GE gets win out of Northrop deal with military

The team members on the KC-767 have already been identified, and UTX P&W division was named as the engine supplier for the tanker. Therefore, it rules out Rolls Royce. The $5 Billion that GE gets for engines would have instead gone to UTX, so in effect, that portion of your "math" is muted.
Will the Air Force next ask the NOC / EADS team to bid on the next generation of AWACS ?
This award STINKS, and it wll end up being a fiasco with huge cost overruns and long delayed deliveries similar to the Presidential helicopter contract that also went to a LMT / European team.

I wonder if this decision was backed by the assumption that the U.S. Dollar won't remain weak against the Euro indefinitely. Is there a clause in the contract that addresses currency adjustments as part of the bargain? I think it would. Hopefully, the price of the KC's are pegged on the Euro.

Steven, do you always spit out your dummy when you can't get your own way? The only reason that GE engines were chosen over Rolls Royce was because the US Navy said they would shoot the Airbus Tankers down. Remember the P51, absolute crap until they put a Merlin engine in it.

Hugh....what is your problem.
I just stated a fact that the P&W engine was the BA tankers propulsion as identified by Boeing.
Made no comment about either the GE or Rolls engine.
My comment was to correct the "math" stated in the blog.....that no matter who won, it was going to be a US engine.

Hugh, Steven is saying that the engine issue is a wash because 767 would have Pratt & Whitney power-so, your mention of Rolls Royce makes no sense, neither does the "USNavy" reference. The great story of the Mustang is not relevant here. And....you're very rude. Think about it.

We're paying off the Europeans to stay in Afghanistan.
I think that's the short of it, politikally speaking.

Personally I love Paris, France.
They're great people and I really had a nice time in Paris and I can't wait to go back someday too with kids and the old lady.
But the fact that I'm married to a European doesn't mean that I'm going to lobby for French jobs.

I think a lot of this is the Administration paying back the Europeans for sending more troops to Afghanistan.(ie. UK, France and Germany)
It could be used as a politikal wedge to push the Europeans to do even more in the future, besides sitting on their lilly white derrieres in Northern Afghanistan.

Yes when W' goes to Europe this year the French are going to have to kiss his derriere for giving the French all those American jobs.
So you Europeans better recognize what really is going on.

Vive la France!

GE does not build one jet engine in Connecticut.

I think people need to get a grip. The EADS planes are better for this task (fly farther and can carry more fuel).
I, for one, am glad that the Air Force can be allowed to make a decision that's better on technical grounds. It's not ok to have all of our planes coming from one manufacturer.
It will make the marketplace better if other manfacturers believe they can compete on even playing field.

The wail of "support our troops" seems to diminish in this controversy. The Pentagon choice, said to be based upon a more recent design and technology, better fuel economy and greater payload, is being second-guessed by those who wish to keep the jobs here, even though there seems to be no such thing in this age of globalization.

Steve Real: does Connecticut receive tax revenue for hosting the GE corporation?

Wouldn't the EADS tankers be built in Alabama? I believe the GE engines are made in Ohio.

I am not very familiar with this area but I read an article saying the contract decision was not even close.