Actually, fair and open is not exactly correct. The Air Force had to adjust the requirements to make EADS competitive. Further, NG has a modeling program that the USAF used to model how each proposed tanker would function and perform. Did you get that? The Air Force was using a NG program to evaluate Boeing's proposal, and the NG/EADS team knew the ins-and-outs of the program and can adjust their profiling numbers, numbers they allege but don't have empirical data. Interesting. The transfer of technology is an iffy process right now with "I promise" being the limiting factor when it comes to export (ITAR) limitations. Of course, all military transfers have that same standard, but with EADS, I am not so trusting. At the same time we were adjusting our proposal standards to allow EADS to bid, EADS was in the European Court defending their (France) prohibition against allowing Boeing to bid on their tanker program. 40,000 experienced and highly skilled jobs are in play for Boeing, whereas the original labor numbers for EADS began at 2,500, then rose to 25,000 when the proposal was under review, and now, in response to Boeing's protest (first one in 10-yrs, I might add), EADS upped the number to around 40,000. . . and no one notices? The cost doesn't support the EADS bid, the alleged performance of a blue-print jet does not support the EADS bid, the cost of operating an over-sized jet does not support the EADS jet, reduced access to airfields because the EADS jet is over-sized does not support its selection, the national security aspect can't be ignored and that means the EADS bid is shaky, the labor situation can't support a EADS bid (IAM union is dead-set against EADS), and the program of 179 jets or so for the initial bid that would run for a decade means our industrial base of engineers to skilled labor would be lost forever (this means that even if you remain convinced we can't get much better for now, we won't be able to get any better later). When the protest is ruled on I think you will be interested in the details that will reflect a flawed process. My guess, and it's only a guess, is the ruling will suggest (as the OMB may only recommend) the contract be set-aside and re-bid once the critical flaws in the process are fixed. >>When it comes to defense, I really don't care if our trade relations "suffer" a little or if the price tag is a bit higher.<< Gotcha. I don't give a fig if by buying American angers some country. Our national security demands the best America can provide, and relying on foreign sources to provide 40% of a critically important element of our national security does not protect America. In fact, it puts America at risk. Buying boots from a foreign source, no big deal. Buying billions of dollars of critical airframes at the cost of our national industrial base is not acceptable. But that's just me. . .
See post #12. You’re buying into a whole lot of hype.
I suggest that you learn more about a bidding process and the rules — you’ll find that Boeing is blowing smoke on at least half of what they are spinning. Both contractors work off the same RFP and are subject to the same evaluation factors. No changes take place during the process without applying to both contractors. Your allegations are hyperbolic.
And one more thing — EADS DID NOT WIN AN AF CONTRACT, Northrop Grumman did. EADS is no different than the multitude of other foreign suppliers that have teamed with U.S. defense suppliers to bid on contracts for decades. Rolls Royce engines come to mind.
In the 1980s, the U.S. Government promoted international offset arrangements on foreign sales of major weapon systems in an effort to reduce the per unit cost of products the USG was buying and to help lesser-developed countries establish their industrial base. That policy has continued to this day. Right or wrong, this tanker contract is not the only weapon system reliant on foreign parts.