It is sad how easy it is to buy influence in this counrty. EADS got NG to front for them., Promised to build a factory and spend a bunch of money on lobbyists, and look at the rabid support.
I suggest you read the original column that is the source of the newspaper story. Keep in mind this was the guy the Air Force leaked information to to get their talking points out. Laws may have been broken right there. (insider trading for one).
So check out the column and see if you can counter even one point.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml
I read it the first time and see no need to read it again.
There’s a lot of foreign defense companies in the US. This is nothing new. Check out BAE.
I know that lobbyist that EADS has been paying for almost 10 years. There was nothing wrong with that. Boeing on the other hand, lines to pockets of every politician that has any influence on the process.
This was the most fair and transparent process in the history of defense contracts. I am not buying for one second that was not the case. Otherwise, Boeing would have opened their mouths sooner.
Boeing wrapping themselves around the American flag is a JOKE. 70%+ of their new Dreamliner is FOREIGN.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml
“1. The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers, regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus A330. But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. With fuel prices headed for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount to build and operate over their lifetimes?”
Fuel offload at 1,000 nautical miles:
KC-767A: 117,000 lbs
KC-45 : 153,000 lbs
Or just stay longer on station.
Qantas favors A330 as interim solution for 787 over a 767.
Fuel efficiency is not pure fuel burn rate.
“4. The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of programs deemed similar to the future tanker. But Boeing built all 600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the refueling boom the Air Force requires. How can Northrop and Airbus have superior past performance?”
Neither of them tried to build a virtual fence and failed.
GPS satellites, tankers for Japan and Italy years late...
McDonald Douglas build the KC-10 and never has build a tanker before.
How many engineers or workers who build the KC-135 are still working for Boeing?