Northrop quits tanker bid?

[SIG600]

From Google news and the WSJ:

By PETER SANDERS

Northrop Grumman Corp. said Monday it would drop out of a protracted quest to win a $40 billion contract to build the Air Force's next generation of aerial-refueling planes, leaving Boeing Co. as the only competitor left standing.
The move forces Congress and the Pentagon to decide whether to award a massive military contract without a real competition.
The tanker contract had come to represent an extreme example of how large weapons contracts can get bogged down in politicized protests which can drag on for years. Boeing first won the contract in 2002 and then lost it. Northrop and its partner, European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.'s Airbus unit, secured it in 2008, setting off complaints the U.S. was enriching a foreign airplane builder. After Boeing successfully protested the selection process, the Pentagon was forced to start over again last year.
With only a few big weapons contracts up for bid, the competition among defense firms has become more cutthroat. Losing bidders now almost routinely file formal appeals with government auditors when big-dollar contracts don't go their way. In addition, members of Congress are more willing to wade into the process because so many jobs and funds for their districts are at stake.
The years of delay had required the Air Force to keep their Eisenhower-era fleet of tankers in service long after they had been slated for retirement.
View Full Image

European Pressphoto Agency A tanker aircraft KC-30 during the refuelling of a US B2 bomber in the air.

In a statement, Northrop Chief Executive Wes Bush said the company wouldn't protest the contract and, in effect, handed the victory to Boeing. Mr. Bush said that while Northrop believes it had grounds to successfully protest the contract proposal, it would have caused another lengthy delay.
"America's service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers….Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly," he said.
The tanker contract was initially awarded to Boeing in 2002. At that time, the plan was for the Air Force to lease the tankers from Boeing rather than buy a new fleet. But criticism of that arrangement came quickly, especially from Arizona Sen. John McCain, who argued it would be a better deal for the Air Force to buy the planes. The Congressional Budget Office also said the deal wasn't fiscally sound.
In late 2003, the contract was scuttled amid allegations of a major contracting scandal between Boeing's then chief financial officer and a senior Air Force weapons buyer who joined the company. Both the ex-Air Force official and Boeing executive went to jail over the issue of illegal job negotiations.
In 2006, the Air Force restarted the process and Boeing and Northrop and its European partner EADS submitted bids. In February 2008, the Pentagon awarded the contract to the Northrop team, which proposed using the Airbus A330 jet, a larger entrant than Boeing's 767.
Boeing quickly lodged a protest with the Government Accountability Office concerning the Air Force's selection process. That protest was eventually successful and the GAO overturned the Northrop victory.
The Pentagon reinitiated the process last year. Northrop soon began hinting that it felt the latest contest favored Boeing. That thinking led to Monday's announcement to withdraw.
Some applauded Northrop's pledge not to protest the new competition as a gesture of fair play. "I want to hail Wes Bush and Northrop on their decision," said Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat whose state includes many Boeing facilities.
The Pentagon had already been girding for the possibility that it might be left with only one bidder. Earlier this month, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said that the Pentagon is prepared for a sole-source contract that could still be fair. Mr. Donley said there were ample mechanisms in place to ensure that tax payers get a fair deal.
Boeing spokesman William Barksdale said the firm "intends to submit a fully responsive, transparent and competitive proposal that meets the terms the Air Force has announced."
"We are disappointed by Northrop's decision not to submit a bid for the...program," Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said. "We strongly believe that the current competition is structured fairly and that both companies could compete effectively."
The decision also dismayed many lawmakers from regions such that stood to benefit from a Northrop win. "I am deeply disappointed that Northrop Grumman was unable to submit a bid for the KC-X tanker program. Frankly, I am outraged at the Defense Department's bungling of this contract for what is now the third time," Rep. Jo Bonner (R., Ala.) said in a statement. Northrop had planned to build an assembly plant in Alabama.
Republican Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a critic of the latest tanker process, blasted the Air Force. "This so-called competition was not structured to produce the best outcome for our men and women in uniform; it was structure to produce the best outcome for Boeing."
When the Air Force set out the terms for the new tanker contract last year, both Northrop and EADS believed that it favored Boeing. Northrop and EADS warned that it might not participate if the terms weren't altered.
It remains to be seen whether any lawmakers will try to force the process to be opened up once again. In recent years, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp. and United Technologies Corp. have all successfully protested contracts. In 2007, the GAO overturned a $15 billion contract awarded to Boeing to build a fleet of Air Force helicopters.
"As a team, our serious concerns were expressed to the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force that the acquisition methodology outlined in the request for proposal would heavily weight the competition in favor of the smaller, less capable Boeing tanker. Northrop Grumman's analysis of the RFP reaffirmed those concerns and prompted the decision not to bid," EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby Jr. said in a statement.
Write to Peter Sanders at [email protected]

 

[motch]

Years ago.. the government thought it would be a good idea to consolidate the Aircraft Industry and now this is what we have.

Only one true American Company that can build large aircraft.

And now we have to hope that Boeing will do the right, honorable thing and give the Warfighter and American People a great aircraft at an honest price.
Then again, if history is any judge, we will get screwed by a company more worried about profits and shareholders than the above~

Oh well..

 

[TheSulaco]

If we can produce a product here in the U.S. and in a fashion which benefits American companies and workers, than all military contracts should stay in House. We should not be buying aircraft from Airbus that are mod'ed by a US company.

 

[ableone]

If we can produce a product here in the U.S. and in a fashion which benefits American companies and workers, than all military contracts should stay in House. We should not be buying aircraft from Airbus that are mod'ed by a US company.

Another uninformed reply.

European built airbus airliners have more than 50% U.S. content by value.

The 330 tanker would have been built at an assembly line in Alabama.

 

[TheSulaco]

What company ultimately profits the most for a Northrop built tanker? Airbus, not a US company.

If you do your research into reliability and longevity of civilian aircraft, it will show that Airbus is essentially a use and throw away product. Their maintenance required per hour flown is much higher than Boeing products, and useful life on their hull is much lower than Boeing as well. A prime example of this is the Airbus 319, shortened version of the 320. It first flew in August of 1995 with deliveries starting in 1996. It only took 8 years before companies were having to scrap the aircraft due to the enormous amount of maintenance just to keep the aircraft operating. Granted the market for the 319 is short to medium haul meaning more cycles and more hours, but this is the same market the 737-500 serviced and with a much higher service reliability.

 

[motch]

Be careful when you scream 'Buy American'

As Ableone stated, much of the A330 tanker would have been manufactured here.
Also, what will you say if/when Boeing pushes the 787 as the next large tanker?
It is an aircraft that has parts made all over the world!

Also, If we push for a 'Buy American' only stance, what are you going to say when Europe decides to follow suit and 'Buy European' only?
Say goodbye to-
CH-47 Chinooks, UH-60 Blackhawks, F-16 Falcons and F-35 Lightnings.

That's alot of lost US jobs if the Europeans decided to fight fire with fire, (or words with words)

 

[SIG600]

Also, If we push for a 'Buy American' only stance, what are you going to say when Europe decides to follow suit and 'Buy European' only?
Say goodbye to-
CH-47 Chinooks, UH-60 Blackhawks, F-16 Falcons and F-35 Lightnings.

When they can build a product to rival any of those products, get back to me.

There is a lot of truth to the throw away argument. Whats the oldest Airbus air frame out there? I guarantee it's not anywhere close to some of the KC-135's and B-52's we've got running around out there. Boeing builds their stuff to last (787 not withstanding).

 

[ableone]

If you do your research into reliability and longevity of civilian aircraft, it will show that Airbus is essentially a use and throw away product. Their maintenance required per hour flown is much higher than Boeing products, and useful life on their hull is much lower than Boeing as well. A prime example of this is the Airbus 319, shortened version of the 320. It first flew in August of 1995 with deliveries starting in 1996. It only took 8 years before companies were having to scrap the aircraft due to the enormous amount of maintenance just to keep the aircraft operating. Granted the market for the 319 is short to medium haul meaning more cycles and more hours, but this is the same market the 737-500 serviced and with a much higher service reliability.

The Airbus is a throw away line is complete B.S.

The first Airbus models produced were the A-300 and A310. These aircraft are still in service, FEDEX has quite a few.

An early model 777 was scrapped about two years ago so I guess that proves that Boeing is building throw away airplanes as well.

You and Sig also seem to believe that the Airbus has higher hourly maintenance and life cycle costs. Either back this up with some real data or stop spreading this crap that you know is true because you heard from a friend of a guy who worked on one once.

 

[SIG600]

The Airbus is a throw away line is complete B.S.

The first Airbus models produced were the A-300 and A310. These aircraft are still in service, FEDEX has quite a few.

An ex BA 777 went to the scrapyard about two years ago so I guess the 777 is also a throw away product too.

You and Sig also seem to believe that the Airbus has higher hourly maintenance and life cycle costs. Either back this up with some real data or stop spreading this crap that you know is true because you heard from a friend of a guy who worked on one once.

The maint. costs on their composites and delamination problems are mounting. It's a quiet problem they've managed to keep quiet, SOME HOW. How many carriers unloaded their A300's after the AA crash in NY in Nov 2001? Hence why I say the verdict is still out on the 787. New construction techniques, new materials, not proven by the 50+ years of service the current tanker fleet has seen (both 'bus and the 787). I have ZERO confidence in an Airbus product pulling that off.

Edit: My other issue with Airbus is it's gov't subsidized. Who knows what kind of longevity they have. Boeing has been standing on their own merit and products for longer than a lot of small countries have been around.

 

[ableone]

The maint. costs on their composites and delamination problems are mounting. It's a quiet problem they've managed to keep quiet, SOME HOW. How many carriers unloaded their A300's after the AA crash in NY in Nov 2001? Hence why I say the verdict is still out on the 787. New construction techniques, new materials, not proven by the 50+ years of service the current tanker fleet has seen (both 'bus and the 787). I have ZERO confidence in an Airbus product pulling that off.

Edit: My other issue with Airbus is it's gov't subsidized. Who knows what kind of longevity they have. Boeing has been standing on their own merit and products for longer than a lot of small countries have been around.

This delamination problem must have been kept very quiet as only you seem to know about it.

The tail came off the A-300 because pilots were unaware that Va only protected the airplane from vertical loading. If you do the same maneuver in a 737,757,767 etc. the vertical tail will separate on those airplanes as well.

Airlines were retiring the A-300 because it was a second generation jetliner nearing the end of it's economical life. The same reason L1011s, DC-10s and 767-200s are gone or going.

As for subsidies; Boeing is a gold plated defense contractor and therefore one of the most heavily subsidized businesses in this country.

Like it or not the world needs a strong Boeing competitor. The only reason Boeing got off of their ass and developed the NG737 is UAL ordered the A-320. Boeing had been pushing the 737 Classic as the last word in narrow body airliners and were dumbfounded when UAL ordered airbuses.

If not for Airbus, Boeing would still be telling airlines that the 737-400 was as good as technology would allow.