's RFP ignores the added combat capability that could be provided to our military and, for the first time, ensures that our allies will operate with superior capability in this vital mission area.

"The A330 multi-role tanker transport is the most capable, low risk tanker in the world today -- having been flown, tested and proven. The A330 MRTT has been selected over the Boeing tanker in the last five consecutive competitions and will shortly enter service with several U.S. allies.

"This decision does not diminish our commitment to the U.S., or to its service men and women. The enduring strength of our commitment is reflected in the success of the Army's Light Utility Helicopter -- of which we are prime contractor and that just celebrated its 100th on-schedule delivery. And it also can be seen in the many EADS systems and capabilities that operate with the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.

"EADS is the largest international customer for U.S. aerospace and defense products, contributing over $11 billion dollars annually to the American economy and supporting more than 200,000 high technology jobs. We remain committed to our U.S. customers, suppliers and the American workforce.

"We express our appreciation to the states and communities in which we do business, and particularly to their elected officials who have been unwavering in their determination to provide the best available capability to the American warfighter.

"We also must acknowledge the support from the leadership of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain in promoting transatlantic defense cooperation as a two-way street and the interoperability that the KC-45 would offer."
46 posted on 03/08/2010 2:13:18 PM PST by wolf78 (Inflation is a form of taxation, too. Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

An A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport simultaneously refuels two F/A-18 fighters via its all-digital hose-and-drogue refueling pods on each wing

47 posted on 03/08/2010 2:54:05 PM PST by Mr.Unique (Global Emergency!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Kansas 4th District Congressman Todd Tiahrt deserves great credit for his work, on this Air Force Tanker deal.

Boeing clearly had the better bid, from the start, all along.

48 posted on 03/08/2010 3:19:53 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
"Boeing clearly had the better bid, from the start, all along."

Boeing clearly had more political capital... This was all politics which makes me wonder why we even had this unnecessary proposal process.

49 posted on 03/08/2010 3:34:37 PM PST by Cheap_Hessian (I am the Grim FReeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
I am curious, please tell me why you think Boeing's bid was clearly better? Here is the comparison:

http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/080222af_tanker.pdf

50 posted on 03/08/2010 4:02:40 PM PST by Cheap_Hessian (I am the Grim FReeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Fly by wire still makes me nervous. I still remember watching that Airbus fly itself into the ground because the computer decided to land, though the pilot was trying to crawl back into the sky.


51 posted on 03/08/2010 4:35:01 PM PST by Don W (I only keep certain folks' numbers in my 'phone so I know NOT to answer when they call)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
“It's now a $50 billion contract.”

55

60

65

$70 billion is my guess according to the C-17.

Any bets on delivery date? - 2018?

52 posted on 03/08/2010 4:48:56 PM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
The Boeing tanker can use the same facilities as the current tanker.

Same hangars, same runways.

Also, the Boeing model will be made, mostly, in the United States. Though I am a “free trade” person, at heart -— the “cost” of the Boeing project must include the fact that American workers will pay American taxes!

Also, some allowance should be made for the huge European subsidies, in the Airbus plan.

53 posted on 03/08/2010 4:54:32 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

So, for political reasons. I figured as much.


54 posted on 03/08/2010 5:29:08 PM PST by Cheap_Hessian (I am the Grim FReeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Maybe Israel Aircraft Industries will make a KC-X bid.

http://www.iai.co.il/33169-34671-en/Bedek_AircraftandPrograms_ProductsandServices_Special_Conversion.aspx


55 posted on 03/08/2010 7:20:14 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

In the other thread I’ve already predicted IOC 2020.


56 posted on 03/09/2010 4:39:30 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (great thing about being a cynic: you can enjoy being proved wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Blame Northrop Grumman for a one-bid project. This is NOT a “no-bid”, it is open for anyone to bid.


57 posted on 03/09/2010 5:10:25 AM PST by TommyDale (Independent - I already left the GOP because they were too liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
In the other thread I’ve already predicted IOC 2020.

With respect to the Italian KC-767A I think you're right.

The aircraft for Italy was a standard 767-200. I don't know what kind of aircraft the KC-767NewGen will be.

More military equipments and requirements than for Japanese and Italian tanker together.

NewGen is maybe a hint. Generation length is about 25 years.

58 posted on 03/09/2010 6:31:02 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

First, I wasn’t blaming anybody, I was saying it was bad for America.

Second, if I was going to blame someone, it would be the government, for being incapable of running this bid process properly.

This is the 3rd time they’ve done this contract. The first time, it sent a person to jail for fraud, and we were going to lease the planes.

The second, if you believe the stories, either they failed to apply their own requirements, or they mis-weighed the adherance to requirements, or they wrote the requirements stupidly to begin with and had to change them mid-stream. Or something. We had a bid, we had acceptance, and then we cancelled the thing.

Now the third is apparently written in a way that the only company that thinks they can make money is Boeing, my guess is either because they defined the requirements so narrowly that only Boeing has a plane that can be cheaply modified (making a company change an airframe probably prices them out of the contract), or Boeing is willing to take a loss on initial bid, assuming that once the project starts, there bought politicians will be able to get them additional funds when they inevitably complain that the requirements were too broad or that the government didn’t understand the bid and all the stuff the government wants is extra.

When a company walks away from a potential 40 billion dollar contract, it isn’t usually because they are being obstinate.

Of course, one interpretation is that Boeing really had the only airframe that was acceptable, which means the original “lease the planes sole-source” was the cheapest solution, and the last 5 years or so has been a waste (I made up the 5 year part, don’t remember how long ago that really was).

However you look at this, the whole bid has been a complete screw-up from day one, and in my opinion the EADS decline-bid is a sign that the process was still flawed.


59 posted on 03/09/2010 6:40:47 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

After Northrop got screwed by the F-20 project, and Boeing got screwed on another project, neither company is exactly in love with the government. Let the chips fall. My main concern is with a foreign subsidized company like EADS taking profits, and the U.S. military becoming dependent on a foreign controlled project.


60 posted on 03/09/2010 6:48:01 AM PST by TommyDale (Independent - I already left the GOP because they were too liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 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