Well, the article is certainly pro-Boeing, but is is full of technical inaccuracies.
I can completely agree with a patriotic viewpoint that says the USAF should buy American.
I also believe if that purchase is to be Boeing for a very few percentage points of local content over the NGA offering, it behooves Boeing to offer a product at least as technically comparable.
The 767 is woefully inadequate when just as one example it cannot meet the specified field performance.
It is still not designed, and if one examines the Italian and Japanese tanker execution as examples of the Boeing project management skills, little wonder they fell down.
Frankly, the USAF decision was correct.
If the Boeing offer was the best they could put together, they deserved to come second.
You bring about some interesting points, but your response does not have fact to back up NG/EADS. If you say that you cannot count the Italian or Japanese that are flying the KC-767, why does it seem like you are counting the KC-30 for NG/EADS when in reality NG/EADS does not have a flying KC-45 only a KC-30. You sound like one of those clowns in Washington D.C. that are pro-KC-45. The USAF decision was in fact the wrong decision according to the GAO…. Wake up and smell the roses….. EADS is bad for the U.S…… EADS has already been caught by the international community with selling secrets to hostile governments. Do you really want to give the BACKBONE of our air force to a company like this….. We all want the best for our military, but a company that will sell secrets to the enemy is not what I would want for our warfighter…..
SHEOPLE WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES….. Lets keep our American military American and not European…… Put pressure on the DOD to go with Boeing ………
Well, the article is certainly pro-Boeing, but is is full of technical inaccuracies.
I can completely agree with a patriotic viewpoint that says the USAF should buy American.
I also believe if that purchase is to be Boeing for a very few percentage points of local content over the NGA offering, it behooves Boeing to offer a product at least as technically comparable.
The 767 is woefully inadequate when just as one example it cannot meet the specified field performance.
It is still not designed, and if one examines the Italian and Japanese tanker execution as examples of the Boeing project management skills, little wonder they fell down.
Frankly, the USAF decision was correct.
If the Boeing offer was the best they could put together, they deserved to come second.
Andrew,
You bring about some interesting points, but your response does not have fact to back up NG/EADS. If you say that you cannot count the Italian or Japanese that are flying the KC-767, why does it seem like you are counting the KC-30 for NG/EADS when in reality NG/EADS does not have a flying KC-45 only a KC-30. You sound like one of those clowns in Washington D.C. that are pro-KC-45. The USAF decision was in fact the wrong decision according to the GAO…. Wake up and smell the roses….. EADS is bad for the U.S…… EADS has already been caught by the international community with selling secrets to hostile governments. Do you really want to give the BACKBONE of our air force to a company like this….. We all want the best for our military, but a company that will sell secrets to the enemy is not what I would want for our warfighter…..
SHEOPLE WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES….. Lets keep our American military American and not European…… Put pressure on the DOD to go with Boeing ………