backtop

Print 48 comment(s) - last by Danish1.. on Dec 3 at 1:35 AM

Northrop Grumman
Northrop Grumman complains that the Air Force's new requirements for a smaller tanker need to be adjusted

Just when things had seemingly died down in the saga surrounding the replacement for the U.S. Air Force's aging KC-135 tankers, another spark is giving the controversy more life. The last time DailyTech addressed the ongoing battle between Northrop Grumman and Boeing, it was determined that the decision on a replacement tanker could take another five years.

Now, Reuters is reporting that Northrop Grumman is threatening to boycott the competition altogether. In a move that was similar to Boeing's cries for concessions on the competition back in August 2008, Northrop Grumman is too asking or changes to be made to the program to suit its needs.

Northrop President Wes Bush feels that his company is providing the best possible platform for the tanker program with its Airbus A330-based KC-45A aircraft. However, changes to the program now make Northrop Grumman's bid financially unsuitable for the company.

"The department's responses to date to our submitted questions suggest that the department is not planning to substantially address our concerns in the final release of the RFP (request for proposals)," said Bush in a letter to Defense Undersecretary Ashton Carter. "As a result, I must regrettably inform you that, absent a responsive set of changes in the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it cannot submit a bid to the department for the KC-X program."

According to Bloomberg, Northrop's main complaint centers around the fact that changes in the program now favor a smaller tanker than the the Airbus A330 airframe that Northrop Grumman has already submitted. When Northrop Grumman initially won the competition, Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte praised the KC-45A design, stating that it offered "more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

The decision to now go with a smaller airframe is likely due to Boeing's complaints that resulted in the restart of the competition in September.

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) had harsh words for the Air Force -- Shelby is naturally upset as a Northrop Grumman win would have meant a new aircraft assembly plant in Alabama. "The draft request for proposals is practically a sole source contract to Boeing,” exclaimed Shelby. “It’s a sham.  If the Air Force wants a true competition - one that aims to procure the best product for our warfighter -- it must fundamentally alter the current framework.”

For its part, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman tried to stay diplomatic in the light of the recent statements, saying, “The Department regrets that Northrop Grumman and Airbus have taken themselves out of the tanker competition and hope they will return when the final request for proposals is issued.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The KC-135s need to be replaced, badly
By Bateluer on 12/1/2009 4:54:09 PM , Rating: 4
Ever work on one of those pieces of junk? Yeesh, some of the airframes are almost falling apart, the avionics equipment has been modded a thousand times over. A replacement is needed asap. Congress, the USAF, Boeing and Northrup need to pull their collective heads out of their behinds.

Sadly, this crap is practically expected from Congress. Similar BS was part of the reason I didn't re-enlist in the AF 2 years ago.




RE: The KC-135s need to be replaced, badly
By Smartless on 12/1/2009 5:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah when politics gets in the way of improvement, we get Congress.


RE: The KC-135s need to be replaced, badly
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2009 5:30:14 PM , Rating: 5
This is certainly the most informed, experienced, and intelligent Congresses of all time ! They are automotive experts, military masterminds who know more than 4 and 5 star Generals, housing and banking titans. Not to mention their brilliant insights on healthcare ( passing a bill for all of us that they will be exempt from ) and education (how about those test scores ).

They learn by osmosis. They don't actually have to have ANY experience in the above fields. They just sorta become experts on everything by reading about it and sitting on their ass talking to other do nothings like them who also read about stuff.

So it's only fitting they know more about what a tanker should be than a company who's sole trade is designing and building aircraft. While lesser men are actually working as engineers and designers, Congress is there, thousands of miles away in their ivory tower, flaunting their omnipotence over us all.


By ksherman on 12/1/2009 5:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
To make matters worse, if someone calls to get rid of Congress all together, no one will care.


By FITCamaro on 12/1/2009 9:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
To quote Peter: "That might be the smartest thing I ever heard about anything."

Well done sir. :)


By ayat101 on 12/2/2009 2:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
LOL Sounds a lot like the discussions here as well. Some people on DailyTech seem to be experts on everything that outhink the people who are actually doing the work :)


RE: The KC-135s need to be replaced, badly
By 3minence on 12/2/2009 9:38:35 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunitly I have met many politicians and can say with with great confidence that while their are exceptions, most politicians are incredibly smart, and yet incredibly dumb. They usually have higher than average IQ's, are well educated, but yet are so very dumb. I have no idea how it can be so yet it is. What makes a successful politician is his ability to woo (or fool) the voters while giving big campaign contributors what they want.

Ted Kennedy personally was a amoral pig, but he was very well informed because he had a large (the largest on capitol hill, I think) staff who worked hard and kept him well informed. And that's true for many leaders. They really are just face men, but the "smart" ones have real experts working for them who can give them intelligent advice.

But at the end of the day they are whores to the voters and campaign contributors (more the latter). Unfortunately as disgusting as this is, it's better than the alternative.


RE: The KC-135s need to be replaced, badly
By Reclaimer77 on 12/2/2009 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ted Kennedy personally was a amoral pig, but he was very well informed because he had a large (the largest on capitol hill, I think) staff who worked hard and kept him well informed. And that's true for many leaders. They really are just face men, but the "smart" ones have real experts working for them who can give them intelligent advice.


And yet he was on the wrong side of every-single-issue. Funny how that works.


By Havok423 on 12/2/2009 1:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
Was he wrong? You are assuming the he and his party didn't have a plan. Most of what they are doing isn't about helping the population of this country so much as concentrating power and control in D.C.


By 3minence on 12/2/2009 2:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
You are confusing effective versus desirable. Whether you agree with his goals or not, Ted Kennedy was effective.


By Performance Fanboi on 12/1/2009 10:12:41 PM , Rating: 5
Con-gress - antonym to Pro-gress.


RE: The KC-135s need to be replaced, badly
By Fenixgoon on 12/1/2009 11:48:57 PM , Rating: 5
I like this way better

"Pro is to Con as Progress is to Congress"


By Spookster on 12/2/2009 12:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
Politicians put the Con in Congress.


RE: The KC-135s need to be replaced, badly
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2009 8:19:11 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome.

You get a cookie.


By AEvangel on 12/2/2009 11:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"This country has come to feel the same when congress is in session as when a baby gets hold of a hammer." Will Rogers

quote:
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn


My way or the highway
By lightfoot on 12/1/2009 5:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
So basically Northrop is saying that if the government doesn't request an Airbus A330 that they aren't willing to submit a plan?

How about this? Why don't they wait for the government to put out their request, and no matter what they request simply offer the A330 as a candidate??

It sounds like they've pretty much wrapped up their preliminary design, so instead of dropping out, they should submit what they have. There is no guarantee that Boeing will offer a better aircraft (and if Boeing does put the engineering into it, then they deserve to win the contract.)

It's entirely possible that Northrop knows better than the government what the Air Force really needs. It's also possible that the Air Force needs something that Northrop isn't willing to provide. But in either case where is the drawback of submitting a plan for an aircraft that has already been designed? Are they worried that they might win the contract and then be forced to build aircraft??




RE: My way or the highway
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/1/2009 5:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Northrop is basically playing the crybaby just like Boeing did after is lost last year.

Both companies have cried out when things didn't go their way.


RE: My way or the highway
By jarman on 12/1/2009 6:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's not like either of them have to meet any stockholder profit expectations, restrictive U.S. regulatory requirements, or deal with schizophrenic government customer.

I mean, what do these guys expect? A customer that solicits a request for proposal with clearly defined selection criteria that it's expected to actually adhere to???

What Madness!!!


RE: My way or the highway
By Keeir on 12/1/2009 7:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Northrop is basically playing the crybaby just like Boeing did after is lost last year.


To be clear

In the last round of tanker wars

Northrup threatened to walk away repeatedly if demands were not meant. (First in 2007, then in 2008 as last as a few months before the final RFP)

Of course, in the end, Boeing's protest was substantiated by the Government Accountability Office, a non-partisian government agency whoose political appointees typically outlast the Presidents/Congresses that appoint them. For fairly sound reasons... like the A330 not being able to meet the minimum flight manuever criteria (to be fair, the A330 did have a plan to meet the criteria, but thats was supposed to be a disqualification)


RE: My way or the highway
By Amiga500 on 12/2/2009 1:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For fairly sound reasons... like the A330 not being able to meet the minimum flight manuever criteria


More info on this please?

If you mean max-g maneuvering, both will be certified to 3g + 1.5 safety factor.


RE: My way or the highway
By IcePickFreak on 12/1/2009 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 4
While I don't work in aerospace, I work on custom engineered units for industrial equipment. We as well as most competitors refuse to quote government/military spec'd jobs due to the fact that you basically have to invest a large amount of engineering resources to hit their moving target of a spec. Then they finally decide on something else completely and rewrite the spec yet again to meet that product - just a bit backwards. I can't imagine the investment an aerospace company needs to put up front in hopes of getting the job, and then the endless hoops that need to be jumped through to keep up with the spec on a government job.

Bottom line is if they have plenty of other - easier to catch - fish to fry, then why try to snag the big bottom feeder that's swimming all over the place?


RE: My way or the highway
By Calin on 12/2/2009 3:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
Because small air forces would rather buy equipment that the one big air force have (it's better to have a plane that was built in 10,000 units than one built in 100 units).


RE: My way or the highway
By Danish1 on 12/2/2009 5:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe Boeing bribed someone, again.


RE: My way or the highway
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2009 8:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but remember that this is actually what Northrop did in the first place which resulted in them winning and then Boeing protesting.

The Air Force put out an RFP. Northrop threatened to walk away if some of the requirements weren't changed to make their bid more desirable. They ended up winning. Then Boeing protested.

So now the cycle is starting over.

/facepalm


RE: My way or the highway
By FITCamaro on 12/1/2009 9:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't care. I want a new damn tanker contract to be awarded so the company I work for can bid for a piece of it.


RE: My way or the highway
By Calin on 12/2/2009 3:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
Because the A330 is bigger, it needs bigger hangars, wider runways and so on. If the requirements ask for a smaller physical plane, then an A330 would be just as certain to win the competition as an A380


RE: My way or the highway
By drycrust on 12/2/2009 9:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the requirements ask for a smaller physical plane, then an A330 would be just as certain to win the competition as an A380


Incorrect! It depends on how the tender is written. If the tender didn't specify a maximum size, then someone could submit a super-tanker as long as they could make it fly. If, however, a maximum size is specified, which is likely since this thing will need to be able to land and take off all around the world, then going over that size will count against you.


I want to see one project...
By Shig on 12/1/2009 4:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't overrun it's budget by gross margins.

Can ya do that Northrup? One time?




RE: I want to see one project...
By HotFoot on 12/1/2009 4:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
In this case, I'd be blaming the government and the process that's being followed in this programme. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a company that put a lot of resources into a bid that was initially successful walked away from the table.

In my time I've personally seen a major military supplier (at the time a competitor of my former employer) tell the government to screw off over drawn-out proposal phases and ever-changing system requirements. I couldn't blame them when they left the table - they'd lost a ton of money proposing and re-proposing year after year to a government that couldn't make up their minds about what they wanted.


RE: I want to see one project...
By mmatis on 12/1/2009 6:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to note that the bastards running this Request for Proposal (RFP) initially asked for something similar to what Boeing bid, and spelled out the criteria they were supposed to use in evaluating the bids in a way that SHOULD have favored the proposal that Boeing submitted. The evaluators for that contract then IGNORED their scoring criteria and awarded to Northrup based on criteria that were NOT identified when the RFP was released. THAT's why they were told to re-do the process. Shelby P+Ming about this now is about what I expect from the Congressional Whores of either party. I don't have a problem with USAF asking for a small tanker. I don't have a problem with USAF asking for a large tanker. They should be able to justify WHATEVER they ask for. They should put out clear criteria on how they're going to evaluate the proposals. And then they should follow those criteria. But I guess that's just TOO MUCH to ask of the swill running the US government these days.


RE: I want to see one project...
By Keeir on 12/1/2009 7:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
"The decision to now go with a smaller airframe is likely due to Boeing's complaints that resulted in the restart of the competition in September." (from the Article)

Having read the draft RFP, I can say my reading is more like the AF has qualified the requirement specifications to the point where Northrup/Airbus see no additional benifit to go along with the additional cost of the larger A330 to the smaller B767.

In the second round (this being the Third), it was clear from the final notes that Boeing was developing alot of new gadgets and wrinkles for the 767 than NG/Airbus was for the A330 (Reference that the First 75 or so aircraft were -cheaper- for NG than B767, but each deliever after that, the B767 was cheaper). (Keep in mind, both the 767 and A330 are used as tanker platforms for other nations such as Italy, Britian, Japan, and Australia)

Now that its clear what the airforce really wants, its clear that Boeing can design a cheaper 767 (without those wrinkles the AF doesn't really want that bad) than A330.

In this sense, Boeing did deserve to lose the second round for not understanding the customer desires (USAF willingness to pay for wrinkles)


RE: I want to see one project...
By mmatis on 12/1/2009 9:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
When a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) releases an RFP, they are supposed to define their scoring criteria so the offerors understand what's important to the government and then bid their proposal that way. Unfortunately, for the RFP that Boeing "lost", the SEB defined their criteria one way, and then scored differently. Which is why that contract was thrown out after Boeing protested. NOT because Congress intervened and ordered USAF to throw it out, but because the government agency responsible for reviewing the contract award to make sure it complied with the laws governing contract award by the government released the award was indefensible in court.

As I said before, I don't care whether the AF wants a small tanker, a large tanker, one with bells and whistles, or one that the aircrew has to push down the runway. The SEB needs to spell out its criteria in its Draft RFP, put it out for comment by the prospective contractors (which it appears to have done), revise it as appropriate based on the contractors' input AND the Air Force's true needs, and then release it for bid. Now Uncle DOES NOT like to have only one bidder on a major contract like this, so it's appropriate for them to TRY to appease Northrup with RFP changes to get them AND Boeing to bid, but in the end the SEB is responsible for getting the best value for the government and needs to write the RFP with that in mind. And review the offerors' proposals in accordance with the DEN'd defined criteria this time.


RE: I want to see one project...
By Amiga500 on 12/2/2009 1:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
In this case... yes, easily.

The A330 MRTT is flying already. It is undergoing certification right now.

The only mod from A330 MRTT to KC-45 is a change of boom (which has already been built, flown and tested).

In contrast, the KC-767 for the USAF exists only in CATIA. It is NOT, I repeat NOT the same KC-767 as Japan and Italy have. It is a completely different fuselage/engine/wing/electronics combination that has NEVER been used before.

The R&D for the Northrop package has been done, and the money has been spent by someone else. The R&D for the Boeing deal hasn't been done, therefore it is obviously the more risky deal.

Costing up the Northrop proposal would be much more accurate than the Boeing one. ***Assumming the USAF don't change spec***


Which tanker creates the most American jobs?
By flyby707 on 12/1/2009 7:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
As an ex KC-135 pilot (with over 3,500 flight hours), I am a big Boeing fan.

Still, the most important result of the competition is that the USAF starts the process to retire those 50 year old jets. I personally flew tankers that were built in 1955, and are older than I am.

But a very important aspect of this competition is also which contract would create the most American jobs.

I really love Europe, and enjoyed all my visits there, but I prefer that my tax dollars go toward creating jobs for Americans, and not funding the corporate accounts of Airbus.




By lightfoot on 12/1/2009 8:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
As awesome as it is to create American jobs, I would much prefer to see my tax dollars spent wisely.


By karielash on 12/2/2009 6:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, so... with Northrop you get... American and European jobs, with Boeing you get Chinese and American jobs.

Both have a large foreign involvement.


By ikkeman2 on 12/2/2009 7:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
unfortunately, that question can only be answered after the program is finished.
Whatever promises either one makes, the'll not be worth the paper they're written on.
Boein wan the A-10 rewing contract and promptly outsourced the complete program to South Korea. NG actually offers a foreign design.


By axias41 on 12/2/2009 1:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
Part of Boing 787 Dreamliner will build in Italy, where I live. Do you think it will be different for the Boing tanker?


Wasted effort
By twhittet on 12/1/2009 5:38:45 PM , Rating: 4
I think 50% of money wasted on government projects could be saved by eliminating two simple words - scope creep. I doubt there is anything that can get through red tape without being changed so many times that it's rendered useless.




Then let them quit
By FPP on 12/1/2009 11:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's still a free country, for a while longer anyway, so let them. No one is forcing them to quote on this. The fact is, they did not meet the criteria of the last RFQ and the Airforce just waived the requirements. The thing that bothers me here is that the government cannot seem to get anything done with aircraft programs. We cancelled the F22, cut short the B1B, the C-17, the B2 and now are crying about the F-35. We've gotten to the point of not being able to finish anything we start, in an age where the tools are better than ever!




RE: Then let them quit
By siuol11 on 12/2/2009 12:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
Amen!
You're forgetting the V-TOL, the Osprey I think? The one that was just put in to service even though it hadn't finished the development phase (granted it started sometime in the late 80's). This is the one reason I like McCain- when it comes to incompetence and corruption in the procurement process he actually knows what the hell he's talking about. Too bad no one listens...


northrop
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/2/2009 7:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
Northrop seems to live to get screwed. B-35, F-20, F-18, etc http://www.f20a.com/f20hist1.htm




RE: northrop
By Danish1 on 12/3/2009 1:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
"But the modern Pentagon has perfected the art of spending billions in designated congressional districts without ever actually delivering anything or getting anything into production."

Zing!


At this point...
By Redwin on 12/2/2009 10:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
It seems no matter how they write the contract it will favor one company, and the other will cry and complain, all the while we spend millions on the ongoing process, and continue to extend the current ridiculously aged tanker fleet.

Considering its our tax dollars, and the fact that neither design is clearly superior (or else they'd have already picked that one.. right??), I think at this point my position has become the following:

Just flip a damn coin and save us all a lot of time and money




RE: At this point...
By axias41 on 12/2/2009 1:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
At the beginning Northrop project was chosen, then Boing complained and Airforce changed requirements.


Shouldn't......
By Branger on 12/1/2009 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
The congressman trust what the Air Force decides is best for the military?
Shouldn't the congressman kick someone's butt into making sure the company figures out the most competitive way to get what the military wants instead of wasting Oxygen?

Instead of pandering to what companies want? constituency is constituency and jobs are jobs, but ultimately, shouldn't the goal be to figure out the best way to do what's needed, may the best man win?




The little baby photo...
By msheredy on 12/2/2009 7:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
...never gets old!




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki