Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I can't see a contract that big going abroad, we were surprised when EADS got itNot sure what to think about this. Part of me says if they can come up with a good cost effective aircraft, more power to them. The part of me says that I would rather see EADS get it than a Russian company. Of course since this is a USAF requirement I would rather see Boeing get it...
Kind of like our KC-130s do?I think the advantage for the Russian design is they can refuel 2 at a time from wing probes instead of the tail probe.
I agree, Eric...
Here we are in the middle of a terrible economy, high unemployment and all that goes along with it, and they're looking to outfit our military with foreign equipment?
Well, honestly, the U.S. has had a pretty good track record with the quality of thier equipment. Being a large industrialized nation that we are, we should be able to rely on our domestic manufacturers for equipping our military. There are, and always be some exceptions, such as the Harrier.I would have thought this was about outfitting your military with the best equipment? Which may or may not be American.
I would have thought this was about outfitting your military with the best equipment? Which may or may not be American.
Actually the European/US tender was allowed and did win the bid (as we all know). It was the protest that opened up the can of worms. BTW Northrop opted not to rebid on this program.I admit I don't see how letting this bid continue makes it a competative tender when it stands no chance of being accepted. If the US wouldn't allow a European/US tender a fair crack of the whip they sure as hell wouldn't allow the Russians a chance.
Believe it or not this sought of defense bidding goes on all the time in the US where a US company may partner with a foreign manufacturer. Examples of this are the T-6 Texan II and the T-45 Goshawk
Actually the European/US tender was allowed and did win the bid (as we all know). It was the protest that opened up the can of worms. BTW Northrop opted not to rebid on this program.
Simple - it cost money to bid these contracts, sometimes a lot of money. Their management may have felt that it wasn't worth it for them to continue to pursue this, especially after the money spent during the protest.The question is why didn't Northrop rebid and the reason is that the new rules were biased to the smaller Boeing aircraft.
Actually the goal posts were set wrong to begin with and I believe that came out during the protest.I know that the European/US tender won the first contest and it was interesting that the appeal wasn't based on the superiority of the Boeing aircraft or tender. The goalposts were changed.
Do you seriously think that a Russian tender would be taken seriously. If it was offered for free the American Politicos would still shoot it down in flames.
I certainly agree that if you know that you don't have a chance then it pointless throwing money away.Simple - it cost money to bid these contracts, sometimes a lot of money. Their management may have felt that it wasn't worth it for them to continue to pursue this, especially after the money spent during the protest.
Of courseActually the goal posts were set wrong to begin with and I believe that came out during the protest.
That we can agree on.No.. And they will get shot down before any politicians get involved.