Originally Posted by
George K Lee
To begin with: "Aggressive pricing" is another word for "underestimated costs and time".
That's one way to look at it. Another way is to look at the risk of losing vs the risk of underbidding and choose the latter. Boeing had already lost twice. They were determined not to lose again. And yeah, I like quips like "shoulda, woulda, coulda" and "butwhataboutery." You call them sophomorish. I think they add a touch of panache.
And "unplanned life extensions for inventory tankers"? You actually think that USAF is going to invest millions to extend the life of existing tankers because the KC-46 is late? Let's talk abut "sophomorish" some more.
Originally Posted by
George K Lee
And, clearly, C-5M and KC-46 have one important common feature: underestimated cost and time. The A models had been flying for 30 years and their condition should not have been a mystery
There it is again. "should"? Really? You have the authority to tell USAF what they "should" do and "should" know? The actual condition of the A fleet was not fully known until the first one was torn down and RERPed. That was the point of that exercise. It was a mess. Based on that experience and additional data gathering, the A's were not only not candidates for RERP, they became candidates for the bone yard. Indeed that's where they all are.
The B-52 is undergoing something similar right now. Having made the decision to retire B-1 and B-2 and keep B-52 flying, USAF has sent
one B-52 to the San Antonio depot to figure out what it's going to take to keep the fleet going. More decisions, including the re-engining, will be made based on the data gathered there.
And about that "Boeing consultant"? He predicted, literally days before the award, that EADS (now Airbus) would surely win the award. He was dead wrong. He still is.