If you live in Alabama, and in or near the City Mobile in particular, then you know all about the big battle over the new tanker for the US Air Force. Perhaps you know more than you really wanted to know! There are billboards, TV commercials, newspaper and magazine ads everywhere.
For those that don’t know here is the story in a nutshell…
The USAF is in desperate need of replacing its fleet of ancient KC135 Stratotankers. They leak, the airframes are stress-weakened, they are way beyond their planned lifespan and, frankly, they are beginning to drop like flys. In 2001 Boeing was awarded a $23.5 billion contract to lease 100 of its KC-767 tankers to the Air Force. Then U.S. Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.), broke open a scandal when he revealed that Boeing had conspired with the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer to inflate the contract price.
So, the USAF holds a competition. Two companies come out on top:
- The recently disgraced, but still big-time Congressional favorite, Boeing with its KC-767, and…
- Northrop/Grummanand its chief subcontractor EADS, (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.) with their new KC-45. This plane was to be built in Mobile, AL if it won.
When the dust had settled the USAF (you know, the guys who actually have to live with the plane) chose the KC-45.
Within hours Boeing, and their paid-off “pocket politicians” like U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, (D-Wash.) and the infamous coward U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, (D-Mich.) began the smear job against the KC-45 and even the citizens of Mobile, AL. First it was that the plane would have foreign made parts, as does damned near every item in our military arsenal – including the Boeing offering. Then it was the statements saying that the citizens of Mobile, AL – being Southerners – couldn’t possibly build anything as technologically advanced as an Air Force tanker. It should be left to “more intelligent people”, they said. (I’ll not bother going into the endless litany of high-tech devices built in the South, or for that matter, right here in the Mobile area. The Yanks wouldn’t believe me anyway.)
When the above failed, the “pocket politicians” demanded a GAO review – and got it. Now the results are in and after almost three months of back-room politics, under-the-table payoffs, and the usual dirty-dealing, Boeing has managed to get a “re-do” at the competition. Did the GAO find that the KC-45 was inferior? No. Its two biggest gripes were that The Air Force did not give Boeing enough credit for meeting a series of technical requirements, and the service should have concluded that the long-term costs of operating Boeing’s KC-767 were lower than Northrop’s KC-45. Not that the service cost mean anything if the item is doing the job that it was built to do. Do you think that the soldier in a tank is worried about how much it cost to service that tank, or that it will protect him and kill the enemy? See my point?
Bottom line: The USAF will have to wait for a minimum of yet another year before even the decision is made.
What jerks The Bull’s chain the most is the following statement:
“This being an election year, we doubt whether any decision will be made rapidly,” Rob Stallard, an analyst at Macquarie Capital in New York, said in a note to investors. “Political support for both sides is vocal and entrenched, and in our opinion we would not be surprised if the (Air Force) ultimately buys both Airbus and Boeing tankers.”
Once again, it is politicians and the political season that is determining what equipment goes to our fighting men and women – not what gets the job done. Shouldn’t surprise me though. These are the very same (liberal) politicians that voted to deny our fighting forces their needed armor, ammo, and even food they needed in a battle zone just to make political hay.
Bull, out. 
Related posts
