Northrop drops out of competition

[Montgomery Scott]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/...s_tanker_fight

Only Boeing is left now.

[Chuck Wintle]

It was rigged so Boeing would end up the winner. Just more manipulation by the powers that be!

[Montgomery Scott]

The short of it was (based on my limited knowledge) that the USAF originally wrote a contract that requested a replacement for the 707 tanker. Some pols pushed for the contract to be modified to give extra credit if requirements were exceeded. This gave NG an advantage since the A330 is quite a bit larger than the 767. The GAO said the award was crap so they rewrote the RFP back to what it was originally and said no extra credit for exceeding requirements. Price was the more important factor. Since the 767 is significantly cheaper NG gave up.

I won't argue technical merits of the competing airframes, but I will say that a Boeing airplane will create more and better paying jobs than a NG win. None of the airframe of the A330 is made in the US, it would be assembled here. The 767 is designed in the US, the wing, nose and tail section is entirely produced in the US. The fuselage components are made in Japan (IIRC) and assembled in Everett. If the Alabama politicians are claiming they can create more US jobs than a Boeing plane I think they are cooking the numbers. It doesn't add up.

[Colin Giersberg]

At the time that Lockheed Martin and Airbus were in the competition, their plan was to build a new factory near Mobile, Alabama that would employ 1500 people. I can't answer any quetions as to what kind of salaries would have resulted from these jobs.

Regards, Colin

[Pat Germain]

I won't argue technical merits of the competing airframes, but I will say that a Boeing airplane will create more and better paying jobs than a NG win. None of the airframe of the A330 is made in the US, it would be assembled here.

The Northrop Grumman (not Lockheed) aircraft also came with a proven refueling boom. Yes, it was European. But having a boom already functional and certified is a big advantage.

Personally, I don't think the jobs issue should be a factor. Either platform would have created and maintained jobs in the US. I work for the Air Force and I think the contract should go to the best aircraft; period.

[Anthony Scira]

We should not buy big ticket military equipment from foreign countries. Even allies. Especially in this economy.

[Pat Germain]

Foreign countries by a whole lotta military hardware from the US. It's only fitting that we buy the best product available; even if the airframe is European.

As Montgomery pointed out, the fuselage of the Boeing plane (the fuselage!) is made in Japan. The Airbus tanker would have been flown to the US as a bare airframe; likely with GE engines. Everything involved in the conversion would have been done in the US. It could well have been an export item. I think the jobs argument was completely bogus.

[Thomas Hotchkin]

The Northrop Grumman (not Lockheed) aircraft also came with a proven refueling boom. Yes, it was European. But having a boom already functional and certified is a big advantage.

Pat, Boeing B767-200 tanker has been flying for Italian Air Force and Japan Air Self-Defense Force for a numbers of years. And there might be one or two other country looking it over now. Tom

[Montgomery Scott]

The best aircraft is the one that meets the USAF requirements for the lowest cost. Since NG dropped out that indicates they could not compete on cost. Eventually there will be a need to replace the KC10's and the A330 will probably be a good fit for that. For this round the USAF did not really want a larger airplane than the KC135 in part because of runway constraints.

[Pat Germain]

The best aircraft is the one that meets the USAF requirements for the lowest cost. Since NG dropped out that indicates they could not compete on cost. Eventually there will be a need to replace the KC10's and the A330 will probably be a good fit for that. For this round the USAF did not really want a larger airplane than the KC135 in part because of runway constraints.

Let's be real here. The Air Force wanted the Northrop Grumman platform. It's what they chose already. But powerful forces wanted a Boeing platform no matter what. The powerful forces won. NG dropped out because they know it's a no-win situation. They already spent a lot of money persuing this contract the last time. There's no point is spending time, money and effort when the result is a foregone conclusion.