backtop

Print 57 comment(s) - last by afkrotch.. on Mar 2 at 12:50 AM

Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45
EADS says Request for Proposals (RFP) is biased towards Boeing offering

Anytime the U.S. government opens bids and proposals on a large defense contract, drama often follows. Such has been the case with the long and drawn out saga of finding a replacement for the fleet of Air Force KC-135 tanker aircraft that are tasked with refueling all manner of military aircraft.

Many thought a winner was chosen and the program was set to move on in March of 2008 when the Air Force awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS. That win was short lived when the other bidder in the competition -- Boeing -- filed a formal protest over the win by EADS with Boeing citing serious flaws in the process of awarding the win to Northrop Grumman/EADS. The win was overthrown and bidding set to resume.

Northrop Grumman/EADS threatened in late 2009 to boycott the competition if changes to the program weren't made to better suit its needs. The issue for Northrop Grumman/EADS was that changes made to the program made the firm's proposed Airbus A330-based KC-45A aircraft financially unsuitable for the company. The main complaint is that the changes favor a smaller and cheaper aircraft, such as the one Boeing is proposing.

Al.com reports that the Pentagon has now released the new RFP guidelines for the aerial refueling tanker and reopened bidding on the defense deal worth about $40 billion. With Northrop Grumman/EADS threatening to pull out of the bidding process if concession aren’t made, the whole saga could ultimately boil down to a single horse race with Boeing the uncontested winner.

Northrop maintains that the Air Force has only made cosmetic changes to the RFP released last fall, and that the RFP is so biased towards the Boeing KC-767 that it makes no sense to submit a bid for the contract. Northrop had planned to build the aircraft in Alabama if it won the contract and has Alabama Senator Richard Shelby on its side.

Shelby said, "The final RFP discredits the integrity of the entire process. It is an illusion of a fair competition in which the warfighter and the taxpayer lose."

Aviation Week reports that changes to the RFP include a new pricing structure that allows for fixed pricing on lots one and two of the tanker order and allows adjustments for inflation on lots three to 13 of the order. Also changed is that the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures suite will be provided by the government rather than provided by the aircraft builder at their cost. The RFP also removed the requirement for a microwave landing system to help with night and bad weather landings. Other changes were also made to the RFP.

Senator Shelby (R-Alabama) says, "Additional capabilities that would better protect the lives of our men and women in uniform were neglected in the draft RFP. Substantial changes that bring those factors into consideration in the final RFP are necessary to have a full and transparent competition, yet the Air Force did not make a single revision to the key warfighter requirements."

The Pentagon is prepared to continue the bidding process even if Northrop drops out of the competition. Another option still being considered is buying aircraft from both companies.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
These claims are inevitable
By nafhan on 2/25/2010 11:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
If requirements change after the proposals have been submitted, claims of favoritism are going to be inevitable. We've got two different aircraft here with slightly different capabilities, so one of the proposals will be closer to the requirements. Whether or not favoritism is a factor, the requirements changed to more closely align with one of the proposals, and this is going to look like favoritism to some.




RE: These claims are inevitable
By SandmanWN on 2/25/2010 5:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it could be a third aircraft now. Boeing has suddenly become mum on a 777 possibility.

Overall the new proposal looks simpler in some respects and more stringent on others.

More stringent budget wise. The government wants the planes delivered in lots and the first two lots will be exactly as described in the accepted proposal. After those two lots their can be adjustments.

Simpler in that some secondary components have been removed. Those being stated in the article that the government will take care of itself, and stupid greenhouse regulations like no o-zone in fire suppression systems. Basically the government has said, just give us a tanker, we'll discuss the "goodies" later.

This should give us a plane on merits and not secondary considerations that can be provided by companies outside Boeing and Northrop.

Either way, we will find out 195 days after the RFP comes out of draft.


RE: These claims are inevitable
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2010 7:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Aircraft are always delivered in lots.


RE: These claims are inevitable
By Calin on 2/26/2010 2:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
See the WW2 Lightning plane:
P-38D, P-38E, RP-322, P-38F, P-38G, F-5A, P-38H, P-38J, P-38L (and other versions built in few numbers).


RE: These claims are inevitable
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2010 9:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
thank you captain obvious... I believe the point of the sentence was that the first two lots would be exactly as specified in the contract awarded. That means no matter how far over or under the budget the project goes, the first planes would be sold at a exactly the price specified. That could mean a major loss or major profit margin.


RE: These claims are inevitable
By Calin on 2/26/2010 2:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
"We've got two different aircraft here with slightly different capabilities"
The two proposed aircraft have quite different capabilities in things like internal free volume (usable for troop transport/stretchers/...), total mass transported (when in cargo mode), total fuel transported (when in refuel mode), airfield requirements, ... The first request for proposals put very little emphasis on those three capabilities (so Airbus/EADS offering was at a disadvantage). Then a new RFP appeared, which put emphasis in this, and the smaller Boeing was disadvantaged. The third RFP removed the cargo, personnel, internal volume equation and again the Airbus plane was at a disadvantage. I think this is the fourth RFP, and it seems it isn't much changed over the previous one.


The Lowest Bidder...
By jdietz on 2/25/2010 9:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
People in the military joke about their equipment in general (especially planes) being "made by the lowest bidder." eg. "Can you believe this was made by the lowest bidder!"

I wonder if it's really true that our planes are made by the lowest bidder.




RE: The Lowest Bidder...
By corduroygt on 2/26/2010 2:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's the government's obligation to award contracts to the lowest bidder, since that money is coming from the taxpayers. As long as everthing is within spec, awarding contracts to the lowest bidder should be the norm.


RE: The Lowest Bidder...
By ikkeman2 on 3/1/2010 4:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, this is a lowest cost approach. When the minimum set of requirements are met (and the 50 y/o KC-135 can meet (almost?) all od them), then there a maximum 1% price difference allowed between the bids - Only if the bids are within 1% of the cheapest does the USAF look at additional capability.


What is the problem with pointing a finger at it?
By cocoman on 2/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: What is the problem with pointing a finger at it?
By bhieb on 2/25/2010 11:18:08 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is that the government "should" try to utilize taxpayer money in the most efficient manner. They don't and never have, but that is the argument. Not having a bidder allows Boeing to charge what they want.

What they have done here is completely unacceptable. They had and RFP, Boeing lost. There is a considerable investment made just to bid on these things, and for it to be stripped from the winner does the tax payer no good.

I agree it would be ideal if it was an American company, but if that is your stance state that up front. Don't make them spend the time and money just to screw them over.

If I did this with my vendors I soon would not have many left, and the ones I had would gouge me.


By MozeeToby on 2/25/2010 11:36:34 AM , Rating: 5
They had an RFP that Boeing designed towards and fulfilled, only to have the RFP change at the last minute to favor Airbus. They broke the process and their own rules and Boeing's successful appeal shows this. Not saying that the new request is necissarily fair either, just that the old one certainly wasn't.


RE: What is the problem with pointing a finger at it?
By bhieb on 2/25/2010 11:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah kind of forgot that. Just reeks of payola to some Pentagon guy. What else is new though right.


By Danish1 on 2/25/2010 12:40:13 PM , Rating: 4
By mmatis on 2/25/2010 5:32:54 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, they NEVER changed the old RFP in the original review. They instead violated their evaluation criteria that they had spelled out and awarded to EADS in violation of their process, as determined by the GAO following Boeing's protest. If they HAD changed the RFP, even at the last minute, they might have been able to make the award.

On this version, they put out a new Draft RFP and asked for comments. Boeing said "Hot shit!" or something to that effect. EADS said "This sucks donkey tails!" In French, of course, but I digress... The government evaluated the potential contractors' inputs, revised their Draft RFP as they considered appropriate, and released the RFP that is out for bid. THAT'S how it's supposed to work. Y'all should be able to go to the webbie site for this contract and see exactly what's in there. As usual, the military is getting screwed by this Administration and needs to get maximum value for every dollar they spend since we're STILL fighting two wars, even though the Head Nanny What's In Charge will bow and scrape to every two-bit international thug. Did they screw up? It's difficult to say they should request more than they need to do the job. But I have no doubt some Congresscritters and pundits will be glad to do so.


By knutjb on 2/25/2010 7:18:24 PM , Rating: 5
Boeing designed a refueler based on what the Air Force had ask for. A SMALL aircraft similar in size to the KC-135 so they did. Airbus threw their much larger jet in the ring after the Drunyan scandal. The Pentagon not trusting the Air Force contracting office threw some Navy officers who looked at size and thought bigger was better and it didn't hurt that Northrup-Grumman had former Navy officers working for them on this bid.

The problem is that the Airbus offering is about the same size as a KC-10 but carries a third less cargo/fuel. Also the Air Force learned when they bought the KC-10 that it was less effective than the KC-135 in most tasks because the KC-10 is too big. Why do you think the 135 has been around so long? Boeing did offer a 777 but the Air Force had recognized the above lesson and worked towards a more mission effective 767-200 sized aircraft. The Naval personnel brought in didn't really understand that, leading them to a false choice. Had Boeing bid a 777 it would have likely won because it is around the same size (length width) to the Airbus but can hold much more fuel and cargo.

This has more to do with picking the right sized aircraft than it does with whose building it.


By sinful on 2/25/2010 8:37:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As usual, the military is getting screwed by this Administration


What, was usual MASSIVE INCREASE IN SPENDING for the military not enough ?

Geez, you give someone $3T for a war, and they whine it's not enough!


By cmdrdredd on 2/25/2010 7:57:27 PM , Rating: 1
MozeeToby hit it exactly. Now, what I don't get is that Northrop is bitching about the new proposal favoring a smaller and cheaper aircraft. Well, no shit. Just make a smaller plane cheaper! OMG IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

That's what I really don't understand. How is wanting a more cost effective (i.e. less expensive) aircraft a bad thing when you know the liberals could cut even more from you.


By HolgerDK on 2/25/2010 12:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Isnt Northrop Grumman an american company ?


By Smartless on 2/25/2010 1:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes partnered with Airbus.

Honestly, this is a fight to see who can utilize their existing airframes. So the trouble I see is the Airforce is letting Boeing and Northrop Grumman tell them what they want in a plane. Each plane has its pluses and minuses but hey Airforce, pick the Toyota or Ford I don't care. Just make sure if the brakes fail or the engine dies America has someone to fix the damn thing.


By samuraiBX on 2/25/2010 11:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's the concept of Fair and Open Competition. For government contracts past a certain amount, the government has a duty to try and get the best pricing and encourage competition. If they just say, I want Boeing, how do you, the taxpayer, know your government is even attempting to get the most bang for your buck? Admittedly, it doesn't feel like that for the most part, but the attempt should at least be made.


By Adonlude on 2/25/2010 1:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
There is also the issue of being fair to the contracting company. Contracting companies are forced to do buisness in a very different manner than commercial companies. Contractors have a fixed profit structure. They cant just set a price and make 100% profit on a job. Their profits have to be totally transparent and agreed upon in advance. There is no working the numbers when you are getting paid by taxpayers monney.


By Keeir on 2/25/2010 1:23:25 PM , Rating: 3
Errr...

I think your missing a fundamental concept.

The Government should attempt to quanitify what they -need- and what the -want-.

Then the bidder who offers the best price and combination of -need- and -want- should win.

Fair and Open Compedition means that the Government should be clear and open about what are needs, what are wants, and the relative value of the wants/needs.

That was the issue with the original award to NG/EADS. The Government didn't clearly disclose that they wanted larger fuel/more offload past the minimum the government outlines (In fact, the specifically stated no additional credit would be given). They also outlines that they wanted all sorts of extras... that they then didn't care about.

If this current RFP outlines accurately what the government needs/wants/and relative value to the government, I am not sure why the government needs to ensure multiple bidders by asking for things they don't want! Changing the RFP just to get multiple bidders and then grading the proposal on a different scale just means another successful GAO protest.


By amanojaku on 2/25/2010 11:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's a contest designed to produce the best plane for the least amount of money, or at least improve the price/capability ratio. Without bids these companies will charge whatever they want. Bidding is standard practice before government agencies award contracts, and many large private organizations do the same.

Anyway, Northrop Grumman/EADS's complaints illustrate why bidding is necessary: the KC-767 holds 20,000KG less fuel than the KC-30, but it's faster (useful when you need to get to the fighters), holds twice the number of military pallets (more stuff to haul) and is cheaper. Boeing seems to have a better plane, and NG/EADS can't compete. Sore losers.

BTW, NG is an American company, and it sometimes partners with EADS, which is European.


By cooter on 2/25/2010 2:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Can you point out where you get your information from. I think you are way off base here.

You state: the KC-767 holds 20,000KG less fuel than the KC-30, but it's faster (useful when you need to get to the fighters), holds twice the number of military pallets (more stuff to haul) and is cheaper.

Here is what I remember hearing and have sources:

KC-767:
1. Passengers: 190
2. Cargo: 19 Pallets
3. Range: 6,590
4. Speed: .80 mach (cruise, not max)
5. Fuel Capacity: 202,000 lbs

KC-30:
1. Passengers: 226-280
2. Cargo: 32 Pallets
3. Range: 6750 miles
4. Speed: .82 mach (cruise, not max)
5. Fuel Capacity: 250,000 lbs

These are just the basics. There are other things that can be taken into consideration about additional features that were just removed from the RFP that show the Northrop offering as a better solution as well.

However it depends what the RFP is really looking for. Maybe they don't want an aircraft as big as the 330.

Sources:
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/TankerComparisonv1.p...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/...


By amanojaku on 2/25/2010 4:15:01 PM , Rating: 3
Maximum fuel load
KC-767 Advanced Tanker - ~90,000kg
KC-30/A330 MRTT/KC-45A - ~110,000kg

463L Master Pallets
KC-767 Advanced Tanker - 19
KC-30/A330 MRTT/KC-45A - 8, + 2 LD3 containers

Performance - Top speed
KC-767 Advanced Tanker - 570 mph, 915 km/h
KC-30/A330 MRTT/KC-45A - 547 mph, 880 km/h

Performance - Cruise speed
KC-767 Advanced Tanker - 530 mph, 851 km/h
KC-30/A330 MRTT/KC-45A - 534 mph, 860 km/h

Passengers
KC-767 Advanced Tanker - 190
KC-30/A330 MRTT/KC-45A - 380

The advantages of the KC-30/45A are twice the passengers and 20,000kg extra fuel. The advantages of the KC-767 are a significantly faster top speed, larger cargo storage, and (by NG's own admission) a lower price. The cruise speeds area virtually the same, with a 4MPH difference.

I'm sure the KC-30/45A can get more cargo at the expense of passengers, but let's look at it this way: the KC-767 costs up to $150M; the KC-45A up to $200M. Four KC-767s can be had for the cost of three KC-30/45As. Dollar per dollar that means:

Overall fuel load
KC-767 gives you 360,000kg vs. KC-30/45A's 330,000kg

Master pallets
KC-767 gives you 76 vs. KC-30/45A's 24

Assuming your sources are correct the KC-30/45A can get 26 pallets at the expense of passengers. So you'd end up with 2 extra pallets. As a tanker and cargo plane the KC-767 is better. As a passenger vehicle the KC-30/45A is better. But the government is looking for a tanker that can haul cargo, not a passenger vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_KC-4...


By beerhound on 2/25/2010 8:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
One point with the seats/pallets comparison. Does the KC-30 passenger load mean permanently fixed seats? If so, then it is the less flexible of the two, because the KC-45's passenger load could be changed just by adding palletized seats. I road in that type of seating on KC-10s several times. That would leave the only major advantage of the KC-30 to be total possible fuel load.


By Octoberblue on 2/25/2010 11:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just a bang-for-your-buck issue. The laws surrounding these contracts are pretty stringent because the amounts of money involved are enormous. The concern is that sweetheart deals and kickbacks could corrupt the whole process. By the way, these contracts can only be awarded to American companies. Northrop and Boeing both have to have at least US based independent subsidiaries. (I think both are US based anyway, though I could be mistaken.) Northrop already makes aircraft carriers and other warships. Not to mention space-based telescopes, satellites, and dozens of other big money items. So they're as substantial of a player as you can get. I predict this is awarded to Boeing, followed by another protest, this time by Northrop. Could drag out for a while.


By dugbug on 2/25/2010 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 1
Northrop Grumman is American company. They are buying a "blank" and tankerizing it so to speak.

Both solutions in the end have about the same foreign components (remember, Boeing planes are not all US parts)


By DARIN4 on 2/25/2010 12:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
yes northrup is a american company . but they wont be doing anything but putting there name on it . the planes will be built in FRANCE ( a foreign country - i think ) and brought to alabama to be converted to tankers . only bringing a few thousand jobs. while BOEING will create at least 5 times that number of jobs. and boeing planes are built by americans in seattle. they dont out source hardly anything. ( not sure where you get your info on that one) this should be very easy. in one of the worst economic times in our great country . what kind of AMERICAN would even consider sending these jobs overseas. -


By justsomeone on 2/25/2010 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
( not sure where you get your info on that one)


well neither of you gave sources so i'm not sure where you got your info either. i live in Mobile and i've heard it all. this can be debated till the cows come home.


By blueboy09 on 2/25/2010 8:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, pretty much. . . To me, it doesn't matter about the debate, it's what they're doing to my money that I pay in taxes as to what they are using it for, and this wouldn't be one of them, by a long shot. Use my money for what is needed: jobs, security, and enviornment issues that make sense (like using used vegetable oil as an alternate fuel for cars and other vehicular equipment) those things is what matters to me the most. - BLUEBOY


By BZDTemp on 2/25/2010 3:47:27 PM , Rating: 1
EADS is spread out through most of the big EU countries. They may assemble the planes in France but parts come from all over.

As for sending jobs overseas I'm sorry but that is just funny. Considering how much of what is sold in the US is made outside the US it is pretty clear no one is really thinking about this - except only in cases like this which really amounts to very little. Just look on the labels in you clothes, on the back of anything electric, the cardboard boxes your furniture comes in... most of it will be from China!

If buying American is to matter then it is what's done everyday that can make a difference. Not some plane contract which by the way could do a lot of good in the way of ensuring Boeing is not gonna end up being the only US company building big jets.


By rudolphna on 2/25/2010 8:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Boeing IS the only US company making big jets though. EADS is European through and through. Boeing planes are manufactured as was said, in Seattle, Washington. It creates AMERICAN jobs, (which, if you recall, is what we should be focusing on, not jobs in france, or wherever)


By BZDTemp on 2/26/2010 3:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
I know Boeing is the only one. My thinking is that this project build be a start for N/G to get into the big jet and it is not like going with that project will not create US jobs.


By mmatis on 2/26/2010 10:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
Let me assure you that NG has no intention of getting into the manufacture of large jets. The industry consolidation several years ago got down to two major players, dumping many others by the wayside. The market is not there, nor is it credible for the foreseeable long term future, to support more than two manufacturers. And NG is not even getting any manufacturing rights on the tanker. They are strictly outfitting the EADS airframe. That IS a major job, but it's a LONG way from manufacturing large aircraft.


By FITCamaro on 2/25/2010 7:31:07 PM , Rating: 3
Boeing also has the issue of a highly hostile union that is known for striking to demand more pay and benefits. This often puts them behind schedule and over cost. They are opening a new Boeing plant here in Charleston because of this. We are a right to work state with much lower costs.

So don't say that Boeing is perfect. Yes I want jobs here in the US. But I don't want to give the power to delay our nations military hardware to a greedy union.


By afkrotch on 3/2/2010 12:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
Umm...remember the last time a US contractor partnered up with foreign companies to create some type of military aircraft?

Might want to check out the VH-71 program.


By Leper Messiah on 2/26/2010 2:51:32 PM , Rating: 1
Boeing/Spirit outsources a fuckton of their stuff to other countries. The company I work for makes parts for spirit and we ship stuff to Turkey, Belgium, and Japan.


RE: What is the problem with pointing a finger at it?
By Keeir on 2/25/2010 12:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
Errr...

This is not entirely true.

Comparing the Current A330 to the B767, the current 767 has significantly more American Parts (and American Manufacturing). Its true that EADS/NG is proposing developing new suppliers and new manufacturing to support the A330 USTanker.


By HotFoot on 2/25/2010 1:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
The argument is irrelevant if there is a requirement for 100% industrial offsets, as most countries use.


RE: What is the problem with pointing a finger at it?
By Keeir on 2/25/2010 2:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Err..

Why don't you show a link were 100% industrial offsets are required for the USAF Tanker competition?

Industrial Offsets are not typically used in the US, since typically US companies are the only ones that can bid.


By HotFoot on 2/25/2010 2:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and the lead company in a Canadian defence contract has to be Canadian as well, but sub-contractors don't have to be. Seems that must be the case in the U.S. as well - for instance, EADS being on the Northrop team for the tanker programme.

Offsets include all amounts going to sub-contractors as well. I know Boeing is sending a lot of work to S. Korea as part of an industrial offset for the F-15 variant that was sold there.

Anyway, it's standard practice. Whether or not it applies to this particular contract is beyond me.


RE: What is the problem with pointing a finger at it?
By Keeir on 2/25/2010 4:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
I guess what I am getting at...

The US does not typically require or use "Offsets". American content of the end product is typically used.

Most countries that require offset, don't actually go 100%. (Such a figure is nearly impossible to reach without incurring significant extra cost)

Most countries with significant defense industries don't use offsets. In terms of numbers then, a large number of countries use offsets. In terms of total value of military contracts with significant offsets... not so much so.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2010/14th_offset_defen...

US, by far the largest weapons exporter in the world, in 2008 only entered in roughly ~3 billion of new offsets on ~6 billion of foriegn contracts.

Even if NG/EADS promised to "offset" the end foriegn content to the same as American content, a substainial portion of the profit still goes overseas and the end cost to the taxpayer for the same product likely rises.

The question of percentage US build (especially current) is therefore relavent to the USAF Tanker Competition. A high level of current US product content and assembly shows a higher percentage of dollars staying in the US at the lowest "premium" to acchieve this...


By afkrotch on 3/2/2010 12:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
Then we turn around and give our US soldiers in foreign locations a lot of money to blow on foreign soil. It'll all even out on it's own.

I'm in the military and 1/2 my paycheck ends up in S.Korea. I'm not the only one that does the same thing either. Let's not forget, that's taxpayer money that makes up my paycheck.

Billions of taxpayer dollars end up in foreign hands every single day of the year. This contract, I don't care who gets it. So long as the classified parts of the project don't end up in foreign hands, which doesn't seem like it will. Seeing as NG will be doing the outfitting of the jet.


By knutjb on 2/25/2010 7:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
The original 767 was bid with Rolls Royce motors to throw some thanks to the Brits. Rolls, GE or Pratts doesn't really matter too much they are all pretty good.


By Octoberblue on 2/25/2010 11:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just a bang-for-your-buck issue. The laws surrounding these contracts are pretty stringent because the amounts of money involved are enormous. The concern is that sweetheart deals and kickbacks could corrupt the whole process.

By the way, these contracts can only be awarded to American companies. Northrop and Boeing both have to have at least US-based independent subsidiaries. (I think both are US based anyway, though I could be mistaken.)

Northrop already makes aircraft carriers and other warships. Not to mention space-based telescopes, satellites, and dozens of other big money items. So they're as substantial of a player as you can get. I predict this is awarded to Boeing, followed by another protest, this time by Northrop. Could drag out for a while.


Booo Northrop
By jman345 on 2/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Booo Northrop
By Gungel on 2/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Booo Northrop
By beerhound on 2/25/2010 8:52:42 PM , Rating: 1
No Boeing didn't complain that the RFP favored NG/EADS, they complained that the original RFP favored a smaller aircraft (767 sized) over a larger aircraft (A330 sized, for example) and it stated that no extra consideration would be granted for an aircraft that met all requirements but was larger in size. Then extra credit was given to the A330 for the larger size and that if Boeing had known that from the start they would have submitted a larger bird like the 777. That was not just Boeing's contention either, the GAO threw out the results of the bidding because of it.


RE: Booo Northrop
By HotFoot on 2/25/2010 1:59:16 PM , Rating: 4
It's the government that's changed the rules - twice, in this competition. Twice, the bidding process has had to be sent back to square one. I hope a serious investigation is going into making sure someone's pockets aren't being lined.

I've worked on the industry side of bidding for defence contracts. It can be a very frustrating game. I've seen major competitors walk out contracts because the government changed their minds too many times about what they wanted.

But $40B is too much to just walk away from. Both companies have cried foul, and foul it has been.


RE: Booo Northrop
By SPOOFE on 2/25/2010 3:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want the airforce to change its RFP so they can compete. wtf is up with that?

In theory, competition results in better planes.


RE: Booo Northrop
By Jeffk464 on 2/25/2010 4:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why that can't go with a more modern boeing plane like the 777 or even the 787 when it comes out. I don't think with the current economy we need a government contract this large going to europe.


RE: Booo Northrop
By Keeir on 2/25/2010 5:01:03 PM , Rating: 3
A few reasons

#1. The USAF wants beater machines that are well understood.

#2. The USAF wants cheap planes

#3. New designs typically focus on reducing per air-mile costs for airlines. Military applications are often dramatically different. A military plane might fly 1/10 or less the flight hours/cycles of a commerical plane. This results in extra costs upfront in the airframe that the military might never realize through flight service.


RE: Booo Northrop
By knutjb on 2/25/2010 7:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
#1. The USAF wants beater machines that are well understood

False, the KC-135 was from the BRAND NEW first American built JET powered aircraft. In fact it was so new that the AF tanker version was built off the prototype 707 and is smaller than what became the 707.
quote:
#2. The USAF wants cheap planes

They are obligated to purchase cost effective products, cheapest isn't always the most cost effective.
quote:
#3. New designs typically focus on reducing per air-mile costs for airlines. Military applications are often dramatically different. A military plane might fly 1/10 or less the flight hours/cycles of a commerical plane. This results in extra costs upfront in the airframe that the military might never realize through flight service.

Per mile costs do impact fuel costs, military or civilian. The purpose of a commercial aircraft is to keep flying because that is the only time they produce income. Military is not a for profit business but they do have budget constraints, so buying an existing airframe that has already been converted and is in use will likely save some R&D money. Though the 767 does require FAA certs because the 767-200 never came with a glass cockpit and some other features. To pile onto the special applications side cargo and passenger services can be contracted out but inflight refueling cannot so they do need a few extra aircraft to be able to cover unexpected events.


RE: Booo Northrop
By Keeir on 2/26/2010 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh.

quote:
False, the KC-135 was from the BRAND NEW first American built JET powered aircraft. In fact it was so new that the AF tanker version was built off the prototype 707 and is smaller than what became the 707.


For the last 10 years, the Pentagon has said repeatly they are looking for well-understood tankers for this generation. The past is the past.

quote:
Per mile costs do impact fuel costs, military or civilian.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135

The KC-135R flys an annual average of 710 hours. A typical 777 currently flys ~12+ hours a day, every day. Thats 4300 or so hours a year.

The difference in fuel costs for a 777 on a yearly basis is factor of 6.

To get the same cost savings of a 777 over say the A330, the military would need to operate the aircraft for 6 times as long!

It is -very- unlikely for the Air Force to want to pay for a Bigger than Required, More Expensive, More Expensive to Maintain platform when they are unlikely to acchieve the benifits of the extra costs through reduces per mile per kilo costs.

Its also unlikely that Boeing will seriously off a 777. Boeing current making as many 777 as they can. Since Airline customers are likely to pay more for a 777 airframe than Military customers, if Boeing had ability to easily add 1-2 more aircraft per month to the 777 line, they would already do it.


RE: Booo Northrop
By knutjb on 2/26/2010 7:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The KC-135R flys an annual average of 710 hours. A typical 777 currently flys ~12+ hours a day, every day. Thats 4300 or so hours a year.

Your talking apples to oranges. 777s are used commercially as long haul jets. 135s typically fly 3-5 hours.
quote:
The difference in fuel costs for a 777 on a yearly basis is factor of 6.
This is an entirely irrelevant fuel analysis.
quote:
It is -very- unlikely for the Air Force to want to pay for a Bigger than Required, More Expensive, More Expensive to Maintain platform when they are unlikely to achieve the benefits of the extra costs through reduces per mile per kilo costs.
This is why the AF wanted a 767 sized jet in the first place, not the bigger 777 or Airbus. It has little to do with production capacities but much to do with the most efficient refueling platform. The aging 135 is losing its cost effectiveness through required maintenance.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki