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.
According to McCain, it's terrific! He fights against "Buy American" provisions. From the 1996 Congressional Record [Page: S451] (Defense Auth Act - Conf Rpt):
BUY AMERICA
Mr. President, let me take a moment to discuss the `Buy America' restrictions in this bill. The conferees did remove a waiver provision which would have had the unintended consequence of rewarding nations with a history of retaliatory trade practices. However, the bill adds `Buy America' restrictions for propellers, ball bearings, and many other items which, frankly, are counterproductive to our ongoing trade relations with our most important allies.
As an example, the British placed orders for approximately $5 billion in United States-made defense articles last year; United States orders of British-made defense items totaled only about $800 million last year, a ratio of 4-to-1 to our economic advantage. This is a somewhat unusual year, in terms of the size of British orders to United States companies. I am advised that, on average, the British Government purchases twice as much defense equipment from the United States as we do from them.
Yet, even with this obvious economic advantage to the United States of doing business with the British Government, the new restrictions in this conference agreement would require the Pentagon to purchase many items from United States manufacturers rather than allowing competition from British and other foreign manufacturers. The result is that the U.S. taxpayer will not necessarily get the best deal on the price of these goods, and our trade relations with our allies will suffer as a result.
(snip)
I'm disgusted by his words and hate it when we threaten national security in the name of trade or place some unwritten rule (like we should buy as much from them as they buy from us). When it comes to defense, I really don't care if our trade relations "suffer" a little or if the price tag is a bit higher. That said, I think the Northrop Grumman/EADS deal was fair and open--they won. No technology transfer is passing to the foreigners, and measures have been taken to prohibit access to any sensitive technology. In light of a decade of the globalist rhetoric demonstrated by McCain, above, I don't think we can get much better (for now).
You spew propaganda.