Now part of Boeing. You keep seeming to forget such a simple...and pivotal...fact.
It was MD that designed and built the KC-10's boom, thereby shooting down the myth that "only Boeing" can build a boom.
No. It just means that only Boeing/MD can build a boom.
EADs has had recurrent and serious problems. McDonnell Douglas was a hell of a lot better aerospace engineering firm than EADs...even with all of its espionage and $20+ billion in subsidies.
Going all the way back to the initial KC-135 purchase, Boeing has never won a US tanker competition. The KC-135 was sole sourced, and Boeing lost the ACTA competition to MD and their KC-10.
As for the KC-10...it was the best plane for the strategic refueling role. And to repeat...MD is part of Boeing. So in effect, Boeing beat Boeing. Big deal.
And according to the RFP, that strategic refueling role filled perfectly by the vastly superior KC-10 (better than any Airbus machine built to date) is not up for recapitalizing and bidding for some time.
The "fact" that Boeing bought out MD does not count in my book as Boeing building the KC-10, any more than the "fact" that Chyrsler bought out Jeep from AMC means that Chrysler is now credited with building the CJ5.
No. It just means that only Boeing/MD can build a boom.
No it means that an independent team wholely separate from Boeing at the time built and deployed a flying boom.
EADs has had recurrent and serious problems. McDonnell Douglas was a hell of a lot better aerospace engineering firm than EADs...even with all of its espionage and $20+ billion in subsidies.
And Northrop Grumman has no aerospace experience whatsoever, and is there just to lend their US name to EADS?