

  (Source: Northrop Grumman)















Comments     Threshold


RE: That's not quite how it works...
By robertgu on 6/19/2008 1:49:19 PM , Rating: 3
The problem I have with this "Boeing lost because their plane is smaller and EADS's plane is bigger and more capable." Is that the Air Force originally demanded the smaller aircraft!

It wasn't until the 11th hour when EADS pitched a fit that it can't/won't compete for the Air Force contract unless the Air Force changed the eval criteria to give benefit to an aircraft which was larger than the original RFP that EADS promised to continue it's bid. EADS couldn't compete with Boeing on the original RFP terms and demanded that the Air Force change them and threatened to drop out of the bidding it they didn't.

If Air Force said they wanted a larger plane on the original RFP Boeing would have used the 777 instead.

This leads me to believe that the Air Force REALLY wanted and needed a smaller aircraft (as witnessed by the original RFP) but wanted to keep Boeing "honest" by having them compete hard for the contract. Which resulted in the Air Force caving to EADS's criteria change demands to favor a larger plane the Air Force didn't want to begin with.

RE: That's not quite how it works...
By Amiga500 on 6/19/2008 2:08:05 PM , Rating: 2

No. They wouldn't have.

Boeing are capacity limited on the 777 for when the USAF needs the tankers, so that is not an option.

RE: That's not quite how it works...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2008 3:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "Boeing are capacity limited on the 777 for when the USAF needs the tankers..."

Northrop hasn't even built the manufacturing facility to be used for their version of the tanker yet, so I don't think your argument here carries much weight. Boeing's chances of meeting the timeline with the 777 are at least as good as the KC-45s.



