Feel free to provide a source.
both boom envelope, and its [...]
GAO-Decision, page 50:
Boeing also protests the Air Force’s conclusion in the aerial refueling area that Northrop Grumman’s proposed larger boom envelope (relative to that offered by Boeing) offered a meaningful benefit to the Air Force. See AR, Tab 55, PAR, at 14. From our review of the record, including hearing testimony on this issue, we do not find a basis to object to the Air Force’s judgment that Northrop Grumman had offered a larger boom envelope and that this offer provided a measurable benefit.
[...] and its lack of suitabilty for the wide variety of fixed wing craft, [...], and inability to do an emergency break away and fly UPWARDS a more serious issue yet.
Page 47:
In sum, we conclude that the record does not demonstrate that the agency reasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft would be able to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures as was required by this KPP No. 1 threshold.
I can't read anywhere in the decision that a KC-767AT with wingpods can do it better? Has Boeing provided some reasonable airspeeds for KC-767A. I have no reliable sources supporting the claim Boeing solved the problem through reducing air speed. I also have no reliable sources for KC-767A air speed with wingpods. Do you?
[...], and deficient nav lights,[...]
It's an almost incredible engineering achievement to put a few more lights on a plane.
And yet they didn't...and likely weren't going to.
That was the EADS and the USAF responsibility. They flubbed.
I can't read anywhere in the decision that a KC-767AT with wingpods can do it better? Has Boeing provided some reasonable airspeeds for KC-767A. I have no reliable sources supporting the claim Boeing solved the problem through reducing air speed. I also have no reliable sources for KC-767A air speed with wingpods. Do you?
The wing is not going to be a new one, and wingpods are already well understood and deployed by the KC-10....which Boeing also is the responsible engineering party for.
Meanwhile, the GAO did also remark on the lack of the EADs speed...which hasn't even had its refueling from either drogue lines from the wing pods or its boom proved.
You want "reliable sources"....EADS ain't it.