“Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program,” Northrop president Wes Bush said in a late afternoon statement. “We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the [request for proposals], which clearly favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity.”

Key Northrop backer Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., quickly slammed the Air Force for its cost-focused request for proposals.

“The Air Force had a chance to deliver the most capable tanker possible to our war fighters and blew it,” the senator said in his own late-afternoon statement. “This so-called competition was not structured to produce the best outcome for our men and women in uniform; it was structured to produce the best outcome for Boeing.”

EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby echoed these statements.

“The source selection methodology clearly signals a preference for a smaller aircraft,” Crosby said.

He said the RfP “ignores the added combat capability that could be provided to our military and, for the first time, ensures that our allies will operate with superior capability in this vital mission area.”

Crosby was referring to several U.S. allies that are flying variants of the A330-based tanker.

Northrop’s move comes after months of wrangling between the defense giant and the Pentagon over the structure of the KC-X RfPs that the Defense Department unveiled last fall.

In a Dec. 1 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Bush threatened to drop out of the competition unless the final RfP was considerably changed.

Bush argued that the cost-focused RfP did not give enough credit for the better performance of the newer, larger Airbus A330-based bid over the smaller, cheaper 767-based jet.

The final RfP, released two weeks ago, was little changed from the draft.

Shelby said, “The Air Force’s refusal to make substantive changes to level the playing field shows that once again, politics trumps the needs of our military.”

No protest

Bush said the company will not protest the Pentagon’s decision.

“We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest,” he said in his statement. “While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a [Government Accountability Office] or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America’s service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers.”

Bush took a parting shot at Boeing, which is almost guaranteed to be the sole bidder in the contest.

The Air Force should pay “much less” per airplane than the roughly $184 million apiece it would pay for the first 68 Northrop jets in the 2008 offer.

“We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement contract,” his statement said. “With the Department’s decision to procure a much smaller, less-capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less.”

Northrop’s jet won the 2008 round of the KC-X competition. That victory was dashed, however, when Boeing filed a GAO-sustained protest arguing that the service wasn’t clear enough about what it wanted from the two jets in that round of competition.

Air Force officials did not respond to request for comment at press time.

“Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program,” Northrop president Wes Bush said in a late afternoon statement. “We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the [request for proposals], which clearly favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity.”

Key Northrop backer Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., quickly slammed the Air Force for its cost-focused request for proposals.

“The Air Force had a chance to deliver the most capable tanker possible to our war fighters and blew it,” the senator said in his own late-afternoon statement. “This so-called competition was not structured to produce the best outcome for our men and women in uniform; it was structured to produce the best outcome for Boeing.”

EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby echoed these statements.

“The source selection methodology clearly signals a preference for a smaller aircraft,” Crosby said.

He said the RfP “ignores the added combat capability that could be provided to our military and, for the first time, ensures that our allies will operate with superior capability in this vital mission area.”

Crosby was referring to several U.S. allies that are flying variants of the A330-based tanker.

Northrop’s move comes after months of wrangling between the defense giant and the Pentagon over the structure of the KC-X RfPs that the Defense Department unveiled last fall.

In a Dec. 1 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Bush threatened to drop out of the competition unless the final RfP was considerably changed.

Bush argued that the cost-focused RfP did not give enough credit for the better performance of the newer, larger Airbus A330-based bid over the smaller, cheaper 767-based jet.

The final RfP, released two weeks ago, was little changed from the draft.

Shelby said, “The Air Force’s refusal to make substantive changes to level the playing field shows that once again, politics trumps the needs of our military.”

No protest

Bush said the company will not protest the Pentagon’s decision.

“We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest,” he said in his statement. “While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a [Government Accountability Office] or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America’s service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers.”

Bush took a parting shot at Boeing, which is almost guaranteed to be the sole bidder in the contest.

The Air Force should pay “much less” per airplane than the roughly $184 million apiece it would pay for the first 68 Northrop jets in the 2008 offer.

“We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement contract,” his statement said. “With the Department’s decision to procure a much smaller, less-capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less.”

Northrop’s jet won the 2008 round of the KC-X competition. That victory was dashed, however, when Boeing filed a GAO-sustained protest arguing that the service wasn’t clear enough about what it wanted from the two jets in that round of competition.

Air Force officials did not respond to request for comment at press time.

Air Force civilians applying for jobs at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas; Osan Air Base, South Korea; or any of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe bases will apply for vacancies through USAJOBS instead of the Air Force Civilian Employment Self-Nomination Application found on the Air Force Personnel Center’s secure Web site.
more…

The Military Sealift Command hospital ship Comfort had discharged its last patient. The Seabees, Navy divers and Army engineers charged with reopening the wrecked port were making their final repairs. While the dock landing ship Carter Hall was ordered home to Norfolk, Va., on March 1, the other ships of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and the troops of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, which spent a month delivering food and supplies, were on station awaiting orders back to the U.S.

Still, as Navy Secretary Ray Mabus used a visit March 1 to praise sailors and Marines for what he called an “astounding” performance, commanders and nongovernmental organizations agreed there was much more to be done.

“NGOs have to have a buy-in to stay here not for weeks or months, but years,” said Col. Gareth Brandl, commander of 22nd MEU, stationed in the district of Carrefour, south of the capital.

For example, Wally Amudson, director of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, said aid groups somehow would have to help relocate about 70,000 displaced Haitians now living in temporary tent cities. One problem is that 80 percent of Haitians in Port-au-Prince were renters, officials said, so they have little power to clear away wreckage and rebuild their former homes.

———

Read the full story in Navy Times on newsstands Monday and online for subscribers at NavyTimes.com.

Now, compare the Air Force physical training test to the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test: Sprint 880 yards, a half-mile. Lift a 30-pound ammo can from your chest over your head as many times as you can in two minutes. And, finally, navigate a 300-yard obstacle course that includes crawling, carrying a “casualty” and throwing a grenade.

All done decked out in your utility uniform and boots.

For seven airmen at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., who took the CFT at the invitation of the leathernecks assigned with them to the 33rd Fighter Wing, there is no comparison to the Air Force’s PT test. The CFT is no walk in the park, but it can be done, the airmen say. They passed, after all.

“I could barely feel my legs when I was done,” said Staff Sgt. Simon Delacruz, assigned to the 96th Security Forces Squadron. “The cans are the killers.”

The airmen’s respectable performance is encouraging a small but growing movement inside the Air Force that wants the service to institute its own CFT.

Perhaps the most vocal advocates are airmen who have served on the battlefield, such as joint terminal attack controllers. Their calls haven’t gone unheard — three airmen have developed CFT programs on their own, and the Air Force exercise physiologist responsible for the new PT scoring standards that go into effect July 1 is looking at how the service could incorporate a combat fitness element.

Even airmen who aren’t wild about a CFT are embracing the training. Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., just opened its fourth center for CrossFit, a strength and conditioning methodology used widely by other services and law enforcement agencies. At least seven other bases are also offering CrossFit classes.

Semper Fi fit

The Marines unveiled their CFT nearly 18 months ago on orders from the commandant himself. Gen. James Conway gave the directive after hearing from deployed Marines about the need for a different measure of fitness.

Today, Marines must take two tests — the CFT once a year and the PT test twice a year. On Jan. 1, airmen began taking their PT test twice a year as well as having the test administered by civilian fitness experts.

Air Force officials expect to see the PT failure rate jump from about 2 percent servicewide to 15 percent or even higher when test scorers begin using the tougher standards and minimum scores. About 10 percent of Marines failed the CFT during the phase-in period, which ended last March. So far, according to Corps officials, only 5 percent of Marines have achieved the perfect score — 300 points.

The Air Force is closely monitoring the Marines’ performance while it continues its research. Exercise physiologist Neil Baumgartner, who overhauled the Air Force’s PT test in 2004 and in 2009, wants to customize the CFT for various career fields. For example, a pilot and a personnelist would take different versions of the test.

“Doing that takes time,” Baumgartner said. “Right now the idea is still conceptual. It’s not set in stone.” He added that the earliest that airmen could see a CFT is three to five years.

The airmen at Eglin impressed the Marines with their dry run.

“They did very well,” said Marine Sgt. Maj. Bonnie Skinner with Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, who proposed the joint effort. “If the Air Force [had the test], seeing at least the airmen that joined with us, I don’t see them having a problem whatsoever.”

Marines — for the most part — like the CFT because it adds variety to their fitness program and helps prepare them for deployments, Skinner said.

“You are going to do a lot more things in a combat situation that are a lot closer to the Combat Fitness Test than what you are going to do for the normal PT test,” she said. “It’s positive reinforcement.”

A tug of war

The momentum for the Air Force to add a combat fitness test has come mostly from airmen returning from deployments.

“Being an old Desert Storm airman and being on five deployments — three to Saudi Arabia and two to Iraq — not once did a situation come up where you had to run a mile and a half. And no one could care less if you had a 32-inch waist,” Tech. Sgt. James Geiss wrote in an e-mail to Air Force Times, referring to the run and waist measurement components of the current PT test.

“When those rocket/mortar attacks hit the base, what mattered was that you get your butt to safety,” wrote Geiss, who is assigned to McChord Air Force Base, Wash.

Staff Sgt. Jermain Morrow prepares security forces airmen for deployment as an instructor with the 96th Ground Combat Training Squadron at Eglin and wants to see the Air Force adopt a CFT.

“It shows you what type of condition you are in to head overseas,” Morrow said.

Like Morrow, Master Sgt. Jerry Wright with the 96th Logistical Readiness Squadron took the test and thinks airmen would benefit from taking it. He knows, however, that not everyone would give the CFT a thumbs-up.

“You have a pretty big divide between the administrative Air Force and the flight line,” Wright said. “The administrative side isn’t going to be so receptive. The flight-line side that deploys where you have to take cover or you are getting shelled will like it.”

Master Sgt. Kevin Palumbo, with the 28th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., is a CFT detractor.

“It burns me that people who can shut down and go to the gym three times a week are the ones saying it would be great to do more testing,” Palumba said. “I wish to God I had the people and skill levels to support having an eight- to nine-hour workday and being able to include going to the gym during that period.”

For Maj. Shannon Smith, the discussion shouldn’t be an either/or debate about the CFT and the PT test.

“I agree combat fitness is important. However, it is not the only reason we should take a periodic fitness test,” said Smith, commander of the 790th Missile Security Forces Squadron at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo.

“First, our health care is paid for by American taxpayers, not just during our time on active duty, but for many years beyond our time in uniform. … If we make a concerted effort to eat right and remain physically fit while serving in uniform, the less problems we’ll have in the future, thus becoming good stewards of our tax dollars. Second, it is our duty and responsibility to present and maintain a professional military image to those same taxpayers.”

A trio of studies

Three airmen did their own research on combat fitness.

Capt. Thomas Worden started thinking about combat readiness on a yearlong deployment in Afghanistan. Too many times, Worden said, he found many airmen who could not even run for cover and he wondered whether the Air Force’s fitness test was part of the reason.

When Worden returned in April 2007, the civil engineer went off to the Air Force Institute of Technology, the service’s graduate school of engineering and management, where he set out to come up with a test to accurately measure an airman’s combat fitness.

Worden’s discovery: the half-mile run, 30-pound dumbbell lift and push-ups do the best job of determining an airman’s combat fitness.

Though Worden believes more research is needed, he also is convinced the Air Force — like the Marine Corps — must include combat fitness in its fitness program.

The PT test “is good at measuring general health and if an airman is going to rack up medical bills in the future,” he said. “But it’s not very good at measuring if you will be good at combat.”

In his “USAF Concept for Functional Fitness,” F-22 pilot and certified personal trainer Maj. Jeremy Gordon outlines a six-event CFT: an 800-meter run, a 50-repetition press of a 30-pound object, a 400-meter run, a 50-pound object carried 100 feet, 50 full sit-ups and five pull-ups.

Airmen’s scores would be scaled for age and gender and be based on how fast they could complete the course.

Gordon concedes his test would be “significantly more challenging” than the PT test but would force airmen to focus on “stamina, flexibility, strength, power, speed, coordination, balance, accuracy and agility.”

The PT test, according to Gordon, focuses too much on both the waist measurement and the 1.5-mile run, and neglects “total fitness.” It doesn’t prepare airmen for combat or their day-to-day jobs, he said.

“Rarely does an airman’s job call for long-duration exertions [like a 1.5-mile run] without any weight or external objects to move,” the report states.

An Air Force doctor has also weighed in with a fitness program, although he doesn’t call it combat fitness.

Lt. Col. Daniel Kulund, chief of the medical staff at the 319th Medical Group at Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D., has designed the Virtual Military Obstacle Course. Airmen do the circuit-training program with a 10-pound plastic pipe — called a “fighting stick” — meant to simulate the size, weight and balance of an M16.

Kulund came up with the idea after observing how military obstacle courses require “maximum effort, and oftentimes an awkward position, so you could get hurt,” he said. “It’s really not a practical way of regular physical training.”

Kulund, who at 68 is the service’s oldest active-duty airman, has lobbied Air Force leaders to adopt his program servicewide. Former Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper showed interest; the chiefs of staff since Jumper have been less enthusiastic.

Like Gordon, Kulund thinks the Air Force should place a higher priority on total fitness and preparing airmen for the physical challenges of both their jobs and deployments.

“Air Force physical training is like the cross-country team with some push-ups and sit-ups put in,” he said.

Related reading

— At Luke, it’s gospel to preach combat fitness

Mandated by Congress, the “Aircraft Investment Plan” maps out how many planes the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy plan to buy through 2020 and sets goals for 2021-2040. It does not include helicopters.

The report calls for a joint approach to long-range strike and electronic warfare but does not drastically alter the Air Force’s announced plans for its two main acquisitions this decade — the F-35 Lightning II and KC-X tanker

By aircraft, what the report foresees for the Air Force:

Combat

— Bomber: The Air Force could spend $2 billion to $4 billion a year to develop a new long-range strike aircraft by 2020.

Whether the plane will have a pilot onboard or will fly at supersonic speeds is undecided. The report says: “A study is underway to identify the right mix of manned and unmanned technologies … and to determine the right balance between range, payload, speed, stealth, and onboard sensors.”

Until the new bomber arrives, the Air Force will keep about 160 B-52 Stratofortresses, B-1B Lancers and B-2 Spirit bombers.

— F-22 Raptor: The service will spend $1.9 billion to upgrade its 180 fighter jets with improved communications and avionics gear. Retirement of the Raptors could begin in 2025.

— F-35: The Air Force is in line to buy 602 F-35s through 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion. Two-thirds arrive in 2016 or later. The Air Force fleet will eventually total 1,763 jets.

— MQ-9 Reapers: Forecasts call for the service to buy 372 of the attack and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles from 2011 through 2018. The price tag: about $820 million. Later models will have an electronic warfare capability.

— RQ-4 Global Hawks: Four to five remote-controlled jets will arrive each year through 2017. There is no projection for later years.

The report did not offer an overall cost for the RQ-4s; for 2011, the Air Force wants $737 million for four Global Hawks, their payloads and logistics support.

Mobility

— KC-X: The service is set to spend about $30 billion through 2020 to develop and buy 109 new tankers.

— Intra-theater airlift: The Air Force should continue to buy C-130J Hercules to replace older C-130 E and H models. The study projects buying 63 C-130Js through 2020 for about $6 billion.

— Strategic airlift: The service wants to maintain an fleet of 314 large cargo planes, a mix of 223 C-17s and 91 C-5s. The report recommends the Air Force begin development of a new cargo jet starting in 2015.

Mandated by Congress, the “Aircraft Investment Plan” maps out how many planes the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy plan to buy through 2020 and sets goals for 2021-2040. It does not include helicopters.

The report calls for a joint approach to long-range strike and electronic warfare but does not drastically alter the Air Force’s announced plans for its two main acquisitions this decade — the F-35 Lightning II and KC-X tanker

By aircraft, what the report foresees for the Air Force:

Combat

— Bomber: The Air Force could spend $2 billion to $4 billion a year to develop a new long-range strike aircraft by 2020.

Whether the plane will have a pilot onboard or will fly at supersonic speeds is undecided. The report says: “A study is underway to identify the right mix of manned and unmanned technologies … and to determine the right balance between range, payload, speed, stealth, and onboard sensors.”

Until the new bomber arrives, the Air Force will keep about 160 B-52 Stratofortresses, B-1B Lancers and B-2 Spirit bombers.

— F-22 Raptor: The service will spend $1.9 billion to upgrade its 180 fighter jets with improved communications and avionics gear. Retirement of the Raptors could begin in 2025.

— F-35: The Air Force is in line to buy 602 F-35s through 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion. Two-thirds arrive in 2016 or later. The Air Force fleet will eventually total 1,763 jets.

— MQ-9 Reapers: Forecasts call for the service to buy 372 of the attack and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles from 2011 through 2018. The price tag: about $820 million. Later models will have an electronic warfare capability.

— RQ-4 Global Hawks: Four to five remote-controlled jets will arrive each year through 2017. There is no projection for later years.

The report did not offer an overall cost for the RQ-4s; for 2011, the Air Force wants $737 million for four Global Hawks, their payloads and logistics support.

Mobility

— KC-X: The service is set to spend about $30 billion through 2020 to develop and buy 109 new tankers.

— Intra-theater airlift: The Air Force should continue to buy C-130J Hercules to replace older C-130 E and H models. The study projects buying 63 C-130Js through 2020 for about $6 billion.

— Strategic airlift: The service wants to maintain an fleet of 314 large cargo planes, a mix of 223 C-17s and 91 C-5s. The report recommends the Air Force begin development of a new cargo jet starting in 2015.