Talk:EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45

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)

Boeing won the protest. So to put it simply, there is no kc-45. Probly best to delete this article and continue on the kc-x one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at this time. If the KC-30 is reselected, this article does not need to be deleted or changed much even. Things don't have to be done today. Give it some time to work out. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of the GAO ruling, I would suggest that we re-work the "into production" section and the introduction and probably put a small comment regarding possible suspension of the project. MichaelBlankley (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Before we do anything radical, we should wait for the USAF Response. Secretary of Defense spoke other day on the topic, but did not indicate which way they would go. The USAF does not have to abide by GAO suggestions, but needs to come up with a story. Saltysailor (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. This is a highly unusual situtation for WP, and I don't think we have any precedent for how to handle it in case the competition is re-bid. As such, we might want to ask for a broader consensus from the regular aircraft airticle editors at WT:AIR, if the contest is re-bid. Personally, I'd keep this article in place unless Boeing is awarded the bid. With a new administration coming in next year, and each camp seeming to favor differnt bids, it is anyone's guess what will happen. - BillCJ (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Even if the contract is rebid and Boeing wins this article would be appropriate as a historical (or is it hysterical) note on the USAF's quest for a new tanker.Saltysailor (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Contract and rebidding

Tanker deal is dead, as of right now the KC-45 is not an airbus plane, this article needs to be redone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the tanker deal dead I dont think the USAF have replied yet, we dont know if an alternate aircraft is bought it will use the KC-45 designation. As above we will just wait this is not a news service just an encyclopedia - plenty of time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

They replied yesterday and the airforce has already stated that regardless of the tanker chosen it will be the kc-45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I have now seen the press release - no mention of the term KC-45 in the press release. And its only a stop work order on the contract not a cancellation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you havent stayed in touch with this issue, the airforce announced a while ago that kc-45 designation was to be used and a rebid means that the last contract was scrapped. Why dont you go to google news and read a few articles instead of just being clueless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the IP user reads WP:CIVIL. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And the DOD press releases, which don't support his claims. If he has actually read what he puts forth, some direct links to those sources would be useful. - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-45.htm

The Air Force intended to designate its next aerial refueling aircraft the KC-45, regardless of whether Boeing’s KC-767 or Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 wins the KC-X tanker replacement contest. The Air Force approved the designation on 14 November 2006, based on an Air Mobility Command recommendation.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/business-news/business-news/2008/07/10/18bn-aibus-deal-with-us-air-force-scrapped-55578-21317866/

The company won the contract four months ago but now the Pentagon has scrapped the deal after lobbying by US politicians who want the work awarded to rival US aircraft manufacturer Boeing and claims that the original tendering process was flawed.

reopening the bid means that the previous agreement is void —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Designations aren't assigned as part of the contracts, but by an office within the USAF. The designation was officially assigned, but I have seen been no official reports that it has been revoked. Have you? - BillCJ (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

its pretty simple, the designation was chosen BEFORE any choice was made, the next tanker of the usaf will be the kc-45 regardless of who builds it pretty simple. its the ORDER od 179 tankers from NG/EADS thats been revoked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the contract has not been revoked, a stop work order is not a cancellation just a hold on non essential activities. The KC-45 was allocated to the winner of the contract which was the A330 a new request for proposals will be released this will be a different competion from the KC-X not a restart. All in the DoD press releases. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has been revoked, and read the kc-x article about the name kc-45. seriously get a clue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what it says in the KC-X article about the designation - I probably wrote it! As we've said, the contest was won by NG 4 months ago, and the designation was assigned to the "KC_30" at that time. You are making an assumption that is has been revoked. Nowhere has it been reported officially that it's now been revoked. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• ^What he said. They DoD and AF has more important things to worry about than what the designation might be at this point. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

wow learn to read, the CONTRACT HAS BEEN REVOKED, the designation stands but right now the plane that will be the kc-45 remains UNDECIDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.254.33 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Expidited rebid. Hopefully a decision will come out that will be built. Untill then the articl shood stand. Saltysailor (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Expedited means no earlier than December... AFTER the election if nobody noticed. The top Dogs in the Air Force got fired, IMHO, because they chose a FRENCH airplane. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've been noticing the elections all along, as noted in my posts in other sections. Being purely cynically political: Obama wins, it's Boeing; McCain wins, its NG/Airbus, thought the likely Democrat Congress may overide that. Otherwise, the new admin/congress will propably make their own choice after January. And seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if the winner lets the DOD know they should wait until after January to announce a decision. - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

DOD Canncelation

The kc-x program was just cancled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.254.33 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

according to LA Times, General Arthur Lichte said " I don't care which tanker wins, I just need a new tanker". Looks like our government has failed us again. Saltysailor (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a unfortunate by-product of a civilian-led military. It's probably better than the alternative - a military-led one - if a lot less efficient, in the long run. - BillCJ (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Something is different from when the US built the Atlas Missile or first attack chopper. Saltysailor (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

• So the USAF must be very frustrated in its quest to get new tankers. Is there anything on the problems with not getting a replacement as planned? Saltysailor (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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))

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 McDonell-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)

Actually, if you look (it even says it in the Wikipedia article on the X-29) both aircraft were built up from existing F-5A airframes (ser #s 63-8372 and 65-10573 to be specific). And the F-5A airframe was chosen OVER a competing design utilizing an F-16 airframe. So Saltysailor's statement WAS an accurate statement. And I don't see any difference between this situation and the Martin B-57 Canberra. The early models were just license-built English Electric Canberras, but they were built in the US by Martin, so they were "Martin" Canberras.SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe, maybe not. The description in the X-29 article only says the X-29s were adapted from two F-5 airframes. That could be some or most of the F-5 airframe besides the wings. Time to move on.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Tore the wings off an F-5" is not an accurate statement by any means. Most of the fuselage was new, except for the nose cockpit of the F-5. I stand by my explanation above. I've been trying to correct the X-29 article for a long time, but such errors, based on shoddy internet sources, keep creeping back in. Don't trust everything you read in Wikipidia! ;)

As for the Martin B-57, Martin did the assembly, not English Electric in a plant which they owned/operated. EADS is building the KC-45s themselves, potentially alongside civil A330 freighters, while NG is only finishing them out as tankers in an adjacent facility. Big difference. - BillCJ (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, just thought the X-29 stuff should go at Talk:Grumman X-29. From the X-29 NASA fact sheet, it looks like the aft fuselage has to be different to mount the wings further aft. I'll check my books for X-29 info tonight. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• ...and with the new propsoal by EADS only but using the same aircraft...should the name be changed now? Hmm. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Probably ought to be moved to EADS KC-45, but it might not hurt to wait until they actually sumbit the proposal to see what they actually submit, and if they call it something different. But I'd not contest a move before that, if several other editors support it, since it is really a subjective decision. And although EADS North America appears to be the actual prime contractor for the bid, and will do the final assembly, I see no problem just using "EADS" in the title. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative language

Since there is a 'do-over' in the works, is there any reason to keep all of the 'will' language in the article? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly the do-over is still unknown. The Air Force is to reply to the GAO's decision by mid-August (60 days) with a proposed plan.[3] If you see something that is clearly obsolete, remove it or discuss it here. That's what I think anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another move

Thanks to the Pentagon, this page might have to be moved in the future if the Boeing 767 is chosen. As of right now though, it will probably have to be moved as their is technically no winner for the design contest, thanks again to the Pentagon. I support a move, my only problem being that there is no real name that I can think of right now that this could be moved to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Milb1 and I have both discussed this above, so I won't reiterate those points, which are that it is better to just let this remain as-is for now. Also, to my knowledge, the USAF has not retracted the designation. NG may win agian, the order may be split, or Boeing might be assigned (or request) a new number. However, if Boeing does win as the KC-45, then the best thing to me is to merge this info back into the Airbus A330 MRTT page. Some info is alreday there, and that section can be expanded. On a technical note, if Boeing does win as the KC-45, I would convert this page to a redirect, and start a new page for the Boeing KC-45, thus leaving the full history of the NG KC-45 in a place where it can be revived and renamed in the future, if needed. - BillCJ (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to be hasty. The article makes it clear what the current status is. --rogerd (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If the NG KC-45 doesn't get built, then most of the article could go into the KC-X article as a discussion of the process that led to whatever gets built. In that case, the article for the built aircraft should have links to the KC-X article. Every time I read the news it gets more complicated. Is this confusing enough? Saltysailor (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article will not be 'whole' for a while. I don't think constantly tweaking this particular article is in the best interest of clarity. Most of the content here rightfully belongs in the KC-X article with a short summation of the KC-X fiasco, uh, I mean acquisition program here on this page and on the KC-767 page. That's the end state I would prefer. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Background and other content split out at United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that still bothers me. I think that said content should fall under the KC-767 or KC-X. I don't think that it needs its own article. The long title says it all, if you have to have that long of a title, you probably don't need the article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing work on KC-45

Read that Northrop finished flight testing the new advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS). Should we include items like this in the article. I think the most interesting thing about the ARBS is that Northrop is spending the money to continue, even though they may not get the contract. Saltysailor (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The pictures Northrop supplied show an EADS logo on the tankers tail. [4] Saltysailor (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From [[http://www.irconnect.com/noc/pages/news_printer.html?d=132760&print=1 this release in Dec. 07: The Advanced Refueling Boom System (ARBS) being developed for several A330-based tanker customers performs initial in-flight dry contacts Dec. 5, 2007. Northrop Grumman's KC-30 Tanker will directly benefit from ongoing development and flight testing of the ARBS. So even though the KC-45 would be the most lucrative contract, it's not the only possible sale. RAAF KC-30Bs will have a boom, and it is probably this one (though I'm not certain). - BillCJ (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• The boom testing should be added/expanded in Airbus A310 MRTT also since that was the main platform involved.[5] -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name 2010

If Grumman has withdrawn from the competition and EADS is pushing ahead on it own surely the name should now be changed to EADS KC-45 92.40.116.218 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"KC-45" is not EADS's. It is the US DoD designation given to the NG/EADS tanker selected in 2008. "EADS KC-30" would be a more fitting name if this article is renamed. -fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think EADS refers to it as the KC-45 in its releases, and that's the designation used in most aviation online media. I'd support Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 for the time beign, as NG was involved in the previous winning submission, and the article covers both submissions. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45" seems fair and workable to me. -fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What about EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 as an alternative? It puts the current contractor first, and EADS makes the aircraft anyway. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does not seem that matter much which order is used. -fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Article name 2014

What's going on here? The page title should be EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45, as EADS was the name of the company at the time. Using Airbus Group is anachronistic. At the moment, the talk page is at Talk:Airbus Group/Northrop Grumman KC-45, while the article is at EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. I think it was an accidental move the first time. - BilCat (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091128030203/http://www.as.northropgrumman.com:80/products/kc45tanker/assets/KC30_QuadFold.pdf to http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/kc45tanker/assets/KC30_QuadFold.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091212142741/http://www.northropgrumman.com:80/kc45/performance/specifications.html to http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/specifications.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080129121235/http://www.is.northropgrumman.com:80/systems/kc30tanker.html to http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/systems/kc30tanker.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked the links and they're working.Scotteaton92 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114184441/http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335 to http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Checked the link and it's working.Scotteaton92 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)