Boeing versus Grumman
Let me be up front with respect to my comment. I am an American taxpayer. I am a Boeing shareholder. And I have tanked off of numerous tankers from various nations in the past.
My major problem is that Boeing thinks they are the only game in town when it comes to big wing military aircraft. They have gotten fundamentally lazy and are not producing value for money. They are still pretty good in the civil market because the airline companies don’t give a flying hoot if you’re an American company or not, it is the product that matters. Boeing can’t go running to Congress if United Airlines picks an Airbus.
That isn’t true with respect to military projects. The USAF was supposed to have converted a substantial amount of their tanker fleet to handle probe and drogue, based on an agreement made back in the Reagan years, to support the Navy/Marine Corps, plus NATO aircraft. We see how far that has progressed. Personally, I don’t see how the Boeing proposal will give the taxpayers the best value for money, nor give the actual aircrews the best support, especially since it is now set up to be a sole source contract. This situation is just a set-up to plunder the taxpayer with no reason for Boeing to devote its best talent to the problem, since they have no real competition and lots political cover from Congress.
I also see this “preservation of the US industrial base” as a bit of a red herring. Boeing and Northrup Grumman are basing their proposals on civilian airliners. Is Boeing going to quit making airliners if they don’t win? No. Is this a version, which is brand new and opening up technology? No. Will Boeing open a new production site if they win? No. If Grumman had won, would it have expanded aircraft manufacture in the US? Yes.
Bottom line based on this RFP: Boeing has better politicians and advertising, not a better product.