Harald Mädl schrieb:
> Was hat dieser Flugzeugtyp, was Mitbewerber nicht haben?

Es gab nur einen anderen Mitbewerber.

> Dass die
> Saudis und Australien einige diesen Typs bestellt haben, mag weniger
> verwundern,

Erscheint allerdings als eine relativ objektive Einschätzung der
Fähigkeiten, im Gegensatz vielleicht zu Verkäufen an "Partnerländer" wie
Japan (Boeing) oder GB (Airbus).

> aber dass nun die USA EADS gegenüber Boeing den Vorzug
> gegeben haben, verwundert nun doch.

<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tanker1mar01,0,1207228.story?page=2>;
"I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in
explaining why the Air Force chose the Northrop-Airbus[!] entry. "More
passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties]
it can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

> Ich vermute andere Hintergründe als rein technische. Habt ihr mehr
> Infos?

<http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html>;
State-by-State Economic Impact

The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and employ
25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. [...]

<http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm>;
October 1, 2004
Darleen Druyun, former No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force,
was sentenced to nine months in prison on Friday for negotiating a job
with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the
company, the nations second-largest Defense contractor. [...]
Druyun agreed to a higher price than appropriate for a proposed deal to
lease 100 tanker planes from Boeing, which she called "a parting gift"
to her future employer. She also shared a competitors [EADS]
proprietary data with Boeing.


Ich habe auch nie wirklich verstanden, welche technischen Vorteile das
10+ Jahre ältere Boeing-Design haben sollte, das vom A330 zudem seit
2000 etwa 2:1 bei den Auslieferungen geschlagen wurde.

Harald Mädl schrieb:
> Was hat dieser Flugzeugtyp, was Mitbewerber nicht haben? Dass die
> Saudis und Australien einige diesen Typs bestellt haben, mag weniger
> verwundern, aber dass nun die USA EADS gegenüber Boeing den Vorzug
> gegeben haben, verwundert nun doch.
> Ich vermute andere Hintergründe als rein technische. Habt ihr mehr
> Infos?

<http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml>;
[...]
1. Mission capability. Arguably the most important factor, this metric
compared the teams on performance requirements, system integration &
software, product support, program management and technology maturity.
The teams tied in most measures, but the Northrop offering was deemed to
offer superior refueling and airlift capacity at 1,000 nm. range and
substantially superior refueling and airlift capability at 2,000 nm.
range. The superior airlift capacity of Northrops plane was deemed a
"compelling" consideration in giving Northrop the edge for this factor.

2. Proposal risk. This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to
match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did so only after
being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker.
The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers
felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never
been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively
low cost. The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive
schedule, adding cost.

3. Past performance. The Northrop Grumman team received higher ratings
in past performance due to satisfactory execution of half a dozen
programs deemed relevant to the tanker competition. Air Force reviewers
had less confidence in Boeings past performance due to poor execution
in three relevant programs. In addition, Northrops subcontractors were
rated more highly on past performance than Boeings.

4. Cost/price. This was the factor in which many observers expected
the Northrop-EADS team to shine, because EADS subsidiary Airbus usually
underbids Boeing in commercial competitions. But Boeing compounded its
difficulties in the eyes of reviewers by failing to adequately explain
its assumptions in calculating the cost of developing a tanker. The
resulting low confidence in Boeing cost projections undercut its claims
of lower life-cycle costs. Northrop was rated higher.

5. Integrated assessment. The "integrated fleet aerial refueling
assessment" was designed to compare how the competing planes would fare
in an operational setting using a realistic wartime scenario. The
review found that the Northrop Grumman proposal could accomplish
specified missions with nearly two dozen fewer planes than the Boeing
proposal, a big advantage.

So Northrop Grummans victory was not a close outcome. Although both
proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers
concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could
have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the
Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable
planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better
in virtually all regards.