Battle brewing over air tankers

The Pentagon will soon launch the bidding process for air-refueling tankers to replace a fleet of aging KC-135s, planes like those based at Fairchild Air Force Base. The contract could be worth $20 billion. With that kind of money at stake, the bidding will trigger a struggle only slightly less rancorous than the Civil War.

And along the same geographic and political divide.

Boeing Co. will represent the blue North by tendering modified versions of the 767, 777, or both, depending on what the U.S. Air Force wants. Those airplanes are assembled in Everett.

An alliance of Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS North America Inc., which would manufacture its plane in Mobile, Ala., stands in for the red South. Northrop will modify the Airbus A330.

The absence of any use of the word “Airbus” on the Northrop Web page describing its KC-10 tanker indicates the sensitivity of any reference to its European genesis. In fact, the project is described as “an American military aircraft program.” A greater-than-50 percent U.S. input apparently warrants that kind of declaration.

The Airbus connection is a sensitive one because of the ongoing dispute between the U.S. and Europeans over subsidies allegedly supporting aircraft development efforts. Airbus has long enjoyed almost blank-check access to government treasuries anxious to preserve high-paying jobs. If a project did not work out, the borrowings were forgiven.The Europeans retort that the State of Washington subsidizes Boeing and suppliers, to the tune of $3.2 billion in tax breaks and other assistance.

The claims and counterclaims were tossed to the World Trade Organization in late 2004. A decision is still months away.

In the meantime, the Pentagon cut Northrop a break last week by announcing the pending WTO cases would not be factored into assessment of the Boeing and Northrop tanker proposals. Keeping that dispute in the mix would have so handicapped Northrop the company threatened to pull out of the bidding process.

If that sounds like a bonus for Boeing, recall its experience with a 2003 tanker procurement process that blew up when the company secretly offered jobs to the Pentagon officials managing the bidding process. The self-dealing earned that individual time in jail, Boeing a fine and the enmity of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a bad man to cross. He remains cross, and vigilant. He sent a letter to new Defense Secretary Robert Gates seeking assurances the bidding process would be transparent.

But McCain also remains a Republican, as do Alabama’s two senators, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. Thanks to last month’s elections, those senators will not enjoy subcommittee chairmanships that gave them considerable clout.

Some of that Senate clout will pass to Washington Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Murray, who has been a persistent critic of the cozy relationships between Airbus and its government sponsors, will become No. 4 in the party’s Senate hierarchy.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wa., could also have a critical role in Defense oversight, depending on where he chooses to commit his energies.

For her part, Rep. Cathy McMorris, R-Wa., issued a statement calling for a process that gets the best planes in the hands of Fairchild airmen as soon as possible.

The pressure is already building.

In addition to its decision to exclude the WTO dispute from its considerations, the Pentagon delayed until next month release of the bid specifications. The details are critical because Northrop has ballyhooed what it says are the superior cargo and passenger capabilities that could be built into its tanker. If the 767 cannot match up, the 777 could be offered. But with few remaining orders for the commercial version of the 767, that production line and the jobs that go with it could be short-lived if that model is not selected.

In a perfect world, the choice of such an aircraft so critical to U.S. defense capabilities would be a purely military decision. But Congress is notorious for its meddling in Defense procurement, to the point of funding programs for which the military has no use.

The Air Force needs new tankers. It would be good for Washington if they are built in Everett. Our congressional delegation will be in a better position to see that happens. They might want to ask how much sense it makes to put a key defense plant in an area vulnerable to hurricanes?