« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Administration Sends Weapons Contract to Foreign Company with Ties to Iran

What the heck? It's only our national security.


Late Thursday night, American company Hawker Beechcraft was informed by the U.S. Air Force that they were not going to be allowed to compete for an American military aircraft contract.

The Air Force has notified Hawker Beechcraft Corp. that its Beechcraft AT-6 has been excluded from competition to build a light attack aircraft, a contract worth nearly $1 billion, the company said.

The company had been working with the Air Force for two years and spent over $100 million to ensure compliance with the requirements for the plane and says the craft (Beechcraft AT-6) met all requirements as shown through a demonstration actually led by the Air National Guard.

“We have followed the Air Force’s guidance close, and based on what we have seen, we continue to believe that we submitted the most capable, affordable and sustainable light attack aircraft,” the company said.

Keep in mind, this doesn’t appear to be a question of being outbid or outclassed. In fact, this seems to be a classic example of a contract being awarded without any bidding process at all, something you may remember infuriated the left when the recipient of the contract was American company Haliburton.

There’s a big difference this time. The company the no-bid contract went to isn’t an American company. Worse yet, the company it did go to has questionable friends. Namely, Iran.

Embraer, a Brazilian aerospace giant which is currently under investigation for potentially making illegal payments to obtain government contracts, is essentially owned by the Brazilian government. Through their “Golden Share,” Brazil essentially has control over the company’s business operations.

According to Embraer’s website, that Golden Share provision empowers the Brazilian government with veto rights over: “Creation and/or alteration of military programs, whether or not involving the Federative Republic of Brazil;” “Development of third parties´ skills in technology for military programs;” and “Interruption of the supply of maintenance and replacement parts for military aircraft,” among other things.

But Brazil has their own explaining to do regarding their long and sordid history with the rogue country of Iran.

According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “In 1989, Brazil chose to sell Tucanos, Embraer’s relatively low cost and basic military aircraft, to Iran.” Currently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force operates around 40 Embraer T-27 Tucanos, according to the Washington Institute. In fact, the Iranians use the Tucano as their primary close air support aircraft.

In recent years, Brazil has continued its troubling friendship with Iran and ruthless leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Hudson Institute notes that, “Another area of tension between Brazil and the United States relates to Iran. In November 2009, President da Silva invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Brazil. In May 2010, da Silva helped broker a deal in which Iran would ship only a portion of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey for reprocessing; the rest would remain in Iranian hands, where it could be further enriched for nuclear weapon production.”

According to the Financial Times, building war planes is actually part of an industry that Embraer is fairly new to as they  are only just “venturing into the defence industry.”  Yet, the U.S. government has found them to be more capable and trustworthy than an American manufacturer that already builds hundreds of U.S. military aircrafts and would employ as many as 1,400 new workers across 20 states.

To make matters worse, Hawker was already experiencing trouble as a result of the tumultuous economy and had already announced potential layoffs.  With news that they won’t be offered the opportunity to compete as the only American manufacturer for the light air craft contract, expect more bad news to come out of their offices.

Of course, the employees of Hawker Beechraft may not be on President Obama’s nice list these days anyway.  It turns out that Hawker Beechcraft employees are represented by the International Association of Machinists (IAM).  IAM president, Tom Buffenbarger, is one of the few union presidents without direct access to the White House.  Here’s why:




For the video impaired, here’s the takeaway:

“Barack so loved his own performance that he made Galesburg part of his presidential stump speech.  That’s right, he’s damn proud of his performance.  Well I’m not.  All he proved is like Janus, the two-faced Roman god of ancient times.  He could act like a friend to the workin’ man.  Even as he danced to tune dictated by billionaires.  Yes, we’ve seen this act before.”

Curious that the Obama administration would push an American manufacturing company who’d been trusted in the past in favor of a company run by a government directly involved in the continuing move towards nuclear capabilities by the nation most hostile to American interests.

Then again, with a President that is known for awarding favors to allies and punishing enemies that don’t kiss the ring, perhaps it’s not that surprising at all.

COMMENTS

  • radicalrighty

    This sentence says it all:

    “Embraer, a Brazilian aerospace giant which is currently under investigation for potentially making illegal payments to obtain government contracts…,”

    It’s always about the money with this administration.

  • JamesLBurns

    Aside from all of this, Brazil has highly protectionist trade practices. If there is a local manufacturer for an equivalent product (no matter how low poor quality) the duties and taxes on the imported product often reachs more than 50%. This makes it virtually impossible for U.S. manufacturers to import their goods into Brazil. The fact that the U.S. government would give a contract to any Brazilian company — regardless of any issues specific to the company — is a slap in the face of every U.S. manufacturer.

    • itapema88

      Please, read this before thinking there are job migration from US from Brazil or there are any kind of protectionism: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

  • boonerdan

    The sheep in this country are too busy watching “Dancing with the Stars” to care about the Traitor-in-Chief. Imagine the cat-calls from the MSM and the Dems if a Republican president awarded the WH janitorial contract to a “non-union” company, let alone a $1 Billion military contract.

    I bet you hear nothing from the so-called “2010 Republican House crusaders” either.

  • michaelbowler

    This Brazillian company’s aircraft are all over the US. If you fly on smaller commuter airline flights, you’ve flown on their planes.

    It is no secret that O wants to destroy industry in the US, the “corporate jet” comments were as much an attack on the manufacturers of these aircraft as on the users. Smaller aircraft manufacturers have been driven out of business by actions of US lawmakers for decades.

    Obama gets to kill two birds, or three, by sending this business to Beazil. Anyone notice the rhetoric that has come from the Brazillian president over the last several years? Anti european, anti American, pro marxist. Involvement with Soros in petrobras only adds more chin scratching.

    There’s an unseen nexus there…

    • itapema88

      Pratt Whitney engines, Honeywell avionics, anerican or israelite weapon resource, and, probably those planes will be assembled in Fort Lauderdale. Be sure that those Tucanos are mor americanazed then yours GM cars.

      • itapema88

        sorry:
        mor = more
        anerican = american

  • renl57

    The Hawker plane does appear to do the job well, and industry analysts are surprised that Hawker was barred. See:

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/10/11/04.xml&channel=defense

    and also
    http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/18/2108059/hawker-beechcraft-said-air-force.html

    But you’re right, Tom Buffenbarger has never been a fan of Obama or Obama’s college-educated “netroots” supporters:

    “I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter.”

    Plus, Tom Buffenbarger opposed the creation of the Supercommittee because he’s just as opposed to major defense cuts as the Republicans. He said America should always remain the world’s foremost military power.

    That sure doesn’t sound like the kind of labor leader–or union members–that Obama likes. And the feeling is clearly mutual.

  • jiminga

    if Embraer’s Iran connections were a surprise to the administration. They have proven many times how ignorant they are with simple research. Then again, we shouldn’t be surprised if Embraer made a large campaign contribution either.

  • tailfins1959

    Some have asserted that Ron Paul is as bad as Obama on foreign policy. I disagree. While Ron Paul essentially calls for giving up, Obama is active doing Teheran’s bidding.

    • nathanalbright

      The difference between craven surrender and active support is small when the distance from either to active and hostile opposition is considered.

  • edintexas

    Nothing like buying in to the Left’s propaganda. Yes, the Left went into a tizzy over the Halliburton contract extension. But that contract extension in no way is comparable to this situation. Halliburton already had a contract for the services, and extending an existing contract without a new round of competition is an accepted practice. Also, Halliburton was the only company at that time which was capable of performing within the requirements of the contract an in a timely manner.

    Neither contract, nor sole capability exists in the current situation. But Hey – Dear Leader is all about JOBS for Americans. Perhaps that is “Latin Americans”? His uninon supporters should be happy – but maybe Hawker is in a Right To Work state.

    • edintexas

      “uninon” should be “union” – but you knew that.

      • edintexas

        “…the contract an in a timely manner.” should be “…the contract in a timely manner.”

        Gee. Time to quit posting this morning if I can’t type, or proof read, any better than that.

  • romeg

    at the behest of the same union and now this insult to another American Aircraft manufacturer I’m of the opinion that this administration has declared war on the American Aerospace Industry. Even if there is some personal animus toward the IAM&AW and/or its leadership, the attack on Boeing seems to suggest a larger target.

  • juumanistra

    Because they’re causing a lot of people to get bent out of shape. The original piece breaking the story in the Wichita Eagle — http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/18/2108059/hawker-beechcraft-said-air-force.html#storylink=misearch — clearly states that Hawker Beechcraft lost on the contract in question, rather than being excluded from bidding on it in the first place. The press releases from Hawker Beechcraft and Rep. Mike Pompeo bear this out, as well. So this is, as much as anything else, simply your standard issue sour grapes and Congressional hand-wringing from the representative whose district the would-be contractor resides in.

    As for the merits of the decision, for better or worse the Super Tucano is a proven product built for the specific mission of the LASCOIN contract. It has logged close to a decade of flying general-purpose COIN support in the service of Brazil, Columbia, and Iraq, including firing its weapons in anger in an interdiction role in the War on Drugs. Under the tight fiscal constraints which the Afghan National Army’s Air Corps will have to operate, and the prevailing desire for fiscal retrenchment in Washington, there’s a certain amount of logic in the exercising the conservative option of an aircraft that is a known quantity in the face of pressure brought in the name of economic nationalism.

    • Ben Howe

      At least on the question of whether or not they lost vs didn’t have the opportunity to bid. Certainly, the author of the piece you linked to chose to use the word “lost” but the next paragraph says “excluded from competition” which is not the same as “competed and lost.”

      Furthermore, the superiority of the Tucano vs the AT-6 would be a perfectly acceptable way for the competition to have been determined. This does not appear to be what happened from reading Hawker’s own statements on the matter. They still sound to me like they are saying they were excluded from the possibility as opposed to losing on their merits.

      Finally, none of what you are talking about changes the fact that the company that looks to win the contract is under investigation and is essentially run by the Brazilian government which has questionable and concerning ties with a country that is hostile to America’s interests.

      • juumanistra

        It’s worth noting that the Wichita Eagle piece was quoting from Hawker Beechcraft’s press release, which is the source of all the “excluded from competition” language and, thus, the source of all of the semantic troubles which plague this incident. The contracting history of the LASCOIN project, however, demonstrates that Hawker Beechcraft flat-out lost the contract rather than being prevented from bidding.

        The relevant link to the contractual process’s history: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7ffbcf4ec2b4b4bfae78e1a9e56eb35c&tab=core&_cview=1

        On October 29, 2010, the USAF put out a formal Request for Proposals for a light support aircraft, in which “[t]his acquisition will be a full and open, best value competition conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented.” All bids had to be submitted within forty-five days. Because of the vagaries of governmental contracting, that got extended out to the end of December 2010. To my knowledge, it was not extended out beyond that: In order to have been considered, Hawker Beechcraft would have had to have submitted its bid by the start of this year. Which would mean that, for the USAF to only make a decision now, they had to be considering the bids from the parties, or else Hawker Beechcraft would have been informed many months ago that it had been excluded from the competition due to the formal bidding having ended so long ago. And for Hawker Beechcraft to hear anything at this juncture would mean that it was because its formal bid had been rejected.

        As for the Super Tucano v. Texan II debate, I saw a good point made on this matter off-site: The original draft RFP for the LASCOIN project demanded a “non-developmental product”, which is to say, an aircraft that was already flying and met the contract’s requirements out of the box. (To my knowledge, the requirement was never rescinded.) Per Hawker Beechcraft’s own press release, the Texan II did not: As they said, they spent $100mn on the project to create a variant of an existing product to meet the USAF’s needs. To what degree, if any, that was responsible for the Texan II’s loss, I do not know, but I think it’s a good thing to keep in the back of one’s mind when considering this case.

        Re: Embraer and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I agree wholeheartedly that their being under investigation is a disconcerting thing and don’t mean to make light of it. I intended simply to rebut the no-bid contract portion of your diary, as well as the whiff of economic nationalism that I caught emanating from it.

        • Ben Howe

          It certainly seems like your logic is valid. But, I’m still stuck on the wording that Hawker Beechcraft seemed intent on using. It’s very specific language that they chose and I’m taking the company at their word in that regard.

          That said, I’m open minded. I’ll put a call in to the company and ask them these questions as you’ve laid them out.

          Thanks for your input.

          • juumanistra

            At this point, most of the published confusion seems to run back to Hawker Beechcraft’s press release, and my operating assumption is that an unsuspecting PR flak just made a poor choice of words. I’d be most alarmed to learn otherwise, as regardless of the precise fate Hawker Beechcraft’s bid, it would mean that the USAF was arbitrarily changing the bidding rules well after they had been set in stone. And…well, if the first round of KC-X contracting taught us anything, it’s that the USAF is by no means above altering contracting rules halfway through a program to achieve a particular political outcome.

            Glad to be of service, though. Hopefully this’ll get straightened out and it’ll be something innocuous, as I don’t think anyone wants to deal with the unholy whirlwind of feces that will be kicked up if it does turn out that the USAF made its Afghan procurement decisions due to influence peddled by a Brazilian aerospace consortium.

          • Ben Howe

            …to a friend that is very familiar with the situation and he says that while he can see it would be easy to view matters the way you described, it just isn’t so.

            Even though the overwhelming likelihood is that the contract will go to the Brazilian mfg, there has not been an official announcement of a “winner” which means Hawker was told they were out of the running to bid, not that they had lost the contract. They were not notified that they had been rejected, they were notified that they were “disqualified.” The company seeks more information as to what disqualified them from the process.

            He also noted that the USAF had both companies take part in testing at different points this years which is not something they would have done if the bid process had been closed for six months or more.

            Here were some links showing that the testing was still taking place within the last 6 months:

            http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-10-24/6-scores-hits-laser-guided-bombs

            http://www.combataircraft.net/reports/Armed&Dangerous.php

            I think part of the confusion is rooted in the fact that Hawker was indeed part of the bidding process for a long time. But that’s the point: they were going through the appropriate process, doing the appropriate things and following procedure, yet they were ultimately “disqualified” from the competition which is drastically different than simply “losing.”

            Once Hawker has more details on the specific reasoning I’ll do a follow-up post and will address the questions that you wrote here.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    If I remember correctly Halliburton at least went through a process to become a no-bid contractor the government could turn to in a crisis. If this is truly the administration both punishing an American company for politics and awarding a potentially crucial defense contract to a foreign company that might not have our best interests at heart then why is this administration allowed to continue without being investigated and impeached?

    Are we that far gone as a Republic that we’ll let anyone ruin the country just because they managed to squeak out an election?

  • polarglen

    . . . how much Embraer will secretly donate to O’s coffers. I know, it’s illegal, but when illegality stop O and the dums from gathering campaign money.

    • Common_Cents

      Overseas.

      Has anything come about Obama’s campaign fraud and their non existent campaign finance oversight on taking any donation from anywhere?

      Now’s the time to fire that up and nip his illegal fundraising in the bud.

  • ihateliberals

    government or military from a foreign supplier without first looking for the item from an American company. Price should nto be the defining part but availablity should govern. This is especially true with military equipment. it should be made and bought solely from the CONUS. What would have happened if the USA had contracted out the shipbuilding or air plane building to Japan in 1940? Japan would have won the war that first week. Everything to equip a soldier should come from a CONUS company so as to not have to worry about availability or shipping to the USA. the second problem with this is that it is Un-patriotic for the government to rely on foreign companies for the needs of the American government. It is a slap in the face to American suppliers. It makes me very angry that I can’t even buy an American flag that isn’t made in China. I’m told this has to do with trade agreements. whoever made these deals are treasonist in nature.

  • js1019
    When are the games going to stop, when will people stop beating around the bush with Obama.
    By birth he is a muslim, and every action he has taken is to expand the muslim influence around the world.
    Egypt, Khadafi, ground zero mosque, “not a Christian nation”, deliberately snubs the national day of prayer, no Christmas at the White House, apologizing around the world for US exceptionalism, bowing to world leaders, and on and on.
    Enough. He is NOT a Christian. He is a muslim, and it’s about time people start calling a spade a spade, (no racist pun intended).
    • Joshua Persons

      nt

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Ach, well, easily fixed.

  • Pingback: Godfather of The Islamic Revolution! « A Nation ADrift-Why?

  • Pingback: read

  • Pingback: 1,001 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama « Bobusnr

  • Pingback: Darrin Handshoe

  • Pingback: Queenie Judon

  • Pingback: Ricky Rossnagel

  • Pingback: Sharla Mortinez

  • Pingback: Kelley Ickes

  • Pingback: Benito Loegering

  • Pingback: Dwayne Zeals

  • Pingback: Otha Papich

  • Pingback: Soraya Gittler

  • Pingback: Hosea Chancy

  • Pingback: get edu backlinks

  • Pingback: URL

  • Pingback: Florencio Melchin

  • Pingback: Irwin Cucufate

  • Pingback: Jacquelynn Winterberg

  • Pingback: Glen Rochholz

  • Pingback: Freddy Boehler

  • Pingback: Reed Majeske

  • Pingback: Quincy Seaburg

  • Pingback: Jeremiah Rohrdanz

  • Pingback: Ashly Saysithideth

  • Pingback: Alycia Noguera

  • Pingback: Trudy Tieng

  • Pingback: Emilio Malott

  • Pingback: Marty Nobis

  • Pingback: Renato Gilger

  • Pingback: Dominick Lipphardt

  • Pingback: Errol Sindoni

  • Pingback: Dario Harthorne

  • Pingback: Regenia Bilodeau

  • Pingback: Mason Oberhausen

  • Pingback: Chad Pehowich

  • Pingback: Bryce Paz

  • Pingback: Sherry Gillig

  • Pingback: Ramiro Generous

  • Pingback: Oswaldo Uhrmacher

  • Pingback: Brooke Kahao

  • Pingback: Nearly 80 percent of Americans don’t trust the government! « A Nation ADrift-Why?

  • Pingback: latin america goes nuclear | The Poblete DC Dispatches