KC-777 (again) and LPAT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGf5lNftSK44

. . . plans to pitch tankers based on both the 777 and smaller 767 to the Pentagon when the contest begins in a few weeks

“The 777 solves the technology and additional cargo capability questions, but it increases cost and it might be too much plane for the requirement” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. “On the other hand, if there is a split between Boeing and the Airbus A330 platform the two planes complement each other nicely.”

THIS

In my view, this is preparation for a split. The KC-767 and KC-30 are too similar to make a split worthwhile. But a KC-777 and a KC-30 are different enough to offer complementary capabilities. (Although I would still prefer a split between KC-30 and KC-747-8 ;))

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a50f8243d-4e15-48c6-b75a-5374d51cee4c

Tanker Wars II – You Thought Round One Was Dirty: Will this dispute go global? EADS is already firing warning shots, indicating that it will not quietly accept LPAT – “lowest price, acceptable technology” – a procurement rule that could be set to tip the contest towards the smaller Boeing KC-767. “It works for pencils and tablets, but with regard to operational forces it’s a flawed concept, particularly when you start with platforms whose capabilities are well known,” EADS North America CEO Ralph Crosby remarked this weekend.

The cynic would suggest that ‘AT’ is defined by the capabilities of the KC-767, and thus EADS’ problem immediately becomes apparent.