Tanker Truths

22 May 2008
Boeing Runs More Misguided Washington Post Ads
Boeing is once again misstating the facts about the clear superiority of the Northrop Grumman KC-45, using a full-page ad in today's Washington Post to try to obscure the fact that the Air Force found Northrop Grumman's bid superior to Boeing's in 4 out of 5 major selection criteria.

In its ad, Boeing again falsely suggests that it was superior to Northrop Grumman in Total Mission Capability, based on the number of "discriminators" the Air Force used to evaluate the bids as opposed to the Air Force's actual evaluation of mission capability. In fact, an Air Force document that was provided to both companies makes clear that more than 800 discriminators were evaluated, and that most of Boeing's positive "discriminators" were in less important areas as determined by the Air Force. Better seats versus greater offload at range? Better lighting versus more airlift efficiency? Better display symbology versus better fuel efficiency? The fact is, in the two categories most critical to the Air Force's decision - refueling and airlift - Northrop Grumman beat Boeing by a margin of more than 2 to 1. The Air Force concluded that the Northrop Grumman tanker was in fact superior in mission capability.

Boeing claims that the Northrop Grumman team's boom - the fuel-transfer device - is deficient. In fact, the Northrop Grumman team has built, flown and tested its boom, refueling an F-16. Interestingly, that first fuel transfer test took place on February 29, the day Northrop Grumman won the contract. While Boeing has yet built previous generations of booms, it has not built, flown or tested the boom proposed for the KC-767.

In the area of survivability, the KC-45 satisfied the survivability requirements and had no assessed weaknesses. The KC-45 offered additional discriminators not provided by the Boeing aircraft and significant additional growth potential.

With respect to Boeing's claims about cargo, the KC-45 can carry more pallets, passengers, and patients than the KC-767. Boeing specifically claims that it is more efficient in cargo capacity, but the Air Force disagreed. The Air Force provided a formula in the RFP to calculate airlift efficiency (one which Boeing chooses not to use) -- and rated the KC-45 higher than the KC-767. The Air Force noted that higher efficiency means that Northrop Grumman's offering "can lift more cargo further than the KC-767." Moreover, the KC-45 offers a dual deck configuration, enabling troops to be carried on the upper deck while transporting their equipment on the lower deck. The Air Force found this a significant advantage.

Finally, Boeing argues that it is superior in Aeromedical Evacuation, but neglects to mention that the Air Force concluded that the KC-45 "provides more aeromedical evacuation capability."

The Air Force will operate and fly the new tanker and is a far more objective evaluator of the two aircraft than the Boeing Company. The bottom line, who are you going to believe - the United States Air Force or Boeing?

< Back to index