Air tanker deal may not get off ground

[dodgerap]

CCC wrote:

"An American" should investigate the Northrop Grumman bid more closely. Northrop's tanker actually creates more jobs in the US than Boeing's does.
Keep in mind that the United States Air Force determined that the Norhtrop Grumman tanker was much better than the Boeing tanker. Our military desires the best - no matter who builds it.

Unfortunately, you are not correct. Our military does not desire the best, only the cheapest. That's why defense contractors try to low-ball one another in these large contract competitions. Then when the contract is awarded and years later, when the original value of the contract award has been exceeded, then the contractor will simply say "oops, we didn't anticipate this effort costing as much" (even though they know it will even before submitting the proposal). And because most military contracts are cost-reimbursable, the defense contractors will still receive compensation for any cost-overruns. It happens all the time.

[dodgerap]

Mr. Elias writes: "And even though the Airbus planes would be built in Alabama..."

From what I understand, that is not correct. The actual planes would be built in the Airbus facility in France and then shipped to a (yet to be built) facility in Alabama for retrofitting into a military tanker. Mr. Elias, however, correctly states later on that "there would be no mistaking the fact that these are essentially Airbuses."

There have been remarks made in this forum that Boeing planes contain parts that are developed outside the US so what difference does it make that Airbus will make the frame for the next tanker. Here's the difference:

We are talking about a very vital military system. We're not talking about civilian aircraft for the airlines. Without tankers, our armed forces would not be able to conduct military operations abroad therefore seriously jeopardizing our national defense. Let's be honest, France has been less than helpful (I'm being generous here) with our efforts in the war on terrorism. I find it troubling that we would trust with essentially our national security by awarding them the contract to build our tanker frame. It is conceivable that the French gov't could pressure EADS (parent of Airbus) to slow or halt production of planes that are earmarked for the tanker fleet if they felt like it.

Thoughts?

[cats]

Check out www.americasnewtanker.com and www.northropgrumman.com . Lots of great information about the Tanker and all the US companies and the US States that will prosper from the award of Americas New Tanker!

[cats]

Check out www.americasnewtanker.com and www.northropgrumman.com . Lots of information about Americas New Tanker and the US companies and US States that will prosper from this award.
Way to go Northrop Grumman!!!

[Steve Vanich]

Well, I hate to say I told you so...:) But it would seem that the GAO confirmed most if not all of what some of us have been trying to say to the apparent EADS-NG cronies who were either drugged or duped into believing they had the best proposal. The tanker contract will rightfully be awarded to Boeing after the re-bid. Any takers?

[bongo]

maybe but boeing + u.s congress = corruption and anti competive in the us in these deals.

[Steve Vanich]

bongo wrote:

maybe but boeing + u.s congress = corruption and anti competive in the us in these deals.

The real corruption is just how I described in my very first post to this thread a couple of months ago. The fact that John McCain and his operatives were manipulating the requirements after Boeing had already submitted its bid and before EADS-NG had finalized thiers is what the GAO confirmed but was, for obvious reason, unable to come right out and say. As far as corporate influence peddling goes, they all do it and therefore they were both equal in that regard. If you dont believe this, or understand it, then you are simply a moron and there is very little that I or anyone can say that would ever change your position. The fact is that Boeing put forward the best value, most capable tanker and McCain underhandedly, and perhaps even illegally, worked behind the scenes to stack the deck in favor of EADS-NG to repay the UK for supporting the illegal war in Iraq. It is that simple. Enough said!