[Northrup KC-45-->]

I've been reading various commentaries and articles, but today I found the best one yet--one that convinced me that the EADS-Northrup deal is the best one for the country.

In terms of risk, Boeing management bears the responsibility for their poor score. The aircraft Boeing proposed to the Air Force-the KC-767AT -- is not the same jet it sold to Japan and Italy, which remain two and five years behind schedule respectively. The foreign KC-767s carry only 160K lbs of fuel, which is 20% less than the current KC-135. The proposed KC-767AT combines the wing, fuselage, and landing gear from different KC-767 models and has never been built, flown, tested, or certified. It uses a new engine never used on a B767 before. Boeing proposed integrating a digital cockpit with the old hydraulic flight control system, which historically has led to problems. Not to mention that they had not started boom development and continue to have problems with their drogue pods. The AF concluded that Boeing's proposed development plan posed greater risks in contrast to Boeing's assessment that their offering reflected "inherent manufacturing genius."

In contrast, Northrop had already built and tested the first Air Force tanker on its own nickel. That aircraft stands ready for final modification. Northrop's boom has been tested and passed fuel. The KC-45 Final Assembly Line (FAL) will be located in Mobile, Alabama. The KC-45 team has a core competency in designing, building, and operating FALs-and has conducted 12 successful FAL stand-ups to date. The Mobile FAL stand-up schedule is based on lead times experienced on these previous FALs and includes additional schedule margin. The warfighter will not be affected should any delays occur due to the availability of a duplicate aircraft production line. Northrop's plan was viewed by the Air Force-correctly in my opinion -- as less risky in terms of delivering warfighting capability on schedule.

Finally, Northrop came in cheaper than the Boeing design. Maybe the company was hungrier for the business and was willing to take a lower profit than Boeing. Basically, Northrop offered a more capable, lower cost system at lower risk than Boeing. That's why they won.

That's just not my view -- that's the view of men and women from five different air forces who decide what type of aircraft they want to take into combat. I'll defer to the warfighter's judgment.

Add to this that Northrup's KC-45 has 20% more fuel capacity, and the Air Force would have fiducially derelict not to pick it as the better option. As usual, what the corporate losers can't get through competition, they try to get through politics.

Kudos to John McCain for getting it right. He just went up a notch in my estimation.