It was actually much more than that. N-G stood to gain the production of *every* A330 freighter, even the civil ones, with the KC-45 contract so Boeings action was a major blow to them.

The KC-X competition has been looking more and more to me as a method by which the government can keep Boeing from going bankrupt while simultaneously keeping them in check. The following is a theory which contains a subtle piece of logic which suggests a serious flaw in the argument which I shall reveal at the end, but bear with me through the logic.

----------------------------------------------------

Consider Boeing's precarious position. They invested money and time into the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition until they were shot down in 1991. They put even more money into the X-32, an entry into the Joint Strike Fighter competition before flopping in 2001. The F-15 series, now the property of Boeing after the merge with McDonnell Douglas in 1995 has reaching the end of its life. The F-18 is slowly reaching that stage as well with the originals on the chopping block for the F-35, and the Super Hornets not selling in huge numbers.

Problems continue on the civil front with the monopoly on superheavy aircraft in the form of the 747 having disappeared with the rise of the A380. Add in the increasing pressure from the opposite extreme size from companies like Embraer, Bombardier, and Sukhoi. Mix in the heaping amounts of trouble with the 787 and funds necessary to keep it going. Stir lightly and allow to simmer for 20 minutes on stove.

You get the idea. Boeing is in a particularly bad position, and if they go belly-up the US aerospace ecosystem (if you will) is going to take a huge hit, even if Boeing agglutinates with another company the turnover will be extremely slow. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Boeing needs some help. It would therefore be reasonable to assume that the government can see this, and would want to give them a contract so as to save Boeing's arse.

Now, the moderately observative would say "But the competition winner was Northrop and EADS. Ergo: me right, you wrong," to which I would reply "A-ha! But you are of much shorter height than average, and your faces are exceedingly ugly," followed immediately by pointing out that this was quickly overturned. This could easily be a scare tactic to motive Boeing to giving the US government a better product at a better price for fear of bankruptcy. It's better to make a little profit than chance for a bit more and lose the entire contract. This does nothing but good for the government since they get a better value by giving Boeing the time and the motivation to provide such.

The cancellation of the RFP for the new administration only gave Boeing more time to refine their offering. This latest post by Harlequin suggests further that the administration is attempting to favor Boeing while still making them earn the contract by giving one side information denied the other. This could, again, easily be a way of prompting Boeing to provide better value for the government while still staying in business.

This large amount of coincidences that conveniently come to Boeing's aid at the expense of Northrop and EADS suggests to me that this could perhaps be, as described initially, a way to toss Boeing a bone while still forcing them to give some value back.

----------------------------------------------------

With all that logic and evidence in there, I rather got caught up at the time in trying to make connections without realizing that there was, in fact, a severe flaw which essentially beats down the argument. It goes thus:

How can we assume that the US government is capable of devising, agreeing upon, and successfully carrying out such a complex and clever plan when they clearly can't find their arses with their own hands?

Pr0