In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock. So, they will take their old ball and go home.
“In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock. So, they will take their old ball and go home.”
Thats that why Northrup lobbied for a change to the first RFP so they could even qualify?
In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock.
I disagree. This whole problem relates to criteria changes in the first competition that favored the outsized aircraft over the Boeing design. My opinion based somewhat on experience, the Air Force actually needs both aircraft, and that may be fiscally impossible, and in that case can you afford the limitations of the b i g airplane?
“In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock. So, they will take their old ball and go home.”
I don’t know what’s worse... Northrop Grumman being whores for the Europeans, or freepers rooting for European companies to beat out American companies for defense contracts.
Let’s check the score card:
Boeing...
Delivers all aircraft on-time and on-cost. Most deliveries are ahead of schedule, and exceed performance specs.
NG/EADS...
Never delivers any aircraft on-time and on-cost! So far at least, none to date. Most deliveries are well behind schedule, and Airbus constantly applies for waivers for items that fall short of performance specs.
How do you define “head-to-head” competition?
Are you comparing the quality of Boeing’s products with the quality of Airbus products? Well then, why does 87% of all commercial airlines worldwide fly Boeing jets?
OR...are you comparing the final cost of similar aircraft: One made by a private company like Boeing that is self-supporting; and, the other made in a socialist country where Airbus’s costs are offset over 30% by government subsidies directly paid to Airbus?
OR...are you just stupid?