[Rush104]

Any opinions about the winner of the Air Force's KC-X competition?

KC-X Winner: The Airbus A330 MRTT

[smartd]

Really surprised that they went overseas. Are there cost kick backs to produce some of the parts/sections in the US?
$35 Billion with a B is no small chunk of change.

[SkyBuffalo]

There was a huge uproar over the decision here in Wichita - ye old "Air Capitol". Everyone was expecting the contract to go to Boeing, which has one of its main assembly plants here. The contract going to Boeing would have brought tons of jobs to the city.

The main questions people are asking :

1.) Why would the U.S. government award the contract to a foreign company (lots of French jobs created, mostly) when it could have awarded it to a U.S. company and created lots of jobs for U.S. workers? Basically, they might pay a bit more for the planes, but it's better for the U.S. economy overall.

2.) Why award the contract to Grumman/Northrop & Airbus, companies which have never built a tanker, unlike Boeing?

Believe me, from what I've heard on the news here, the Pentagon people who made this decision are gonna get a nasty grilling to prove their case - we've got Senators steamin' mad over the news. It really does seem kinda whack! Even the U.S. government is deciding to outsource big contracts. Might as well get it overwith and rename the country China West, brought to you by Nike and Toyota.

[Tundra04]

It's great news for my home state...Other than that

[smartd]

Yup, gotta be a lot of politics goin' on here.

[Lakota Mech]

There sure seems to be a turn around from U.S. manufacturers.With the new presidental helicopter not being a Sikorsky. The Air Forces CSAR-X being protested for choosing the CH-47F. Now the Air Force Tanker. Even the UH-72A Lakota is a Eurocopter EC-145/BK-117-C-2. Not looking very good for the home team. Most of these new aircraft are being built in the South where the wages are tipically low. I guess the U.S. military has bought into globlization.

[Cavtanker]

Would this be an attempt to become more inter-operable with NATO allies by purchasing from their defense industries?

[smartd]

Originally Posted by Cavtanker

Would this be an attempt to become more inter-operable with NATO allies by purchasing from their defense industries?

That would seem likely, crew switching etc. Maybe hope to develop closer ties with French etc. Big price to pay though.

[Cavtanker]

Originally Posted by smartd

That would seem likely, crew switching etc. Maybe hope to develop closer ties with French etc. Big price to pay though.

Maybe this is a way the U.S. can mend international relationships with European countries.

[Rush104]

from what I've been reading about it, it sounds like the right choice. As far as the jobs- I think that's a moot issue. Sure, the Boeing choice would have created more jobs in the short term. But, in the long run, I think the Airbus will create more jobs overall. Not only will a large chunk of the assembly be done here in the US, but so will a large chunk of all future civilian A330 freighters.
In terms of the airplanes- sounds like the AB beat the 767 hands down. It can carry more fuel, and more cargo, further.
Plus, its a modern airplane, in current production. As I understand it, the 767 is nearing the end of its production run, if it hasn't already.
Finally, Boeing's shenanigans from a few years ago probably hurt their case, too.