The Boeing KC-767 would be a lower-risk aerial refueling tanker for the American military and taxpayers than the Airbus A330-based KC-30, and it would be superior in the areas of cost, production, schedule and capability, Boeing officials said Thursday. An analysis of the evaluation that led to the choice of the tanker proposed by the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company reveals that numerous irregularities in the process resulted in a higher-risk, higher-cost aircraft being selected. Those irregularities form the basis of a protest Boeing filed with the Government Accountability Office. News Release
KC-767 Tanker: Less risk for warfighters, taxpayers
This website is made available to the general public to express opinions regarding the Tanker competition and contract award. As such, the opinions of the commenters expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of The Boeing Company (Boeing). Further, Boeing does not make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor does it assume any liability or responsibility, for the information contained on this site.
Atom
Comments (3)
US Air force made big mistake in choosing Airbus A330 as KC-130 tanker replacement instead of Boeing KC-767. By giving this contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS, US economy will lose 30,000 plus jobs in aerospace industry at time of rescission. Congress should review this deal and cut off funding for the program force to Air Force to reverse the decision in favor of Boeing. .
Posted on May 15, 2008 13:47
My main concern is that American taxpayer money and military aircraft production will go to a foreign country for the 30 to 40 years of the contract. This money should go to an American Company (Boeing), especially, when we are presently in a recession.
If we ever had political differences with France and Airbus, they could hold our military aircraft and spare parts hostage whenever they wanted. This would be a great threat to our national security.
Therefore, I believe, it would be best for our national security to have the tanker built in the U.S. by an American Company, which would be the Boeing Co.
Posted on May 21, 2008 21:59
Except that much of the work is going to be done in Mobile, Alabama. Does Boeing suggest moving production to the South? No, Boeing does not mind that South Alabama would suffer from loss of jobs. That doesn't matter.
Posted on June 23, 2008 11:52
We welcome your comments. However all comments are moderated and may not post immediately. Offensive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not treat any comments you submit as confidential information. Please do not submit comments that contain any confidential information belonging to anyone else.
By submitting a comment to Tanker Facts, you agree to our site terms and privacy policy, and to having your name displayed with your comment. All or part of your comment may be posted or cited in the blog. Your name and personal information will not be used for any other purpose, and we will not publish your e-mail address.