Posted on 02/29/2008 7:13:12 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Air Force decision awarding a $35 billion aircraft contract to a team including the European parent of Airbus landed like a bomb in Congress on Friday, drawing howls of protest from lawmakers aligned with the loser, America's Boeing Co.The Congressional delegation from the Seattle area said they were "outraged." Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt vowed to seek a review of the decision "at the highest levels of the Pentagon and Congress" in hopes of reversing it.
Boeing has big facilities in both Seattle and Wichita, which stood to gain from the long-term project to build up to 179 aerial refueling tankers. Although Boeing was favored to win the contract, the Air Force awarded it to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and Europe's EADS.
Conventional wisdom was running so strongly against Northrop-EADS in some corners of Capitol Hill that Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office issued a statement late on Friday declaring Boeing the winner. It was swiftly retracted.
Lawmakers from Alabama, where Northrop and EADS plan to do some tanker work, were effusive in praising the Air Force.
"I thought all along that the Northrop Grumman-EADS proposal was the best," Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, told reporters. He said the contract would bring nearly 7,000 jobs to the state.
On the disappointment of Chicago-based Boeing's allies, Shelby said he understood. "If Boeing had won this contract ... I would have been concerned about it."
As for Tiahrt's vow to seek a review, Shelby said, "The Pentagon and the Air Force have made their decision and I think it was for the right reasons and I'll stand by that."
The decision was sure to result in a debate, with a formal protest also possible, said defense consultant Jim McAleese.
The tanker deal will give EADS a huge boost in the U.S. defense market, making it the second biggest foreign supplier behind Britain's BAE Systems, analysts said.
"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refueling tanker -- a tanker assembled in America -- by Americans," said Alabama Republican Rep. Jo Bonner.
Bonner represents Mobile, Alabama, where assembly work on the aircraft will be done, although it will largely be constructed in France at facilities of EADS' unit Airbus.
Airbus, with large facilities in Toulouse, is Boeing's arch-rival in the global commercial airliner business.
Wichita's Rep. Tiahrt said, "I am deeply troubled by the Air Force's decision to award the KC-X tanker to a French company that has never built a tanker in its history.
"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs."
Tiahrt said he will seek to have the decision reviewed by both the Pentagon and Congress. "At the end of this laborious process, I hope the Air Force reverses its decision."
Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, along with six other lawmakers from the state said in a joint statement: "We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military.
"We will be asking tough questions about the decision to outsource this contract. We look forward to hearing the Air Force's justification."
(Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, editing by Richard Chang)
They are just supplying the airframe, Northrop Grumman is doing the complete system integration and managing the program.
Lockheed is the prime contractor for the JSF, Northrop Grumman only builds the center section.
France buys E2-C Hawkeyes from Northrop Grumman. Quite an expensive Naval AWAC.
Northrop aircraft division employees are not unionized! Never been!
The Air Force was absolute this time around on having a checklist and awarding a fair contract. If there never was to be a conctract issued to a foreign company...then congress should have written the rule...but they didn’t. I’m guessing at the end of the checklist...Northrop/EADS had the better plane. You have to remember...this plane isn’t just a tanker...it had to be able to haul cargo and passengers, if required...so you have to quickly disassemble pieces and have it quickly ready for the next mission. I’m guessing Boeing’s plane wasn’t a “quick-turn-around” plane.
So I’d ask myself...why waste effort complaining to congress? A significant group of Alabamians are going to be employed. The last time I looked...we were still part of the US and paying US taxes...so we aren’t exactly giving away vast sums of money to foreigners. Also...the last time I looked...the Seattle area was one of the most expensive areas in America to manufacture anything. Mobile is at the other end of the spectrum...so we saved the government a heck of a lot on cost.
I don’t see a problem here. Both Boeing and Airbus have pluses and minuses....neither makes a perfect plane. So this all comes into the scenario in the end.
France is infested by jihadists. this is not good!
a. If I want to ship a car home at the end of my tour it must be a car that the government originally shipped here for me or an American made car that I purchased in Germany. The government will not pay to ship a BMW, Toyota, etc back home. Why? To protect Detroit.If the government is so worried about funneling the chump change (compared to the cost of these tankers) that Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines "pump" back into U.S. companies why is the AF not forced to do the same?b. When I travel on government orders I must fly on a US flag carrier. Why? To maintain a healthy US fleet of carriers.
There was a letter to Air Force times last month by 3 retired Generals who are being paid by Northrop Grumman/EADS.
I remember two of them: Gen Short and Gen Horner.
They argued for a "bigger" tanker.
I personally would have gone for Boeing, but I wasn't on the Source Selection Board.
One company has the factory, but no plane yet. (They only submitted the KC-767AT proposal in April 2007)
The other has no con-US production facilities yet, but already has the first aircaft for the US contract in the air (maiden flight was in September 2007) The first KC-30 tanker aircraft, the D-1, completed its maiden flight, lasting four hours, on 25 September 2007. D-1 will be the first aircraft delivered to the US Air Force if the Northrop Grumman-led team is awarded the KC-X contract.
Northrup-Grumman will probably have the factory up before Boieng could have worked the bugs out of the bew version of the KC-767.
Because some are more equal than others.
At present we have an interesting form of government that some have described as:
1. Public expense/private profit.
2. A worthy elite appointed by the previously worthy as our leadership.
EADS and Boeing both submitted their proposals on the bid deadline of April 2007.
However Boeing dithered over which of their freighters (767, 777, or hypotheical 787) to turn into the bid tanker, only deciding on the 767 in February 2007
Meanwhile EADS had been building a 330 to the USAF specifications, flying it in September 2007.
Who looks keen, who looks lazy?
As for Boeing resubmitting a new more competitive design, they had years to do just that, and SHOULD have. But they didn’t. Now times up, and USAF need the tankers.
>>>EADS and Boeing both submitted their proposals on the bid deadline of April 2007. However Boeing dithered over which of their freighters (767, 777, or hypotheical 787) to turn into the bid tanker, only deciding on the 767 in February 2007. Meanwhile EADS had been building a 330 to the USAF specifications, flying it in September 2007.
It goes back further. Boeing had the contract in 2004 to lease USAF the 767 tanker. This was the corrupt deal that got Boeing and DoD people sent to prison. I was referencing that Boeing had these additional years to gauge the competition and improve their offer to meet and beat the advantages of the Airbus tanker. They again in 2007 offered the same 767 airplane with no substantial upgrades to meet the competition. In other words they simply coasted on the assumption that a lesser Boeing would be chosen over the superior Airbus. Counting on their political pull I imagine.
And for not buying this retread, freepers are cursing McCain and throwing around accusations of treason at the Air Force and DoD. It gets unreal sometimes.
I thought that EADS has been supplying aerial refueling tankers to other countries for years.
I am disappointed that Boeing didn't win, even though their corruption is disgusting. But, now I am afraid that Congress will delay and obstruct this action and the ones who will pay for it will be our warfighters.
I would urge everyone to e-mail or call their representatives about this. Why should we have a European company building products that we need to defend our country?
An original Romanian AK is one of the best AK’s ever produced.
When you are done hyperventilating, get a grip and think about this...
The EADS offering carries 2-3 times the fuel that the Boeing offering does,
It has both Air Force and Navy style refueling systems,
Boeing has a history of unethical behavior on the original Tanker Proposal...They should have been debarred and not even allowed to bid on this contract!
I work for a defense contractor and we are required to undergo ethics training every year and what Boeing got nailed for is an obvious no-no! American workers (Boeing and their subcontractors) are the victims of Boeing's unethical behavior.
The Warfighters need this new tanker and the damned politicians should just get the hell out of the way and let NG/EADS deliver! Boeing reflected the behavior of Congress, unethical and sleazy! We have gotten the government we deserved...we elected them.
Andrea Shalal-Esa is an independent Iraq- Born Journalist married to a German, she writes a LOT about American Military intelligence.And apparently also feminist Arab-American writer interviews.
I think one day soon, the Chinese warlords will begin carving up independent territories in China and abroad, and put the illiterate masses to work as the worlds mercenaries.
Hrmm... the delta in pallets and pax between the two definitely makes the EADS-Northrup proposal an attractive offer, since the aircraft's secondary mission is as a logistics mover. A 68% increase in pallets and a 47% increase in pax... hrmmm.
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.