OP-ED: A good deal for America, By BOB RILEY, Washington Times, March 31, 2008
I too am stunned by all this "damn furrrrrreigners!" talk. Northrup and Airbus were simply more inventive and so they won. You want to reward Boeing for NOT doing as well? Tell me how that gets us a better defense package over time?
And if the bitch is about relying on France/Europe, then you've lost me with your unreality. Airbus would have zero interest in losing or screwing up a contract with politics, and if we're planning wars that evoke such opposition from Europe, then we've got a bigger problem than who's supplying our force.
Defense R&D went global a while back. We can pretend it won't influence our acquisitions, but only if we want merely the best America can provide instead of the world's best.
I say, leave the ego, take the tanker.
| Permalink |
Comments (7)
Aside from all this, let's keep one thing in mind:
The proper time to inform foreign companies that they are not eligible for defense contracts is BEFORE the bidding begins - not after they've won.
Posted by Jack | April 3, 2008 9:03 AM
Tom, I fully agree with you. If America is to continue to be a leader in globalization & free trade we must practice what we preach!
Posted by Elmer Humes | April 3, 2008 9:51 AM
couldn't agree with you more, Jack. we should have never opened it up if EADS wasn't a viable partner for NG. in fact, the USAF really wanted someone to compete against Boeing, not least of all because of the previous Druyun/Boeing tanker leasing scandal.
Posted by Anonymous
|
April 3, 2008 10:48 AM
From what I have read, the Boeing "Dreamliner" is an International effort, with parts and sub assemblies coming from all parts of the world . . So would have the Boeing Tanker been any different?
Probably not . .
Posted by large | April 3, 2008 11:31 AM
Has nothing to do with "competition", it has all to do with political influence and which states have the most influence.
We live in an adversarial system. Boeing has all the right to protest as part of the bidding process. But if the protest is rejected then Boeing has no right to argue the bid. They just have to better next time.
But as the cliche goes all politics is local, and this is all politics
Posted by vinit joshi | April 3, 2008 6:31 PM
America shares equipment standards with other NATO countries. The Joint Strike Fighter project is a collaboration with some of those countries. Isn't it just a little late (say, a decade or two) to be closing the door on weapons development cooperation with other countries? And with Northrup Grumman involved in the winning project, just how 'foreign' will it really be?
Posted by Michael
|
April 3, 2008 8:31 PM
Two thoughts.
First.
Funny how fickle Americans are, Americans complain when Boeing cheats to get the original contract, then Americans complain when Boeing loses in a fair competition.
Second.
Taking the Navy view, protectionism isn't new, the Jones Act is real. It is also legitimate to ask if it has done what it was intended to do.
Posted by Galrahn | April 3, 2008 11:44 PM