“The bid is for a medium-size tanker, capable of operating at forward bases. The NG/EADDS bid was a large tanker incapable of operating at ll but one stateside reserve base, let alone forward deployed locations.”
BS!
IF your claim was true, then that means the C-5 and the C-17 are “limited” to the same airfields that you claim the KC-30 is limited to.
And “forward deployed locations” Oh you mean places like South Korea, Japan, and maybe Taiwan? Those same “forward deployed locations” that are going to get flattened by the chinese if/when we go to war with them? Then there are those locations in and around the Persian Gulf that are going to get flattened by iranian missiles and suicide bombers breaching the wire at those bases to blow the tankers up on the flight line.
The Boeing tanker offers NO real improvement in capability over the existing KC-135 and with all those “forward operating locations” being turned into smoking craters the shorter range and capacity of the KC-767 will be a liability.
“Sec Def, not friend to Boeing, agreed with the GAO, as well.”
Only after pressure from congress with that traitor murtha threatening to pull funding for various programs unless his union lackeys at boeing got the contract.
Nice.
C-5s have a different foot-print and weight limitations. Regardless, fully loaded C-5’s are VERY limited in where they can deploy. Same with the EADS bid. C-17’s don't even come close and aren't even in the same league. With fewer bases, farther away, you are more vulnerable to being shut-down than if you use a medium-sized tanker that can be widely dispersed.
And, if you have a gorilla package that needs refueling, and you have, say, 10 EADS tankers in a track, you can only refuel so many jets at a time, whereas, if for the same package you have 15 medium-sized tankers, you can cycle through more jets, faster, and at push time the jets are fully fueled, as opposed to the first refueled jet being low on gas before the push because they had to wait longer for the package to refuel and assemble. Using your logic, let's apply to the Army that same standard of bigger is better: Fewer FARPs with larger bladders would be best. Many would disagree.
The RFP was for a medium-sized tanker, that is a fact. And the 767 tanker is more efficient, saving billions in fuel costs, has a higher MR rate than the KC-135, and require less maintenance than the KC-135.
The Air Force gave extra points to EADS when the rules did not allow that.
Round one the requirements were clearly stated in the RFP, the Air Force told Boeing they would not receive extra credit for a larger jet, whereas, they told EADS they would receive extra credit. Double standard. And wrong.
Round two, the RFP was more clearly stated for a medium-sized tanker and that is what was being bid. If it was for a replacement for the KC-10, then the 777 (larger than the EADS 330) would have been bid by Boeing, and using your logic, bigger is better and Boeing wins again.
Because EADS doesn't have a medium-sized tanker, and they couldn't make the Air Force warfighter change their requirements, they elected not to bid.
While I understand your feelings and emotions on this subject, thought would support the Air Force on their requirements and support EADS decision not to bid.