Aerial refueling bids from Northrop Grumman and Boeing were both “technically outstanding” but Boeing’s bid came in almost $3 billion more, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer told the Washington Post.
John Young, the undersecretary for acquisition, said the tanker proposal from Northrop Grumman and partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space, the first 68 tankers would have cost $12.5 billion, compared to $15.4 billion under Boeing’s bid.
Northrop also promised earlier delivery and that its aircraft “provided more tanker capability and offload rate,” Young told the Washington Post.
2 Comments
The Eagle’s coverage of this entire thing has been very one-sided. While this might be understandable given Boeing’s clout in Wichita it would be nice to see a bit more of the other side.
I bet the papers in Alabama have a VERY different take on this.
You also have to consider the cost of training all the Tanker Pilots for the Airbus Tanker, when the training for the Boeing Tanker would have been a lot cheaper and faster.
Another thing was that you would have to rebuild a lot of hangers, because many of them wouldn’t fit the Airbus Tanker.
Then there is replaceable parts, maintenance training, retrofitting all the jets with a another catch and delivery system to accept the Airbus model and on and on.
There is a lot of cost that goes beyond the tankers initial cost and payload capacity that the Pentagon also must look at.