Cohen's source is a dreamer or a liar. Boeing had already rigged the business once and got caught. Was the source involved in that?

Why do nearly all news reports exclude the fact that EADS - Northrop Grumman will be employing AMERICAN workers in these projects? People in my part of the U.S. are VERY pleased with the outcome of this contract award. The positive economic impact will be staggering. Conspiracy theories and accusations of selling out are nothing but sour grapes.

Considering Boeing was offering the 767 as opposed to the 737 all along. either we got a big typo here or Cohan's source need to find a new industry to focus on.

What true political gain could an outgoing administration with under 10 months left gain from such a move?

Airbus offered a more capable tanker also capable of easily carring more cargo and troops as a multi-role aircraft. Where airlines are sinking fast and the military is loosing much of its civilian airlift capability this is a plus.

Nevermind they sweetened the pot with a US-based assembly line. considering they will also put together civilian freighter versions of the A330 here, the deal has benefits beyond the simple military aspect and could open the door for Airbus to move more manufacturing and assembly jobs to the USA.

How that develops will be very interesting considering they price their aircraft in US dollars, and Boeing has been the sole entity that assembles large commercial jets in the US for sometime.

Airbus may realize more long term profits via the indirect profits from this. Just think a vast pool of gov't trained mechanics and pilots familiar with Airbus' designs. Their focus on cockpit commonality will go a long way here. The US government just assured the value of the A330 airframe on the new and used markets for decades to come.

Boeing will be fine too once the 787 really gets going.

Article is loaded with errors.
This contract was for 35-40 Billion with 2 more follow on contracts to be bid in the future.
BA NEVER offered the 737 as a tanker....it was the 767.
Get the correct facts.
If your forthcoming book is anything like this article, you will be lucky to sell ONE of them.

"But the Air Force told Boeing that it still wanted the 767-sized craft." Did Boeing get a paper stating "The B777 is to big" or did Boeing rely on an insider? I think this is a legend invented by Boeing.

Your source didn't mentioned that the final "Request For Proposal" was issued January 2007?

Your source didn't mentioned that a B777 is about $100 million more expensive than the B767 or the A330?

Your source didn't mentioned that a B777F won't comply with runway requirements of the final RFP?

Your source didn't mentioned that the design of the B767 is about 15 years older than the A330?

Your source didn't mentioned that Boeing builds 12 B767 a year and Airbus 6 A330 a month. Can you guess why without a veteran Wall Street analyst?

Despite all these Airbus supporters views; the Boeing company has a 50 year record of success building and servicing combat tankers. The contract will be paid for with taxpayer funds and I do not want a dime going to a European company for defense purposes. When Europe finally decides to budget for their full defense needs and relieves Americans from doing so in their behalf then I will consider otherwise. Remember, we have supported these folks militarily since 1945 with our tax dollars. If Bush gives this contract to Sarkozy he will simply be listing another black mark in his legacy book.

Claude’s comments are rather naïve in assuming that somehow “buying American” means the Europeans do not get our precious tax dollars. In this age of globalizations it’s an almost ridiculous assumption to make; The highly-vaunted (rightfully so) 787 in quite the international effort with companies in America, Europe, and Asia contributing components. The American content of the A330 airframe and resulting KC-45 tanker is just shy of 60%. The Air Force is indeed buying American.

Many seem to forget EADS is the primary *sub*contractor to Northrop-Grumman. Their offer puts an assembly line in Alabama for the KC-45 and A330 freighter variants. This line support American jobs, of a kind that are lacking in the region. Let’s look at NG’s claims:

•The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program will create a new aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States thereby broadening and strengthening the U.S. aerospace industry.
•The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker will support more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs in the United States—a conservative estimate based upon the U.S. Department of Commerce aerospace industry jobs projection formula.
•Using more recent data from our suppliers and applying the Labor Department’s formula for projecting aerospace jobs at the state and regional level, the KC-45A will employ approximately 48,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide.
•The Northrop Grumman KC-45A U.S. supplier base includes 230 companies in 49 states.
Assembly and militarization of the Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker will take place in Mobile, Ala., resulting in the creation of 2,000 jobs.
•The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program does not transfer any jobs from the United States to France or any other foreign country.

Again I find the most interesting thing to look for here will be if Airbus uses this as a stepping stone to more aircraft assembly lines in the United States. There's a trained workforce, the exchange rate for them is favourable, and they do have a next-generation narrowbody to design next. If they can manufacture A320's in China for the Chinese market, who's to say we won't see a similar situation here with current or future aircraft. Afterall, the KC-45 and A330F will both now be "born" in the USA.

so let's leave the petty flag waving and political buzz-words out of this. The 767 line will end, many workers will transition to the 787 as its line and production ramp up. Boeing can sit easy for the next decade on that 1000 order backlog. The US military gets new and much-needed equipment and expanded capabilities, the public gets new high-technology employment, everyone makes a few $$$, and world will keep spinning.

FYI, J, Claude is a retired international procurement exec whose family has been American patriots since 1635. We believe in America and the need to support our indigenous industrial infrastructure to the hilt. Yes, all technology heavy products built in the USA contain a wide variety of components from abroad but they can be assembled with American labor. As I recall it's union labor that is well paid and whom support schools, hospitals, police, firefighters and the military with their taxes. Union labor has declined since the 1980 Reagan era to a pittance of its former status. Any airframe built in France will not be built with American labor. Any major component built offshore will not be built with American labor. J, what do you not understand about the need to keep Americans working to the maximal extent possible. We cant just trade stocks, bonds or CDO's and maintain national strength.We must manufacture high value products. Finally, I want my grandson's fighter fed from an American Boeing built tanker paid for with my and your tax monies.

Clause, my friend you could turn out to be the CEO of Boeing and it still wouldn't matter if the only discussion topic being presented was nationalism draped in an American flag with little else to back it up.

So the sin of globalized outsourcing is forgiven as long as a true as apple pie American hand rivets that last joint? Why ignore then that the subcontractor on the KC-45 will ship the components to a facility in Alabama where Americans will then assemble the final airframes, and then tug them across the street to the Northrop Grumman will conduct the final tanker coversion and systems installations.

Of course our much beloved American Boeing is equally as guilty. The marvelous 787 is a global effort, all parts come to Boeing who essentially just fasten the joints together. Entire fuselage segments and the wing box are airlifted ready-to-assemble from Japan, they even provide the 787 lavatories, the main landing gear gets shipped in from France (with *gasp* Russian components!), Italy sends over a few more fuselage components, and customers can even order English-built powerplants. But it's okay, an American puts it all together.

Which is exactly what will happen in Alabama, bringing high-technology and manufacturing jobs to an area that needs it. American jobs so they can pay their taxes, support the troops, their local economies and send their kids to school. Okay, maybe no union dues with AL being a right-to-work state. Tragedy I tell you! Sheer madness!.

All the big aerospace jobs can't stay in just Everett and Wichita. Boeing looses nothing as it transitions its workers and supply chain to the 787, a hot seller that will likely have them expanding operations to keep up. Northrop and EADS are investing more in the American economy than Boeing with this deal and it will show.

But darn, I guess we got to flush away all those new jobs and economic growth because its a non-union shop and some cheese-eating surrender monkey thought up an airframe design 20 years ago that some good Southern boys are going to put together.

Your grandson will tank up from an American-built tanker sourced from a logical and economical international supply chain and based on a proven design from allied nations.

A design mind you that has won many other international tanker competitions. Commonality with our NATO and other military allies, heck that's just icing on the cake.

Of course let's also allow Northrop to describe the KC-45A and it's manufacturing process:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7K-ytTdGL4c

Whoever is the author they are imbecilic and clueless. Boeing lost because Airbus had a better product. The UK is building the wing. Between the UK, Spain, and the USA content will be in excess of 82%. Us and our closest allies (who by the way buy billions in US arms from us) will build all but 18% of the aircraft.

The Boeing product w/ Japan has about 89% US/Japanese content w/ 11% bought elsewhere. So now we are talking a total of 7% difference in content over 13 years, or a total of about $189 million per year. By comparison we purchase 13.5 million barrels of oil per DAY, from offshore. At $115 per barrel this $189 million difference for the defense contract is 8.2 hours worth of oil imports.

Seriously people....you'd willingly sacrifice our men and women with less capable equipment for the price of 8.2 hours worth of oil imports simply to give yourselves bragging rights on the internet?

Patriot my ass.

WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS SLIDING INTO A RECESSION AND WE ARE LOSING JOBS ON A DAILY BASIS. THESE, TWO TOP REPUBLICANS AWARDED THE EUROPEANS A 100 BILLION CONTRACT.
THIS WILL CREATE MANY JOBS FOR THE EUROPEANS FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.
THEY WANT TO APPEASE THEIR IRAQI CRITICS. SO THAT THE CAN CONTINUE THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.
I GUESS NOW ARE KIDS WILL CONTINUE TO SPILL THEIR BLOOD. AND OUR GRAND KIDS AND SENIOR CITIZENS WILL CONTINUE TO ECONOMICALLY SLIDE DOWN HILL FOR THE NEXT 30YRS. THE PERIOD THEIR SURAR DADDIES CONTRACTORS WILL LAST.

PRECIGIL,

your comments are hard to read and with false accusations. As I know the old tankers will be replaced through three separate deals. At the moment NG only has a contract for building a few test aircrafts worth $1.5 billion. If NG succeeds building the proposed aircrafts NG will get the first of three tranches worth $ 36 Billion.

I don't get how and for what the US have to appease someone for the Iraq war? France is maybe smiling about this disaster at first. They don't have soldiers there or to pay for that war. But the US is also a market for France. France also worry about the US economy going down due the enormous costs of this war.

Do you know how much of the KC-767 would be US made? You have to read the Boeing announcements carefully. What I read Boeing is only talking about the US content of the current B767 production. How much will Boeing outsource of the KC-767 production?

This article is right on!! The Boeing offering is better!! What about the expense of the increased runways and hangars. What about the increased fuel expense for all the training missions? The back-up plan for airbus is that if things do not go well in the production they will build the entire plane in Europe. Guess what AL this may not be the huge economic boom you hoped for!!

This theory is even too much for us at http://www.tankerwarblog.com . Bush might not want to rock the boat with two countries he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan, but we doubt he could/would rig a $35 billion dollar contract just to win friends.

To “J”. The AF does not need a “more capable tanker” to carry cargo and troops. The C-17 (claimed by the AF Pilots who fly it to be the best cargo aircraft ever built for the AF by Boeing) meets or exceeds all the needs for cargo with a delivery system adaptable to any landing spot in the world. That cargo plane configured as a complete operating hospital has saved hundreds of lives of troops coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It also meets the mission needs for delivering troops safely to any war zone spot on the globe. Most troops are delivered to safe zones by civilian charter airlines. The USAF can not compete by law with commercial airlines within the United States. That is why seats on a military cargo planes are limited and monitored to ensure no competition. So “J” tankers should not or are not required to be multi-role aircraft. Just make sure that they perform all that is required by a tanker. Someone said about all the military hardware that Europe has purchased. Obviously they did not know about “offset programs”. Those countries gained in trade offsets that usually covered 110 to 120% the total cost of the military buy. Maybe Airbus should be required to “offset” the tanker program with goods and services that are 110 -120% the cost of the tanker deal. An for those of you who think they understand this effort ----- I speak with direct experience with the fact that if Boeing bid as a sub-contractor for a military program in France --- their change of winning regardless of how qualified their proposal was is ZERO!!!! 26 years in the USAF with 5 years of offset programs in Europe back up my comments.

Dear F J H,

C-17 is perhaps the best cargo lifter for the Air Force but also a very expensive one. The fuel consume is twice as high as for a KC-767 or KC-45.
Look for "Table 9. Fuel Burn Rates"
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afpam10-1403.htm

And that is what the AMC wants in its own words:
"KC-X: THE NEXT MOBILITY PLATFORM
THE NEED FOR A FLEXIBLE TANKER!"

"General Norton A. Schwartz, Commander, US Transportation Command, is on record stating his need for tanker flexibility: 'I am looking for versatility; single-mission airplanes don’t give that. The Secretary of Defense went to Baghdad in a C-17. Would I send [him] to Baghdad in a C-17 if I had a KC-X? Probably not, I would use the C-17 in a better way.' 'If I had a properly configured tanker that had doors and floors, could carry passengers, and defensive systems, I could…return the C-17 either to moving cargo or reduce the tempo.'"

http://www.amc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070227-044.pdf

Dear MHALSLAUB

The fuel burn rate you refer to is what we call a number that is used to convince Congress that our new military toy is better and therefore should be funded. Since the C-17 is flown by a mission computer (for takeoff, landing, air refueling of the C-17, and combat zone cargo drops) the only “real” fuel burn rates for specific missions are in the mission computer. So only the computer knows the “real” burn rate. By the way the EADS paper design can not know what its burn rate will be until they build one and actually fly it. The reason the Secretary of Defense flies (or rides) in the C-17 is because when you fly into a combat zone you want to be in the aircraft that is designed for that kind of mission. I am sure that Gen Schwartz would make sure that when he is scheduled to go into a war zone he will be on a C-17 not a KC-X fuel bomb. When Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and 34 other passengers crashed 2 to 3 miles off course into a mountain while trying to land at Dubrovnik Airport (Croatia) in 1996 in a military presidential CT-43 ------ the decision to fly President Clinton a short while later was obvious ---- he went into to Dubrovnik in a C-17. There is a lot of history of building those multi-role, versatile weapon systems for various branches of the military that looked like a great idea for cost savings and mission efficiencies ----- only to have the real people (i.e. the pilots that fly them) finally in the end get the vehicle that is designed to get the essential mission accomplished safely and effectively. If Gen Schwartz wants a properly configured “aircraft” that has doors and floors, could carry passengers, and defensive systems along with a fantastic mission computer integrated with all the other flight systems ---- he has it ----- it is called the C-17. Regarding your comment about the cost of a military weapon system --- a well designed system that has to perform to critical mission parameters is not cheap --- you do not fight a war with Wal-Mart off the shelf (made in China or should I say France) weapon systems. So I say again build a tanker not a TFX.

It is very important to try to remove national emotion from discussions about aircraft, even military ones. These discussions always seem to provoke the same of jingoistic knee jerk reaction that have been shown on this blog. The A330 is a relatively young airliner, the aging kerosene thirsty B767, that Boeing is proposing, will only continue in production if Boeing gets the contract for the tanker fleet. In view of the delays to the B787 ands the re-design (with the incurred delays) of the A350, the A330 is today the best positioned twin jet plane in the world for this job. Its still in production, it has an excellent safety record. And with its super critical wing has the lowest fuel burn rate of the big jets. It will be more than just assembled in the US at Mobil, it will be partly manufactured there, all the military bits and pieces and systems will be Northrop Grumman. In reading these responses to this blog I get the feeling forr “national” reasons that the USAF should only buy planes made by US companies in the USA. If Europe was to apply the same policy then the following EU countries would be cancelling their F-16 orders and buying the Eurofighter or the Rafale; Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Poland (48 just ordered), Portugal and the Netherlands. We are after all meant to be allies all part of NATO.

Dear F J S,

In my opinion the Air Mobility Command is capable of reading the “real” fuel burn rates out of each system properly and compile them to one significant number per aircraft.

To fly in with remarkable painted 747 Air Force One in a theater like Dubrovnik in 1996 is like to ask for a missile. The President also needs a special fleet of cars. So a C-130 or a C-17 is pretty well for a fast trip without much attention attracted. You don't need a C-plane if you got enough APC on the ground.

A KC-45 is as much a fuel bomb as a C-17. Both have only wing tanks. The KC-767A got additional fuel bladders on the lower cargo deck. All three aircrafts have or will have nearly identical defensive systems.

A C-17 is for taking tanks to the troops and not for delivering donuts. That can be done with a KC-45 much cheaper. Until today to much lifetime of C-17s is wasted with delivering donuts.