Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Northrup Grumman May Forgo Tanker Bid  
User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5395 times:

Northrup Grumman may forgo US Air Force tanker deal bid against Boeing - report

LONDON (AFX) - Northrop Grumman Corp is threatening to shun a competition against Boeing Co for aerial-refueling planes because of concerns over the bidding rules, reported Wall Street Journal citing sources familiar with the matter.

The paper said Northrop officials have hinted for months about quitting the race for the decades-long program, valued at 100 bln usd or more, if they don't think it has a fair shot of winning.

Late last week, Northrop officially warned the Air Force in writing that it may not bid, WSJ said citing people familiar with the matter.

These people said Northrop officials believe draft bidding guidelines effectively favour Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people )'s less-expensive refueling plane because they don't lay out detailed criteria for how the Air Force will evaluate extra capabilities, such as cargo and passenger capacity, that Northrop's proposed airplane offers.

The program, which is critical to restoring the Air Force's credibility, likely would be delayed if Northrop withdrew, the paper said.

It also would increase already intense political scrutiny over any Air Force attempt to award a contract to a single bidder, particularly Boeing, which once held, then lost a similar contract for which it was the sole bidder.

The paper said Northrop isn't expected to make a decision about withdrawing until after the Air Force issues the final bidding document, which could be as early as next week.

Northrop spokesman Randy Belote declined to comment to WSJ on the company's latest correspondence with the Air Force.

He said Northrop has 'been consistent in its call for a capabilities-based acquisition strategy for the recapitalization of the aging tanker fleet.'

He added that the new tanker program 'represents the Air Force's best opportunity to acquire a truly modern, multirole and multimission refueling aircraft.'

The paper reported that a Boeing spokesman said yesterday the company plans to bid for the tanker program regardless of what rules the Air Force sets.

This will make things even more interesting!

[Edited 2007-01-08 22:26:08]


"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5332 times:

Sounds fine to me - no one wants to compete in a race that has already been fixed. The USAF is just scared that they might have to buy the KC-30 because it's a better platform than the KC-767.

User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2951 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5322 times:

Who is this Northrup company. I've never heard of them.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

Yawn!!! Pure posturing, IMHO. They're gonna bid irregardless. If you were running Airbus or Boeing, would you leave $100 billion on the table by not even bidding for a piece of the pie?

User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 2):
Who is this Northrup company. I've never heard of them.

I assume you are being serious. They are a major defense company in the US, in fact they are the third largest behind Lockheed and Boeing. They build our aircraft carries among other things.



"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5290 times:

Quoting T773ER (Reply 4):
I assume you are being serious. They are a major defense company in the US, in fact they are the third largest behind Lockheed and Boeing. They build our aircraft carries among other things.

Yes and no to his seriousnes...

you misspelled Northrop Grumman. And they build our Aircraft Carriers.  Wink

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The KC-30 is a more flexible platform then the KC-767 thanks to it's larger size and more powerful engines. However, it's also more expensive so NG/EADS want to make sure that this decision is not driven on price alone, which is how US military contracts are awarded (at least in the past).

Also, NG/EADS has to worry that if capability is a major criteria, Boeing can offer the KC-777 which will "show-up" a KC-30 even more then the KC-30 "shows up" a KC-767.

Also, the USAF is keen to have a plane with a "tarmac/hangar footprint" no larger then the KC-135. The KC-767 fits this footprint, evidently, but I am not sure how well the KC-30 does. The KC-777, obviously, isn't going to fit, but if the KC-30 is too large, then this desire might be dismissed.

Also, the USAF is considering both a KC-135 and KC-10 replacement program. Boeing can meet this much earlier (with the KC-767 and KC-777) then Airbus can (since Airbus needs to wait for the A350X-900 to EIS in 2015 and then come up with slot availability).

So while I imagine NG/EADS are a bit skittish on their ability to meet all of the USAF's possible RFP permutations compared to how Boeing can do so and therefore are doing a little "public bleating" to try and get the RFP better-tailored to play to their specific strengths.


User currently offlineCV990A From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5153 times:

How much of this is also preventative positioning for a bid protest once the award has been made? Get something they can fall back on in the RFP to give them a strong challenge should the seemingly inevitable happen and Boeing wins the bid (again). Just a thought...


Kittens Give Morbo Gas
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5131 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
The USAF is just scared that they might have to buy the KC-30 because it's a better platform than the KC-767.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The KC-30 is a more flexible platform then the KC-767 thanks to it's larger size and more powerful engines.

Both of those remarks concern me, because the KC-30 is a paper airplane. It has not been built, hell it has not even been designed. So how could you two guys make those remarks? Don't give me any "the RAAF A-330MRTT is flying", either. That airplane is totally different than what Airbus is proposing for the USAF KC-30. Perhaps that is why the RAAF airplane is referred to as the KC-33A. The RAF A-330TT is even less capable than the KC-33.

Comparing the paper KC-30 to the actually flying (not exact, but close to what the USAF will get, if selected) KC-767 is like comparing Di Vincie's drawings of flying machines to the Wright Flyer. One worked, the other has not been tried, yet.

Don't get me wrong on this, the proposed tanker versions of the B-747-800F, B-777-200F, or B-787-800 are also in the same catagory as the A-330-200 is. They are all paper airplanes.

Out of all proposed airplane, for the new USAF tanker program, only two have flying examples, the KC-135R (the proposed KC-135E upgrade), and the Italian AF and JSDAF KC-767A.


User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5101 times:

Sorry about the misspelling, I copied it directly from Forbes website and as you can see it was misspelled.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited...eds/afx/2007/01/08/afx3308694.html



"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Both of those remarks concern me, because the KC-30 is a paper airplane. It has not been built, hell it has not even been designed. So how could you two guys make those remarks?

In my case, the A330 just offers more raw square footage to put stuff in, be it cargo, fuel, sensors, or whathaveyou. And while it might be different from the A330TT and A330MRTT, it's going to draw at least a bit from those programs, just as the KC-767 drew from the E-767 AWACS and the original MC2A program...


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5049 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Also, the USAF is keen to have a plane with a "tarmac/hangar footprint" no larger then the KC-135. The KC-767 fits this footprint, evidently, but I am not sure how well the KC-30 does. The KC-777, obviously, isn't going to fit, but if the KC-30 is too large, then this desire might be dismissed.

I see that as nothing more than sheer posturing by the USAF to select the aircraft they want (Boeing) and not have to go with Airbus. We're talking "ramp" space, not "hangar" space - that's not a significant obstacle.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Both of those remarks concern me, because the KC-30 is a paper airplane. It has not been built, hell it has not even been designed. So how could you two guys make those remarks? Don't give me any "the RAAF A-330MRTT is flying", either. That airplane is totally different than what Airbus is proposing for the USAF KC-30. Perhaps that is why the RAAF airplane is referred to as the KC-33A. The RAF A-330TT is even less capable than the KC-33.

Comparing the paper KC-30 to the actually flying (not exact, but close to what the USAF will get, if selected) KC-767 is like comparing Di Vincie's drawings of flying machines to the Wright Flyer. One worked, the other has not been tried, yet.

Again, we're talking about a "tanker" here - the only hard part is putting the boom on a new aircraft and something tells me that if Airbus can get the A-380 to fly, they can probably figure that out, too. The A-330 is simply a better airplane the 767 but hey, it's what 20 years newer technology, right?

While I still prefer Boeing I'm an adament proponnet that our military should get the best and most modern product available, especially considering that these aircraft will likely see 50 years plus service life. I'd like to see KC-30's and KC-777's win this deal, I'm just not a big fan of the 767 some 25 years after it initially entered service.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4786 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5032 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 11):
Again, we're talking about a "tanker" here - the only hard part is putting the boom on a new aircraft and something tells me that if Airbus can get the A-380 to fly, they can probably figure that out, too.

its being tested as we speak for the A330MRTT. http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRNews1/FRNews06/FR060409.htm

does the USAF requirement include a pod/drogue also to tank marine, navy, coalition planes? if so its interesting to note that one reason the Aussies gave for going with the A330 was that they felt it was far easier for Airbus to develop a boom for the A330 than Boeing to develop a pod/hose/drogue system for the 767 as the A330 being related to the A340 has the wing strengthening and plumbing already.


User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4986 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 12):
as the A330 being related to the A340 has the wing strengthening and plumbing already.

Sorry, that's a bit of a myth. The wings are the same shape but the A330 wing is different inside. It is not as strong as an A340 wing because it doesn't need to be and does not have the extra plumbing because that would be un-necessary weight.

The A330 wing does need strenghtening around the Rib 26 area but is no big deal.

Airbus have built a large test rig for the boom at their plant in Madrid and it is already fitted to an A310 development aircraft. It is unlikely to be a problem for the KC-30.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4907 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 11):
Again, we're talking about a "tanker" here - the only hard part is putting the boom on a new aircraft and something tells me that if Airbus can get the A-380 to fly, they can probably figure that out, too. The A-330 is simply a better airplane the 767 but hey, it's what 20 years newer technology, right?

Building a tanker (as defined by the USAF, not other nation's Air Forces) is a lot more complicated simply slaping a boom onto an airplane. The fuel system is completely different, and because of body tanks, where cargo compartments are in the lower sections, the fuselarge must be stiffer and much stronger. This requires longitudial strenghting. The hydraulic systems need to be expanded and changed, not only for the boom, but the hydraulicly driven fuel pumps in the body tanks to deliver the fuel to the receiver. Then there is the additional avionics needed for rondevous equipment, cargo handling equipment, etc., etc., etc.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 12):
does the USAF requirement include a pod/drogue also to tank marine, navy, coalition planes? if so its interesting to note that one reason the Aussies gave for going with the A330 was that they felt it was far easier for Airbus to develop a boom for the A330 than Boeing to develop a pod/hose/drogue system for the 767 as the A330 being related to the A340 has the wing strengthening and plumbing already.

Yes, the new tanker will have, at least under wing refueling pods, and may also have a centerline hose reel system (like the KC-10) for probe and drogue refueling.

The RAAF KC-33A is being built with the A-340 wing, not the standard A-330 wing the RAF A-330TT is getting. Oz did this because the refueling pods they selected are bigger and heavier than those for the British tanker. This gives the RAAF a faster refueling flow over the RAF refueling flow. It also reduced the amount of internal wing engineering required, because the A-340 wing already had the required strenght and plumbing.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

Another thing that peeves me about the KC-767 program is that after all of the initial buys by Japan and Italy were designed around GE engines, Boeing than goes to declare that P&W will henceforth and exclusively power any future and thereby any USAF KC-767's. What a crock, that just crys foul to me!

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
Another thing that peeves me about the KC-767 program is that after all of the initial buys by Japan and Italy were designed around GE engines, Boeing than goes to declare that P&W will henceforth and exclusively power any future and thereby any USAF KC-767's. What a crock, that just cries foul to me!

Well P&W and the USAF have a very long history together...


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4786 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
Boeing than goes to declare that P&W will henceforth and exclusively power any future and thereby any USAF KC-767's. What a crock, that just crys foul to me!

why would they do that?


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4670 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 17):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
Boeing than goes to declare that P&W will henceforth and exclusively power any future and thereby any USAF KC-767's. What a crock, that just crys foul to me!

why would they do that?

I cannot remember offhand but I thought there was a recent deal with Boeing that went GE's way and this was more or less an appeasment to P&W so they too could have something to keep them fat and happy.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Well P&W and the USAF have a very long history together...

As with GE, too!


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4622 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Building a tanker (as defined by the USAF, not other nation's Air Forces) is a lot more complicated simply slaping a boom onto an airplane. The fuel system is completely different, and because of body tanks, where cargo compartments are in the lower sections, the fuselarge must be stiffer and much stronger. This requires longitudial strenghting. The hydraulic systems need to be expanded and changed, not only for the boom, but the hydraulicly driven fuel pumps in the body tanks to deliver the fuel to the receiver. Then there is the additional avionics needed for rondevous equipment, cargo handling equipment, etc., etc., etc.

I have a question for you, is not having fly by wire in a tanker an advantage or disadvantage. With so much fuel aboard and the pumps, flex hoses, etc I would think the fewer electrical lines and devices the better.

Regarding the footprint, most tankers I believe are parked outside but do get serviced in hangers. If all of the bases that see tankers need larger hangers or there are more planes needing the existing large hangers, that can be a huge capital expense. I would guess $25M per hanger.

Would putting new engines like the GE Next Gen on the 767 improve the flight distance or allow for a higher MTOW. Between that and a modern avionics system I don't see what difference an older frame also poses.

I personally feel that a properly designed KC-767 would be a much more tried and true piece of equipment. The last thing we need is something that needs to be tweaked or debugged for years and year.

Anyway, I enjoy all of your posts regarding this and other topics.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4612 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
Boeing than goes to declare that P&W will henceforth and exclusively power any future and thereby any USAF KC-767's

Boeing didn't select the P&W engines, the USAF specified them, for the KC-767 that was originally offered in 2002. That may not be the case any more.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 19):
I have a question for you, is not having fly by wire in a tanker an advantage or disadvantage. With so much fuel aboard and the pumps, flex hoses, etc I would think the fewer electrical lines and devices the better.

A FBW would weigh less than having cables and pullies for the flight and boom controls, there is no doubt about that. I would think the technoligy of the FBW servos and controls would be EM/EMP protected, and not be a problem with the fuel system or fuel transfer systems. FBW systems may be selected for the new tanker. The A-330 does have them, as well as the proposed Airbus Boom. IIRC, the B-767 uses slightly older technoligy, not a full FBW system, but the new proposed Boeing Boom also has FBW technoligy.

OTOH, the B-777 is a full FBW airplane, like the A-330.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12710 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4508 times:

Quoting T773ER (Thread starter):
These people said Northrop officials believe draft bidding guidelines effectively favour Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people )'s less-expensive refueling plane because they don't lay out detailed criteria for how the Air Force will evaluate extra capabilities, such as cargo and passenger capacity, that Northrop's proposed airplane offers.

Let's see: NG is upset that the USAF is not specifying detailed criteria for extra capabilities? How far should USAF go in specifying things not in the specification?  Smile



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
Let's see: NG is upset that the USAF is not specifying detailed criteria for extra capabilities? How far should USAF go in specifying things not in the specification?

Specifying exactly what they want (more, further, multi) started the trouble last time; the wrong aircraft came out.

A new tactic could be not saying what you want not risking getting in trouble again, however todays news:

U.S. Sen. John McCain on Monday repeated his call for a fair and open competition to build the U.S. Air Force's next-generation fleet of aerial refueling tankers, saying the service must attract at least two bids for the contract or face congressional hearings.

The Arizona Republican, who was in Montgomery as a guest at Gov. Bob Riley's inauguration, said he was concerned that ongoing complaints about the Air Force's bidding criteria could prompt Northrop Grumman Corp. to drop its bid for the tanker contract against rival Boeing Co.
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregiste...e/news/1168942624185840.xml&coll=3

"a fair and open competition" isn't that what we all want..

no?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12710 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 23):
"a fair and open competition" isn't that what we all want..

As long as it produces the best plane for the job, yes. If NG realizes their plane will not be the best plane for the job, then I have no problem with them choosing not to submit it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 USAF336TFS : Keesje, my good friend, (Sincerely meant) I've read enough of your posts to know that a fair competition isn't what you really want. You want the US
26 Acheron : Then why should Northrop bother going on, other than to make things appear clear and save face?.
27 Stitch : To earn brownie points for the next DOD contract they face across from Boeing on. Since NG is just the systems integrator, working on A332F airframes
28 Post contains images Halls120 : You are kidding, right? We're talking taxpayer dollars here, not a private airline company. military procurement contracts will never be solely based
29 Post contains images Glideslope : Not you Kessje. Besides how in Pete's Sake is Airbus going to do a KC-30, a A332F, and give away the A333 to give the false appearance that the 380 i
30 Saintsman : The KC-30 is an EADS project not Airbus. Airbus will make the airframe which to them is just another aircraft off the production line, so its no big
31 Post contains links Lumberton : Businessweek is reporting that NG is preparing to throw in the towel. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...news+index_businessweek+exclusives
32 USAF336TFS : I think the Air Force made the right decision in this case. NG needs to remember it's the Air Force that's the customer, not them, not Senator McCain,
33 JayinKitsap : Does John McCain have sufficient clout now to have senate hearings? Does he really want to be basically a lobbyist for Airbus as he enters the preside
34 Lumberton : In answer to the first question: No. In answer to the second: No. I expect him to back off this whole thing. IMO, the USAF has treaded very carefully
35 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think the USAF should only ask both competitors for bids, and select the plane that gives them the most bang for its buck. But if it were that simpl
36 Post contains images Lumberton : I thought about posting that link, Keesje, but I'm glad you did it instead! Imagine Oliver North and the democratic majority in congress in agreement!
37 Post contains images USAF336TFS : I didn't read anywhere he said "sub-par". I think that's probably your opinion. His reasoning is hard to argue with, and I'm sure, had the shoe been
38 Post contains links and images Keesje : Here's some back ground info, people easily forget stuff on the tanker circus lately. The USAF indicated they wanted something more capable / multirol
39 Stitch : The trick is, that raises the cost and the complexity and often you end up with something that does a lot of things okay, but none of them really wel
40 Keesje : Trying to confuse things? Who is talking sensors? not NG. The KC30 can carry more fuel further then the KC767, without any additional fuel tanks, car
41 KC135TopBoom : The selected airplane will probibly morf into an eventual RC-135 replacement. Something the original C-135 design did very well. The USAF C-135 serie
42 Post contains images NorCal : It also costs $40 million more per frame meaning the USAF will get fewer. This is a serious issue because the USAF needs the ability to project a lot
43 AirRyan : But lets see the cost-benefit analysis on the KC-30 vs. the KC-767 - in theory by your argument we would be better off with the KC-135 because it is
44 NorCal : yeah converting some KC-135s to R models would be a very good idea. Some of those frames have a lot of time left in them. Obviously there are frames
45 Stitch : Honestly, no. The USAF was, at least in some phases of the contract discussions. They were hoping to attach SARs (Synthetic Apeature Radars) and comm
46 TropicBird : When you read the statements below, you will notice that the USAF has made what appears to be a 180 degree turn on the desired capabilities of the KC-
47 AirRyan : Wow after reading those comments, I think the KC-777 is the new winner!
48 Post contains images Halls120 : It isn't "that simple," because we are talking about taxpayer dollars being spent on a government procurement contract. You continued insistence in e
49 Keesje : Reality is it's a better tanker too.. If it was the Boeing KC30 vs the NG KC767 the deal would have been sealed yrs ago.
50 Halls120 : You can envision as many alternative realities as you wish, but when it comes down to an expensive military procurement contract, local politics will
51 Post contains images Stitch : Sure, because it was the better option and the local option. But the better option is, alas, not guaranteed to be the right option in these cases. Mo
52 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Flightglobal reports that the final RFP which could be released this week after final review would not be significantly different from the draft issu
53 Lumberton : Not unless they want to look real foolish.
54 Keesje : The transal is the aircraft to be replaced. Now pls look at the specs and operational use of this C-160 and the C-17. C-160 Empty weight: 62,700 lb (
55 Halls120 : Still stuck on "fair and open competition," I see. Here's my question for you then. Should European air forces buy the C-17 instead of the A-400? Aft
56 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : In hindsight, EADS brought these all upon themselves. As I pointed out in the other thread, they had the A310MRTT or could have made a tanker variant
57 N1786b : Well, Just ask you pals the French and the Finns about "fair & open competition" tanker deals in the works. - n1786b
58 USAF336TFS : Keesje, If the USAF takes the "fair and open" competition mantra to it's logical conclusion, and we take the statements of the Air Force generals verb
59 Post contains images Lumberton : There is a double standard here: "You should open up your defense markets to "fair and open" competition, but we'll buy domestic since we need to nur
60 StealthZ : Who needs state of the art? It is a tanker truck that just needs to be there... where it is needed and in as many places as it is needed. KC-767 can
61 Post contains links DEVILFISH : The Day of Reckoning looms. Flightglobal reports that the final KC-X RFP would be released on Tuesday..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...thro
62 Lumberton : Keep in mind that certain congresspersons and senators from the southern U.S. will howl and there'll be the usual articles in the press expressing ou
63 Post contains images DEVILFISH : Hence, the rather dramatic opening..... .....in recognition of the impending showdown on the hill.
64 Halls120 : In Keesje's world, it is only the US that takes local preference into account when it makes government procurement decisions. That is of course not t
65 Post contains images DEVILFISH : I missed those two deleted posts. Must be juicy.....
66 USAF336TFS : Boeing was favored in a Republican-controlled Congress. With a Democrat-controlled Congress, slim majority notwithstanding, and many of those same De
67 PPVRA : Extra capabilities. . . does the USAF also use or intends to use tankers as cargo/pax carriers? If the bidding is for a tanker, I don't see why you n
68 Post contains images USAF336TFS :          Astute observation.... Sometimes playing the victim role will get you attention, if nothing else. Welcome to my RU list![Edited 2007-0
69 JayinKitsap : Does anyone know whether multiple proposals can be submitted? IE can Boeing do a KC-767 and a seperate KC-777 proposal?
70 Lumberton : AFAIK, they can if it's "responsive" to the solicitation, but I could be wrong. These things can get expensive though.
71 Halls120 : the biggest hurdle facing NG, IMO, is the fact that the KC-30 costs more than the KC-767. As the number of airframes proposed for purchase, we're tal
72 Post contains links Trex8 : needs to be able to have all passenger and all cargo main deck capability and even aeromedical evacuation capability for 50 patients including 16 lit
73 Post contains links Lumberton : Reuters is reporting that Northrup Grumman-EADS will bid after all. http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...55_N08232751&type=comktNews&rpc=44
74 USAF336TFS : Looks like Northrop got the subtle hint... If you want to bid, fine. If not, oh well. This statement changes little, if anything. The fact is that it
75 TropicBird : The next telling step will be if Boeing stays with the 767 or offers the 777. If they go with the 777, it will be because they believe the 330 will be
76 Par13del : Since mention was made of the UK choice of the Airbus tanker, did the UK Govt. use a bid process, and did Boeing bid on the contract? As for the A400
77 USAF336TFS : Both the 777 and 767 are being offered. The telling thing is, what percentage of each aircraft type the final mix will be. Reading the RFP carefully,
78 Domokun : It says that "new technology" is not always ready to use in all situations. You cannot simply take consumer products and use them in intensive applic
79 Post contains links TropicBird : According to the Financial Times...Boeing will announce on Feb 12th if they will go with the 767 or 777. http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage...136113
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Northrup Grumman May Forgo Tanker Bid
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Northrop Grumman And Eads To Team-up posted Wed Sep 7 2005 21:52:33 by Breiz
Boeing/Grumman Team-up For CEV posted Thu Nov 11 2004 23:41:28 by DfwRevolution
Grumman JRF Or OA-9 posted Wed Oct 3 2001 23:01:15 by Grummangoose

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format