02-25-2011, 10:22 PM
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Uncle Wig]
Unfortunately, the ones who are getting screwed here are the men and women who will crew this new tanker, and the pilots who will rely on it for refueling.
The EADS proposal is (was) considerably more capable and modern than the Boeing proposal. The Air Force preferred this twice before.
While I am glad to see an American company get the contract, it bothers me that the Air Force is not getting the best airplane. And it really bothers me that Boeing was unable to come up with an airplane that is better than the competition.
Not sure I share that opinion. What's the source of your information?
Both planes meet all 372 air force requirements. Here are some details:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/2...N120110224
Of course both planes meet all requirements - neither Boeing nor EADS/Northrop-Grumman would propose an airplane that didn't. The difference is in the extra capability offered by one plane or the other. It's not that Boeing's tanker is bad, it just arguably not the best.
The EADS airplane is larger, which explains the higher fuel costs. But being larger, it also carries more payload (fuel, cargo, passengers) than the Boeing, making it considerably more versatile. It has a slightly longer range as well. In 2008, when EADS/Northrop-Grumman had apparently won the contract, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne said the EADS/Northrop-Grumman tanker was "was clearly a better performer."
This decision is even more based in politics than usual contract awards.