Talk:Northrop Grumman KC-45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] KC-X article text

Talk for KC-X (from KC-X article before a series for moves) was moved to KC-X. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KC-30 or KC-45?

What's it called now? KC-45 is in the title but the text refers to KC-30? 84.115.129.76 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note this was left on the Talk:KC- 45 page which was orphaned. Woody (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • KC-45 is offical US designation. This text was originally copied from the A330 MRTT article. Give it a little time to get everything corrected... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
KC-30 was just the project name (not a US military designation) used for the Northrop/Grumman/EADS submission. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Right. Australia is getting the KC-30B (A330 MRTT). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I chose Northrop Grumman KC-45 as the article name in accord with the WP:AIR naming conventions. Rightfully, I could have chosen Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45, but I felt adding "EADS" was unnecessary, and made the title too long. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor on this version, although EADS in the major partner. ALos, I chose "KC-45" rather than "KC-45A", as the naming conventions specify the simpliset name/designation, and becuase there may be "B" and "C" versions in the future. Generally, WP:AIR doesn't use the variant letter in the title unless the page is a variant article for a type with a main page, such as F/A-18 Hornet, and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The KC-10 Extender and C-17 Globemaster III have no variant letters beyond "A", but do not show the "A" in the Aritcle name.

As Northrop Grumman is a US contractor, and the USAF is, well, the USAF, this article should use US spelling conventions. This was one motivation for creating a separate article for the KC-45, rather than trying to keep in with the Airbus A330 MRTT, as that article uses British/Commonwealth spelling. The KC-45 will also be assembled/completed in the US (Mobile, AL), and have largely US systems, thus it will in many ways be a different aircraft than the A330 MRTT and KC-30B. THis also saves us from arguing over what a combined page should be named! - BillCJ (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with BillCJ all appears to be logically and within project precedents. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KC-45 -> KC-45A

I believe this articles title is not correct, as it should be KC-45A, KC-45 should redirect there, instead of the way it is now. There are sources in the article right now that provide a source for that. Whale plane (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-45 is correct. The current model is A, hence KC-45A, but as the aircraft evolves their will probably be newer models and the desiganator will change to KC-45B and so on. Aircraft articles are titled with the base level. See C-130 for an example. If you look down through you will see the various models of the C-130. There are redirects to the subsections of the main article for different models of the C-130, see C-130J. Jons63 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see now. Didn't take into account that there could be other versions based on this platform entering USAF duty in the coming years/decades. Whale plane (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More moves

The article was once again moved, this time backe to KC-45, per this diff. The edit summary stated: "Standardized with other US Military Aircraft." Very intersting comment, since I know of very few US military aircraft articles (actually, none come to mind) that are at the designation only.

For those who are unaware that naming conventions exist, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) state:

US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt. Where there is no name, or where the name is not in general use, use the manufacturer and number instead: Lockheed U-2, Convair B-36, General Dynamics F-111.

If you disagree with the conventions as applied here, then either propose a move to your preferred name to try to gain a consensus in support of your move, or try to get the conventions changed. Until then, it would be nise if the page would stop moing - I'm getting dizzy watching it! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Good thing I missed this move and move back. I'm still a little dizzy from all the KC-X article moves. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing's protest

Should that be in this article or the KC-X article, or both, or neither? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNgP.QG9oGPo&refer=home --RenniePet (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd put one referenced sentence here, and put a paragraph in the KC-X page. Btw, I hear the EADS protest is coming out tomorrow - they're upset Boeing came in second, and not third! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. (Like, more than usual.) This IS the KC-45 page. And your comment about EADS, is that for real or inside humor? --RenniePet (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
SOrry for the confusion - that's what I get for editing instead of sleeping. And yes, that was a joke, referring to the fact EADS generally protests every competition it loses, no matter what country the competition is in. So, even though they won, the joke is that they would protest anyway, as they're so used to protesting, it's become a habit. - BillCJ (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would place this information in the KC-X Page. That page is mainly about the proposal and bidding process. The KC-45 page is actually about the KC-45. You could mention a small paragraph on the KC-45 page. but the majority should be on the KC-X RC43 (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The appeal part here was just 2 sentences. I moved the 2nd sentence to the KC-X article so there's just 1 sentence here per your suggestions. Also, moved that after the award stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the protest belongs on the KC-X article. In the very unlikely event that the decision is overturned, then this article would go away and we will have a new "Boeing KC-45" article. --rogerd (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

its actually very likely that boeing will win its protest or congress will kill the deal by holding funding. a section should be dedicated to this process as in all likely hood the kc-45 will be boeing kc-767 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the Deal will be overturned. However congress will not just say you have to pick the Boeing KC-767. The Air Force will instead restart a RFP and have the bidding process all over again. If this happpens Boeing may submit the KC-777 as the Air Force said they wanted a larger tanker. In this case we may want to move our focus to the KC-777 page and forget the KC-767. Just a thought. (RC43 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
The statement already in this article that Boeing have protested is all that is required. Any facts (rather than speculation) should be in the KC-X program page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably an incremental update to the RFP like what was done on the CSAX helicopter program after the first protest. Anyway, this talk page is for improving this article, not a discussion forum... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what has been said is appropriate to the talk page, as it gives context to the discussion of what should go on the page. As to the KC-777, some of that, sourced of course, can go on the KC-X page. The KC-767 already exists, as Japan and Italy are both buying them, while there is no KC-777 being offered at this time. If Boeing submits the KC-777 at some point, then we can open a page on it at some point. Jeff and I had discussed this late year when Boeing was considering which aircraft to submit, possibly "parking" the KC-777 info on the KC-767 and Boeing 777 pages until enough info was released to justify a separate page (esp. specs). Also, McCain's name is coming up as a reason the USAF changed some things mid-stream, such as allowing more emphasis on a bigger aircraft. Be watchful for sources on that, as it could be influential in his presidential run. (Just an aside.) - BillCJ (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you BillCJ. I was just speculating about the future. I agree that for now we should leave the KC-777 information alone until we hear of any further devlopment in Boeing's protest and if there is a new FRP then we can see what Boeing is looking at to bid with. If they dump the Kc-767 for the KC-777 then we should pursue that. But I concur that we just let everything play out with the Protest to see what our next step should be. However the KC-X page should be updated regulary about any devlopment in the protest. This information is not too pertenent on the Northrop Grumman KC-45 page. (RC43 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
To speculate even more, the KC-X Tranche Two to may end up being "tailored" for a smaller plane like the KC-767. The original assumption was that Tranch 1 would be smaller, and the later tranches might be bigger to replace the KC-10s also. Now it could be the reverse, depending on the outcome of the protest. - BillCJ (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted in the article that Northrop Grumman has recieved a stop work notice since the contract is immedietly suspended upon a protest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • True, they did get a stop work, but it is not an automatic thing with a protest (might as well be though). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is an automatic thing

"The protest procedure requires the Air Force to issue an immediate stop-work order and discontinue communications with the Northrop/EADS team pending either the issuance of an Air Force waiver deeming the work essential to national security or a ruling from the GAO."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/HALT03128.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Like I stated it is not automatic, but almost is. The AF could do a waiver if the need is urgent.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah to STOP the order. It is still automatic and is ended in either the waiver or GAO ruling. And we know at this point their wouldnt be anyfunding for the project if the airforce tried to waive it. So at this point all work has been halted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's good point on the funding. Hadn't thought much about that angle. Hopefully the GAO will finish its work early... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


  • The USAF has a long history of punishing contractors who violate law in the process of obtaining a contract. If Boeing hadn't been found guilty of corruption they'd probably be building the tankers already (but thats POV like a lot of the above. The Boeing misdeeds led to the new bidding and the Air Force became intent on awarding the contract to someone else. The air force was very careful about being able to support their decision to award Northrop the contract. So lets stick to the facts. in the article and wait for developments to occur. There is a lot of propaganda from Boeing and some of it seems to be reflected here.

Saltysailor (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Much of the original Boeing lease deal was brokered by certian congresspersons and their spouses who worked as lobbyists for Boeing at the time. That goes unreported now because those members were not Republicans, but I clearly remember this from the time the deal was originally made. I'm not saying Boeing didn't violate the law, but there is plenty blame to be spread around. However, I can't see how it is legal to "punish" a contractor by allowing them to compete, setting the specifications so that the contractor selects a specific model, and then changing the specs midstream at the behest of a senator running for president who has a apparant dislike for Boeing, so that Boeing's choice is at a disadvantage. Two bad deals do not a good one make! I clearly remember the decision Boeing made between submitting the KC-767 and KC-777, as Jeff and I both worked on the KC-X article at the time the decision was being made. Regardless of their past actions, Boeing was led to believe that the USAF preferred a smaller plane more comparable to the KC-135, and that was why it submitted the KC-767. I believe Boeing has a case that changes were made mid-stream, which as I understand things is not exaclty legal either! Regardless, the GAO will make a rulling eventually, but with a new administration coming in next year, I doubt their ruling will be final, assuming they even decide this year. (It's been over a year and a have since the USAF selected the HH-47, but that deal is still undecided. And CSARX isn't even as important a program!) It appears we will have a Democrat-controlled Congress regardless of who wins the presidency, and they control the purse strings. As Boeing is an "American" company, the whole deal will make great fodder for the "buy American" crowd in the Democrat party in the Congressional elections, so I don't foresee a quick end to this, no matter the GAO decision. - BillCJ (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WOW, a little POV? I wasn't speaking to the Air Forces legal actions, just the historical pattern. To be legal the Air force could not exclude Boeing unless that was a specific punishment of the legal actions (contractors may e banned for a period of time for malfeasance and I became familiar with this when I was involved in buying equipment from a banned vendor for my company and had to be sure they didn't pull the same lies on us). Boeing did violate the law which led to rebidding the contract. The pattern of behaviour is that the USAF looked for a way for Northrop to win and found a way to make the results look better for Northrop. The USAF by providing notice has the right to change its mind about any specification or evaluation. USAF did this with the F22/F23 changing the evaluation criteria and extending deadlines in order to allow the F22 a chance to win. I am not going to complicate this mess with comments about national politics and what will happen during the next election, but it appears your POV is for Boeing and Democrats. I definitly have a POV, I worked with Sears and had immense respect for him, I have owned McDonald (now Boeing) stock since 1966, I am a Southern Californian, have worked for Northrop, My dad worked for Convair and US Navy China Lake.

Saltysailor (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong in your assesment of my biases, but we'll leave that be. I can find sources to back up my assertions on the original selection, but it's really beyond the scope of this article, so I don't see the point. As far as the politics, it's just trying to read the tea leaves, but politics always plays a part in deals this big, and it will have an effect. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats cancelled the order outright at some point, leaving the -135s to soldier on way past 80 years! Granted, this discussion has moved beyond the topic of improving the article, but I feel they can be useful in fleshing out background, and discussing how to handle certain contentious issues being covered. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Boeing and NG has both run ads since the protest. Just seems like a lot of talk until something is actually done (GAO decision). But please fix formatting/spelling and add a proper reference to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • While speculation is fun and maybe even useful in the Talk section, Lets keep the Article to the facts. At this point I invoke my own rule about stepping away for a while.

Saltysailor (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Contract Award History

We should add a section about the pre-award history, topics to include:

  1. age of kc-135
  2. insufficient number of KC-10 s
  3. Boeing's non-competitive contract that was revoked due to illegal practices by Boeing. Boeing had a l lock on the contract until it was discovered that Boeing was bribing the USAF procurement officer. Congressional hearings led to new bidding. Historically, when USAF a bid due to illegal contractor activities, that bider doesn't get the contract. It appears the USAF bent over backwards to get a competitive bid from Northrop.
  4. the new bidding process
  5. the award to Northrop
  6. Boeing's protest
  7. events not yet occurring until Boeing's protest resolved

I have a definite POV on this as a former Northrop employee and a McDonald stock holder since 1966. Saltysailor (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The first two points I think ahouldn't be included as they are information to the KC-135, not the KC-45A. I could see the use of a sentence saying something like "The KC-45 replaced the US Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s and KC-10." However I do believe something to this accord is already on the page. Your points of 2-7 we have already decided should go onto the KC-X page as they do not pertain to the KC-45 itself. That discussion is directly above this one. (RC43 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Concur. The KC-X article can cover most of the points mentioned, and probably already does. - BillCJ (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As indicated I have a Northrop POV, but the article reads like someone from Boeing wrote it. my points 1 & 2 are significant because these facts led to the Air Force wanting a new tanker. My point 3 is significant and not mentioned in the article or in the KC-X article. It is significant because Boeing lost its opportunity to build the tanker without competing for the bid by engaging in illegal procurement activities. Senator John McCain pushed the Air Force in putting the KC-X out to competitive bid, stating that he felt the US would get a better deal. The whole process of bribing an Air Force Procurement officer, her affair with a Boeing executive and the procurement violations are well documented. My point 4 is very significant because it led to the current bidding process and that process stacked the cards against Boeing. Northrop was shy to spend money on the bid because it didn't think that they could get a fair decision with Boeing bidding. Saltysailor (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The 2002 deal was the Airbus A330 MRTT vs. KC-767.[2] That's covered a little in the Airbus A330 MRTT article, but could fit in a background section here. I don't think that's really relevant to the KC-X competition and the KC-45 though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure that point 3 is directly related to the KC-45 more to do with the original KC-767 competion and the reason for the KC-X competition and should be in those articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo?

I noticed that someone has requested a photo. Until I saw that I thought we has a "artists impression" of the KC-45. What happened to the picture? That was a very good photo if you ask me. We should definately get one back on. (RC43 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC))


[edit] Northrop Grumman vs Northrop Grumman/ EADS

As I indicated, designation is to the prime contractor only. Northrop Grumman is the Prime. Most of the air frame of the F/A-18 Hornet is made by Northrop, but the designation was McDonald-Douglas because they were the prime contractor. Saltysailor (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • That's not true about the F/A-18. MD and Northrop had a 60%/40% split with the 20% difference due to final assembly and integration. They did an equal share of the structure, iow. Nothing wrong with EADS being list in the Lead here. It's similar the F-22 where Lockheed and Boeing are team members. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Fnl. In this case, EADS/Airbus are doing all the construction, and final assembly is in the EADS North America facility in Mobile, where the A330 freighters may be assembled too. THe KC-45s are then to be sent to an adjacent NG facility for completion as tankers. However, as long as EADS/Airbus are listed in the manf. field in the Infobox, this isn't a major deal; I just wanted a discussion to occur first. The reason I didn't include EADS in the actual article title, per my note above: "Rightfully, I could have chosen Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45, but I felt adding "EADS" was unnecessary, and made the title too long. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor on this version, although EADS in the major partner." We could move this to Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 to match the Lead title if we think it's necessary; Northrop Grumman KC-45 would be a redirect. - BillCJ (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the title should reflect the Air Force's contract wording. The info box rightfully includes EADS. It is made very clear that the aircraft is based on the EADS airframe. Another example of this is JSTARS which is built on a Boeing airframe, which I now see also is listed with both the airframe and the Prime contractor. At this point I think we need to agree on guidelines for which name is applied. My proposal is that the lead only show the prime contractor. The info box should name the airframe manufacturer. The KC-45 case is stronger for including EADS than JSTARS including Boeing as Grumman took existing aircraft and modified them. This was also the case when Grumman tore the wings off an F-5 and produced x-29 forward swept wing aircraft. Saltysailor (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, "Grumman tore the wings off an F-5"?? That's hardly an accurate statement. All the sources I've seen state that only the cockpit/nose section of the fuselage is from the F-5 - most of the fuselage was new, while the landing gear is from an F-16 (IIRC). Not really relevant here anyway, but I couldn't let that one go. As to the rest of your point, the WP:AIR/PC guidelines don't limit what we can or can put in the Lead sentence, and leave it open to interpretation. To this point, we've included major partners in the Lead line, whether they're in the Lead or not. If you want to tighten the standards so the lead only shows the prime contractor, then you should tak this up at WP:AIR. Also, do you have a link to the USAF's contract? I haven't seen it myself to know what the wording in the contract actually is. - BillCJ (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)