Northrop drops out of tanker race.

[devil505]

Here's an idea. The U.S. is in the market for a new tanker so let's have all the aerospace companies submit proposals on their best ideas. With me so far?

Then we let the DoD....And ONLY, the DoD, review these proposals and select the best platform to do the job. Still with me?

Then they submit their findings to D.C. so they can get the $$$ allocated. It's easy. Don't make it so damn difficult.

Would I rather have a U.S. manufacturer build the A/C? Of course.

Would I like for those jobs to come to my state? Yeah.

Will that happen? Don't know.

But the end game is to get the best piece of equipment in the air. No ifs ands or buts.

Just get it done.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_...us_tanker_fight

[Big Texan]

Here's an idea. The U.S. is in the market for a new tanker so let's have all the aerospace companies submit proposals on their best ideas. With me so far?

Then we let the DoD....And ONLY, the DoD, review these proposals and select the best platform to do the job. Still with me?

Then they submit their findings to D.C. so they can get the $$$ allocated. It's easy. Don't make it so damn difficult.

Would I rather have a U.S. manufacturer build the A/C? Of course.

Would I like for those jobs to come to my state? Yeah.

Will that happen? Don't know.

But the end game is to get the best piece of equipment in the air. No ifs ands or buts.

Just get it done.

Right on Brother!

[Flyboyf18]

There's the answer, keep the Politicians to doling out cash and fingers out of getting the right piece of gear!!!! A perfect example was the new Canadian helicopter acquisistion, then un-acquisition, then re-acquisition but only half!?!?!?????

[11bee]

Sorry that that Europeans elected to no-bid but for gods' sake, don't scrap this RFP and burn another couple of years with TANKERBID 3.0.

Just git her done!! Award the damned thing to Boeing, put half the GAO on the contract as oversight to ensure that they don't try to pork the government due to being the last contractor standing and start building new tankers.

At some point, one of those KC-135's is going to have catastrophic failure (hopefully caught during an inspection and not while airborne) and the entire fleet will end up grounded. Where will that leave the US? If the KC-135's are down, the USAF won't be doing much flying anymore.

Regards,

John

[phantom]

There's the answer, keep the Politicians to doling out cash and fingers out of getting the right piece of gear!!!! A perfect example was the new Canadian helicopter acquisistion, then un-acquisition, then re-acquisition but only half!?!?!?????

But you can not trust the military to buy gear. They would have bought the best helicopter for the troops without consideration of how it might make those in power look. No way to stop this from going "political" so I'll shut up now.

[Kei Lau]

Here's an idea. The U.S. is in the market for a new tanker so let's have all the aerospace companies submit proposals on their best ideas. With me so far?

Then we let the DoD....And ONLY, the DoD, review these proposals and select the best platform to do the job. Still with me?

Then they submit their findings to D.C. so they can get the $$$ allocated. It's easy. Don't make it so damn difficult.

Would I rather have a U.S. manufacturer build the A/C? Of course.

Would I like for those jobs to come to my state? Yeah.

Will that happen? Don't know.

But the end game is to get the best piece of equipment in the air. No ifs ands or buts.

Just get it done.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_...us_tanker_fight

I read the following quotes from various news dispatches:

(From Fox) Northrop said its bid, which would have involved the use of a modified commercial aircraft made by Airbus, the European aircraft-maker, was likely to be rejected due to the Air Force’s revised source selection methodology.

"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,†the company said in its statement issued Monday. “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.â€

(From Reuter)To win, Northrop would have had to pare its profit to a low level, and then abide by a fixed-price contract for nearly two decades, with only a small adjustment allowed for inflation.

"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," Bush said. "Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly."

"When all was said and done, Northrop saw a lot of risk and not a lot of profit," whereas EADS was focused primarily on gaining entry into the U.S. market, said Loren Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute. "At the end of the day, the interest of the two teams diverged."

(From Boomberg) Boeing’s tanker “will be safe and survivable in combat, will save the American taxpayer $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year-life and is American designed and built,†William Barksdale, a spokesman for the company’s tanker program, said in an e-mailed statement. “The men and women of Boeing are dedicated to getting our aircrews the aircraft they deserve.â€

(From AP) The Pentagon defended the program as fair and said both companies could compete effectively. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said the program would not be reworked just to ensure a competition.

"To suggest that the department should conduct a competition that would result in DOD paying a much higher price for capabilities that are not needed simply isn't effective," Whitman said.

The Air Force orginally shopped for a FAMILY SEDAN that it needed. They selected a SUV under political pressure last time and got caught by GAO. They went back to the original requirements this time and hope to success in getting the replacement tanker. The politics will come.

[pigsty]

"The Air Force's refusal to make substantive changes to level the playing field shows that once again politics trumps the needs of our military"

umm ... what does this mean?

[RedHeadKevin]

It sounds to me like the Northrop team took a hard, objective look at this, and said "Boeing is going to make the new tanker. It could be based off the F-18E with a refueling boom and a pod for the operator hung like a drop tank, but they're going to get the contract. The US government won't go for a foreign aircraft for such a big and important contract. For us to keep pouring money into trying would be counterproductive, and only 'show' the DOD that Northrop is incapable of producing 'the most capable aircraft' no matter how hard we try, so to hell with it."

"This will be an American company with American workers," said Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington state, where Boeing plans to build its tankers.

that pretty much sums it all up very neatly.

Here's hoping that Stratotankers don't start breaking while everyone takes time to pull their thumbs out.

Edited March 9, 2010 by RedHeadKevin

[Wayne S]

The Air Force orginally shopped for a FAMILY SEDAN that it needed. They selected a SUV under political pressure last time and got caught by GAO. They went back to the original requirements this time and hope to success in getting the replacement tanker. The politics will come.

More like a Tractor Trailer then an SUV

[janman]

Well, I guess the whole thing went as planned.

When it comes to military procurements, I seriously hope we Europeans would support our own industries more boldly in the future. Gotta choose the best plane? The heck with that, better protect the indigenous industry!

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> But the end game is to get the best piece of equipment in the air. No ifs ands or buts. <...>

Right on!

I just hope the Air Force will get the tanker they want, not the one they'll be told to want.

[Murph]

Annnnd, they're off and running.....

[11bee]

Well, I guess the whole thing went as planned.

When it comes to military procurements, I seriously hope we Europeans would support our own industries more boldly in the future. Gotta choose the best plane? The heck with that, better protect the indigenous industry!

Exactly as they are doing with the A400 with those EU engines after the EU political decision was made to ban Pratt & Whitney units.

Those in glass houses.....

Note - this is quickly wandering into the verbotten area of politics so lets all step back and keep it clean (if that is possible with this topic).

Regards,

John

Edited March 9, 2010 by 11bee

[Matt Roberts]

There's the answer, keep the Politicians to doling out cash and fingers out of getting the right piece of gear!!!! A perfect example was the new Canadian helicopter acquisistion, then un-acquisition, then re-acquisition but only half!?!?!?????

But at twice the total costs wasn't it?

[Matt Roberts]

Ok if they basically now have chosen the Boeing Stratotanker II how long to get the program up and running?

Will the current tankers that they have built be used as a starting point or will this end up being nearly a completely new airframe

[Wayne S]

Right on!

I just hope the Air Force will get the tanker they want, not the one they'll be told to want.

If the Air Force used a "needs vs wants" checklist to go along with their criterions; maybe there would be no problem.

[phantom]

But at twice the total costs wasn't it?

And the huge amounts in penalties.

[strikeeagle801]

Pretty sure they are going to be new-build. It's the only thing that is going to keep the 767 line open. I'm excited, because I build wiring harnesses that are used in the 767's, and am going to start working in Everett in the next few months. I'll probably be able to see them being built!

Aaron

[TaiidanTomcat]

I can see Northrop's point, If you are in a two party competition and you win, then they say "no wait you didn't, you can't win" that means the mind has been made on who will win right? This is a like sports one guy wins or the other wins- not Miss America with 50 choices right?

[Jinxter13]

YGBSM, you're trying to get oil and water to mix, that being logic/common sense (buying the best) and congress....... , not where billions of units of currency (money) are involved. Never happen; those of us old and experienced enough know why.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Angels49

[Berkut]

But the end game is to get the best piece of equipment in the air. No ifs ands or buts.

And that is always the result, the best equipment in service? Money never dictates? Or politics for that matter.

[Rick in Maine]

What bothers me the most is that this has become a single source purchase. Of course, as an American, I want Boeing to be the builder. But not without a healthy bidding process.

Sad. Just sad. There are so many people with good, well thought out, opinions on the whole tanker acquisition deal. I wish I had a clear idea where to point the finger. I can't write my Congressmen, the President, DoD or the Air Force and feel satisfied that I have done my part.

Health care reform? That note goes to the Mainers in Congress, and the President. Post office issues? The Postmaster. Foreign policy? State Department.

There are intelligent, thoughtful people here at ARC, and there's no consensus on where the problem is rooted.

Rick in Maine

[Wayne S]

What bothers me the most is that this has become a single source purchase. Of course, as an American, I want Boeing to be the builder. But not without a healthy bidding process.

Rick in Maine

Well there is another word other then bid, it is called Haggle.

[Big Texan]

This has become a problem when our defense industry has merged so much in the last 25 years, we're practically at single source manufacture. Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas, Northrop bought out Grumman, Lockheed bought out Martin who bought out Marietta, and so on. We've also encountered problems where we have contracted to foreign companies to manufacture weapon parts. Case in point, a company in Switzerland made the lens for certain "smart" weapons. They didn't agree with us going into Iraq and refused to send us the lenses for those weapons. This was a totally unacceptable situation.

The government procurement system has always had its faults, now however, we've got congress making back room deals to get the bids for the companies that reside in their states. Yes, this has been around for a while as well, however, it's worse now than before and the money keeps being spent to levels that are ridiculous to say the least.

The answer, push the big red "Reset" button....

[janman]

Exactly as they are doing with the A400 with those EU engines after the EU political decision was made to ban Pratt & Whitney units

At any point did I suggest otherwise?

Everybody does it and I might even argue everybody should do it, at least to a certain extent. We are talking about the ultimate investments here - in the end survival of a country can depend on it - and nations (or group of nations) most certainly want to retain important know-how alive and be independent from any other nations.

So if someone goes claiming that the best system should always win, he's a bit naive. Maybe it should, but of course there are other issues involved in the decision making. In many ways a decision to buy the second best indigenous system makes a lot of sense if at the same time you assure your independence from foreign suppliers in the future, especially in a time of international crisis. A few extra jobs in your own country wouldn't hurt either, although by buying from a foreign supplier you might build a lot of trust and get yourself a good ally. Unfortunately a lot of taxpayer's money can be burned in the process as we've seen many times - on both side of the pond.

Taking in to consideration the fact that most of the European nations have had several US military aircraft type in their inventory through the years in important roles, would it have been a time for an European aircraft to fill in a similar role in the US? Just asking, since we are supposed to be allies (even we, although Finland is not in the NATO).