Congress move may force Pentagon tanker rethink

[Scooby5]

By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Kevin Done in London (at Financial Times)


The Pentagon may have to consider the impact on the US industrial base of awarding a refuelling tanker contract to EADS (Paris: NL0000235190 - news), the European aerospace and defence company, if a measure passed on Wednesday by a congressional committee becomes law.

The House appropriations defence committee bill could benefit US's Boeing (NYSE: BA - news) over EADS and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC - news), its US partner, in a new competition to provide the Pentagon with 179 in-flight refuelling tankers.

Randy Belote, spokesman for Northrop, said the company believed the provision "does not introduce a new definition of 'industrial base' or a change in law", which he said meant that Northrop and EADS's KC-45 tanker was "fully compliant with all current industrial base requirements".

The US Air Force stunned the defence industry in February by awarding a $35bn contract to EADS and Northrop instead of Boeing, which has supplied the military with tankers for decades.

Last month, the Pentagon agreed to reopen the competition after the Government Accountability Office, the oversight arm of Congress, agreed with Boeing that there had been flaws in the selection process.

Before the GAO decision, Robert Gates, US defence secretary, had reminded congressional critics that US law barred the Pentagon from considering industrial base issues in awarding military contracts.

But the latest congressional move - which needs full committee approval - could force the Pentagon to consider how another EADS victory would impact on the US defence industrial base.

Now, unfortunately for Europe we'd been buying Lightnings, F-16's, Phantoms, Chinooks, Hercules Transporters, Tristars and Appache helicopters all from the US in more recent times and stuff like Douglas Dakota's, DC-2's, Flying Fortress' and many other such stuff in times before.

Now with a decision being made by Gongress to give it's tanker order to Northrop, thus supposedly providing more jobs in the US than an order to Boeing and at a lower purchase price to the taxpayer, Gongress looks set to change the laws that now might invalidate the contract. Nothing like moving the goal posts after the goal was scored, leaving the ball behind.

Just a touch of hypocracy? Hell Yeah!

[Hidden_Hunter]

The thing that people don't seem to realize is that none of these planes are really specific to one country anymore, the components come from all corners of the globe. The final assembly maybe done in the EU or USA but either project use a heap of parts sourced from both sides of the ocean (hell they even make 787 parts in AU for instance)

[phuckingduck]

Well, first off, if you haven't visited or even driven by Boeing's Everett, WA plant do it once. The place is huge. F*cking huge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the plant that does the assembly for these planes. Our beloved Senators Cantwell and Murray have been raising this shit storm in DC for a while now. They come home every few months, go up to the Boeing plant and take some pictures with some pissed off union workers in Harley gear then go right back to WA. Granted, there were some mistakes in the process of order alotment. But the EADS contract still came in under Boeings. And I'm sick and tired of my local government sucking Boeings collective dick, especially after the company screwed us by moving to Chicago.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Scooby5

Now, unfortunately for Europe we'd been buying Lightnings, F-16's, Phantoms, Chinooks, Hercules Transporters, Tristars and Appache helicopters all from the US in more recent times and stuff like Douglas Dakota's, DC-2's, Flying Fortress' and many other such stuff in times before.

Now with a decision being made by Gongress to give it's tanker order to Northrop, thus supposedly providing more jobs in the US than an order to Boeing and at a lower purchase price to the taxpayer, Gongress looks set to change the laws that now might invalidate the contract. Nothing like moving the goal posts after the goal was scored, leaving the ball behind.

Just a touch of hypocracy? Hell Yeah!

The United States has bought quite a bit from BAE so get over it.

[teeb]

This seems like a really stupid storm in a teacup.

Iirc, the KC-45A was going to be assembled in the States anyway.

It should come down to whichever is the better plane winning (whichever that is). Unfortunately, politics seems to be getting in the way.

[efoolution]

Originally Posted by phuckingduck

[...]Granted, there were some mistakes in the process of order alotment.

... wich is why it´s absolutley necessary to do it again. Goverment contracts must be absoluley waterproof so there is no sign of corruption or doubt about the laws being followed.
If this "re-do" were (let´s just talk hypothetically, shall we) now to be used to deliberately disadvantage one of the competetors (whatever the motive for that may be) - and it´s not said that this will happen ... it would clearly set a bad light on congress and might encorage other countries goverments to also rethink what factors to use in the future when it comes to allocation of oders. I wouldn´t think such a decision to be wise long-term ... it would seem more like a populist idea shortly before a big election, for wich the tax-payer had to come up for in the end ...

[KaJuN]

Unfortunately a decision like this will never be unbiased. The decision ultimately comes down to Congressmen who want to keep people happy and get more votes. Many people are very strict in wanting the US military to use only US made equipment, even if foreign equipment is superior. To an extent that makes sense becaues if the world situation were to change dramatically our military would be severely hindered if it couldn't get more equipment or parts for what it already has. On the flip side developing an aircraft via international cooperation has a history of being quite successful. Just take a look at the P-51 Mustang, the Harrier, or more recently the Joint Strike Fighter.

This is a pretty important issue since most of the Air Force's refueling tankers are KC-135s and the last one was delivered in 1965. They're all perfectly safe but it's getting more and more expensive to keep them that way. Personally I love the Stratotanker and I'll be sad to see it go into retirement. It's a beautiful airplane.

[phuckingduck]

Originally Posted by efoolution

... wich is why it´s absolutley necessary to do it again. Goverment contracts must be absoluley waterproof so there is no sign of corruption or doubt about the laws being followed.
If this "re-do" were (let´s just talk hypothetically, shall we) now to be used to deliberately disadvantage one of the competetors (whatever the motive for that may be) - and it´s not said that this will happen ... it would clearly set a bad light on congress and might encorage other countries goverments to also rethink what factors to use in the future when it comes to allocation of oders. I wouldn´t think such a decision to be wise long-term ... it would seem more like a populist idea shortly before a big election, for wich the tax-payer had to come up for in the end ...

If contractual impropriety is our issue of discussion, the government has bigger issues than this contract. Hello Haliburton!

[WillDAQ]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

The United States has bought quite a bit from BAE so get over it.

Yes, because by purchasing United Defence and a few others BAES is now almost a US contractor. Certainly their having more luck there than in the UK, where the MoD have a simple rule of 'No matter how shitty the alternative, don't buy BAE'...

Originally Posted by teeb

This seems like a really stupid storm in a teacup.

Iirc, the KC-45A was going to be assembled in the States anyway.

Yes indeed, but that doesn't stop senators trying to ensure that their state's manufacturer wins. EADS have done a damn good job drumming up support in the US all things considered.

Now Boeing have been whinging and claiming that the specification was incorrect or they were mislead but the fact is the EADS aircraft is bigger and more powerful so can carry more fuel, troops, casualties and cargo off a smaller runway than the Boeing. This is in no small part due to the fact that the A330 is larger than the 767, but the 787 would have been too large of Boeing to bid... whoops!

[Scooby5]

Originally Posted by efoolution

... wich is why it´s absolutley necessary to do it again. Goverment contracts must be absoluley waterproof so there is no sign of corruption or doubt about the laws being followed.
If this "re-do" were (let´s just talk hypothetically, shall we) now to be used to deliberately disadvantage one of the competetors (whatever the motive for that may be) - and it´s not said that this will happen ... it would clearly set a bad light on congress and might encorage other countries goverments to also rethink what factors to use in the future when it comes to allocation of oders. I wouldn´t think such a decision to be wise long-term ... it would seem more like a populist idea shortly before a big election, for wich the tax-payer had to come up for in the end ...

If that were the case then it can be stated as such by Congress, not come up with a dumb new criteria of "considering industrial base issues" when awarding contracts.

[Hidden_Hunter]

I'd rather see the superior product purchased than risk sending soldiers out with inferior hardware just because it's made locally