Most of those wouldn't be "new" jobs. I would rather have workers in Washington State keep their jobs and pump money into a Chicago-based company than have Boeing workers lose their jobs to generate new jobs in Alabama and pump money into a European-based company (EADS).

Taken from the Boeing website:

Nationwide, the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker program will support 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers.

Are you saying taxes from those 25,000 American workers and 230 companies are MORE than what we'd get from Boeing's Tanker? I didn't say we would not get anything back for our tax dollars with the Scarebus. I did say we'd get MORE tax dollars back with the Boeing.

Check out this interesting article... I like the comparison between the completely shady 2002 lease deal to the current deal. I would have liked to see Boeing field the right aircraft at the right price but in the end Boeing got what it deserved... Congrats to Northrop and EADS!

"Competition between Northrop Grumman and Boeing provides the Air Force with a choice between the past and the future -- and with significantly greater value. In 2002, the Air Force was about to lease 100 KC-767s for $25 billion--about the same price it can now buy 179 KC-30s or KC-767s.
Competition drove cost, quality and capability on both sides to the advantage of the U.S. government -- the Air Force now has the option to acquire the more capable KC-30 for about the same cost as the KC-767. Would it really make sense to purchase a system that's "good enough" when the Air Force could get more capability and operational flexibility for the same cost?"

Full Article Link
http://www.al.com/opinion/press-regi...640.xml&coll=3

Jerry, I agree that the USAF did not have the taxpayer in mind. But guess who holds the purse-strings for the DoD? Are you married Jerry? Ever try to buy something big without consulting the wife?

Look, there is going to be a big debate in Congress over this regardless of who was announced the winner. I think this is going to end up being a political selection, and I have to give the edge to Boeing and the 44,000 jobs.

Those of us that fly the KC-135 like Boeing and feel that Boeing has the better product. Ever fly a 50 YO Scarebus Jerry? No? Would you care to? No further questions!

"Our sorties" being -135's... The majority of -10 sorties offload 100's of Thousands of pounds of fuel and carry a ton of cargo. The Air Force is moving away from specialized one mission aircraft and moving to a one aircraft can do everything mindset. Just look at the C-17, F-35 and now the KC-30. Now instead of having a ramp full of -135's sitting there waiting to offload 10k of fuel why not have a -30 takeoff, offload that 10k of fuel while moving 60 pax, 20 pallets of cargo all on one sortie. Think that doesn't happen? The -10 does it all of the time...

The -135 does a great job at what it was designed to do 50 years ago but in todays do more with less Air Force why not have the most capable assets available to the war fighter?

# Vought Pampa 2000 Vought (initially LTV, then owned by Northrop (1992), then part of Northrop Grumman (1994)) with heavily modified FMA IA63 called Pampa 2000.
# SIAI Marchetti S.211 partnered with Grumman; (Northrop Grumman)*
# Rockwell Ranger 2000
# Lockheed T-Bird II,partnered with Aermachhi for Aermacchi MB-339; note in 1995 Lockheed merged to be come Lockheed Martin.
# Embraer EMB-312H Super Tucano partnered with Northrop; (Northrop Gumman)*. Special Super Tucano with better engine and other improvements (aka Tucano II).
# Beech-Pilatus PC-9 Mk 2, which won the competition. The PC-9 Mk 2 had a 70% redesign by Beechcraft and was further developed into, and entered serve as, the T-6 Texan II, and made by Raytheon (which has owned Beechcraft since the 1980s).
++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Most figured the military would NOT fall back into a turboprop however it did with apparently good results.

The Pampa 2000 and the S.211 look fairly similar and some thought the MB-339 was too much airplane for the mission. The Super Tucano was beaten out by the PC-9. I don't remember the Rockwell entry getting even much press.

One of the unique requirements was the ejection seat had to accommodate a much wider range of ergonomics so it could eject little Janie (small and light) as well as big Brutus (big and heavy).

The T-46 was just a poor machine that got bad reviews from those who flew it... lots of problems with the airplane and certainly a bad curtain call for a company, Republic, that had built some of the world's most famous airplanes.. the P-47, the F-84 and the F-105. (don't slam the -84.. for its time it was a fairly fast machine although it took miles of concrete to commit to flight)

Jerry is a -10 guy so he knows that there is life beyond Boeing. What do you think those guys on the BA 777 think about Boeing? All I'm saying is that what you refer to as a "Scarebus" is leaps and bounds more advanced than the 767. Now the 777 and 787 are sweet advanced airplanes but unfortunately for Boeing there was no way that they could afford to offer them at a price remotely close to a 330.

By the way you would never get me on an A380 but the A330 is one heck of a sweet ride!!

You obviously work for Northrup Grumman - good company.

Given that this plane may end up being the next tanker, here's a new trick you are going to have the teach the ScareBus......we (tanker pilots) require the plane to follow our commands, even if they are ourside of the normal airline range, for our tactical manuvering in training and combat.

I don't want to get into an argument over who makes the better airplane because we all know that Gulfstream makes the best airplanes in the world!!!

Seriously, all airplanes have growing pains, including Boeing. Did you see that another 777 in LA yesterday had an uncommanded power delay?

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...ad.php?t=22978
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-throttle.html

I've never piloted an Airbus and I prefer Boeing to Airbus but in this case Airbus had the better offer. I think Boeing just thought we would never let EADS have the deal, and I'm guessing there are many people wondering "what went wrong" in Seattle and Chicago.

What the Air Force Wanted
 

AMC White Paper on the need for a flexible tanker

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

It's 18 pages long but the first page tells you why the -30 won the competition. KC-X was about a lot more than just about passing gas...