In the last few Presidential elections Washington state has gone to the Democrats anyway, usually the party in power will choose the winning state by how it voted in the past. While Boeing tried to use its monopoly power in the states, it lost by charging too much with a lease plan at first. As a taxpayer, I prefer the price of $35 billion for 179 aircraft better than $40 billion for 100 aircraft. No wonder Senator McCain thought the Boeing deal stunk. It did.
Perhaps, competition is not something that many of those in congress are that big proponent's of. It's strange how they'll go to no end (or the lowest end) to keep their jobs (Job Security vs. National Security:shudder ). Maybe they just like the Social Groups and nature of things on the Hill
What's good to know, is that after all the problems, delays, etc; we get to wait another 100 days for a decision on something that's critical to our AF. At least nobody can say we're trying to be dangerously efficient or putting costs ahead of benefits--that point past long ago. This is one time I think reality TV might be a good thing. Give each side an hour to present their case to Donald Trump "In the Boardroom," and see how long it takes before BA gets axed :lam . Shi(p), let Judge Judy try the case on its merits, she'll have BA out of her courtroom in 15 minutes (5 minutes for telling BA off) for more difficult cases, like, "Should Jane's ex-boyfriend pay for a broken vacuum cleaner".
Maybe, with the extra time (100 days) Boeing can build something more than a low-tech simulator (e.g. stick the simulator in the back of a 767, and they're almost there).
-LOL... just (a minute ago) heard that Boeing didn't realize the USAF thought that "Bigger was Better." If the "AF had made this understanding clear to Boeing as they must have to EADS, Boeing would have presented what the USAF wanted." Just a simple communication error... :smokie
Regardless, I'm not sure this is really an issue that Democrats want to bring up. While BA is forcing the issue (maybe), with congress and the many Democrats that are tied in the past and are now lining up behind BA, I can't imagine that when everything comes out, McCain won't look like the one who stood up to corruption, against Congress and the admin. & most importantly for the tax payers.
How are Dems. going to explain the reasoning, other than "Jobs" (iffy at best, IMO). The past problems, no need for competition, demanding to pull out of the war "on principle" and due to the cost (while building planes that fuel a war), as well as other--more-- AC, like the F-22/35? Maybe, they can get these things free
I'm
guessing BA is pressing for plenty O'future contracts (Military/Civil). Maybe some future share if they can turn some 777s into refueling platforms (now that Boeing knows/understands the USAF wants a bigger plane).
Or "trickle down fuel" (i.e. 747-8Fs refuel 777s, which refuel either/or 767s--can't hurt in case we need a "small footprint refueling flying object"
--F-22s which can refuel each other...U(C)AVs, etc).
Anyways, its not like I wouldn't have wanted to see Boeing get the contract if they were a
little less social in trying to capitalize on
a contract... but there are limits IMHO. Anti-Competitive, Capital-Hill Conspicuous Consumption Contracts, Can Cause Colossal Consequences (C-Note):hitwall .
RE: following article (Boeing),
Assuming everything is "on track," in GD's post, I saw Boeing bought their own 747 (2008). Other "cargo companies" have ordered 747-8Fs. Maybe (big maybe), they're going to either/or fuel or carry the large cargo for the stuff below (Let the campaign begin).
-Citation
http://www.geostrategy-direct.com (ed. 3/5/08)
The site is PWP, but "Somebody" sent me the article through e-mail (I think I have seen this technique used here before...) "Somebody" allowed me to view the article in its entirety--they match verbatim. Mods, if there are complaints please just remove the article. Much appreciated.
Airborne anti-missile laser on track for 2009 test
WASHINGTON — After years of delay, a U.S. Missile Defense Agency project has succeeded in integrating a high-energy laser in a passenger jet that will be used to intercept a missile in a planned test next year.
The prime contractor of the Airborne Laser project, Boeing, has installed six chemical oxygen iodine modules aboard a B747 platform.
The Boeing 747-400 based ABL.
"ABL's weapon system integration team [have installed] major components of the high-energy laser aboard the aircraft, and they remain on track to reach the missile shoot-down demonstration planned for 2009," Boeing Missile Defense Systems vice president Scott Fancher said.
Officials and executives said Boeing has completed more than 70 percent of overall laser integration. They said laser ground tests at Edwards Air Force base would begin following final inspection as well as plumbing and wiring installation. ABL was designed to intercept a missile in its boost phase of launch.
"By implementing lessons learned and Lean-plus process improvements, the team has reduced laser installation time on the aircraft to about one-third from what was required when the laser modules were installed in the system integration laboratory at Edwards," Fancher said.
ABL consists of a modified Boeing 747-400F, the back half of which holds the high-energy laser, designed and built by Northrop Grumman. The aircraft's front half contains the beam control/fire control system, developed by Lockheed Martin, and the battle management system, provided by Boeing.
In 2005, MDA oversaw ground tests of the laser modules, refurbished two years later. ABL has also tracked and fired a surrogate high-energy laser toward a target missile.
"This dual-path approach demonstrated all of ABL's key technologies," Boeing said. "Integration of the high-energy laser in the aircraft will lead to ground and flight tests of the entire ABL weapon system, culminating in an airborne intercept test against a ballistic missile in 2009."
