Those promoting propaganda have been muddying the waters. But consistently from sources that promote innovation and technology (not a poltical agenda) are facts about the inferior Boeing 767 tanker. These facts are so one sided that if you had any doubts, time to assess the credibility of your news sources. tw posted in a tone intentionally set to make you either dislike the author or be patriotic enough to instead see the facts. Which did you do? Entertain your emotions or instead see the facts.
Another technically honest observation is from 14 Mar 2008 EE Times
Quote:
Opinion: Boeing and the tanker mess
Boeing Co., which has supplied the Air Force with refueling tankers since Gen. Curtis LeMay hung up his goggles, is protesting the Air Force's Feb. 29 award of a $35 billion contract for a new fleet of tankers to hated rival Airbus. Boeing and its pals on Capitol Hill see Airbus hiding behind the skirts of domestic rival Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. ...
Unable the win on merit, the sore loser immediately moved to paint Airbus and EADS as America's public enemy No. 1.
With U.S. manufacturing jobs going the way of cheap gas, Boeing has mounted a politically potent counteroffensive, even though it has since emerged that its proposal for modifying its 767 jetliner - as a way to keep its 767 assembly line humming - failed to meet nearly all major Air Force requirements.
The arguments of howling lawmakers from Washington state, where the Boeing tanker would have been built, are severely undercut by the fact that this has been one of the most corrupt military procurements in decades. As one who patrolled the inner rings of the Pentagon for years as a military reporter, believe me, this is no small feat.
The face of this sad spectacle is the former No. 2 acquisition executive in the Air Force, a woman named Darleen Druyun. She went to the slammer earlier in the decade for steering Air Force contracts to Boeing, including an unsuccessful attempt to deliver the tanker deal, in exchange for future employment for herself, her daughter and her son-in-law.
|
Not just more confirmation of what tw was posting. Worse, this was so obvious that if every poster here did not know this, then why are your information sources so corrupt? There was no doubt which contract was better for America and the Air Force. It was not even close - so one sided - which is why that should have been obvious even to everyone here.
Or maybe I am just so politically incorrect that I cannot see spin doctor propaganda? By separating my religion from other parts of my life, then I am immune to witch doctor magic spells - I can only see facts?
This post is about how one sided obvious; Northrop had the superior proposal. How Boeing was using the tanker contract for corporate welfare. How people have lost their executive jobs and even gone to jail promoting the inferior Boeing tanker.