Replies

While I think the USAF will be getting the best tanker available four years from now, they really needed to have something available five years ago.

And Boeing probably could have won that contract in a fair competition. By paying the bribes, they ended up tainting the whole deal.

And Boeing probably could have won that contract in a fair competition. By paying the bribes, they ended up tainting the whole deal.

Absolutely. It cost Boeing big time along with their president and other high ranking empolyees.

And Boeing probably could have won that contract in a fair competition. By paying the bribes, they ended up tainting the whole deal.

More importantly they lost the edge. Back then they had the technology - a boom equipped tanker in the air. Northrop-Grumman/EADS had a promise to develop the A-330 tanker and a boom system

Three years on. EADS has it's boom equipped KC-30B (same as the KC-45A) for the Australian order in the air, and is flying the first aircraft for the US order ("We get the order, this actual aircraft is yours, if not then it goes into the British, Austalian, Saudi, or UAE order")

Meabwhile Boeing is promising to turn the 767LRF (itself under development) into the 767AdvancedTanker - with new engines, cockpit, and other stuff

The USAFs's perception of program risk (hardware vrs development) has changed.