|
|
 |
|
Boeing supporters dub Northrop tanker "Les Mis"
Posted
at
10:59 am
by Michelle Dunlop
“Les Misérable” beat out “Tankosaurs” and “Scarebus” as the winner of a “Name the Tanker” contest hosted by pro-Boeing site, TAnchorman Blog.
The Air Force held its own tanker-naming contest for the KC-30, supplied by Northrop Grumman and EADS. After losing the $35 billion contract, Boeing has protested the Air Force’s decision to the GAO. (If you haven’t already, be sure to participate in our poll about how the tanker debate will be settled.)
Another pro-Boeing Web site, Tanker War Blog, has been following the contest. The blog has an interesting entry today about Pentagon concerns over foreign involvement in the U.S. defense business.
Northrop sent out its daily commentary on news stories, targeting a recent editorial in The News Tribune. The Tacoma newspaper took aim at the Air Force's error in coming up with a cost for Boeing's tanker.
Here's part of Northrop's response:
The Tacoma News-Tribune is backing Boeing's false arguments, arguing on its editorial page that the Air Force's entire decision-making process could be flawed because it made small mistakes in calculating the life cycle cost of America's next generation of aerial refueling tankers.
First, the paper falsely claims - as does Boeing and its backers - that cost was "of the essence" in deciding whether to choose Northrop Grumman's tanker or Boeing's proposed aircraft. In fact, as anyone who reads the first page of the Request For Proposal (RFP) can see, the Air Force made clear that while cost was a factor, others, like aerial refueling capability, airlift capacity and past performance history were far more important.
Then, the editorial touts specious arguments made by analysts who have looked at the deal - particularly their claim that Northrop Grumman's plane is heavier and burns more fuel.
In fact, while both Northrop's KC-45 tanker and Boeing's proposed aircraft are classified as medium-sized tankers, the Air Force determined that Northrop Grumman's plane was more fuel efficient, using a common-sense, real-world evaluation: How much fuel does the airplane burn in completing aerial refueling - the most common and important part of the mission? By that standard, Northrop Grumman's aircraft was 6% more efficient than Boeing's.
In any event, the overall life-cycle costs of Northrop Grumman's plane and Boeing's proposed aircraft were about the same before the Air Force adjusted its math, and they're about the same now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Return to Aerospace Blog |
|
|
|Contact Us
|Advertiser Services
|Home Delivery
|Newsstand Locations
|Classifieds
|Feedback
|About the Company
|Work@the Herald
|Site Map