View Full Version : Northrop Grumman Responds to the GAO KC-45 Review
I'm sure there are a couple fixed wing and rotor heads here that may be interested..
Adder(s):
- NG has two(2) tankers built and waiting to fit & test
- Boeing is behind in delivering the KC-737 to Italy & Japan, the same plane they propose for this contract. Japan reportedly is imposing a fine of 10 million yen for each day the plane is late, (see article: Delivery of Boeing's Japanese tanker delayed, George Talbot May 22, 2007 7:34 PM) This is a yr old, but I can't find any new news and the fact the Boeing still does not have a working plane,, speaks for itself..
EDIT: I was just told, by an insider, this is not the same tanker,, but is a:
slightly different variant that has never been tried before.
SO,, Boeing has two no shows...
http://blog.al.com/live/2007/05/deli...apanese_t.html
Northrop Grumman Remains Under Air Force Contract; Ready Now With America's New Tanker
WASHINGTON - June 20, 2008 - As the Air Force reviews the analysis in this week's report from the GAO, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) urges a speedy resolution of the issue.
"We respect the GAO process and are confident the Air Force will appropriately address its recommendations," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman vice president of Air Mobility Systems and KC-45 program manager.
"However, the GAO report does not change the fact that a new fleet of tankers is needed now, and Northrop Grumman is ready now," said Meyer.
"Northrop Grumman remains under contract and remains ready to serve with the most modern, most capable tanker in the world."
"Any significant delay only punishes the men and women who are forced to fly an aging fleet," he added.
On the floor of the United States Senate, yesterday, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said that it is critical "that politics not infect the process and that they select the best aircraft for the military."
Nothing in the GAO report points to any need for delay, as it was a review of the process, not the Boeing and Northrop Grumman product offerings.
As the GAO said in its initial release, "Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms' respective aircraft."
"We agree and, in fact, Northrop Grumman is the only company in this competition that has built, tested and flown its tanker aircraft," said Meyer, adding, "We're also the only company that has a refueling boom that has been built and that has successfully passed fuel dozens of times to combat aircraft."
"The Air Force needs a new tanker, and nothing in the GAO report refutes the fact that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 is the most capable tanker and is ready now to go into production," he added.
"Our men and women in uniform should not be asked to wait any longer."
About the KC-45
The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-45 team will employ 48,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.
CONTACT: Randy Belote (703) 875-8525 randy.belote@ngc.com
All I can say is wow!!! Not quite sure what to think right now. Is it getting rebid for legitimate reasons, or did Boeing have enough of their retired Air Force General Officer corps, all of whom worked at AMC at one point in time or another, provide enough pressure on DoD to get the bid reopened.
U.S. reopening $35 billion aerial tanker bidding
Secretary of Defense's office will directly oversee process, not Air Force
The Associated Press
updated 10:46 a.m. PT, Wed., July. 9, 2008
WASHINGTON - Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. will submit new offers for a disputed $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, and the Pentagon will pick a winner by the end of the year.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that his office — not the Air Force — will oversee the competition between Boeing and the team of Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.
The plan, which hands control to the Pentagon acquisition chief John Young and sets up a dedicated source-selection committee, shows that senior civilians at the Defense Department have lost confidence in the Air Force's ability to manage the contract.
"I think it's better," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. "No one has any faith in the Air Force."
The Government Accountability Office last month detailed "significant errors" the Air Force made in the original award to the Northrop team. The GAO said Chicago-based Boeing might have won the contract had the service not made mistakes in evaluating the bids.
The Pentagon will conduct a limited rebid that looks only at eight issues where government auditors found problems in the initial process, Gates said.
Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, where the Northrop Grumman team would assemble its plane, called it "the best of all options" that would address the "minor procedural flaws" the GAO cited.
Lawmakers from Washington state and Kansas, where Boeing employs thousands of workers, have put considerable pressure on the Air Force to reopen the bidding process and cancel the contract with the Northrop team.
The deal has emerged as the latest black eye for the service, which is trying to rebuild a tattered reputation after a procurement scandal in 2003 sent a top Air Force acquisition official to prison for conflict of interest and led to the collapse of an earlier tanker contract with Boeing.
The Air Force in February selected the Northrop team to replace 179 Eisenhower-era aerial refueling planes. Boeing filed its protest in March.
The deal — one of the largest in Pentagon history — is the first of three contracts worth up to $100 billion to replace nearly 600 refueling tankers over the next 30 years.
Shares of Boeing added 61 cents to $66.53 in afternoon trading, while Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman fell 10 cents to $66.07.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25607574/
longrange1947
07-09-2008, 20:32
Isn't the KC45 actually an Airbus 330? I mean that is a "French" aircraft built in a European consortium factory or am I getting this wrong? Not a big fan of Boeing but that would be sending our dollars to France and/or Europe and not keeping it here. :confused:
Oh well. why not send more of our money outside the US. :munchin
About the KC-45
The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-45 team will employ 48,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.
EADS was to provide an AMERICAN BUILT 330 shell and NOC will actually build the tanker and install all the AMERICAN BUILT mil spec parts..
But todays notice starts the whole ball over again..
From my source:
- The SECDEF is now in charge of the award and the AF will not be involved in the new selection
- The existing requirements remain intact
- The existing proposals from the companies remain intact to start
- The SECDEF will issue a modified RFP for the KC-X tanker, likely in the next month
- The only changes from the original RFP will be to address the 8 GAO findings, nothing more will change
- The companies will have a discussion period with OSD
- After the discussion period closes, the bidding companies will have a very short period of time to modify their existing proposals and issue new bids
- The Pentagon will then evaluate the revised proposals and make the new selection; target time for new award is December
Note: as the losing bidder Boeing was briefed by the Air Force on why Northrop won the contest. Boeing has now seen all of Northrop's cost figures and all other strategy into how Northrop won the competition yet Northrop has not seen Boeing's inside information. This provides Boeing with an incredible edge to modify their proposal and match how Northrop originally bid.
My guess, Boeing will strip out a lot of extras originally in their bid that they now know the AF doesn't care about reducing their overall cost and risk rating. They can now mirror many key points of the Northrop bid and really highlight a much lower cost. On that new bid, OSD will chicken out based on Congressional pressure, and Boeing walks away with one of the largest thefts in contracting history.
At this point, if Northrop is smart, they tell OSD that they must provide all of Boeing's data or enter a No Bid and get out of this mess. Even with Boeing's data, it still may be best to just No Bid and walk away.
I still think one of the major issues remains - the A330 designed tanker is much bigger and Boeing says the requirements as stated meant that would be too large of an aircraft.
Boeing's design was based of the 767, which in my opinion isn't the greatest aircraft and smaller than the A330, but if Boeing wanted to field a toe to toe competitor to the A330, I'm sure they would have had zero problems submitting an aircraft based off the 777, which is a great airplane and matches the A330/340 class of aircraft very well (actually it's much better).
It will be interesting how things shake out. It's also an interstate fight as the south will benefit greatly if the NG aircraft is chosen, while states with current Boeing infrastructure will lose out. So all politicians are out in full force putting their weights behind the company that is promising the jobs.
Unfortunately the real loser in all this mess is going to be the normal run of the mill soldier/sailor/marine/aiman
No matter how much the AF intially screwed the pooch on the Boeing lease deal, the problem still remains that the KC-135 is quickly becoming an aircraft that is no longer viable. I used to work on the flight line with these aircraft and their NMC rate is quickly falling into the same category with the C-5.
And although there are those out there that think we can continue on the same course we are currently on, when we are no longer able to provide an air bridge to the rest of the world, the Air Force will not be the only ones that are shit out of luck.
Unfortunately this issue has become so politicized, that no matter who wins the new bid, we will still have a loser that says they were short changed, which will once again mean there is no airframe chosen to replace the 135, and for that I would say our National Security could very well suffer as a consequence.
The Reaper
07-10-2008, 05:16
This will be the third round of bidding on this contract, since Boeing hired a bunch of retired AF generals for the first round and got caught trying to rip off the US government.
The price was incredibly favorable to Boeing, and people actually got sent to jail over this.
Not hearing too much mention of than now are we?
TR
Hence why alot of us on active duty in the AF have lost respect for our senior leadership. They are no longer leaders, they are managers. All they care about it a) their next star or b) the nice fat contracting job they are going to get when they retire.
When I first started in the J5 at USTC the outgoing J5 Director (Navy 2 star) put out a memorandum telling everyone that we could no longer go to him about contracts (either the ones that were in the work, or ones already in play) because he was trying to find a job with one of them after his retirement and it would be "unethical" of him to have anything to say about contract awards etc...
How about the fact that that was part of his job!!!! And the fact that he was willing to pass that job on to someone else for the sake of his future fat cushy job just always stuck in my craw.
I have a feeling Gen Schwartz is going to clean house. It is going to be painful for a while, but maybe in the future we will once again have leaders we can look on with respect. Certainly isn't the case right now from many standpoints.
New News
I don't have the quote,, but it looks like this is snowballing..
The Re-bid is only going to cover the 8 GAO point of contention,, seams logical,, saves $$$$ and time??
The Right Honorable Congressman Norm Dicks went ballistic last night when his staff told him it wasn't a complete re-bid. He is going to try to cancel the complete project,, and is blaming McCain for the failure???
One of the GAO points,, that the AF did a poor job of estimating costs??
The reason,, Boeing refused to give the AF the "commercial rates on their support organizations" data needed for the bid,, so the AF guessed..
It is though that Boeing, thinking they would lose the bid,, wanted to create a "Pearl Harbor file", so if they lost they would have the fodder to use to whine about the POOR process,, and it worked..
Some of this info is from and interview with Michael W. Wynne, former Air Force secretary http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3620611&c=AME
This is better than the Sunday Comics...
Todays "Born Loser" http://www.comics.com/comics/bornloser/index.html
Boeing was awarded the Air Force tanker contract over EADS (LINK (http://www.rttnews.com/Content/TopStories.aspx?Id=1561843&SM=1)). I am wondering your thoughts? My initial thought is that I much prefer an American company getting to build the tankers as opposed to the Europeans, however after reading some of the posts above, now I am not sure.
Is this a good thing or do you think EADS should have gotten it?
There's an old saying among pilots: "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!" ;)
Pat
Boeing was awarded the Air Force tanker contract over EADS (LINK (http://www.rttnews.com/Content/TopStories.aspx?Id=1561843&SM=1)). I am wondering your thoughts? My initial thought is that I much prefer an American company getting to build the tankers as opposed to the Europeans, however after reading some of the posts above, now I am not sure.
Is this a good thing or do you think EADS should have gotten it?
I have to say that I know so many good folks that have been involved in getting this one right. I can't even begin to describe to you the attention to detail that was given to this to ensure there are no questions as to this being the right thing for the United States, at least at the "worker bee" level.
So much so that no one in our directorate who worked the bid, or the command as a whole, knew who the winner was until it was announced. I was teasing good friend of mine about it this morning but, true to form, he didn't say a thing.
Peregrino
02-24-2011, 20:45
It'll be interesting to see how this irons out in the long run. Despite contract irregularities, Boeing winning might turn out to be the best for the USAF. I know a senior airlines maintenance supervisor who absolutely refuses to fly anything made by Airbus and he's not normally the timid type.
I know a senior airlines maintenance supervisor who absolutely refuses to fly anything made by Airbus and he's not normally the timid type.
Is he, perhaps, a member of this forum? And still jumps out of perfectly fine flying machines? ;)
Pat
Peregrino
02-24-2011, 21:47
Is he, perhaps, a member of this forum? And still jumps out of perfectly fine flying machines? ;)
Pat
I'm actually referring to my gunsmith. He's not a member but he does occasionally poke his head in. As for your guess, I've never asked AM his opinion of Airbus; though it would be interesting to know.
I'm actually referring to my gunsmith. He's not a member but he does occasionally poke his head in. As for your guess, I've never asked AM his opinion of Airbus; though it would be interesting to know.
Well, I agree with your gunsmith. ;) And I'm glad I didn't mention "old bones". :eek:
Pat
p.s.: OMG, I just did! :D
Ambush Master
02-24-2011, 22:09
Is he, perhaps, a member of this forum? And still jumps out of perfectly fine flying machines? ;)
Pat
I'm actually referring to my gunsmith. He's not a member but he does occasionally poke his head in. As for your guess, I've never asked AM his opinion of Airbus; though it would be interesting to know.
I do not LIKE THEM!!
I have received Aviation Week and Space Technology for over 20 years and read it extensively. I will take a Boeing ride anytime, and have spent the night (not comfortably), for one......instead of a bus!!
And I made 12 Jumps last year!! If the weather lets us, I'll make a photo jump, shortly after my daughter's 18th, on her first tandem. Planning on going out last and closing for a "Touch Pass"!!
Later
Martin
Well I am glad that it turned out right for the American company to get it.
I'm a bit ambivalent about the bid process and selection. ALL four or five iterations..
My SiL was part of 1 & 2 as he worked for NG prior to the NG/Eades brake up. His involvement was at the VP staff level, so I was privy to a little inside intel.
The argument about an AMERICAN plane build by AMERICANS, was a hollow chest beating gambit by the thugs in the North West. Exacerbated by the Left and the Unions.
NG & EADS were building their entry in America, by Americans, using American sub-contractors. Their new manufacturing plant would have added thousands of NEW jobs in Mobile Alabama, an area that needs new job. NO UNIONS.
The follow-on effort to build the same body for commercial aviation would have also added more jobs to the South.
Boeing was planning to use the employees that were/are about to be let off because of EOL contracts in the North West.. ALL union..
So, that argument just doesn't hold water...
As to the quality of EADS Airbus,, AFCHIC & Martin are much better qualified than I.
My concern is that Boeing will not have a flying tanker for years, will drag out the effort until the Pentagon requests a restart of the C-135 line in frustration..
Personally, I would have voted for a split contract. I think it would have encouraged both company's to product a better plane and on a more timely basis.
The other problem is the small vs large issue. EADS with the larger plane had a low cost per gal, but if we ever get to a time when we do not have complete air superiority, a couple ATA will put us out of business. The smaller efforts would put survivability in the equation,, more targets..
Now it's wait and see,, wait wait wait... :mad:
My $00.0002 :munchin
$35B + 40k jobs in 40 states for many years to come. ;)
Stimulatin'...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin