<p>I am stunned. What’s next, picking a Chinese submarine for the Navy? Buying rifles from the Russians? How about an Iranian tank to replace the M1? Reprehensible. Time for a new Secretary of Defense.</p>
<p>Yup. Those inefficient French companies, with their 30-hour work weeks, five-week guaranteed vacations, health insurance for all and doctors making house calls, and lack of innovation and productivity can do the job better than the Americans, according to the Bush Defense Deaprtment.</p>
<p>Whatever. It’s about sourcing important national defense contracts with unfriendly foreign countries that bugs me. In this context, any non-US source would bother me. Glad to give you another chance to grind your ax, though.</p>
<p>EDITED: I’ve never been a fan of the Bush administration, and I have been opposed to the Iraq war longer than either of the leading Democratic candidates for President. Just because I think you are wrong about practically every position you take here on CC doesn’t make me a Bushie.</p>
<p>Well, it doesn’t make me a liberal either! </p>
<p>When did the French become “unfriendly”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought Northrop Grumman was an American company? No? or Oui?</p>
<p>[Pentagon</a> picks Northrop/EADS over Boeing for tanker deal - Breaking News - World - Breaking News](<a href=“http://news.theage.com.au/pentagon-picks-northropeads-over-boeing-for-tanker-deal/20080301-1w0p.html]Pentagon”>http://news.theage.com.au/pentagon-picks-northropeads-over-boeing-for-tanker-deal/20080301-1w0p.html)</p>
<p>Well, if Boeing hadn’t tried to fleece the US govt into a usurious (sp?) leasing contract, maybe there’d be more political will to buy American.</p>
<p>[Boeing</a> KC-767 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767]Boeing”>Boeing KC-767 - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Oops cross-posted with Razorsharp. As it happens, Northrop was chosen for the deal eventually. I guess Boeing thinks what it did was pretty stupid after all.</p>
<p>I am all for competition. Lack of bidding and competition leads to the kind of behavior we have seen with Halliburton in Iraq.</p>
<p>There’s nothing in the constitution that says the US government has an obligation to be ripped off by Boeing. If Airbus makes a better product, then they can buy an Airbus.</p>
<p>Bush made the French “unfriendly”. Remember “freedom fries”?</p>
<p>Still I believe it is stupid to “outsource” any military secrets. Oh well, lots of stuff our administration does makes no sense. No parties here north of Seattle tonight, but there might be some new jobs in Alabama:</p>
<p>[Business</a> & Technology | Airbus takes Boeing fight to U.S. soil | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2004125361&slug=airbus15&date=20080115]Business”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2004125361&slug=airbus15&date=20080115)</p>
<p>Northrop is the general contractor, but their bid is based on the Airbus A330. Much of the customization work will be performed in Alabama (which congressperson in Alabama had the clout to make this happen?). According to at least a couple of articles, EADS wants to outsource labor to the US anyway, because labor costs in the EU are too high – based both on policies and on the Euro/$ exchange rate.</p>
<p>well, I think it’s too bad. But Boeing can’t have it both ways. You can’t decry the pentagon for doing business overseas for tanker production when you are parting out your commerical planes to several different countries at the same time. Maybe in doing so, you gave them the idea?</p>
<p>Besides, we need to check and see what weapons systems we may be selling the french in the next little bit to balance things out.</p>
<p>So what’s wrong with getting a product that costs less and meets all requirements? Who doesn’t like competition and a good price?</p>
<p>Now all we have to do is find a domestic supply of jet fuel to fill the puppies.</p>
<p>I’m confused WashDad - what’s your objection? </p>
<p>You think DoD secrets are going to get disseminated because it’s a foreign country? Definitely not.</p>
<p>France is unfriendly? I think not - maybe a little colder than usual, but certainly not unfriendly.</p>
<p>So are you just basing your objection on some emotional sense of unease about American military work being done by a foreign company? If so, I can’t really persuade you otherwise, but obviously the people in charge have decided that they’d rather take that risk (minuscule as it probably is) than get screwed by some American company that thinks it gets to charge absurd prices because it has a monopoly on the bidding.</p>
<p>
[Congress</a> in turmoil over Air Force tanker decision | Politics | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2925137720080301]Congress”>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2925137720080301)</p>
<p>Doesn’t that french airplane come with the capability of flying backwards at the first sight of potential conflict?</p>
<p>^^^^^</p>
<p>Just Congressmen doing their job: protecting thier constituents by loudly complaining when the jobs don’t come their way. </p>
<p>The real answer comes from asking the question: is the AF getting the best bang for the buck (no pun intended). Which tanker brings greater capabilities to the warfighter, and at more efficient costs. A few Congressmen whose district gets the bad end of this deal complain publically, ALL of America should look at the end product.</p>
<p>“So are you just basing your objection on some emotional sense of unease about American military work being done by a foreign company?”</p>
<p>Halliburton is now a foreign company, based in Dubai.</p>
<p>It’s Northrop that won the contract, in partnership with EADS. To say a French company won the contract is not accurate. It is accurate to say that Boeing lost the contract.</p>
<p>For decades now US military contractors have been building jets in partnership with NATO countries - meaning that some of the work is done in Europe. And export versions of our technology can have capability removed.</p>
<p>I think Boeing is still seeing some backlash from its past transgressions (Darleen Druyun). Past performance is always an important factor in selection of firms for military contracts.</p>
<p>Northrop will undoubtedly do the more sensitive stuff–electronics, etc.</p>
<p>As for “American military work being done by a foreign company”, I have an anecdote that shows where we’re heading. About a year ago, I presented a paper at a US-military-sponsored conference. All of the speakers received nice medals with the conference seal on one side and the seal of the US Dept. of Defense on the other. My medal was scratched so, being somewhat anal, I returned to the registration area and asked for another, preferably in a plastic bag so it wouldn’t be scratched. They handed me a second medal, in its original sealed bag, but rather sheepishly. Why? On one side of the bag, printed in large letters, it read:</p>
<p>“MADE IN CHINA” </p>
<p>This just made my day. Not a big deal here, but for many items (including some electronics), the US govt. does buy overseas to lower cost.</p>
<p>WashDad–should we assume that Alabama does not have the capability to have a company such as Northrup in the state? Perhaps, the company found Alabama to be a great location (Mobile) being located as a port city, relatively low cost of living, etc. It is not a totally backward state! Let’s not assume that “some Alabama congressman had the clout” to land this company in the state.</p>
<p>Have to agree with Bullet regarding looking at the end product–let’s see what happens!</p>
<p>these planes will be flown across the Atlantic, where they will have their refueling apparatus installed.</p>
<p>in no way, shape or form will these planes be built in the United States. Airbus is a European consortium with the bulk of the major manufacture and assembly of aircraft taking place in France.</p>
<p>Call me a protectionist, but I don’t want my military refueling tankers built by foreign nations.</p>
<p>[HeraldNet:</a> Boeing has a tense past with McCain](<a href=“Boeing has a tense past with McCain | HeraldNet.com”>Boeing has a tense past with McCain | HeraldNet.com)</p>
<p>EADS does not currently have a plant capable of installation of the refueling apparatus in the US. They are proposing building one- then they would have to hire and train workers. How much additional costs will this incur to taxpayers?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I prefer spending my money at local companies, because then the money stays local, Flora and Fauna books for example instead of Barnes and Noble.
SO we are having the potential of a $100 billion contract of taxpayer money going to a company based in France.
How does the American public benefit?</p>