US Dumps Billion Pound Defence Contract

Contributor Mode

So just who are your friends and can you trust your your closest Allies who tears up a billion pound contract because their favoured, politically, supplier lost. Well they have see the report in the times.

Wot Signature

Now perhaps all you Yank lovers may want to get a little closer to us Europeans in view of the Uncle (free trade only when we are selling) Sam Area.

We've been dealing with this crap since Ronald Rayguns and Brian Baloney signed the so called free trade deal....if it doesn't suit the yanks, then they change the rules..

The only way to deal with this is to stop buying American made products, eventually their protectionist attitudes will help their economy implode as it is doing now..unfortunately that only makes things worse for us, unless we can really sell ourselves to the EU and the Pacific Rim and stop relying on Uncle Sam.... :hockey:
NotmeChief said:
I signed up to a US forum to see what reaction I would get when I posed it to them.

Read it for yourselves.
What did you expect??

It is a well known fact the Septics won WW1 and WW2 all on there lonesome the rest of the allied forces just made tea and carried the ammo for the seps.

I like the Homer Simpson cartoon. Over the door reads the sign. Veterans Memorial Hall for Veterans of Unpopular Wars. The hall was full!!
Before we all go merrily redneck baiting - has anyone actually read the GAO finding?

Seems to me fairly compelling legal reasons for rescinding the contract decision. IIRC the original decision a few years back awarded the contract to Boeing and was later quashed (with some Air Force resignations) as some backhanders were in evidence. It would appear the DoD tried to ensure that in the re-run Boeing were punished by going outside it's own procurement competition rules. You just can't do that without hearing words like LIABILITY, ACTIONABLE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES (and rightly so) from the lawyers.

Indicative of a procurement system that (like ours) has become an industry in itself, irrespective of whether equipment orders are ever placed!


Lantern Swinger
NotmeChief said:
I think I should add, the comments I've made on there are not necessarily what I believe.
It's pretty funny to read though, especially the response about how they're keeping Europe safe for us.

And how Bush can't be a dictator, as dictators "rule for life".

Don't get me wrong, I love the Septics, I truly do, especially their women. But some are what can only be described as the result of massive multi-generational inbreeding.
Boeing may "have the audacity to suggest.....", but it is the GAO that has found that
"In short, the Air Force misled Boeing when the agency advised the firm that it met this objective, but later determined that Boeing did not fully meet this objective, and did not reopen discussions with Boeing on this issue. The Air Force also treated the firms unequally when it provided Northrop Grumman, but not Boeing, with continued discussions on this same objective."

It's called not following the rules of a free and fair competition by telling one company one thing and then telling another something else.

I personally don't doubt the performance difference in favour of KC45, BUT when there are multi-billions at stake if you break your own contract evaluation rules, you're asking to get a shoeing in the courts.
Remember it well, saw one at LL the other week.

How have we come to a position where even buying something relatively simple like a tanker (aircraft or ship) is so bloody difficult! (Rhetoric - I've seen how DE&S/DPA/MoD works far too closely.......)
Underhand tactics are nothing out of the ordinary. Why do you think the Saudis fly tornadoes and not F15/F14’s? Our government is also capable of this sort of tactic. However, I agree Airbus got it and should be allowed to follow the contract up. The US also purchased the Merlin helicopter as the replacement Marine One.

Similar threads

Latest Threads