Which solution do you favour in the U.S. KC-X tanker competition? (Poll Closed)

More political sound bites for the masses. I dismiss Mr. Lynn's comment on Dec. 2 that "...he's not surprised that both contenders, in comments about the new draft request for proposal, 'argued for changes that would stress some of the benefits of their individual aircraft.'" While there may be some minor element of this parochialism in the feedback received from the two companies, they both are united in their abhorrence of the ludicrous contract structure the Government is envisioning. Take a step back and notice that the Government is asking two responsible public companies to bid on an 18-YEAR, $35 BILLION, FIXED PRICE CONTRACT FOR 179 UNITS, FOR WHICH THE EVALUATION CRITERIA WILL BE ESSENTIALLY PRICE FIRST (after a go-no go technical screening). No wonder NG is now threatening to NO-BID--not because they believe they cannot win, but primarily because the contract will be "toxic" and winning will most likely be a bad thing! Believe me (as a former 23-year "boy-in-blue" at the pointy end of the spear), there is a lot of value in "best value" contracting and not lowest bidder. Mark my words and today's date, if the Gov goes through with this contract, 15 years from now we'll be explaining to the grieving families why quality problems in the "best aerial refueling tanker in the free world" caused the death of their sons and daughters because the winner of the competition tried to squeeze some miniscule profit out of a toxic contract.

I Prefer Boeing because it has a long experience in this field and deserve being selected in this deal

...NG/EADS offers with its KC-45 an matured and reliable tanker aircraft what allready demonstrated its capability. It makes absolutely no sence to by the boeing tanker solution.