Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Another Reason for Firing USAF Commander?

The heat is on in DC--and maybe SecDef Gates has more than one reason to dump the USAF top commander. Recently, the Air Force decided to award a contract to Airbus.

As you know, U.S.-based Boeing has formally protested the decision with the General Accounting Office and the deadline for the GAO decision is rapidly approaching. As this deadline gets closer, even more information has come out about this alarming decision.

You already know many of the troubling aspects of this decision. But did you know that the Air Force actually admitted to the General Accounting Office that the winner of their aerial refueling tanker contract, a product based on the French Airbus, will actually cost American taxpayers more than the U.S.-based Boeing KC-767?

That's right!

Yesterday, a posting on the "
Tanker War Blog" reported that redacted copies of documents, including the Air Force's response to Boeing's protest, have been released. Interestingly enough, in this document, the Air Force admits that the winning French Airbus tanker has a higher Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (it costs more to operate) than the Boeing KC-767.

I'm not a fan of Boeing, which has a reputation for sleaze of its own.

But when the long-run cost numbers demonstrate that Boeing's offering is better than that of Airbus (not to mention the national security implications) then something's rotten in Denmark.

And in DC.


3rd Way said...

If this blows up it could be another nail in the coffin for the McCain campaign. Senior members of his campaign staff were the lobbyists partially responsible for Airbus winning that contract.

Dad29 said...


This is an unusual election. It's Obama's to lose--and he's doing his damndest to lose it.

Anonymous said...

As I pointed out when this all first made the news.

Can you honestly state that anyone, other than the French, are truly qualified to design and build an aircraft that is the only craft in the US Inventory that is supposed to avoid combat at all costs?