Originally Posted by
melmothtw
There's 'development', and then there's development. No one can truly say what might have been, but given the nature and extent of the modifications that would have been needed to turn the MRTT into the KC-45A and given the track record of the MRTT since the KC-X contract was first awarded back in 2008 I don't think it is too much of a leap of fatih to suggest that the USAF would now have the fully operational tanker-transport it desperately needs had it stuck to its original decision.
You're right, "no one can truly say what might have been." But Airbus clearly decided it took too much of a "leap of faith" to develop, integrate, and test all the requirements that needed to be developed within the time and cost constraints required by the contract. Simply put, it couldn't be done, by either Airbus or Boeing. The difference was that Boeing was willing to bid low and win the firm-fixed-price contract and accept the risk of paying out of pocket for the additional costs and paying the penalties for the additional time. Airbus was not. The final KC-X contest was won on price, pure and simple. Just as the T-X trainer, UH-1N replacement, and MQ-25 contests were won on price. Boeing underbid all the contestants by being willing to pay for the inevitable cost overruns out of pocket. None of these are the result of "anti European" sentiment claimed by so many.
Now about the phrase " I don't think it is too much of a leap of fatih to suggest that the USAF would now have the fully operational tanker-transport it desperately needs had it stuck to its original decision." You're suggestion requires the leap of faith that Airbus could have done in less time and less cost what Boeing could not do. The track record of both companies does not begin to support such a leap of faith.