See post #12. You’re buying into a whole lot of hype.
I suggest that you learn more about a bidding process and the rules — you’ll find that Boeing is blowing smoke on at least half of what they are spinning. Both contractors work off the same RFP and are subject to the same evaluation factors. No changes take place during the process without applying to both contractors. Your allegations are hyperbolic.
And one more thing — EADS DID NOT WIN AN AF CONTRACT, Northrop Grumman did. EADS is no different than the multitude of other foreign suppliers that have teamed with U.S. defense suppliers to bid on contracts for decades. Rolls Royce engines come to mind.
In the 1980s, the U.S. Government promoted international offset arrangements on foreign sales of major weapon systems in an effort to reduce the per unit cost of products the USG was buying and to help lesser-developed countries establish their industrial base. That policy has continued to this day. Right or wrong, this tanker contract is not the only weapon system reliant on foreign parts.
I suppose, to be fair, the same may be said of you.
>>. . .you’ll find that Boeing is blowing smoke on at least half of what they are spinning.<<
Really, exactly what facts are smoke?
>>Both contractors work off the same RFP and are subject to the same evaluation factors.<<
Yes, you are right on that.
>>No changes take place during the process without applying to both contractors.<<
Correct again, but that doesn't dispute the fact that after RFP release, changes were made that favored EADS/NG to ensure they had a “competitive” bid.
Basic facts do apply:
—RFP adjusted to allow EADS/NG to bid competitively
—Evaluation model used by Air Force was NG model, and by their own admission, NG states it is manpower intensive (in other words, need lots of manual data manipulation and a knowledge of the inner workings. And, of course, they know the codes and the workings. . .but hey, they wouldn't manipulate data, would they). . .right?
—Boeing bid met or exceeded all KC-767 requirements
—KC-30 bid is 53% larger than Boeing KC-767, and therefore, this larger size restricts where the KC-30 may deploy, whereas the Boeing jet ensures basing capabilities that the EADS/NG jet does not.
—Boeing KC-767 delivers more gas and is more efficient
—KC-767 has triple-seven flight deck, a 6th generation boom, excellent avionics, among other upgrades
—The 767 is lower risk because it has been built before, and Boeing has a history of building tankers, whereas EADS/NG has not.
Other facts are relevant:
—The cost of the Boeing tanker is re-couped from fuel savings
—Over the lifetime of the jet, a $4B savings is gained through less maintenance demands when compared to KC-30.
—Cost and fuel savings of the Boeing jet far exceeds the EADS/NG proposal
Further,
Boeing jet designed, built and delivered by Americans, whereas, KC-30 is an Airbus design, manufactured in Europe and then finished in the US
—44,000 US jobs, that ensure our nations ability to make and support critically important and complex aircraft, with 85% US content in the Boeing jet
The facts on cost and basing and performance are not disputed by the Air Force.
The Air Force assigned a higher risk to Boeing bid, that that was the pivot-point in the selection, and “risk” is subjective.
So, the Air Force said the Boeing bid-—a currently flying aircraft-—was more risky than a bid based on an Airbus design, partially built by EADS, in Europe, and then final assembly in a yet-to-be-built facility and by an inexperienced work-force. Hmmm. . . hard to go along with the Air Force on this one.
Reading and researching this subject, I simply can't go with the Air Force on this one.
>>EADS is no different than the multitude of other foreign suppliers that have teamed with U.S. defense suppliers to bid on contracts for decades.<<
Okay, which programs and to what extent? Thanks.