No he is not. EADS & NG were partners & EADS was 100% behind the threats to not bid unless the solicitation criteria were altered to accomodate their otherwise noncompetative platform.

EADS decided to bid despite no change to the RFP.

So, what were you talking about again?

more articles on the subject

Boeing Fears Pentagon Is Shaping Tanker Contest To Favor France, Threatens To Pull Out

Double Negative: Boeing is Not Not Bidding KC-X?

He’s not a Pentagon or procument official. Just a political hack.

DO YOU REALLY EXPECT HIM TO BE THRILLED WITH A COMPETING CONTRACTOR? :rolleyes:

he’s also CHAIRMAN of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

At that level, you ARE expected put your partisanship to the side to best represent the interests of the COUNTRY

he certainly isn’t expected to use his position to issue veiled threats against those who would compete against his hometown team

if he can’t control himself, then maybe he isn’t the right person for the job

there is no RIGHT to be a chair, if he can’t conduct himself with dignity, perhaps it’s time to replace him with someone who can

It’s Official: EADS Bids For KC-X

EADS North America will pursue the tanker bid on its own, acting as prime and bringing in some 200 suppliers when it bids on the tanker.

it was only after altering the data so that enough KC-30s could operate in theater to do so was it able to obtain a score.

sounds like someone is scared to provide their sources

Also, the KC-767AT has the same fuel capacity as the KC-135R yet if you believe the final IFARA scores (which I don’t) 19 KC-767AT could do the job of 34 KC-135R & despite its greater fuel capacity it would take 18 KC-30.

so you’re saying IFARA proves the KC-30 is more capable than the KC-767?

I already have

nope, you never have

the only person ‘waisting’ people’s time here is the person who REFUSES to backup their arguments

if you’re too lazy to provide your sources, then don’t bother posting the argument

on the other hand we know you can’t really provide your sources because it would show what a sham your arguments are

Quite the opposite. IFARA proves my point.

And up is down, yes is no, and war is peace

Only after altering the model data so that the KC-30 could complete the evaluation missions.

Come back when you can bother to document your claims.

Oh wait, that would disrupt your gameplan to bother with such trifling details.

Still confusing capacity with capability I see.

Still ignoring the plain results of IFARA I see.

Actually…IFARA proved that a fleet of KC-30 is not even capable of doing the a job the KC-135R fleet has done without major upgrading of the current ifrastructure.

Um, what?

1.0 is defined as the effectiveness of the KC-135

KC-30 was well above 1.0

And again (as even irtusk has the intellectual honest to admit) the NG/EADS KC-30 requires developement as well so (if you were intellectually honest) would have to call the NG/EADS tanker a paper tanker as well.

OK, I see what you’re trying to get at.

Basically you’re trying to pretend that since the KC-30 isn’t 100% complete, it is no different than the KC-767.

Which is a load of horse manure and you should be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a SIGNIFICANT risk gap between the two programs.

KC-30 has to add new stuff to an existing airframe. KC-767 has to do that PLUS create a new airframe out of a mishmash of parts (hence the ‘paper airplane’ part)

KC-30 is a paper tanker based off a real airplane

KC-767 is a paper tanker based off a paper airplane

Only a Boeing lackey could fail to see the difference