Flying into turbulence

It was inevitable that the Air Force’s decision to award a $40 billion contract would cause a controversy on Capitol Hill, no matter which way the decision went.

What’s interesting is that in deciding that Northrop Grumman’s bid to build 179 refueling tankers was the better offer, the Air Force embraced what was surely bound to be the bigger controversy inside Congress.

That’s because Northrop Grumman’s partner is the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), the defense conglomerate and parent company of Airbus, the only real rival in the world to Chicago-based Boeing. Furthermore, Boeing, long a partner of the Defense Department, also bid on the tanker contract, only to lose out to its rival.

The Hill makes no judgment as to which of the two bids was better. House and Senate committees have already signaled that they will analyze that point to death, in any event.

The Air Force believes it made the right call in picking the EADS-Northrop Grumman partnership.

Given that the Air Force has only recently emerged from a major scandal over tanker procurement, it seems likely that this time it selected its preferred deal squarely on its assessment of the U.S. military’s long-term needs.

Awarding the contract to Boeing would have sparked criticism, for sure, not least because of the scandal that led to jail terms for a senior Air Force official and a Boeing executive. Even though that episode is in the past, such things tend to get disinterred when there is $40 billion at stake.

If the Air Force had opted for Boeing, it would also have felt the sting of criticism from disappointed politicians in states such as Alabama, where Airbus plans to build its tankers.

So, after all is said and done, the Air Force must have known that by choosing a group including Airbus it would encounter a tougher fight. Hours after the decision was announced, former GOP presidential candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.) accused it of costing the U.S. “100,000 jobs,” and said it was a blow to the defense industrial base vital to U.S. national security.

Hunter went on to argue the Air Force was supporting European governments unwilling to send additional troops to Afghanistan, and attacked Airbus as benefiting from a heavily subsidized bid that allowed it to undercut its price.

That was just the opening shot in what has been a torrent of bipartisan, bicameral criticism. Even presidential candidates from both parties have joined in, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) saying he would look into whether the Air Force followed its own rules.  

The Air Force has been at the center of political fights in recent years, and while it is unlikely to have developed a taste for them, it certainly will have become accustomed to them. And once again, the wing of the military is back in the thick of battle, not just on the other side of the world but on Capitol Hill as well.