Your article on the economic impact of the Air Force’s $35 billion tanker program (“Tanker War: Locals Win Either Way,” July 21) ignored how controversial backroom changes to the tanker requirements will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and inevitably further delay a final award of the contract.
In June, the Government Accountability Office delivered a scathing report that suggested that the Air Force attempted to hand the tanker contract to the aircraft designed by Northrop Grumman and French aerospace heavyweight EADS, even though the aircraft would cost tens of billions more and was too large to meet fundamental requirements such as refueling maneuvers.
In fact, the contract should have been awarded to Boeing, whose tanker met all the requirements and cost much less for taxpayers.
Defense experts have strongly suggested re-running the competition according to the original rules, and awarding the
contract to the best aircraft. However, realizing that they can’t win a re-competition, now Northrop Grumman and EADS
have convinced the Pentagon to complete the ultimate bureaucratic runaround: change the rules in the new draft
request for proposal so their larger, heavier, less capable and more costly tanker will win.
If the Pentagon doesn’t change the RFP back to the original rules, members of both parties in Congress will have to intervene, Boeing will certainly protest and the Pentagon will have lost all credibility. And of course, manufacturing workers in California will have to wait years longer for work on the new tanker aircraft.
Ben Porritt
Newport Beach
