BusinessWeek reports that Boeing Inc.'s (NYSE: BA) loss to Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) and EADS for the $100 billion contract for Air Force tankers -- aircraft that refuel fighter craft while they're in the air -- was a no-brainer from the Air Force's perspective.

BusinessWeek quotes Loren Thompson, a Lexington Institute defense analyst, who concluded that "Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome." Here are two reasons he cited:

• Northrop offered more bang for the buck. While both Boeing and Northrop Grumman satisfied requirements established by the Air Force, Northrop was clearly the better buy. With Northrop, the military could have "49 superior tankers operating by 2013," Thompson said, while Boeing's proposal would give it "only 19 considerably less capable planes" by then.
• Boeing's Tankers did not perform as well as Northrop's. "Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop in a single measure of merit" -- not in flight range, fuel capacity, speed of delivery, or cost. "Boeing would have to find a lot of problems to overturn this outcome," Thompson told BusinessWeek. The Northrop tanker carriers 250,000 pounds of fuel, compared to 202,000 on Boeing's, a crucial difference considering that refueling tankers must often circle for many hours when military operations require.

I'm writing a book about Boeing and if Thompson is right, the loss raises questions about Boeing's competitive vigor. Not winning this $100 billion deal is obviously not a help for its stock either.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.