Posted on 04/21/2008 10:44:59 AM PDT by MHalblaub
Highlighting reasons the U.S. Air Force selected the KC-45 Tanker as best for our men and women in uniform.
WASHINGTON, April 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman's bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing's in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman. Starting today and regularly in the coming weeks, “Why We Won” will provide detailed examples of why Northrop Grumman was selected, drawing on facts listed in a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document. We begin with Mission Capability, which includes the crucial function of aerial refueling.
Mission Capability
The Air Force found the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases,” “Better air refueling efficiency,” “Better offload rate and receive rate,” and has “A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing.”
This means the Northrop Grumman plane can provide more fuel at greater range, is more fuel efficient when executing the tanker mission, can perform many refueling operations faster, and can connect to receivers over a greater volume of airspace behind the tanker than Boeing's aircraft.
In a written explanation of the Air Force thinking on this subject, Sue Payton, the Air Force's chief acquisition officer, said the Air Force determined that Northrop Grumman provided “Significant refueling advantages.”
Payton added that Northrop Grumman's aircraft's “Refueling capability was compelling to my decision.”
“Northrop Grumman's offer was a superior solution to the air refueling requirement, which is a key performance parameter,” Payton wrote.
Despite this, Boeing's defenders in Congress are now demanding that the fair and transparent bidding process that led to the Northrop Grumman selection be overturned to ensure that Boeing is given the contract, in spite of the clear inferiority of the plane it offered to our men and women in uniform.
In fact, Boeing disagrees with the Air Force formula for air refueling efficiency that shows the winning Northrop Grumman tanker as six percent more efficient in relation to fuel delivered versus fuel consumed, so they invented their own.
As the Wall Street Journal concluded in a recent editorial, “There's a word for that, but it's not patriotism.”
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579800395343581.html]
Great! Keep ‘em comin’! Thanks for posting this, and I’d love to be pinged with updates if you post those, and if you are willing to do so.
A HUGE strategic mistake to give the lilly pad sitters any stake in our national security.
There are other issues involved that contradict Nothrup Grumman’s self back-patting. For example, there is the appearance (if not outright evidence) that the AF rigged the specs to favor the Airbus over Boeing’s 767 platform. Also, the AF has workd with Boeing for so long, it is clear that familiarity has bred contempt.
As an American taxpayer, I object to MY tax dollars being sent offshore so that EADS can build an Airbus aircraft for the US Air Force. Congress should nix this one and demand that the Pentagon spend their share of American tax dollars to purchase American aircraft for the American military unless they can objectively demonstrate that the foreign competitor’s product is clearly superior.
I got news for you 90 percent of the Boeing Novelty and Toy Factory aircraft are built from parts all over the world but mainly in ready for it CHINA JAPAN GERMANY SPAIN thats Boeing not Northrop builder of the B52 and the wings of every Boeing Aircraft ever built.
But how many foreign aircraft will we be building UNDER LICENSE from people that hate us? I am well aware of the subcontractor situation in our defense industry, thank you.
“As an American taxpayer, I object to MY tax dollars being sent offshore so that EADS can build an Airbus aircraft for the US Air Force.”
EADS has a North American division...are they being given any work from this contract?
does N-G not use the Canadian airframe manufacturer Bombardier simply because they don’t have a model ready for this job, or do they just love the Euroweenies frame more?
I’ve wondered by we couldn’t keep entire projects like this amongst actual allies and closer to home when we need to compete with the Boeing monolith. I’m not for giving Boeing anything - just because.... But N-G and anybody else out there who isn’t Boeing, doesn’t really have much of a shot at aircraft contracts unless they have a maker of aircraft, it seems to me.
I’ve been concerned about the dwindling number of major defense contractors and they ability to actually compete and not just become a Boeing - where the US taxpayers pay a huge price for something which may or may not even be the best option but its the only ‘U.S.’ option so Boeing gets to run over costs, timetables and regulations to eventually finish and all of us get to just suck it up.
I’d love for somebody infinitely more involved in this subject to inform and correct me about this kind of thing.
The Northrop part gave us these:
Grumman also built the Navy’s A-6 and EA-6B.
I agree. I don't even think we should have a competitive bid process at all. Just give everything to Boeing regardless the technical specs, mission, or cost.
Everyone knows monopolies are ultimately good for all.
Oh and if we aren't going to buy things from potentially unfriendly outside sources, we also shouldn't sell to anyone else either. Of course we might lose a few defense industry jobs that way but so be it.
And the E-2C Hawkeye, which is still serving.
I would like to know which aircraft has the fewest critical parts from potential enemies of the United States...and what those parts are ...and if there is a US supplier for said critical parts....
The Avionics, refueling system, and engines for either aircraft will be built in the United States.
Once the basic airframe is built, any aircraft company can repair or modify it. For example, the A10 Thunderbolt II was built by Fairchild, but Boeing won a multi-year contract to manufacture new wing assemblies for it.
Northrop completed its debriefing with the Air Force on Monday, and said the Air Force called its winning bid "more advantageous to the government" in the key areas of capability, past performance, cost and refueling performance.
Under its plan, EADS will assemble Airbus A330 freighters at a new plant in Mobile, Alabama, while Northrop turns them into military tankers at an adjacent facility.
On Monday, Los Angeles-based Northrop said the assembly and militarization of the tankers would create 1,500 jobs in the United States. EADS has said assembly work in Mobile would create 1,300 jobs.
The first of the tankers will be assembled at a plant in Melbourne, Florida, but that work will be transferred once the Mobile facilities are up and running, probably around 2010, a Northrop spokesman said. The first tanker is due to be delivered to the U.S. Air Force in 2013.
According to Northrop, its handling of the work will create 14,000 direct jobs and 34,000 indirect jobs in the United States. Major suppliers to the Northrop/EADS team include General Electric Co (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Honeywell International Inc (HON.N: Quote, Profile, Research), AAR Cargo Systems, Sargent Fletcher and Knight Aerospace.
Another interesting article:
Personally, I think the AF is punishing Boeing for their bad faith lease deal.
For the record, I own Boeing stock and bonds.
Yeah thats right. They also won a contract to build wing assemblies for the A-6 and failed miserably.
Why would they change the spec to include a smaller airframe? The NG offering is much larger than boeings. What advantage? The competitors wer informed about all changes during the proposal process.
Now suppose for a minute that congress overturns the award and forces the AF to buy the losers airframe. You don’t think that the europeans aren’t going to be a little miffed at that? They may just turn around and say if our aircraft aren’t good enough for you then your aircraft aren’t good for us. So no more exports of E-2, C-130, F-35, F-18, C-17, F-16, AH-64, UH-60. Thats just military airframes. Maybe they might start caneling 787, 777 and 737 orders. How will your boing stock like that?
And new models are being built and bought by the French.
“But how many foreign aircraft will we be building UNDER LICENSE from people that hate us?”
Hate is a hard word. France is part of the Operation Enduring Freedom despite the fact France is not member of NATO. For France some curve ball facts weren’t enough cause invading a country.
Would it relieve you to know the wings of KC-45 will be UK made?
For salsa reason the tail is Spanish.
I may have erred in stating that the change was to a smaller airframe when in fact it was the opposite. My apologies.
Actually, Everret, Wa.
It's a tanker. Nothing there that is critical or can't be replaced.
Iran is still flying Boeing 707 and 747 tankers from the days of the Shah, despite a 28 year embargo.
Here’s another perspective from the March 21, 2008 of the Aerotech News, Vol. 23, Issue 8:
“Why did Boeing lose Air Force tanker contract?
By Les Blumenthal, McClatchy Newspapers
It was a question that had been whispered around Capitol Hill corridors in the days following the Air Force’s selection of a European plane rather than a Boeing one to replace the nation’s fleet of aging aerial refueling tankers.
Rep. Norm Dicks finally asked it.
“Some people are saying Boeing was arrogant, discourteous?” the Washington state Democrat asked Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne.
“All my dealings with Boeing were objective and professional,” Wynne responded.
Wynne didn’t elaborate, Dicks didn’t press.
At congressional hearings over the past two weeks, Wynne and other Air Force officials defended the $35 billion tanker contract, insisting the competition was fair, open and legal.
But plenty of questions remain unanswered about how Boeing lost a contract it was heavily favored to win. They include:
1. Did the Air Force make critical changes in the final bid proposal and a computer model used to evaluate the bids that ended up throwing the contract to Northrup Grumman and the European Aerospace Defense and Space Co., the parent company of Boeing’s rival, Airbus?
2. Did Boeing misread crucial signals about the contract becase of a strained relationship with the Air Force in the wake of a 5-year-old procurement scandal that sent two people to jail and led to the resignation of the company’s chief executive?
3. Was Boeing’s commercial plane division so fixated on the new 787 Dreamliner that producing 12 to 15 767s a year for the Air Force tanker program became secondary?
4. Did the Boeing defense team, so convinced it would win, get outhustled by Northrup-EADS, which according to Air Force officials, brought its “A” game to the competition?
5. Did the Pentagon buckle to pressure from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who demanded that there be more than one bidder even if it meant the Air Force couldn’t consider the estimated billions of dollars in possibly illegal government subsidies the European plane manufacturer received?
In early summer, the Government Accountability Office will rule on Boeing’s protest of the tanker contract and answer some of the questions. Until then, many details remain cloaked in confidentiality or can’t be released since they may involve proprietary information.
Boeing, its supporters on Capitol Hill and the defense community were stunned when the Air Force announced it was awarding the contract for 179 tankers to Northrup-EADS. The contract eventually could be worth $100 billion as the Air Force replaces nearly 600 Eisenhower-era tankers.
Nothrup-EADS will use Airbus A330s for the tankers. Boeing would have used the 767.
The A330s are built in Toulouse, France, with major sections manufacturednby the British, Germans and Spanish. The tanker version of the A330 will be assembled at a new plant planned in Mobile, Ala. Boeing was prepared to build the 767 tanker in its Everett, Wash., plant. Tanking equipment was to be added and flight testing conducted at the company’s plant in Wichita, Kan.
The Airbus A330 is newer, larger and can carry more fuel, passengers and cargo. The 767 is smaller, cheaper to operate and can land in more places closer to combat zones.
Initially, the Air Force seemed inclined to favor Boeing. Air Force officials told Congress they were looking for a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135s. Cargo- and passenger-carrying capabilites were not a top priority, and Boeing and others were convinced their 767 would be a better fit than the Airbus A330.
Because it was smaller and lighter, the 767 tanker would be able to fly into more air bases in places like Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Persian Gulf.
In issuing its draft request for proposals, the Air Force raised the issue of government subsidies and a pending World Trade Organization ruling. By some estimates, the A330 and its companion A340 received $5 billion in research and development subsidies, or “launch aid”, from European governments.
McCain reacted quickly when he heard the subsidy issue would be a factor in the competition. The Arizone senator had been the lead opponent of an earlier $23 billion deal that would have allowed the Air Force to lease up to 100 Boeing 767 tankers. The lease deal collapsed amid a major Pentagon procurement scandal.
In a Sept. 8, 2006, letter to Defense Department officials, McCain said he was concerned about the subsidy issue becoming part of the tanker competition and told the Air Force to drop it.
At the time, Republicans still controlled Congress, and McCain was in line to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committe.
McCain said there was no precedent for including the subsidy issue in a procurement competition and that if the Air Force persisted, it would risk eliminating a competing bid for the tanker. The subsidy issue was dropped.”
“Here’s another perspective from the March 21, 2008 of the Aerotech News, Vol. 23, Issue 8:
The Airbus A330 is newer, larger and can carry more fuel, passengers and cargo. The 767 is smaller, cheaper to operate and can land in more places closer to combat zones.”
That shows even Areotech News doesn’t check all facts.
767 is without doubt smaller than the A330 but I doubt a 767 is cheaper to operate. Many airlines think the same way. As well I doubt the option to land closer to combat zones. The C-17 is heavier as the KC-45 and the KC-45 has a better take-off performance than the KC-767.
“Initially, the Air Force seemed inclined to favor Boeing. Air Force officials told Congress they were looking for a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135s. Cargo- and passenger-carrying capabilites were not a top priority, and Boeing and others were convinced their 767 would be a better fit than the Airbus A330.”
Oh no, that was what Boeing thought to be true.
Look at this: http://www.amc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070227-044.pdf
Some Air Force officials told that to lease tankers is a good deal. Some get jailed.
“In issuing its draft request for proposals, the Air Force raised the issue of government subsidies and a pending World Trade Organization ruling.”
That is also a problem for Boeing. EADS is not the main contractor. Maybe EADS has to pay a penalty maybe Boeing. Is that important for a boom operator or a fighter pilot? For what purpose did the Air Force asked that?
Classic apples and cauliflower comparison. The KC-145 is an older technology aircraft that is smaller and lighter than the 767 would be in a tanker configuration so, naturally, it will have better take-off performance. Take-off performance is a small part of the overall operational cost per mile that the AF must consider. All of these things explain why the KC-145 is being replaced by the Airbus A330. The C-17 is not a tanker, it's a cargo plane.
The metric to measure in airline terms is cost per seat mile. The A330 fully loaded has a lower cost per seat mile than a fully loaded 767.
In tanker terms, the metric to measure is cost per lb of fuel offloaded. The KC-45A has a lower cost per lb of fuel offloaded than the KC-767AT IF (and it's a big 'if') both aircraft are fully loaded, fly the same distance, and offload all their available fuel.
Now, if you have a KC-45A and a KC-767AT, and you only offload 50,000 lbs of fuel at a range of 500 miles, then yes, the KC-45A costs more for that sortie. OTOH, if you need to offload 200,000 lbs of fuel at 500 miles, the KC-45A will be less expensive because it can do it in one sortie, were you need two sorties with a KC-767.
You can play games with sorties all day and make one or the other look better. The bottom line for the Air Force was that the KC-45A has the ability to deliver more fuel and more cargo, and costs were very close to the same as the KC-767.
Remember all last year everybody was talking about the $40 Billion Tanker Deal, but now that it has been tentatively awarded to Northrop Grumman/EADS, it's now a $35 Billion Tanker Deal?
That is a Boeing claim that they can land at more airfields closer to the combat zone, and they had to play games to achieve that claim.
Yes, the Boeing KC-767AT can land at smaller fields at MTOW than the KC-45A can land at at it's MTOW.
However, if you have a KC-767AT at MTOW, and a KC-45A carrying the same fuel load as the KC-767AT, then the KC-45A can operate out of more fields than the KC-767AT due to it superior takeoff performance.
I have nothing against either aircraft, and I think both would serve the USAF well. I just happen to think that the KC-45A is the better of the two for the number being purchased, with an eye towards the long distance deployments the USAF faces in the future.
Keep in mind that we will still have KC-145s around, so if we need a slightly smaller tanker for a certain mission we will have it.
It's an Airbus.
Northrop builder of the B52 and the wings of every Boeing Aircraft ever built.
Are you sure?
Northrop used to be the builder of 747 fuselage section panels for boeing. But that business segment was sold to the carlysle group.
The B767 is in design 15 years older than the A330. The same is for B787 and A330. Nearly no airline ordered a B767 recently except of a big order for some freighters. I presume with a big discount to keep the production line open until the Air Force order arrives.
“Smaller and lighter instantly means lower fuel costs per mile, especially with the more fuel efficient engines.”
According to the Air Force the KC-45 tanker is 6 % more fuel efficient than a KC-767. Just think of a pickup and a truck. The efficiency depends on how and what you have to deliver. Ever thought about why the Air Force bought KC-10s and not KC-737s?
Bye the way, why was the B747 such a success? It's such a big plane?
“Classic apples and cauliflower comparison. The KC-145 is an older technology aircraft that is smaller and lighter than the 767 would be in a tanker configuration so, naturally, it will have better take-off performance.”
The KC-135 has the worst performance of all strategic tanker flying. The comparison with the C-17 was due to Boeing's argument about available airfields. I was talking about the KC-45/A330 and not about the KC-135/B707. The bigger KC-45 has a better take-off performance than the KC-767.
The C17 is a cargo lifter for close battle field support. How close did you want to operate a tanker aircraft? Today the C-17 is misused for standard cargo missions a KC-45 or KC-767 would need half fuel.
Aircraft: C-17 / KC-45 / KC-767
Payload(1): 77.5 t / 69 t / 43 t
pallets(2): 18 / 32 / 19
fuel burn(3): 21.5 / 13.8 / 10.5
(1) metric ton ~ 2205 lb
(2) 463L master pallets
(3) according to Boeing's claim to be 24 % more fuel efficient and http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afpam10-1403.htm
“[...]a former Navy pilot, said lawmakers should not put special interests ahead of national defense.”
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1208834657304880.xml&storylist=alabamanews
I think he's right.
Since I live in San Antonio, I see the C-17 all the time. I agree that the C-17 is misused for standard cargo, however, for military aircraft today, the watch word is "Multi-Mission Flexibility". The down side of Multi-Mission Flexibility is that it begins to look like the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. If you have ever seen the HBO movie, "The Pentagon Wars" you will understand the reference. If not, I recommend you rent it and see what I'm talking about.
Back to the tanker problem. One of the issues that strikes me about the document you posted is floors and doors requirement to have the A330 be a Multi-Mission aircraft. IMO, the mission profile of a tanker makes Multi-Mission Flexibility more challenging and more expensive. If each of these aircraft is provided with a set of optional floors for cargo/passenger/medevac ops, it increases the operating costs because this optional material must follow the aircraft around to every TDY op area in the event that the mission profile needs to be altered in midstream. It happens (see the USS Pueblo incident for additional info).
In some cases, Multi-Mission compatibility works out such as carrier-borne Navy fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft that can also be used as tankers. The venerable P-3 has become a Multi-Mission aircraft moving beyond its intended role of ASW and assuming many of the electronic jamming, elint and ECM functions previously provided by the EA-6B. The more we delve into the specifics of this tanker deal, the less it appears that the AF has a clue what it is doing and the more it begins to appear (to me, at any rate) to be another Bradley Fighting Vehicle (see the video and you'll understand the reference).
“If each of these aircraft is provided with a set of optional floors for cargo/passenger/medevac ops, it increases the operating costs because this optional material must follow the aircraft around to every TDY op area in the event that the mission profile needs to be altered in midstream.”
I don’t think you have to buy everything for every plane.
Medevac units may be stored at bases like Ramstein with a big hospital nearby. I doubt you have to buy new ones if the old ones were fixed on 463L pallets. You can only transport patients in a stable condition. Therefore you got enough time to send a well equipped plane.
For passengers or soldiers you need seats. At each base some rows and for bigger events your general should know in advance.
With cargo you won’t have any problem except you got a KC-767A where the lower deck is full of fuel bladders. Both tankers are freighters with a cargo system for handling 463L pallets.
Mission flexibility for KCs is in my eyes not to change the mission in-flight.
KC-45: http://www.videocentre.eads.net/cutv/cms/_vm1500//_vv_1207655836006/fa_playlist/_skin_eadstv/1870/play?show=now&startClip=0&playSpecial=1936
(1:00)
or http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/operations/boomer.html
KC-767A: http://www.leeham.net/filelib/BoeingAFABrief.pdf
(p. 17)
On page 18 Boeing shows that there is a big chance to increase the use of tankers for cargo use to release some C-5 or C-17.
I got something for you:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/images/advertising/pdf/why_we_won_ad.jpg
Not nice at all.
Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won - Versatility
Highlighting reasons the U.S. Air Force selected the KC-45 Tanker as best for our men and women in uniform.
WASHINGTON, April 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman's (NYSE: NOC) bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing's in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in the Mission Capability section of a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.
Versatility
The Air Force found Northrop Grumman provides tremendous versatility in its aircraft, including “Better airlift efficiency, cargo capability, pallet capability, passengers and aero-medical capability.” Although refueling is the primary mission, the KC-45’s excellent mobility capability will provide future commanders with increased operational flexibility.
The Air Force concluded that Northrop Grumman's plane was superior because it could transport more cargo pallets, carry more people and evacuate more wounded soldiers than Boeing's, depending on which of these critical missions the Air Force would need to accomplish at any given time.
In choosing Northrop Grumman, the Air Force was being entirely consistent in what it told both bidders it was looking for all along. When its Request For Proposal (RFP) was finalized in Jan. 2007, the Air Force made clear it expected its new tanker to be versatile, noting that its evaluation would include “Airlift efficiency, cargo, passengers, aero-medical evacuation, ground turn time, and cargo bay reconfiguration,” adding that greater flexibility and efficiency than the previous aircraft “Will be viewed as advantageous to the government.”
These desires were also documented in a public white paper the Air Force produced a month later entitled “The Need For A Flexible Tanker,” in which the Air Force wrote that it was looking for “A flexible aerial refueling aircraft that can operate throughout a battlespace to deliver fuel and/or cargo and/or passengers.”
That same paper quoted Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, as saying he was seeking flexibility. “I am looking for versatility; single-mission airplanes don't give that,” said Schwartz, who later also said he wanted the new tanker to “Have a dual-role use” and be a “Game-changer over time.”
Sue Payton, the Air Force's chief acquisitions officer, summarized the superiority of Northrop Grumman's plane this way in the document she provided to the bidders in which she explained her decision: “In my judgment, Northrop Grumman's ... aircraft offers significant advantage in the important areas of aerial refueling and airlift and represents superior value to the government.”
The results are clear: Men and women of the Air Force who have a solemn responsibility to protect those fighting to defend freedom at home and abroad, as well as provide taxpayers the best possible value, concluded that Northrop Grumman's plane passed these two crucial tests with flying colors.
As the New York Times put it in a recent editorial, opponents of the Air Force's selection “Would rather have the Air Force buy a more expensive plane, and one that ... doesn't meet its needs nearly as well.”
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.
A very informative supplement! Thanks for the ping!
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141108
Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won -- Greater Range
Highlighting Reasons the U.S. Air Force Selected the KC-45
Tanker as Best for Our Men and Women in Uniform
WASHINGTON - April 28, 2008 - The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing's in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in the Mission Capability section of a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.
Greater Range
To ensure maximum refueling flexibility in a wide-ranging battlefield, the Air Force made clear it was seeking an aerial refueling tanker that had the ability to deploy up to 9,500 nautical miles from its take-off base. The Air Force selection document says Northrop Grumman's KC-45 exceeded this threshold. In contrast, Boeing's protest submission indicates the KC-767 failed to meet it.
In a section explaining its conclusions, the Air Force wrote: "Benefit: (Northrop Grumman) can deploy to more locations from a given starting point un-refueled" with "Better range capability" than its competition.
The KC-45's superior range is a product of its large fuel load (20 percent more than a KC-767), greater fuel efficiency, and exceptional take-off performance. The technical Air Force document points out that this combination of attributes provides the Air Force the ability to refuel aircraft -- or transfer fuel to other tankers -- at greater distances, concluding that "Northrop Grumman provides better fuel offloads at all distances from bases."
Compared to the KC-767, the KC-45 can deliver more fuel at equal ranges (decreasing the number of aircraft required to meet mission requirements) or the same fuel load from greater distances (increasing potential Air Force basing options).
In its decision document the Air Force said that Northrop Grumman offered "Significant refueling advantages" and that the KC-45's "Aerial refueling capability was compelling to my decision."
Furthermore, the Air Force added that the KC-45's greater refueling capability "Enables it to execute (the mission) with 22 fewer aircraft than Boeing's...an efficiency of significant value to the government."
That's why, in a Feb. 29 Pentagon news conference announcing Northrop Grumman's win, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Duncan McNabb said Northrop Grumman's tanker, "Will keep us global by extending the range and persistence of our aircraft."
This is another reason why, as USA Today concluded in a recent editorial, "The available evidence indicates that the 7Air Force got the best airplane for the money."
Well, the answer to Boeing's add already exists:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/ads.html 
“As an American taxpayer, I object to MY tax dollars being sent offshore “
Amen to that... Don’t let the coolaid drinkers convince you otherwise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7492277
“Action by the U.S. Congress to reverse a $35 billion aerial tanker contract won by Northrop Grumman Corp and its European partner EADS could trigger protectionist measures by other countries, Poland's deputy prime minister said on Tuesday.”
Poland bought several F-16 just after entering the EU and receiving 2 € Billon aid from the EU.
The US are strong in military exports. Congress won't destroy that for some members with short sight.
1) Was the Northrop Grumman/EADS tanker eligible for the KC-X competition?
2) If it was eligible, then why is it not possible for it to win?
3) If not, then why did the Air Force even bother with a "competition" where only one aircraft in the world (the KC-767AT) was eligible? That sounds like justification for a sole source contract, so why didn't Boeing protest a year ago when the KC-30 was submitted?
Wow... Finally Boeing’s side of this. Interesting situation.
I’ve always been happy with AC from both US companies. One has to wonder why Northrup decided to partner instead of being the lead dog. I see that Boeing really focuses on items that don’t have much to do with the actual aircrafts’ plus/minus balance, with the exception of the boom.
Well, I doubt that this issue is going to be revisited by anyone important at this time, but we’ll see.
Northrop Grumman and EADS have to worry about the boom if they have to and not the Air Force.
If the Air Force is not happy with this new boom there is another boom available. Therefore it’s not a risk for the Air Force.
It looks like the EADS boom is on schedule for Australia.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/KC3043008.xml&headline=Australian%20KC-30%20Undergoing%20Modification
NG is looking at take-off performance and Boeing makes some remarks about the boom.
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141392
Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won — Takeoff Performance
Highlighting Reasons the U.S. Air Force Selected the KC-45 Tanker as Best for Our Men and Women in Uniform
WASHINGTON - April 30, 2008 - The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE:NOC) bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing’s in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in the Mission Capability section of a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.
Takeoff Performance
The Air Force concluded that the more capable Northrop Grumman KC-45 featured better takeoff performance. This capability, in combination with the other characteristics of this modern airframe, provides the Air Force with greater basing and operational flexibility than Boeing’s proposed KC-767.
Specifically, the Air Force found that Northrop Grumman’s superior aircraft “Can take off with more fuel load from a 7,000 foot runway” than the KC-767.
Superior takeoff performance provides many operational advantages.
Compared to Boeing’s KC-767, the KC-45 can launch with more fuel from the same length of runway, providing longer range, more time aloft, and the ability to refuel more aircraft per sortie.
In military operations, the KC-45 can launch with a fuel load equal to the KC-767’s maximum fuel load using a takeoff roll over 1,000 feet shorter.
The KC-45 can take off from more airfields around the world than the KC-767 carrying a fuel load equal to or greater than Boeing’s maximum. Greater airfield availability increases the Air Force’s future basing and operational flexibility.
This means that in the critical matter of refueling — the primary mission of a tanker — Northrop Grumman’s plane can carry more fuel, fly greater distances, stay airborne longer, and refuel more aircraft in combat operations than Boeing’s proposed aircraft, providing what the Air Force termed “Significant refueling advantages” over Boeing.
Northrop Grumman’s takeoff superiority is one reason why Gen. Duncan McNabb, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, told reporters when Northrop Grumman’s win was announced Feb. 29 that the KC-45 “Will provide global reach.”
“In short, these new tankers will keep us global by extending the range and persistence of our aircraft and those of our joint and coalition partners,” McNabb said.
http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/index.html
Refueling Booms
Northrop Grumman asserts that it has built and passed fuel through its boom refueling system for the KC-30. The company goes on to say the aerial refueling boom system it offered has also performed in-flight refueling.
But do the facts fully support these claims?
First of all, Northrop Grumman has NEVER built or tested an aerial refueling boom. All of the KC-30 refueling boom technology resides in Spain, inside the offices of European, Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company.
What’s more, EADS overstates its experience and its achievements in the world of military refueling booms.
Fact No. 1: Contrary to the impression NG/EADS has attempted to create, EADS has never passed fuel through a boom attached to its A330 aircraft –the platform upon which the KC-30 would be built – while in flight. EADS has been flying a boom on an A310 demonstrator that company engineers were hoping to have fully qualified by the end of 2006. That didn’t happen. The first dry contact with an F-16 was made in late 2007 and it finally passed fuel to an F-16 in late February 2008. What’s more, questions persist about how the boom actually performed in flight as only still photography had been released from the flight, until 43 seconds of edited video were released by Northrop two months after the test flight.
Fact No. 2: The first A330 tanker for the Australian Air Force has been flying with its boom stowed. It has yet to deploy the boom in flight. And the only time fuel has been passed through the boom was when sitting on the ground.
Fact No. 3: The tanker competition assessment of the EADS boom expressed concerns that it may never work. In fact, it identified three “weaknesses” with the approach. In contrast, Boeing has successfully built, tested and delivered 5 generations of refueling booms. Its 6th generation boom, the baseline in its Air Force tanker bid, is an incrementally improved derivative of the 5th generation boom flying today on the KC-767J tankers that were delivered to Japan earlier this year. Boeing successfully tested the 5th generation boom first with a B-52 and then moved onto day- and night-time operations with fighter aircraft.
Fact No. 4: Clearing a boom requires extensive flight testing at different refueling aircraft weights, airspeeds, altitudes and lighting conditions such as daytime and nighttime. What’s more, one of the most challenging parts is fielding a boom that can safely maneuver quickly when needed in situations like an emergency breakaway and also be able to be precisely controlled to be guided into the receptacle. This challenge gets harder as the boom gets bigger. With thousands of tankers built and generations of boom-building experience, Boeing has proven repeatedly it knows how to get this job done.
Well, you certainly can’t minimize the importance of the boom in any tanker design. However, it isn’t the only equipment on the tanker, so putting exclusive emphasis on it is a little strange. It makes me wonder if this is the only comparable strength of the Boeing aircraft. Believe me, I’m a Boeing fan, but they don’t seem to have as many arrows in their quiver as I’m used to. The only two important ones really seem to be “boom” and “built in established US plants”, and only the first has to do with the aircraft itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.