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.
The Air Force erred first time around because they established the bid as a medium-sized tanker and assured Boeing that they had no reason to submit a 777-size bid, not would Boeing be awarded extra points if they offered a larger tanker. However, that was not what they briefed EADS.
Double standard, a mistake, one that the GAO agreed with (GAO has NO authority to over-turn a source selection. The Air Force doesn't have to go along with the GAO findings, but they did after a serious look and agreed mistakes were made. Sec Def, not friend to Boeing, agreed with the GAO, as well.
EADS/NG looked at the RFP, determined that the RFP was what was required by the Air Force, looked at their true costs and ability to operate, and decided their LARGER tanker could not win in a bid in accordance with the RFP for a medium-size tanker.
“Corrupt shills?” Interesting that you would attack the Boeing tanker team, a team made up of a majority of former service-men, men that have flown tankers for a career and ran AMC. . .the very servicemen you “thank” for their service are now a target for your scorn. Okay, but I choose not to insult and attack the credibility and integrity of these honorable men. You may want to, but not me.
“A few years back Boeing had us as a finalist for a new plant. They didn’t choose us. “
Explains a lot.
Thanks for the informed information!
If the NG plane couldn’t forward deploy, how did it win the first round?
This seems like “JUST LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL...”
“”More passengers, more cargo, more fuel offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability,” Gen. Arthur Lichte, the commander of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, said of the Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-45A tanker.”
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163119,00.html
Sounds like Gen Lichte was either very stupid, or that the EADS tanker could forward deploy...
“On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told a Senate panel that the Northrop-EADS team defeated Boeing soundly.
“There were nine key performance parameters ... and across that spectrum — all evaluated — the Northrop Grumman plane was clearly a better performer,” Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates added his support for the Airbus tanker selection. “I believe, based on briefings that I’ve received, that it was a fair competition and a merit-based decision,” Gates told reporters.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/353812_tanker06.html
“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.