America , it not only met but exceeded the requirements. and in boeings own words"COLLABORATIVE EFFORT.”  Boeing needed to cut costs to be able to compete with the more efficient Airbus, but Boeing also needed top engineering talent from around the world to help it pull off what will be the design and production of the first plastic commercial jetliner. “We just had to make sure that we absolutely found the most capable and the best of what we needed,” Bair says. “We couldn’t limit it to Boeing, Washington state, or the U.S.”

how about that a PLASTIC tanker.

The Airbus plane did not meet all the requirements for the contract!!  It cannot be awarded.  The Gao report is clear the bid by Boeing did meet the requirements.  The AF can either change the contract award to Boeing or rebid the kt.  They cannot leave the kt. where it is because Airbus is too slow to refuel all planes under parameter set up by the FAA.  Airbus’s answer is to change the requirements.  This is not going to happen especially after contract award!

jack johnson, little bit of info for you,
on that boeing frankenbird, as some pilots are calling it. Boeing bid a version of the 767 that has never been built before, including for the Japan and Italy KC-767 programs. They proposed to build a KC-767 “Advanced” which was the 767-200F fuselage, with the 767-400 cockpit and -300 wings with -400 flaps. No additional risk for the integration and certification of a new airframe configuration?

The aircraft that Northrop GNo mention by Boeing of their own program delays of up to 4 years in first delivery of the KC-767 for the Japanese and Italians? The KC-767 built for those two countries used the 767-200 wings, and suffered from high speed flutter, requiring literally years of additional development to tame. Now Boeing is switching to new wings for the KC-X proposal, so any work to tame the flutter in the KC-767 may not apply to the new configuration.
rumman/EADS bid was the same airframe that is already in development for the U.K, Australia, and Saudi Arabia.
Their plane also carries less fuel. The higher fuel capacity of the NGC tanker means longer range, more time up in the air, less need to return to base and refuel, and more fuel delivered to other planes.

http://www.wkrg.com/news/flash_paper/Northrop_KC-30_Compared_to_Boeing_KC-767/

Round and round we go…....

Give us a link to a verifiable source that might back up some of your claims.  Nothing I have read even comes close to denying that the NG plane is a better product at a better price.

The Airbus plane is too slow to refuel all USAF planes.  This is a requirement of the RFP that Airbus did not meet.  It is impossible to award the contract to a bid that did not meet all the mandatory requirements.  If the DOD does not stop this contract the congress will!  The AF set the requirements and they have to live by them.

“The KC-45 is needed now, and Northrop Grumman is ready now to provide it,” said Meyer. “Should the Air Force choose to proceed with our existing contract, we are ready to get to work. Northrop Grumman offered the superior tanker and nothing in the GAO analysis contradicts this essential truth.

“Northrop Grumman remains the only company in this competition that has built, tested and flown its plane. In addition, our refueling boom has just completed its 100th flight test. At this point, our competitor has offered only a paper plane,” Meyer said. “For our men and women in uniform, the most important thing is to field the new tanker as soon as possible. Only Northrop Grumman is ready to do that.”

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=145311

The Boeing plane has been delivered and tested by Japan and Italy.  The Boeing plane will not require huge amounts of money for runways and hangars.  The current tankers usually return to base with over half the fuel in the tank.  The Boeing plane is cheaper to operate at a time when the fuel prices are going though the roof.  The Boeing plane is more manuverable and when tankers have to be sent across enemy lines to rescue a fighter this matters!!  My husband has flown in 2 wars, he knows!

Please explain how Boeing can offer a better plane, when they have yet to even test ONE. The NG/EAD plane is ready for operation, with slight modification and has been tested. How is it better for the taxpayer? Most of the jobs Boeing offers will be outsourced to China, Korea, Italy and probably the majority to their new Mexico plant. NG/EADS will be offering AMERICANS jobs.

For America - I don’t like to get personal on websites, because the topic is the important thing.  But, you must be as dumb as a box of rocks!

Have you read nothing about the RFP and the proposed tankers?