Northrop may drop out of tanker bidding

[CWOJackson]

Northrop Grumman has warned it won't bid for the massive Air Force refueling tanker program unless the Pentagon's draft request for proposals is rewritten.


Northrop CEO Wes Bush wrote to Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter on Tuesday that since the Pentagon has declined to alter the request for proposals (RFP), "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."


Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space (EADS) are teamed against Boeing in competing for the on-again, off-again contract, and they've offered a modified Airbus A330 that would be assembled in Alabama.


Boeing has said it would use either a 767, as it previously proposed, or a 777.


Northrop's letter says the Pentagon's responses to complaints that the RFP is tilted in favor of Boeing "suggest that the department is not planning to substantially address our concerns in the final release of the RFP."
The company said the draft RFP contains a "clear preference" for a smaller aircraft "with limited multirole capability," and is structured in a way that "places contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept," according to a copy of the letter provided by Northrop.
Without changes in the draft RFP, which is due to be finalized shortly, "Northrop Grumman cannot proceed to submit a bid to the Department," CEO Bush wrote.


Bloomberg News quoted an e-mail from Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman stating that "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."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010398415_webtanker01.html

 

[Lionheart]

I love to see everyone making money on this, but man, America is in between a rock and a hard spot. I think it might be a good thing if Boeing wins the bid. This would mean (I hope) that jobs in Washington are preserved and or created.

In other countries, like lets say France, you would certainly get your military birds from 'in-house' (in the country) rather then out of the country. We would be one of the first to 'not' do that, showing how we are losing even our own credibility to manufacture (for our armed forces) and having to go outside our borders to get such planes.

Will jet fighters be next? Will we be flying Su's instead of Northrops and Boeings?

Just a humble thought.


Bill

 

[stansdds]

Yeah, but we are a nation that believes in the low cost bidder, even if it means defense hardware will be made somewhere else and imported. Kind of insane if you ask me, but no one asks my opinion on these matters.

 

[kilo delta]

Call me old fashioned...but I reckon that the best a/c type for the job should be chosen...not necessarily the one that will be the most popular among the electorate

 

[casey jones]

I am no expert on the KC-X Tanker program, but my idea is there are a number of Boeing 757s in storage at Mojave, the Air Force could have them re-fitted as tankers for a fraction of the cost of building new tankers, I think the 757 is a very find airplane and could do the job cheaper.

Cheers

Casey

 

[viking3]

Tanker Bids

From what I remember from the last bid they were just about even in US content. Both manufacturers are global enterprises with scattered sub-assembly factories. A lot of Boeing parts are made right here in Winnipeg.
I would want the best bird for the buck as a taxpayer and if you are going to send people into harm's way, they deserve the BEST. Just my 2 cents worth.

Regards, Rob:ernae:

 

[Lionheart]

I am no expert on the KC-X Tanker program, but my idea is there are a number of Boeing 757s in storage at Mojave, the Air Force could have them re-fitted as tankers for a fraction of the cost of building new tankers, I think the 757 is a very find airplane and could do the job cheaper.

Cheers

Casey

That is a good idea. That too would really help out in such a rough financial time..


Bill

 

[cheezyflier]

i don't really understand how it works now, but in my mind it should go a little something like this:


pentagon: "we need an airplane that does this, this, and this. if must have abc, and be able to do xyz. we need it pdq"

and then whoever comes up with the best design with the most sensible bid gets the contract. whatever they submit as the cost is what they get for delivering a certain number of planes, period, the end. cost over runs are the problem of the contractor. penalties for not delivering on time.

 

[Bjoern]

Call me old fashioned...but I reckon that the best a/c type for the job should be chosen...not necessarily the one that will be the most popular among the electorate

That'd mean A330 then. The 767 isn't a bad design per se, but it's a bit old already.

I am no expert on the KC-X Tanker program, but my idea is there are a number of Boeing 757s in storage at Mojave, the Air Force could have them re-fitted as tankers for a fraction of the cost of building new tankers, I think the 757 is a very find airplane and could do the job cheaper.

Using 757s isn't the best idea either since it wouldn't have the fuel capacity and thus endurance necessary for fulfilling the tanker role.



As for that bidding contest itself: What a farce. Airbus gets chosen, Boeing whines around, contest is reopened with advantages for Boeing, now Airbus whines around.
Do it on a fair base for both contestants and done. Or go to Russia, order a batch of IL-76 tankers and be happy with them.

 

[Allen]

i don't really understand how it works now, but in my mind it should go a little something like this:


pentagon: "we need an airplane that does this, this, and this. if must have abc, and be able to do xyz. we need it pdq"

and then whoever comes up with the best design with the most sensible bid gets the contract. whatever they submit as the cost is what they get for delivering a certain number of planes, period, the end. cost over runs are the problem of the contractor. penalties for not delivering on time.

This what I thought too... But I'm just a dumbass.

 

[Helldiver]

You all are naive to not recognize a RFP that is "wired" to a given contractor. Cry if you will, it's the way Government business is run. Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon have been playing the game for ever.
I know, having been an executive for three aerospace companies, how the game is played. Nothrup and Grumman are wasting their time.

 

[Kofschip]

i don't really understand how it works now, but in my mind it should go a little something like this:


pentagon: "we need an airplane that does this, this, and this. if must have abc, and be able to do xyz. we need it pdq"

and then whoever comes up with the best design with the most sensible bid gets the contract. whatever they submit as the cost is what they get for delivering a certain number of planes, period, the end. cost over runs are the problem of the contractor. penalties for not delivering on time.

No it doesn't work that way in reality. It is a long drawn out complicated life cycle process involving funding, politics, your Congressmen, lobbyists and other unsavory characters both from Government and non-Government sides. This whole process is called THE ACQUISTION PROCESS from cradle to grave and is set forth in DoD 5000. It is extremely complicated and the rules keep changing continuously due to that thingie called Acquistion Reform, which has been a moving target in itself since 1994, when then Secretary of Defense, Dr Perry, initiated it together with Mil Spec Reform. I did spend 12 years in the middle of that whole mess..................

 

[Lateral-G]

I am no expert on the KC-X Tanker program, but my idea is there are a number of Boeing 757s in storage at Mojave, the Air Force could have them re-fitted as tankers for a fraction of the cost of building new tankers, I think the 757 is a very find airplane and could do the job cheaper.

Cheers

Casey

Boeing already makes 767 tankers for Italy and Japan. It's actually less expensive to use current production tooling to build them for the USAF then to try and retro-fit 757's.

-G-

 

[Lateral-G]

You all are naive to not recognize a RFP that is "wired" to a given contractor. Cry if you will, it's the way Government business is run. Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon have been playing the game for ever.
I know, having been an executive for three aerospace companies, how the game is played. Nothrup and Grumman are wasting their time.

Well put.......

-G-

 

[tigisfat]

Boeing already makes 767 tankers for Italy and Japan. It's actually less expensive to use current production tooling to build them for the USAF then to try and retro-fit 757's.

-G-

virtually any large aircraft can be turned into a tanker. I don't know why they can't affix a boom to the side of a C-17, and have palletized refueling pumps and control equipment.

 

[Allen]

virtually any large aircraft can be turned into a tanker. I don't know why they can't affix a boom to the side of a C-17, and have palletized refueling pumps and control equipment.

I'll go for modular fuel bags system that can be placed in a C-17. Get some boxes put some wheels and a bladder in them. Roll them in to it. Strap them down. Get a fuel boom. Strap it down, leave the back door open and now you have a takner.