It'll only help Boeing if they can pull their head out of their backside. To me, this is DoD realizing the Boeing can't do what they claim they can and need a new vendor. It's just that new vendor needs to have the rules modified a bit so they can qualify.
Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) is still fairly competitive. The issues with Boeing are occurring in Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA), which is basically just McDonnell Douglas.
BDS and BCA are both essentially independent of each other.
When has Starliner not kept its doors attached? Following the content of a thread is a pretty basic expectation. Derailing it onto other subjects is not helpful nor appreciated.
Haha :) I was referring to Starliner's window falling off during transport. I misremembered it as a door falling off. And yeah my name is pretty terrible, I've always been bad at picking pseudonyms.
The DoD (or at least the US Air Force) has been very aware Boeing can't deliver for a long time, between the KC-46 tanker and its inability to refuel, the F-15EX Eagle II and its failing to deliver on marketing promises, the V-22 Osprey and its many crashes including the most recent in November that led to a grounding across the services, and more.
If this is a move to give Boeing's competitors (eg: Lockheed Martin, SpaceX) more bidding power, I welcome it.
Where do you get this? KC46 problem is not because it can’t refuel.
> F-15EX Eagle II and its failing to deliver on marketing promises
Which promises? It’s supposed to be a missile truck, working in conjunction with F35, and it works well in that role.
> V-22 Osprey and its many crashes including the most recent in November that led to a grounding across the services
It’s called Bell Boeing V22 for a reason. Bell is the lead vendor and Boeing is the secondary. It was a Bell’s design. Bell Valor 280 which is a new tilt rotor design won FLRAA contract last year.
Boeing make Chinook helicopter, well known for its reliability.
>Where do you get this? KC46 problem is not because it can’t refuel.
It has had constant problems with its digital camera system for the refueling boom, which effectively means the tanker can't refuel.
>Which promises? It’s supposed to be a missile truck,
The F-15EX was touted to carry 22 (or was it 21?) missiles. However, nearly half of that is dependent on pylons located on the conformal fuel tanks. Guess what happened? Boeing can't figure out how to install the conformal fuel tanks. Fuel tanks that the F-15E has been using for literally decades.
>It’s called Bell Boeing V22 for a reason.
So? It's Boeing. It crashes. It's grounded. Entire flight crews have died, emphasis on plural.
How can these failures happen so routinely? Whenever I think about the billions of dollars to go into these programs I always imagine that they go through multiple iterative prototypes so that they have something working at all times. It seems to me that would be a way to improve the chances of success at a likely higher cost to start with. But the department of defense does not ever seem to care about cost anyway.
There are plenty of examples of military leadership not wanting a program, but Congress shoves it down their throats. So it's not always as simple as it seems with an appearance of DoD not caring. It is a consequence of design by committee.
