New Boeing Tanker Ad Campaign

To counter the KC-30 team's Built. Tested. Flown. misinformation campaign we are told that today Boeing will launch ads to show that they most certainly have more than a paper design.

While the tanker delivered to Japan is a slightly different configuration of the 767 than that proposed to the Air Force, unlike the KC-30 tanker, it was been tested and certified by the FAA.

In fact, the Japanese 767 tanker is far more mature than the EADS Australian tanker program. The KC-30 team has yet to pass fuel in flight on any A330 tanker.

Also, the EADS D-1 tanker that was scheduled to be delivered to the US Air Force has none of the modifications or additions to the green A330 (cargo door, freighter floor, refueling systems, defensive systems, military com gear, etc.)have been made to their "completed" Air Force tanker.

If the KC-30 team was truthful it would put out an ad that said their tanker is Partially Built, Somewhat Tested, Flown in a Configuration far less than Complete.

It may not be catchy, but at least it would have been honest.

NG/EADS to receive Cease and Desist Order

Air Force Magazine online is reporting that NG/EADS will no longer be able to refer to its KC-30 tanker as the KC-45A in advertisements and press releases. An Air Force spokesperson told the Daily report that:

USAF created the nomenclature KC-45A to refer to its next tanker aircraft, but now that the KC-X competition is back up for grabs, neither Boeing nor Northrop Grumman can claim the KC-45A designation—not yet, at least. The Air Force has not yet notified Northrop Grumman to quit calling its airplane the KC-45A, “but the Air Force will do so and we expect that they will [comply],” the spokeswoman said.

The KC-30 team though remained defiant; if not delusional. Randy Belote, Northrop’s VP for communications, was quoted as saying yesterday, "As winner of the KC-X program and while under contract for the KC-45, we have no plans to change the name or nomenclature of our tanker.”

Also, Air Force Magazine online reports that the naming of the KC-45 has been delayed and put on hold due to the the recent shake-up of Air Force leadership:

The rumored top name for the new tanker is “Expeditor II,” which honors the Beech C-45 Expeditor of the World War II era. The nickname would seem to echo the KC-45A designation chosen for the new aircraft (see item above), but the original Expeditor was a relatively small transport specializing in light loads and small airfields, while the two KC-X contenders—Boeing’s KC-767 and Northrop Grumman’s KC-30—are based on widebody airliners.

It seems strange that the Air Force would choose a name associated with a small transport aircraft, but their whole fixation on more pallets and cargo for a tanker has always been beyond comprehension.

We will not be too hasy in our judgment though. Maybe the Airmen on the flightline know what they are doing. When the KC-767 is eventually chosen as the new tanker, naming it the "Expeditor II" might make sense as it can use a lot more of those "small airfields" than the KC-30.

FYI: in case you missed last month's name the KC-30 contest, proceedings and results can be viewed on TAnchorman's blog.

Dueling Talking Points: GAO Decision

The KC-30 team has struck back at the GAO report with a set of talking points that uses many of TruthyPR's suggestions. The KC-30 team's conclusion: It is the Air Force's decision if a rebid is needed. But if they do decide to rebid it, the result would be the same.

Boeing, as you might expect, has a slightly different view and has provided us with some talking points of their own. In their view the KC-30 does not even meet the RFP requirements and may not even be able to be considered.

We have combined both companies' statements to form this Dueling Talking Points paper which is housed on our documents site. Please note that although we used many of their statements verbatim, this not a Boeing document. We have edited some of their points and added some of our own.

As a side note, the Air Force just announced they had not ask the Government Accountability Office to reconsider its tanker decision. The Air Force did not file any request for reconsideration during the initial 10-day period after the decision. Many experts agree this means that Air Force, as a practical matter, has waived its right to appeal.

In the spirit of a good feud, please be sure to hit play above to listen to a song while reading the talking points. The song is popularly known as "Dueling Banjos" and is an instrumental composition that was made famous in the 1972 movie Deliverance.

The song was arranged and performed in the movie for guitar and banjo by Eric Weissberg and Steve Mandel and was on the movie's soundtrack album. After the movie's release, the song went straight to #2 on the U.S. pop charts. From March 17, 1973 - April 6, 1973 the Dueling Banjos EP was the #1 album on the Billboard 200.

The piece though was originally composed by Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith and Don Reno as a duel between a 5-string banjo and a tenor banjo entitled Feuding Banjos in Charlotte, North Carolina 1955. Not initially given credit for his work by the producers of the movie, Arthur Smith had to sue to set the record straight.

We at Tanker War Blog believe in setting the record straight. The GAO has done its part by determining the Air Force made significant errors and should rebid the tanker contract.

We hope that by posting the dueling talking points we have done our part in setting the record straight on what the GAO decision means.

KC-30 Ground Game Revs Up

In a previous post we highlighted some of Boeing's grassroots mobilization or "ground game" activities in preparation for the GAO tanker contract decision.

The KC-30 team has also been actively organizing on the ground in addition to their efforts on the web at ComeBacktoMobile.com. (We readily admit that its a nice website and tip our hat to their efforts.)

Alabama station WALA Channel 10 interviewed Mobile County Commissioner Steve Nodine and several other local business leaders in its report on pre-GAO decision actions:

Mobile Chamber of Commerce President Win Hallett placed his opinion in the mix, as well. "Well we're always anxious until it's finalized, but we think this is an opportunity to re-win what we've already won. And, we are excited about that," he said.

Still, it might not be the end of what has been a long fight.

"We need political support obviously as we go down the road we have to make sure Congress doesn't toy around with and lifts the stop work order currently in place," said Nodine.

Tuesday, some of that help was demonstrated when a new political support network was announced. Local leaders in Mobile County have formed the Gulf Coast Aerospace Coalition in response to Boeing's challenges.

The network, founded by local leaders, includes 50 cities and counties in the Southern United States, stretching geographically from New Orleans, Louisiana, in the West to Tallahassee, Florida, in the East.

The Mobile Chamber of Commerce has been doing everything that it can to secure support for the city, as well. The organization has "been in touch with our allies all over who have something as stake in this project," said Hallett.

Contrary to most people's perception, political grassroots mobilization is expensive. But, if the GAO decision is not definitive either way, each side will spend as much as needed to get their supporters (voters) to demand action from elected officials. Given that this is an election year, the pressure will definitely be on Congressional offices to do something for their state's/district's economy.

KC-30 Naming Contest Finalists Announced

On his blog, TAnchorman has just released the official nose art for the KC-30 and he has announced the finalists in the name the KC-30 contest.

All visitors are asked to vote for their favorite name by noon on 16 June.

If the Tanker Doesn't Fit...

After a long ago requested but delayed briefing precipitated by Jed Babbin's article Too Big, Too Heavy a member of our team was given information on the possible construction cost related with purchasing the much larger KC-30.

During the brief she was provided Google Earth satellite imagery as visual evidence to show the many problems that will be associated with replacing the KC-135 with the much larger KC-30.

As you can see from the photos, unlike the KC-767, the KC-30 footprint does not allow space for taxiing, and precludes parking on many pads. In many places the KC-30 nose is consistently beyond the pad cement.

It should also be remembered that in addition to the size/spacing issue, there are many problems a heavier aircraft presents the classified Pavement Classification Number (PCN) or strength rating of the runway, taxiways or airport ramps. Some of these ramps and taxiways may not even be able to support a heavier tanker.

If dear departed Johnnie Cochran were around to argue the case before the GAO we think he would have said a little something like this, "If the tanker doesn't fit, you must the contract quit."

In the GAO case at least, he would be right.

Air Force Admits to GAO that the KC-30 Costs More

Now that the GAO has wrapped up its tanker contract hearings and is currently determining its decision, some redacted documents are now being released. One document that has been released in part are Boeing's comments on the Agency Report (USAF's response to the Boeing's protest).

At Tanker War Blog we were not able to obtain the full version of the comments, which we are told total over 400 pages, but one of our members on the Hill did get a very interesting section on Most Probably Life Cycle Cost(MPLLCC) calculations. These comments are heavily redacted, but from them it seems that the Air Force in its Agency Report has apparently now conceded that the KC-30's MPLCC is higher than Boeing's. This of course is the exact opposite of what the Air Force had briefed Boeing and publicly stated as a reason for selecting the KC-30. Page 103 of the comments has the following:

III. THE AGENCY REPORT CONFIRMS THAT THE AIR FORCE'S COST/PRICE EVALUATION WAS IMPROPER AND UNREASONABLE.

With respect to the Cost/Price evaluation, as an initial matter, the Air Force now concedes that Boeing's most probable life cycle cost (MPLCC) is lower than NG/EADS'. See MOL, AR Tab 001 at 201-02. This renders even more troubling the SSA's initial public assertions that NGIEADS "offered great advantage to the Government in cost price." See Protest, AR Tab 003(a) at 94. The Air Force's concession, however, addresses only a miniscule fraction of the errors in the Cost/Price evaluation confirmed in the Agency Report.

On page 107 it seems that a small part of this error was even caused by someone in Air Force procurement not properly using an Excel spreadsheet:

In particular, in its Third Supplemental Protest, Boeing demonstrated that the Air Force underestimated [redacted]costs by $ [redacted] as a result of an erroneous spreadsheet cell reference.

Now, the Air Force likely responded in the hearings that the error in their calculations was minor and irrelevant to the overall outcome. But, we expect this error will have considerable impact on the GAO in terms of their assessment of the thoroughness and credibility of the evaluation.

As more of the documents are released we will attempt to post them. Given that the Boeing documents are by their nature one-sided, we will generally refrain from commenting except when new information is brought to light, or we see items where the Air Force seems to concede it made errors.

Katrina Aid Funneled to KC-30 Team

Though it went largely unnoticed at the time, in June 2006 Alabama Gov. Bob Riley reserved $255 million in tax-exempt financing, for the construction of the yet unbuilt KC-30 tanker assembly center in Mobile.

This money was part of the federal Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, Public Law 109-135, which President Bush said, when he signed it in December 2005, was meant to help the citizens of the Gulf Coast to put their lives back together and rebuild their communities in the wake of the devastating hurricanes that hit the region earlier that year.

As the Mobile Register reported at that time:

The allotment for the airport authority -- $105 million for Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. and $150 million for EADS North America and its affiliates -- is the largest approval thus far, and represents 12 percent of the financing available to Alabama, according to figures provided by the governor's office.

At that time this allotment concerned some taxpayer watchdog groups, who said that priority should be given to hurricane-related projects:

"The intent of the GO Zone Act was to rebuild properties that existed before Katrina hit, and not to give these sweetheart bonds away to multi-national defense companies that can afford to build on their lonesome," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Washington, D.C.-based Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The state is using "Katrina to sweeten the pot for these companies," he said.

We have since searched the tanker taxpayer crusaders Citizens Against Government Waste releases and the entire web using a number of key phrases (including CAGW, "Go Zone", bonds) and found that they have been strangely silent on this government give-away. This omission is somewhat glaring since the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the GO Zone Act's tax-exempt private activity bonds will cost the federal treasury $1.6 billion.

As you might imagine, not everyone in the state of Alabama was happy with Gov Riley's largess being showered on the KC-30 team. The then Lt Gov. Lucy Baxley denounced the decision because she claimed it was put ahead of funding to replace Katrina-damaged schools.

On top of the $255 million in tax exempt financing, the KC-30 team also received a $120 million package of incentives from the state and local governments.

Are we the only ones that think the KC-30 team being given Katrina aid to fund their tanker assembly plant, which allowed them to lower their bid proposal costs to the detriment of others in the competition, is wrong? If not, be sure to show up to protest the groundbreaking of the Brookley Field facility in Mobile on June 28th.

One would think that given the tens of billions of dollars in European subsidies EADS gets, it would not have to ask the state of Alabama or Uncle Sam for tanker contract handouts. For EADS it certainly looks as though being the Governor's new favorite son has its privileges.

Thompson: GAO will Find Fault with Tanker Contract

On Saturday the Mobile Register reported highly influential defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute predicting that the KC-30 team will be disappointed by the Government Accountability Office's ruling on the U.S. Air Force tanker contract:

"GAO almost certainly will find problems" with the Air Force's selection process, said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "The only question is how significant those problems will be. But I think the likelihood is that they will favor Boeing, and that would not be good news for Mobile."

Dr. Thompson is later quoted as saying:

"If you're one of Boeing's supporters, there's no such thing as a minor problem," Thompson said. "GAO has to show that they're giving serious consideration to Boeing's protest, and for that reason I think they uphold at least some of their complaints. And then the catch for Northrop and the Air Force becomes, is an 80 percent confidence level good enough? What about 60 or 70?"

We at Tanker War Blog believe that due to the limited scope of the GAO review, there will probably not be a recommendation to rebid the tanker contract. We also feel though that the certainty level for the Air Force on this contact will eventually be below any percentage mentioned by Dr. Thompson. We can not how see many, if not all, of the issues that have raised previously will not be upheld by the GAO. Issues such as:

1) Changing the criteria for the IFARA model
2) Placing more value on exceeding cargo/pax/fuel load than was stipulated in the final RFP
3) Past performance rating and proposal risk
4) Calculation of life cycle costs to include new construction costs.

In the end we believe Congresses will play a large, if not decisive, part in determine a way out of the botched tanker contract. If Boeing gets even partial victories from the GAO and the WTO we can see no way the KC-30 team gets the tanker contract.

Be prepared to hear much more talk about a split buy.

Next Up: The Tanker Ground Game

In every political campaign there comes a time when the ground game, or the ability to get more of your supporters out pressing your message, plays a decisive role.

In the Air Force tanker contract dispute, now is the time for both the KC-30 team/EADS and Boeing to finalize their ground games. With the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to rule on Boeing's protest by June 19th and the World Trade Organization (WTO) possibly also ruling this month on the US complaint of Airbus subsidies; each side must build their coalition now in order to take advantage of a favorable ruling or withstand a possible setback.

The KC-30 team has a much stronger political right now and has mainly stuck to holding employee rallies, astroturfing in the form of taxpayer groups, and coordinated letters written by military officers who are current/former employees. They also have a fairly decent "war room" that sends out e-mail updates to supporters.

For Boeing though, because it faces a much harder task of possibly getting the decision reversed in Congress if the GAO does not rule favorable, it must build support on the ground in key states and congressional districts beyond tanker employment areas. This article yesterday caught our eye as it shows the efforts being taken in West Virginia who's Senior Senator, Robert Byrd, is President pro tempore of the Senate and Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Since the move to reduce or overturn the tanker contract will probably come from the appropriations bills, having a West Virginia ground game will extremely important for Boeing.

The article points to a number of veterans who have written in protest to the Air Force or their elected officials including:

West Virginia’s best-known veteran, Hershel “Woody”Williams, sent the Air Force a letter of protest.

“As a Marine who served in Iwo Jima during World War II, it boils my blood every time I see an American flag labeled ‘Made in China,’” the Medal of Honor winner from Ona wrote.

“So I am even more dismayed that the Pentagon has chosen a foreign country to make military planes over a good American company. I hope this decision is reversed and that the Defense Department will put American interests first in equipping our armed forces in the future.”

The Air Force selection of an Airbus based tanker has stirred up some strong feelings in West Virgina and the rest of America. How those feelings are turned into constructive action and political power will play a key role in how the tanker decision plays out in the aftermath of the GAO and WTO rulings.

Police Detain Ex-EADS Chief

Noel Forgeard, the former co-chief executive of EADS has been detained since Wednesday by French police under suspicion of insider trading. Although Forgeard has strenuously denied the accusations, investigators are unimpressed and have detained him.

The Times reports that Mr. Forgeard, was due to be interviewed by the magistrate in charge of the inquiry last night. The magistrate will decide whether to place Mr. Forgeard – once the most powerful figure in Europe’s aerospace industry – under formal investigation on suspicion of insider dealing. The article goes on to state:

A report by the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) pointed to “massive” insider dealing by 17 current and former executives of EADS and Airbus, who sold a total of 1,708,600 shares for almost €20 million.

...According to the AMF, they were in possession of privileged information about A380 production problems and should have abstained from exercising stock options.
All may be questioned by the Paris police’s financial brigade.

While the Times article does not mention it, the New York Times had already reported that one of the 17 EADS executives implicated in the scandal is none other than Ralph Crosby, head of EADS North America. Yes, that is the same EADS that is Northrop Grumman's main partner on the KC-30 tanker which was selected by the Air Force in the KC-X tanker competition.

It was probably a good idea that Mr. Crosby skipped Cannes this year. It might have been a one way trip.

[Update: Reuters now reports that last night Mr. Forgeard was officially placed under formal investigation, the US equivalent to being charged, on suspicion of insider trading.]

News Team 4 Exclusive: Tanker Fight Exposed

We would like to direct our readers to TAnchorman's blog (pronounced tankerman) where News Team 4 has a new exclusive.

It seems as they were able to get their hands on a HASC transcript that contains a portion of a Team KC-30 post-fight conversation which was recorded last month.

Gen. McNabb was right, everyone should just calm down before this gets out of hand again.

WTO Rejects Request to Stall Airbus Subsidies Case

World Trade Online (Note: This not a free service; you must pay to see the full article) in a 9 Mar headline story "EU Rebuffed In Attempt To Harmonize Boeing-Airbus Cases", reported that its sources say that the World Trade Organization denied an EU request to harmonize the content and timing of the U.S. case against alleged EU subsidies to Airbus and EU case against alleged U.S. subsidies to Boeing.

The EU sought this request to possibly delay the WTO ruling and to possibly force the US into negotiating a settlement. But as the article states:

Within days of making the request, the panel reviewing the U.S. case (DS316) denied it, sources said, giving some credence to the notion it may deliver its interim ruling in the case by June. The EU case (DS353) is on a slower track than the other case, with both sides submitting comments on answers to panel questions earlier this week. The DS316 panel saw the last filings by the parties in March.

The EU argument to the WTO included claims that the parties would be unable to keep the interim rulings confidential in the time between the two rulings. "Parts of the case are very similar," one source argued.The U.S. responded to the brief, arguing that WTO law permits harmonization of cases brought by multiple members against the same alleged WTO violation, but does not prescribe the type of harmonization sought by the EU.

While one source close to the EU sees a DS316 ruling in September, another source said the swift response on the EU request was a sign the DS316 panel is approaching a decision by June.

Many eyes are on the GAO ruling on the tanker competition due by June 19th, but the WTO case ruling may have an even greater impact. Even a partial victory for the U.S. in the first case could spell the end of the $35 billion refueling tanker contract awarded by the U.S. Air Force to EADS and Northrop Grumman over Boeing.

It is an election year and very few in Congress will want to be seen as aiding a foreign company that undermines free trade to the detriment of US companies and their workers, especially when the economy is faltering.

The EADS team has been successful to date in its efforts to spin the tanker controversy as simple protectionism vs. free markets. If the WTO determines that Airbus has broken the rules of free trade, EADS's strongest point now becomes their weakest. Expect the public backlash to be justifiably merciless.

Timber! Falling Faith In US Trade Policy

A central theme of this blog has always been that the tanker issue is not really about Boeing vs. Northrop Grumman or Boeing vs. the USAF, but in fact Boeing and US aerospace workers vs. Airbus and the illegal subsidies it receives.

At Tanker War Blog we contend that the US government has a duty to balance the promotion of free trade with enforcement of free trade. Blindly clinging to the idea that competition and market forces will result in fair trade is folly. Competition doesn't work when the playing field is tilted toward one side or one of the competitors is given an unfair advantage.

Some of us at TWB had hoped that the Executive Branch would realize its mistake in buying an illegally subsidized product like the EADS/Airbus A330 and stop the tanker contract. But others here, who have long since lost faith in US trade policy, have pointed out that even when the administration seemingly stands up for fair trade it may in fact be just lining insider's pockets.

A case in point is the 2006 timber trade settlement with Canada. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer in a recent article by Robert McClure asks the question:

Is it an illegal $1 billion slush fund for Bush administration friends in the timber industry, extorted from Canada and designed to evade congressional oversight?

Or is it a fairly negotiated end to an expensive trade war that's "the best thing that has happened to private forest land conservation in the United States in 100 years?"

Given that at least one of the groups to receive money from the settlement, the U.S. Endowment for Forestry & Communities ($200 million), was hastily set up during the settlement and established just before the deal was finalized, it is probably right to ask these questions. The article also notes that the deal was monitored by Harriet Myers, then still the President's chief lawyer, so suspicions should be heightened all the more.

At Tanker War Blog we believe our government should stand for fair trade and look after the interests of US workers and consumers in trade disputes and not just industry and party insiders. We firmly believe this is also what the American people want.

We further believe that if there was proper enforcement of free trade EADS would never have been allowed participate in the tanker contract.

It is also becoming clearer to us that only Congress has the will and the ability to properly solve disputes such as the tanker controversy.

EADS Tanker Grounded: Revenge of the Bobbittboom

For all the talk of proven technology and the working boom on the EADS/Airbus A330-based tanker, we now find that the Australian A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), with the prototype EADS boom has been grounded since March because of boom issues.

Boeing has stated in the past that EADS "continue(s) to struggle with the development of the boom they've proposed for the...tanker. Reports indicate their boom is not expected to be operational until late 2010." And Boeing reported that the Air Force had been very concerned about the EADS boom during the contract selection process.

EADS has countered that its "boom has been built, and successfully tested."

Here is what Aviation Week reported today:

"The Australian Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), the first developmental Airbus A330-based tanker, has been grounded since March while receiving new parts for its refueling boom system.

...The MRTT is expected to return to flight by September, according to Tim Paynter, a Northrop Grumman spokesman. He declined to provide dates for when the A330-based boom is expected to transfer fuel in flight to a receiver.

What is actually being done to the boom during this period is a bit murky."

A bit murky is right! The NG/EADS team has ridiculed Boeing as providing a Frankentanker but as this article points out, EADS has what could be described as the Bobbitboom. (In honor of John Bobbitt and his loving wife Loretta who previously lived in wedded bliss right down the road from DC in Manassas, Virginia.)

The Bobbittboom is currently on an A310 but EADS hopes to have it surgically attached to the A330 and fully functional by 2009 . As the article states:

"EADS has developed this boom specifically to compete with Boeing in the international tanker market. The boom on the A330 has not yet been extended during flight.

The boom system has been flying on an A310 test bed conducting various risk reduction activities."

[The article goes on to say that the Australian tanker program has been restructured "to allow more time for development."]

We are somewhat sure there is a pill these days that can help with the failure to "extend" problem, but as for the boom reattachment to the A330...well your guess is as good as ours.

Tanker Whispers

Nothing gets D.C. more excited than a good whisper campaign, and it seems the KC-30 team is trying hard to titillate the K-Street crowd with their latest doozy.

For those fortunate enough to live outside the beltway and not familiar with whisper campaigns, the following is a pretty good description from Wikipedia:

A whisper campaign is a method of persuasion in which damaging rumors or innuendo are spread about the target, while the source of the rumors seeks to avoid being detected while spreading them (for example, a political campaign might distribute anonymous flyers attacking the other candidate). It is generally considered unethical in open societies, particularly in matters of public policy.

In one of their daily e-blasts the KC-30 team suggests Boeing is willing to spend an astounding $250 million to overturn the tanker decision. For this number they cite a National Journal article written by Bara Vaida.

It is reveling though that in the article the only sources for the $250 million figure are a spokesman from EADS NA and a senior VP at Northrop. Here is the passage in the article:

“We’ve heard [the number] through an Air Force source and a couple of other Hill sources,” said Sam Adcock, senior vice president of government relations at EADS North America. Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said he, too, has “heard that number thrown around.” A spokesman for the Air Force said that it “is not aware of the specifics” on how much Boeing is spending on its protest.

We can almost imagine these two going on and on about how they hear this $250 million number in conversations all over town, when they are probably the only ones doing the talking.

The article's author deserves some credit for being able to see right through this and he asks:

Is the quarter-billion-dollar figure realistic, or is it being talked up as part of a strategy to counter Boeing? Doug Kennett, a Boeing spokesman, said the $250 million number is “so ridiculous that you almost don’t want to respond to it.”

In this case, ridiculous may be an understatement. The consensus at Tanker War Blog is that at most the eight figure mark will be broken, and it will probably be on the low end of that. Also, regardless of what Boeing spends, in the end, they will be outspent by NG and EADS. After all, at this point it's the KC-30 team's contract to lose.

We will leave it up to other blogs, or possibly future posts of our own, to hypothesize about any possible motives for wanting to start this rumor, but we will close with a quote from one of the KC-30's very own supporters.

When Senator McCain commented on the people who carried out the whisper campaign against him and his family during the 2000 South Carolina presidential primary he said, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."

Inquiring Frenchmen Want to Know

We at Tanker War Blog have been following Secretary Gates' recent scoldings of the Air Force. (Some TWB thinks are unwarranted) While reviewing the transcript of Gates' remarks earlier this week at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, we came across this interesting closing question from a French Air Force Office attending the Air War College:

Question: Good morning, sir. (Inaudible name) from Air War College, from France. Sir, you mentioned this morning in your speech how important interoperability and working in coalition was for the U.S. Air Force. About a couple of months ago, the U.S. government decided that the future tanker will be provided by a consortium led by Grumman and Airbus. Since then, Boeing decided to challenge this decision. I would like to know -- and it will delay the overall process for the Air Force to procure this kind of aircraft. I would like to know what you think about this challenge and how -- (audio break).

SEC. GATES: Well, Boeing is using the legitimate processes that have been established to protest the award of a contract. As I understand it, the General Accountability Office will -- is evaluating the decision process and Boeing's process and Boeing's protest, and they will issue a decision in terms of whether they believe the protest was warranted...

[Secretary Gates goes on to say he wants to move ahead with the purchase and he is concerned that things DoD can not by law consider are in the mix on Capitol Hill.]

So let's frame this properly: A French exchange officer gets the chance of a lifetime to ask the U.S. Secretary of Defense a question....and he wants to know if the Airbus tanker buy will be delayed? This is so cliche we are not sure anyone would believe us if not for the link to the DoD public affairs press release.

Also, this being an election year someone is sure to make the accusation that this was a planted question so DoD could repeat its tanker contract talking points.

So yes intrepid flier of the Armee de l'Air the purchase will be delayed. In fact, we hope that when Americans start to get as interested in this EADS/Airbus tanker contract as those in France, it will be cancelled.

TAnchorman says: Stay Classy Northrop

[Note: In this post we would like to introduce someone who we hope will join in from time to time and help us moderate and report on the tanker debate: Tankerman.]

Thanks TWB but please read the prompter correctly, its spelled TAnchorman.

What do you think this is? Amateur hour?!

Anyway, today I would like to reiterated what I have said on a number of occasions, I don't believe an ugly fight between Northrop Grumman and Boeing is good for America. It also misses the point since the true enemy is Airbus.

We all know my friends at TWB have been very hard on EADS, Airbus' parent company, because EADS can not be trusted to be good economic or defense partners.

I am very disappointed to find that Northrop Grumman has decided to counter any questions raised about EADS by handing out fliers attacking its competitor and stating "Boeing has a long history of criminal misconduct".

Sweet Lincoln's mullet that's getting ugly!

Regardless of this attack, I have asked that Boeing not reciprocate by publishing their list of NG missteps because I believe it serves no purpose. As I have stated before, we all understand that companies have employees who have behave badly from time to time. What makes EADS unique in this discussion though is that the French or German governments rarely hold it accountable when its actions are detrimental to the US.

Also, I would like to take NG to task for putting the corporate front group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) up to naming two of the tanker critics as "Porkers of the Month". Maybe it will score some points in Mobile, but everyone in this town has a pretty good idea on KC-30 team money to CAGW. Son of a bee sting! That's not fair to two elected officials who I believed have supported you in the past.

Besides, Airbus can fight their own battles. Here is a nice zinger just reported today:

“I think they [Boeing] are competition-averse, period,” Allan McArtor, chairman of Airbus Americas, told The Hill. He said the production of the commercial aircraft in Mobile will break Boeing’s monopoly in the United States.

Thanks for the aerospace industry insight Airbus, I'll be sure to lead with that story on the evening news.

Now as for you NG, like I said, "You Stay Classy."