On Apr 11, 2:54*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT), AJ
wrote:

Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A

(From: Aero-News.net)

*[snip]

From the press release below, it seems that Bowing feels a fly-by-wire
aircraft may not be suitable for operation in an EMP environment,
among other issues. *

It sure is tough when you don't have a mole inside the Pentagon.

-----------------------
The Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html *
Boeing KC-767 Tanker Determined More Survivable in U.S. Air Force
Evaluation

ST. LOUIS, April 11, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today said the U.S. Air
Force's decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling
airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic
Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the
Northrop/EADS team's KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to
attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker.

The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more
advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators
found *the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability
discriminators as its competitor.

Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group
(ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of
Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability
greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker.

"When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in
the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw
the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker," Fogleman told the ARSAG
audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing's tanker effort. "To be
survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and
defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew
to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack.
The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater
operational utility to the joint commander and provide better
protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats."

On Feb. 29, the Air Force selected Northrop/EADS' Airbus A330
derivative over Boeing's 767 derivative. Boeing subsequently asked the
Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing
numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included deviations
from the evaluation and award criteria established by the service for
the competition.

During the Air Force debrief, the Boeing team discovered the KC-767
outranked the KC-30 in the critical survivability category. The KC-767
achieved a total score of 24 positive discriminators -- including 11
described as major -- while the KC-30 scored five, none of which were
major.

Major survivability discriminators for the Boeing KC-767 included:

* * * * More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
* * * * Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable
flight crews to better see and assess the threat environment
* * * * Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is
better able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
* * * * Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the
flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected
* * * * Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and
critical aircraft systems
* * * * Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.

Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and
most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft
and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in
unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air
Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767
also *includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables
unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the
tanker crew.

The Air Force doesn't care about survivability... Tanker crews are
expendable.