The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 12)

br> -- Paul M. DeSisto , Lt Col, USAF (Ret.) br> Cedar Grove, New Jersey /p>

Buy American?

Interesting column, especially since the author talks about a high-value competition that is still in the source selection process. What so-called "industry experts" and "insiders" have to say about the new tanker, and who has the edge against whom, has absolutely no bearing on the final decision by the source selection authority. I'm fairly certain "industry expert" Scott Hamilton is not a source selection team member. Does he know the specifications of the proprietary information offered by both bidders? Does he know how well those specifications will meet the source selection criteria? Does he even know what the source selection criteria are? Does he know the relative scored weighting between the fuel delivery requirement, cargo weight requirement, and passenger capacity requirements contained in the Request For Proposal? That's what I thought.

The idea of awarding a chunk of the contract to both EADS and Boeing would be a huge disservice to both the USAF and the American taxpayer. Ask yourself, why are we going towards the Joint Strike Fighter concept for the F-15C, F-16, and A-10 replacement? Because the DoD bean counters have finally realized that a simple, linear logistics tail for a single weapons system platform that spans multiple services is a whole lot cheaper and faster than trying to take care of multiple fighter airframes. The same goes for a single tanker airframe -- a split award would force the Air Force to set up two separate supply points, two separate depots, and two separate maintenance chains. The resulting logistics tail, over the lifespan of the tanker weapons system (and yes, it is a weapons system) will cost many times more to the taxpayer than the actual upfront cost of procuring the aircraft in the first place.

p>Solution? Award the entire contract to the vendor providing the best value to the Air Force, and by way of that mammoth clearinghouse called the US Government, to the taxpayer. br> -- Owen H. Carneal, Jr. br> Yorktown, Virginia /p>

Is this a paid advertisement for Airbus, or what?

I had thought that the Spectator was more neutral and fact-based than this, but now I wonder.

topics:
Taxes, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Islam, Global Warming, Military, Iraq, NATO, Africa