Keep drinking that EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid.

What Boeing “saw written on the wall” was that Under Secretary Young was changing the requirements ONCE AGAIN to FURTHER accomodate the KC-30. Mmoving still FURTHER away from what the USAF made so clear that its requirements actually were & TOWARDS what the USAF had rejected in 2002. Boeing DID NOT threaten to protest, it said that it needed 6 months to do the proper studies to develope the BEST proposal for the new requirements (since the KC-767AT was SPECIFICALLY OPTIMIZED for the 2007 KC-X RFP).

Boeing is & was going to get big checks to keep the KC-135s flying for several decades reguardless of what happens/happened with the KC-X. In the long run even a 5 year delay in tanker recapitalization will mean next to nothing to KC-135 program (all KC-135E are set to be grounded by the end of 2008 & are unlikely to ever be operational again).

***

Old391,

No the USAF wasn’t doing anything. The USAF was tanken completely out of the loop & the sole source selection authority was given to Under Secretary Young.

The rebid and judging WAS NOT on the 8 areas the GAO pointed out in their findings. In fact Congress saw that & put language into the appropriations bill that the rebid HAD to be done in accordance with the GAO’s recommendations or funds would not be released.

No matter will not see a new tanker if Obama wins the election

So your latest argument is that Boeing’s cost estimates are more “accurate”. That is quite a reach.

Also do you think that Boeing promised both the Japanese and Italian governments that their tankers would “meet the delivery schedule”.

Bottom line is that Boeing saw “the writing on the wall” and threatened to protest the award again and basically got it defered to the next administration where they will try again.…

Luckily for Boeing, guess who gets the big new check to keep those KC-135s flying.…..

Boeing didn’t cry foul, it asked for 6 months to do the proper studies to develope the BEST proposal for the new requirements (changes ONCE AGAIN to FURTHER accomodate the KC-30 even though the requirements were NOT what were protested or sustained).

***

Old391,

Airbus/EADS often underbids Boeing (making up its initial “losses” on the back end) & can afford to given that their aircraft are built in Europe rather than in the US. The KC-X source selection team FORCED Boeing to alter its proposal with a 2-year delay despite Boeing saying it could meet the same delivery schedule as NG/EADS. Is $15.4 billion from the CORRECTED calculations for Boeing’s cost or is it the INCORRECT calculations?

Nobody ever said that the NG/EADS KC-30 proposal would not be less costly to develope.

Besides, we all know full well (OK EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid driinkers might not) that the KC-X is NOT going to meet cost projections (part of Boeing’s higher initial cost likely includes more relaistic cost projections). And of course it is the total life cycle cost which really matters…

John Young, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in an interview at the Pentagon yesterday that under the tanker proposal from Northrop Grumman and its partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space, developing the first 68 aircraft would have cost $12.5 billion, compared with $15.4 billion under Boeing’s plan.

Young said that Northrop promised earlier delivery and that its aircraft “provided more tanker capability and offload rate and was substantially cheaper to develop.”

“Frankly,” he said, Boeing’s tanker “was smaller and should have been cheaper.… A member of the American public might conclude that Boeing sought to charge more than the Defense Department reasonably expected” to pay.

Just go away

thanks