EADS is not building the next AF tanker, NGC is.
We have a hybrid-tanker that will be built in a facility in the US that has not been built, yet, and then assembled 60/40 between NG and EADS.
Oh, and this EADS tanker has never been built and all media showing their in-flight hook-ups are still photos only, no video, and were not “wet” (actually passing gas). Does the boom actually function? Who knows. They never built a tanker before and never built a boom before.
Boeing, on the other hand, has a tanker their have built and already sold (Italy and Japan).
Which program is more risky?
Boeing. . . if you are to believe the USAF.
More costly? The extra fuel the EADS tanker carries makes the jet less efficient and burn more gas. The cost of burning the excess gas will be the same cost that the USAF would pay for the Boeing tanker.
Now, the national security question: Does it make sense to out-source our national security? I was in London when the decision was announced on Friday. On Monday, on one of those morning chat shows, a guy said something along the lines of, “. . .and when the United States decides to engage in another silly adventure like Iraq, we can slow deliveries or even suspend them. We can now force American foreign policy. . . “
Not surprising, actually, as this is why we (the US) sell arms—to have access and influence.
Bottom line: Bad choice due to excess cost, less tanker access to airports, and putting the US at risk. Not good.