Posted on 03/05/2008 1:15:16 PM PST by pissant
Correction: all MILITARY government contracts.
It only makes good business sense, because Japan has been a big buyer of Boeing products over the years, and has thus far frozen out Airbus from the Japanese market.
[The keyword "aerospace" has been added to this article. If anyone happens to come across an article that would interest the aerspace community, please tag it! If you want to read articles relating to aerospace then search for the keyword aerospace.
Now you can even add the Keyword aerospace to your sidebar! Click on the keyword search above, then click on "Add to your sidebar" Thanks!]
Aren’t there government officials doing time from the earlier Boeing Tanker case. Jump right in Pat Murry, a cell awaits you.
That can't be, you aren't French. //sarc
My understanding was that it was over a technical issue, although I am sure the recent scandal at Boeing might have something to do with it...believe me, contract officers do hold grudges. That being said...I am not surprised in the least that Hunter is doing this, as Boeing is one of his major contributors. He’s infamous for sticking his nose into contracting efforts where it doesn’t belong when it benefits him financially and he’s been involved with some sleazy really characters in the process (Cunningham, Wilkes, Rep. Jerry Lewis, etc.). That’s why I could never support him for President.
For all that keep referring Duncan Hunter as a ‘protectionist’, I strongly, strongly suggest you all read up on what cartelization is. The first symptom of cartelization is an unblanced exchange between organized industry. The next is the attempt of cartels to control foreign markets. Cartelization is not free market capitalism. Cartelization is an advocated new order of socialists. It is embraced to spread political dictatorship. We owe cartels our failure to expand American industry prior to Pearl Harbor. Currently, our present industry is unprepared for war.
Scary that the Globalist Free Trade crowd immediately labels someone “protectionist” when criticizing a deal that is bad for national security.
Hunter is absolutely correct in pointing this out. This is a bad deal
Funny also is that the free trade crowd says nothing about EADS being subsidized by givernments...truly non-market
I always question the commitment of Globalist free traders regarding national security. They value their wealth-redistribution scheme more than the safety of this country
They are the epitome of ‘sleaze’.
Congressman weighs options to undo refueling tanker contract (this thread)
Obama Is Disappointed Over Air Force Tanker Deal
Speaker calls for review of Air Force tanker contract
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama criticise choice of EADS for $40bn work
It’s not at all clear that this was a military decision. Seems that different congresscritters had political reasons for wanting to bring jobs to THEIR district, and that some irregularities may have been introduced into the bidding process.
Even when most of the jobs in question will be located in the US either way, I think it’s a good idea to have a policy of critical military equipment made my US companies unless there’s really a huge benefit in quality and/or cost to having it made by a foreign company. In times of war, political alliances tend to do some shifting, and a country which is an ally at the time a contract is awarded may be at odds with US interests in a wartime scenario. That’s when pressure from a foreign government on companies based in the foreign country could have a seriously detrimental effect on our military effort.
Hunter is one of the 5 congressmen here in San Diego.
Not factual to tie him with the sleaz. Reps.
Seems pretty clear it was to me:
TANKER COMPETITION: NORTHROP WON BY A WIDE MARGIN
...Here's how they were evaluated...
1. Mission capability. Arguably the most important factor, this metric compared the teams on performance requirements, system integration & software, product support, program management and technology maturity. The teams tied in most measures, but the Northrop offering was deemed to offer superior refueling and airlift capacity at 1,000 nm. range and substantially superior refueling and airlift capability at 2,000 nm. range. The superior airlift capacity of Northrop's plane was deemed a "compelling" consideration in giving Northrop the edge for this factor.
2. Proposal risk. This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did so only after being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker. The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost. The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive schedule, adding cost.
3. Past performance. The Northrop Grumman team received higher ratings in past performance due to satisfactory execution of half a dozen programs deemed relevant to the tanker competition. Air Force reviewers had less confidence in Boeing's past performance due to poor execution in three relevant programs. In addition, Northrop's subcontractors were rated more highly on past performance than Boeing's.
4. Cost/price. This was the factor in which many observers expected the Northrop-EADS team to shine, because EADS subsidiary Airbus usually underbids Boeing in commercial competitions. But Boeing compounded its difficulties in the eyes of reviewers by failing to adequately explain its assumptions in calculating the cost of developing a tanker. The resulting low confidence in Boeing cost projections undercut its claims of lower life-cycle costs. Northrop was rated higher.
5. Integrated assessment. The "integrated fleet aerial refueling assessment" was designed to compare how the competing planes would fare in an operational setting using a realistic wartime scenario. The review found that the Northrop Grumman proposal could accomplish specified missions with nearly two dozen fewer planes than the Boeing proposal, a big advantage.
So Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. Although both proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards.
...but they’re partnering with an European company that’ll have most of the actual work.
Yeah, that’s the ticket. Just like Hunter’s bigtime support for Boeing’s high tech virtual fence boondoggle along our southern border, the one Hunter penned an article called “Virtually De-Fenceless”. Must be those wealthy ma and pa concrete and steel fence builders that outbid Boeing for Hunter’s affections.
Or maybe in this case, that old pork-barreler Hunter decided to support the homeboy Boeing instead of that CALIFORNIA based Northrop Grumman. Wait, that does not make sense either.
Or maybe it is that you expected Hunter to acquiesce to globalism regarding our defense industry, something he has been fighting for 25 years just so we can give european subsidized competitors US tax dollars.
;)
There’s another side to the story. I don’t think any of us are really in a position to sort out the truth about the bidding process. Hopefully, there are enough honorable congresscritters to do that job properly.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-usa-tanker.html?scp=1&sq=airbus%20boeing&st=nyt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.