Tanker Truths

08 May 2008
Boeing Supporters Continue Mischaracterizations of Air Force Evaluations
Boeing's supporters continue to mischaracterize the Air Force's evaluations of its proposed tanker and that of winning bidder Northrop Grumman in hopes of overturning Northrop Grumman's contract to construct America's next generation of aerial refueling tanker. Some of those arguments are being echoed by Boeing's congressional supporters.

Yesterday, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, whose state is home to major Boeing operations, said that Northrop Grumman's tanker's larger size is a disadvantage.

Actually, as an Air Force source selection document makes clear, the Air Force preferred Northrop Grumman's larger aircraft because it was superior to Boeing's bid on the critical issue of aerial refueling - and also because it could carry more fuel, materiel and troops into battle theaters - and evacuate larger numbers of wounded Soldiers from battle zones.

The Air Force also concluded that despite its larger size, it can take off and land anywhere Boeing's proposed aircraft could – and that its larger size and greater fuel capacity meant it could remain aloft longer and take off from more remote locations. In the end, the Air Force concluded that Northrop Grumman's aircraft is best for our men and women in uniform – and, because it offers more features and flexibility for about the same price as Boeing's plane, a better value for American taxpayers.

And not everyone in Congress is taking this posture. As Politico is reporting, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, is reminding his colleagues they should use great caution before disrupting the contract award.

In a May 6 "Dear Colleague" letter reported on by Politico, Hensarling notes that charges the contract went to a foreign company are false, and warns that protectionist rhetoric could backfire because it "risks igniting a trade war with our allies who will be tempted to erect similar barriers to block our defense (and perhaps other) exports."

Hensarling also notes that the Northrop Grumman contract will support 48,000 American jobs through 230 suppliers in 49 states, but that, more importantly, "this debate should not be about which company gets the award or which states stand to benefit the most but, instead, which tanker serves our fighting airmen best."

"According to officials at the Air Force, (the) Northrop Grumman bid was selected because it was found to be superior to Boeing's in most of the criteria used to evaluate the bids," Hensarling writes his colleagues.

"Congress should, of course, exercise appropriate oversight in this matter," Hensarling concludes. "But it should not to do so on the basis of parochial calculations and flimsy "Buy America" distinctions. It ought to be based on which tanker best serves our airmen."

< Back to index