Boeing wins key round in Air Force tanker protest

Seattle Times ^ | June 18, 2008

[jazusamo]

WASHINGTON — Congressional investigators have granted Boeing's protest of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

[Timeout]

So much for the Dems saying they want “better relations with our allies”.

Sarkozy ought to be on the air right now ripping them up for interfering AFTER all the bids and specs have been revealed.

[pepsionice]

My guess is that the AF, congress, and the court will tire of this whole mess by November....then a whole new bid will be ordered. The EDS crowd will just give up...and thus we get a tanker....with no competition...which is what Boeing all along.

[We Dare Defend Our Rights]

No retirement jobs with Airbus. Boeing knows how to take care of Government employees

[agere_contra]

Why win tenders when you can just sue?

[SJSAMPLE]

And then we’ll wonder why our European “partners” will jump off the JSF/F-35 project.

Apparently, trade only works one way for congress and Boeing.

[jazusamo]

I really don’t know what to think of any of it, it’s a political can of worms.

[RoseofTexas]

I believe this is a good sign for Boeing....I think. Since I don’t know much about those type of things, isn’t the other contracted company French?

[Tallguy]

I don’t know exactly how concerned the Europeans will be. The Airbus Tanker was going to be assembled here in the US. Labor is what the Euros want.

[We Dare Defend Our Rights]

This is Boeing's reward for having been caught lying, cheating and bribing on the first bid.

[jazusamo]

EADS is a European company.

[Redleg Duke]

Wonderful! Now Boeing can dump an aging shitbird that hasn't even been demonstrated as a tanker on the US Air Force, delaying the replacement of the KC-135s, and guaranteed massive cost overruns in a noncompetitive environment!

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Bad news for Mobile, Alabama - where the “French” tanker would have been built.

[Hulka]

It is a good thing.

The GAO press release is out on the GAO’s website (www.gao.gov).

GAO: “The Air Force did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. . .”

GAO: “the Air Force has made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome. . .”

GAO: “The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing. . . “

Etc.

Strong words, very strong.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Besides having trouble keeping track of nukes, I wouldn’t be surprised if the award of this contract to the frenchies played a part in the recent dismissal of the Sec. of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff.

[SJSAMPLE]

There’s a diagram out there somewhere with the parts content.

Significant chunks will be built and assembled in Europe (fuselage sections and wings, IIRC) and then shipped to America for final assembly.

More than enough labor to remain in Europe to make it profitable.

[SJSAMPLE]

And just words.
The only thing the goobermint really produces.

Sound and fury.

[SJSAMPLE]

Or, just maybe, somebody in the GAO is looking for a cushy Boeing job in the near future?

More often true, than not.

[blue state conservative]

The entire GAO post can be read here

http://www.mobilebaytimes.com/gao_1_.pdf

Having read the Boeing protest submittals beforehand I was not surprised by the outcome. The government’s bias in the tanker competition was appalling. Sue Payton should be the next AF civilian to get her walking papers.

Having said that getting a new competition is one thing, actually winning the new contest is another. Maybe on the next go round the AF can write clearer specifications on what they are looking for.

[CAluvdubya]

True that!

This contract would have provided alot of jobs in Alabama. I'm sick of hearing how this is a French co.

Do people forget that Boeing also has offshore manufacturing?

Boeing is being a crybaby and it appears it's working.

[Hulka]

Ah. . .no.

GAO staff are not hired by major defense contractors.

They are govt lawyers, accountants and academics, not businessmen.

Besides, the facts of the case are obvious.

One thing the Big B doesn’t do well is PR. So, this means the elements of protest have not been well expressed publically. Read the press release, as it is ruling on the facts. The entire 69-page report may eventually be released, after both parties have a chance to redact company proprity information.

[Tallguy]

More than enough labor to remain in Europe to make it profitable.

Something is better than nothing, I'm sure. But sub-assemblies, engines, actuators, etc. are often made by highly skilled toolmakers & machinists (which are few) while the final assembly requires a lot more bodies with very specific training. It may well be that more than 51% of the labor content is still in Europe by virtue of the sheer number of sub-assemblies.

[Hulka]

And adhere to the rules and regulations defining the competition.

I wish people would do research on this subjkect, read the reports, evaluate the facts of the case before they let their biases show.

Looking at it from middle of the road, and no love for the Big B here, it was clear major errors in the process were committed and the decision flawed.

Conspiracies do not make for GAO decisions.

Off to better things. . . .Cheers,

[HardStarboard]

>>>Sue Payton should be the next AF civilian to get her walking papers<<<

I watched her at a news conference after the Boeing protest was lodged.

She was very impressive in her defense of EADS/Lockheed/Grumman - afterwords I had a gut feel that it looked a bit too smooth....almost rehearsed. Almost as if they had totally anticipated what Boeing's points of protest would be....which would mean they knew that there were weaknesses in their case for EADS.

I'll trust my hunches next time.....

[SJSAMPLE]

Really?

Boeing hires a lot of former goobermint and military with no business background at all. None, zip, nada.
How does that happen?

Maybe they’ve already brought their goods to the table when they were in Washington or The Pentagon and this is the payoff?
Ya think?

Defense contractors, road builders and horse manure haulers all hire from the government pool when it suits their needs. Only when the law expressedly prohibits such hirings (ten year exclusions) do they refrain. I’ve seen it personally and Boeing is a PRIME OFFENDER. Darleen Druyun ring a bell?

So, while I have no knowlege of GAO improprieties, they’re a function of government and remain as suspect as any other.

[DesScorp]

“And then we’ll wonder why our European “partners” will jump off the JSF/F-35 project.”

Many of them wont care, because there’s a line of thought in Europe that the F-35 won’t survive an Obama administration anyway. Britain designed their new carriers so that a catapult could be easily added, and Eurofighter has a navalized Typhoon design. Some prominent voices in the Royal Navy don’t want the F-35B anyway. They want a big-boy carrier with USN-caliber aircraft.

[DesScorp]

“I don’t know exactly how concerned the Europeans will be. The Airbus Tanker was going to be assembled here in the US. Labor is what the Euros want.”

The vast majority of the Airbus tanker’s parts would be fabricated in Europe though. The factory in America would just be for final assembly, like a Mexican maquiladora. Most of the “heavy lifting”, so to speak, would take place in the EU.

[SJSAMPLE]

The Royal Navy has already chosen their new carriers and their not Nimitz or CVN-21 class, but they’re plenty big enough. They’re just waiting for the EM catapult instead of the problematic and ungainly steam system we’re currently using.

They can’t replace a strike aircraft with the Typhoon and they have plans of the Hornet as a backup, so ditching the JSF is a possibility, but not one they want to consider, because sections (the tail, specifically) of the JSF are produced by the Brits. The F-35C, if it deployed in the next decade, would indeed be a USN-caliber aircraft.

Either way, there’s enough pressure to drop the JSF and we’re not adding to it by playing along with Boeing’s games.

[jazusamo]

Thanks for posting that link. The GAO slapped the Air Force pretty good.

[Bryan24]

GAO: “The Air Force did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. . .”

When one government agency tells another agency what was said in that quote, you can bet your bippy that the Pentagon botched this contract award.

[MHalblaub]

GOA has decided!

More to discuss... ;-)

[jazusamo]

From Seattle PI

Boeing wins key round in Air Force tanker protest

By JAMES WALLACE
P-I REPORTER

The news was almost as stunning as the decision by the U.S. Air Force earlier this year to award a $35 billion tanker deal not to The Boeing Co. but to a team that included the parent of Airbus.

In a ruling that many experts had predicted would be highly unlikely, the Government Accountability Office on Wednesday sided with Boeing in its protest of the tanker decision.

"Our review of the record let us to conclude that the Air Force made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman," the GAO said. "We therefore sustain Boeing's protest."

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, recommended the Air Force reopen talks with Boeing and the team of Northrop and European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and hold a new tanker selection process.

The news was greeted by cheers from Boeing workers on the 767 line in Everett, where any Boeing tankers would be built. But even though Boeing is likely to get another crack at the deal to supply the Air Force with 179 tankers, it is far from certain that Boeing would win a do-over tanker competition.

"Nobody should conclude from this that Boeing has now won the tanker competition," said Loren Thompson, a noted defense expert with the Lexington Institute, a public policy research group in Arlington, Va.

"There is a real likelihood that Northrop and EADS will come back again and prevail," he added. "Boeing has won this round, but the war goes on."

Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, an industry consulting firm, echoed that view.

"This pretty much guarantees a recompete," he said. "But it does not guarantee a Boeing victory. It is still an uphill battle. But it does get Boeing back into the batter's box."

The Air Force has 60 days to inform the GAO what it intends to do.

Aboulafia and Thompson said the Air Force is almost certain to redo the tanker competition, given the strong language from the GAO that the Air Force made serious errors, and also because of political pressure that is sure to come from Boeing backers in Congress.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., called the GAO's decision a "scathing indictment" of the Air Force's decision to award the contract to EADS and Northrop.

The Air Force "should absolutely rebid the process," she said in an interview. "I don't think they're going to have much choice considering the indictment. ... That's a pretty hard defense to come up with."

She said that as the rebidding process takes place, there should be more congressional oversight in order to ensure that Congress is briefed, that the Air Force's own criteria is followed, and that national security issues are taken into consideration.

"It was a very flawed process," she said.

The contract for 179 aerial refueling tankers is the first of three deals worth up to $100 billion to replace the Air Force's entire tanker fleet over the next 30 years.

"Today, the GAO sustained Boeing's protest and confirmed what I have been saying for months -- the Air Force's tanker decision was fundamentally flawed," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., in a statement.

"I am not surprised that the GAO identified significant errors in the selection process. The Air Force bought a tanker that doesn't meet their needs and has been waging a PR campaign ever since. ... I look forward to a thorough and honest response by the Air Force to the GAO ruling. But my concerns have always gone beyond the issues within the scope of a GAO decision.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire said in a statement that she was pleased with the decision.

"Today's decision is great news for Boeing and the entire country," she said. "This announcement means there is another opportunity for Boeing to rebid for the contract and retain high-skill, high-wage jobs in Washington and across the country."

Boeing issued a low-key response to the GAO ruling.

"We welcome and support today's ruling by the GAO fully supporting the grounds of our protest," Mark McGraw, vice president, tanker programs for Boeing, said in a statement. "We appreciate the professionalism and diligence the GAO showed in its review of the KC-X acquisition process. We look forward to working with the Air Force on next steps in this critical procurement for our warfighters."

A spokesman for Northrop Grumman issued a short statement:

"We respect the GAO's work in analyzing the Air Force's tanker acquisition process," said Randy Belote. "We continue to believe that Northrop Grumman offered the most modern and capable tanker for our men and women in uniform. We will review the GAO findings before commenting further."

Boeing's stock rose more than 1 percent after the report, trading at $75.33 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Seattle P-I

P-I reporter Joseph Tartakoff contributed to this report. P-I aerospace reporter James Wallace can be reached at 206-448-8040 or

[DesScorp]

"They can’t replace a strike aircraft with the Typhoon"

I beg to differ, sir...



In these days of advanced targeting electronics, if you've got enough hardpoints, then you have a strike aircraft.

[DesScorp]

To further illustrate my point...

[Oztrich Boy]

Since I don’t know much about those type of things, isn’t the other contracted company French?

I believe Northrop-Grumman is a US company

[Paul Ross]

So much for the Dems saying they want “better relations with our allies”.

Gee, maybe it's more important to have better "relations" with...(or say, how about FIDELITY to)... the U.S. taxpayer!!! We see who YOU care about...

Keep in mind that the GAO is bipartisan, is part of the Comptroller General's Office, and his term is for far longer than the short span of the Democrat's control. Here is the GAO's statment:

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

Office of the Comptroller General of the United States

Statement Regarding the Bid Protest Decision Resolving the Aerial Refueling Tanker Protest by The Boeing Company
B-311344 et al., June 18, 2008

The Boeing Company protested the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation under solicitation No. FA8625-07-R-6470, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for KC-X aerial refueling tankers to begin replacing its aging tanker fleet. Boeing challenged the Air Force’s technical and cost evaluations, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision.

Our Office sustained Boeing’s protest on June 18, 2008. The 69-page decision was issued under a protective order, because the decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information. We have directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that we can expeditiously prepare and release, as soon as possible, a public version of the decision.

Although the Air Force intends to ultimately procure up to 179 KC-X aircraft, the solicitation provided for an initial contract for system development and demonstration of the KC-X aircraft and procurement of up to 80 aircraft. The solicitation provided that award of the contract would be on a “best value” basis, and stated a detailed evaluation scheme that identified technical and cost factors and their relative weights. With respect to the cost factor, the solicitation provided that the Air Force would calculate a “most probable life cycle cost” estimate for each offeror, including military construction costs. In addition, the solicitation provided a detailed system requirements document that identified minimum requirements (called key performance parameter thresholds) that offerors must satisfy to receive award. The solicitation also identified desired features and performance characteristics of the aircraft (which the solicitation identified as “requirements,” or in certain cases, as objectives) that offerors were encouraged, but were not required, to provide. The agency received proposals and conducted numerous rounds of negotiations with Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Air Force selected Northrop Grumman’s proposal for award on February 29, 2008, and Boeing filed its protest with our Office on March 11, supplementing it numerous times thereafter. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, we obtained a report from the agency and comments on that report from Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The documentary record produced by the Air Force in this protest is voluminous and complex. Our Office also conducted a hearing, at which testimony was received from a number of Air Force witnesses to complete and explain the record. Following the hearing, we received further comments from the parties, addressing the hearing testimony as well as other aspects of the record.

Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. Our bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements. Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. We therefore sustained Boeing’s protest. We also denied a number of Boeing’s challenges to the award to Northrop Grumman, because we found that the record did not provide us with a basis to conclude that the agency had violated the legal requirements with respect to those challenges. Specifically, we sustained the protest for the following reasons:

1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.

2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”

3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.

4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.

5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement. Page 2

6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.

7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.

We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations.

Information about GAO’s bid protest process can be found at www.gao.gov.

For further information please contact: Michael R. Golden, GAO’s managing associate general counsel for the procurement law division, 202-512-4788. Page 3

[Paul Ross]

and then we’ll wonder why our European “partners” will jump off the JSF/F-35 project.

Actually, they would be the losers, since the plane was explicitly designed for them to have pork-barrel that the U.S. taxpayer would pony up for a plane that should have been totally U.S.-made to replace its U.S.-made F-16.

As a consequence of the pork-barrel mindset, we have already ill-advisedly transferred extremely secret design and software details of the F-35 AESA radar system to the British. Once you start spreading information out of protected bailiwicks, it inevitably gets compromised.

[Paul Ross]

The EADS crowd will just give up...

America should be so lucky...but don't hold your breath.

They aren't done bribing yet.

Remember until just a few years ago FRANCE explicitly made bribes deductible corporate expenses. And EADS is still at it as if the new rules don't exist...

[Paul Ross]

Sarkozy ought to be on the air right now ripping them up for interfering AFTER all the bids and specs have been revealed.

The contract process needs to be re-bid. Period. No bribe-induced shortcuts.May the best plane win.

And if Sarkozy wants to look for free trade...he better start fixing things at home:

• In 2004, France excluded Boeing from a competition for military air refueling tankers by including a provision in its “Request for Tender” (the equivalent of U.S. RFP) stating, “Aircraft need to be designed and built in Europe.” Since the French government owns 15% of EADS, it’s not surprising that they’d institute this protectionist provision.

[Yo-Yo]

See also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2032881/posts

[Paul Ross]

Why win tenders when you can just sue?

Boeing didn't sue. They used the administrative in-channel objection process to appeal an executive branch process.

But if you want to debate it, they probably in fact did win, but were trumped by bribes:

According to a host of expert analyses and the Department of Defense (DOD) itself, the KC-767 offers key advantages over the KC-30 because of its size, efficiency, and tested technologies. E.g., chew on this:

According to the Air Force’s analysis of capabilities Boeing’s KC-767 had 98 strengths compared to 30 for EADS/Northrop Grumman’s KC-30:

More Aircraft in the Air – The number of tankers or “booms” in the air is far more important to the warfighter than the size of the tanker, since a tanker rarely offloads all of its fuel (the average offload is 60,000 pounds of fuel, a figure far less than the capacity of either the KC-767 or the KC-30). The KC-767 has a 30 percent smaller footprint than the KC-30, allowing the Air Force to park and subsequently launch nearly twice as many KC-767s into action as KC-30s at a military base.

• More Fuel Offloaded From More Bases – The KC-767’s lighter weight and smaller pavement footprint allow it to offload more fuel at 1,000 nm from more worldwide bases than the KC-30.

• A Quantum Leap in Cargo and Passenger Capacity – The KC-767 offers 300 percent more cargo, passenger and patient capacity than the retiring KC-135’s. Although EADS’ KC-30 offers even more extra cargo space, it isn’t as structurally sound as the KC-767 and can only carry about the same gross tonnage in cargo. Moreover, the extra capacity is unnecessary for the vast majority of missions (tankers carry less than 1% of all cargo carried by Air Mobility Command aircraft), and comes at the cost of its refueling capabilities in major military operations and tens of billions more in extra fuel and infrastructure costs.

More Survivable – Survivability is critical given that the USAF intends to operate the aircraft in more hostile (medium threat) environments compared to the current tanker fleet. The Air Force rated Boeing’s KC-767 as far more capable of avoiding and mitigating an attack in a combat zone, with five times as many strengths as EADS’ KC-30:

• Superior surface-to-air missile defensive and superior situational awareness through cockpit displays;

• Better armor protection for the flight crew and critical aircraft systems;

• Better fuel tank explosion protection through integrated ballistic threat protection features;

• Better Electromagentic Pulse (EMP) hardening to allow operations in an EMP environment;

• More robust Large Aircraft Infrared Counter Measure (LAIRCM) system for increased Protection compared to the KC-30.

And Boeing's plane was cheaper! Even the USAF procurement "team" is ADMITTING it, belatedly. Why so tardy? Because the "fix" was in. They only started telling the truth after the concealed facts were revealed. Boeing's bid was cheaper by BILLIONS before the "Procurement Team" lyingly covered it up...

[blue state conservative]

Exactly, the USAF scoring the NG/EADS bid less expensive had a lot of ramifications. I found it very odd that two highly complex $100B+ proposals could emerge from the USAF number crunching machine only $34M apart, with the slight advantage to NG/EADS. The Boeing submittal was increased by $5.1B by the USAF for its commercial 767 platform, because the USAF wouldn’t classify as a commercial item, a clear violation of federal procurement law. The GAO nailed them on that. The number cruncher who added $5.1B must be kicking himself, if he had only made it $5.2B then the $100M or so of spreadsheet errors would not changed NG/EADS as the low cost offerer.

By law if the USAG selects the higher cost proposal it must do a study to determine if the higher cost is justified by added capabilities. That was not performed on the NG/EADS proposal because it was erroneously classified originally as the lower cost.

[djwright]

I think you nailed it. I think the AF backed into the number. Like saying to your home appraiser, "I would like the estimate to come in at $350,000" and he magically hits your number.

$34m out of $108B is like $90 on a $300,000 house. It was a red flag for sure.

They also didn't give any weight to other technical capabilities that they asked for (like survivability).

[SJSAMPLE]

1. The Royal Navy wants a stealthy aircraft, if possible.
2. If they can’t get the JSF, the Typhoon doesn’t come close to the Super Hornet. The don’t want one airframe for different jobs and they already like the existing Super Hornet. The Super Super Hornet that’s being proposed as a JSF interim is even better.

[SJSAMPLE]

The F-16 that’s flying in many countries isn’t exactly US-made.

The F-16 has been locally assembled, with many locally made components, for decades.

Denmark assembles its own, IIRC.
Japan turned the F-16 in the FSX/F-2.
Israel has the F-16I which is heavily Israeli.

No country is going to buy a big ticket item that’s 100% outsourced. Not anymore.

And the Brits are a strategic partner.
You may recal that they gave us radar in the first place.
The real risk is with Israel, who wants on-board both the F-35 and F-22 but has a very poor history with technology transfers. And then there’s the Japanese record (Toshiba, propellers, etc.).

[Paul Ross]

By law if the USAG selects the higher cost proposal it must do a study to determine if the higher cost is justified by added capabilities. That was not performed on the NG/EADS proposal because it was erroneously classified originally as the lower cost.

I think we all can agree that this was no accidental coincidence. They knew they could not so justify their choice then.

I am disinclined to suppose that this was the result of USAF incompetence per se, but instead put the best face on it, that these officers were merely doing what they were told by their bosses, who in this case, were the political appointees...and the results clearly reek of a political "fix."

[saminfl]

I am disinclined to suppose that this was the result of USAF incompetence per se, but instead put the best face on it, that these officers were merely doing what they were told by their bosses, who in this case, were the political appointees...and the results clearly reek of a political "fix."

In the early 80's I worked on an Air Force project that was highly controversial. The GAO auditors came out and interviewed AF personnel several times. We discovered that Senator David Pryor kept sending them back until they gave a report that said what he wanted them to say.

The hard left politicians from Washington State (Murray, Cantwell, et al) are just as likely to do that same thing. This just screws the Air Force as far as getting a tanker they desperately need.

[Paul Ross]

The F-16 that’s flying in many countries isn’t exactly US-made.

In most cases its mostly.

The F-16 has been locally assembled, with many locally made components, for decades.

But not the arsenal...and the plane itself is the U.S. design and engineering. The missiles, etc are U.S., with the exception perhaps of Israel and Japan.

Denmark assembles its own, IIRC.

Assembly is not equivalent to the more critical subcomponent fabrication.

Japan turned the F-16 into the FSX/F-2. Israel has the F-16I which is heavily Israeli.

Yes. So? This is what was the genesis of the F-35 sales pitch. One that I found less than persuasive then. This should be about US security first and foremost. Not our allies porkbarrel.

No country is going to buy a big ticket item that’s 100% outsourced. Not anymore.

Well, that's tough then if they want F-22s. I don't think we should let any of that out of the country. No matter who the "ally" is. Period.

And the Brits are a strategic partner.

One now with no blue water navy. Down to 22 ships. And two of them have had their air defenses stripped because of the expense. No wonder they gave up Hong Kong without a fight.

You may recal that they gave us radar in the first place.

When they were still a relevant power. They no longer are. The outsourcing and liberalism has eroded their greatness beyond that point. So a hardboiled question: What exactly can they do for us in a titannic clash with say, China? Not much evidently. I would put it less than likely that we should thence be risking any key technology that compromise that prospective clash. Now granted, they likely are more sturdy in security than Israel...which has shown itself to be "conflicted" at high levels.

The real risk is with Israel, who wants on-board both the F-35 and F-22 but has a very poor history with technology transfers.

I would agree...particularly vis a vis China...our biggest threat.

And then there’s the Japanese record (Toshiba, propellers, etc.).

Yep. I agree. Fortunately, Japan has now shown itself to be more wary of its own security lapses...and MITA appears to be policing its industry better.

[SJSAMPLE]

Each of those countries got at least SOME of the manufacturing benefit, and that's the point. Larger, first world coutries like Britain have options. Sure, most of the major components and the higher-tech assemblies of the JSF are built and assembled in the US, but the local economies get a piece of the pie. Not a bad tradeoff in order to get the sale.

The Brits assemble their own Apaches with upgraded engines, keeping even more of their defense dollars local.

The F-35 wouldn't even be on the board if we didn't have allies to support its manufacture. As a multi-role fighter, it isn't as critical as the F-22. We could've picked up the F/A-18E/F for the USAF instead. The only reason it's moving along is because enough countries have partnered-up and in enough volume. And the only reason those countries partnered-up is because they are a manufacturing partner. The have options that are cheaper.

It's a sure bet that the next major conflict will be fought first by US allies, flying US designed aircraft with locally built components. Still not a bad option if you trust your allies.

You say it should be about US security "first and foremost", but you're deferring to our own porkbarrel politics for the contracts. I find it curious that our congresscritters were up in arms before the USAF decision was even analyzed. That's enough of a sign that porkbarrel politics are involved here.

The US should always get the best equipment at the best cost, but we can't play a one-sided defense contracting game and expect our allies not to do the same.

We buy Canadian-made Strykers for The US Army. Should we ditch those and add the expense to bring it to the US?

[Paul Ross]

We discovered that Senator David Pryor kept sending them back until they gave a report that said what he wanted them to say.

Not surprising. But this influence is not only on the GAO, but the US DOD too...as your point merely confirms. And it sounds suspiciously like what John McCain accomplished here with his constant harping on the USAF to have a "competitive" bid.

The hard left politicians from Washington State (Murray, Cantwell, et al) are just as likely to do that same thing.

Agreed. But that isn't what happened here. The USAF was busted basically double-dealing against Boeing. So much for fair, open and transparent.

This just screws the Air Force as far as getting a tanker they desperately need.

They don't need the Airbus.

(a) It's not the right plane. Its not survivable. Its too big and expensive to operate.

(b) Its not a better price...as the USAF now admits. It lost the price competition.

(c) And EADs is significantly LESS honest and trustworthy a company...still acting as if they can deduct Bribes.

To wit: They proliferate in Iran, China, etc. AND we shouldn't be subsidizing the European subsidy porkbarrel/bribe machine.

You should know better.