US Air Force chief calls for European competition

[Kellanved]

The US Air Force secretary has called for European defence contractors to get more access to Pentagon contracts to stimulate stiffer competition in the US domestic aerospace industry.


James Roche, who controls a $90bn annual budget, warned that consolidation among US contractors in the 1990s had left Washington over-dependent on a small number of key suppliers in certain sectors. He said the main way to correct this was to encourage overseas manufacturers to compete for defence department spending.

"I have always wanted to have a situation where you take this transatlantic thing seriously," Mr Roche said. "It's the only way we're going to discipline the big airframe makers in the United States."

His comments come amid a scandal around Boeing's $23.5bn leasing deal for a hundred 767 refuelling tankers, where air force officials have been accused of giving the US aerospace group an unfair advantage over European rival EADS, parent of Airbus.

...
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086445559206

[Zech Marquis]

1. I've always wondered

why more European comapnies weren't bein considered for penatagon spending...especially with the current small mafia like grouping of defense contractors sucking our wallets dry. I'd bet some of the Tornado jets would have been more than enough for the Air Force,navy and marines :eyes:


Then again, I don't sell $100 hammers :evilgrin:

[punpirate]

2. This move is yet another way of outsourcing....

Watch this carefully, and, as it evolves, you'll find that the contracts will still go to American firms, on a cost-plus basis, with the work being done elsewhere.

Many government contracts have to obey "Made in America" laws, and this is an appeal on behalf of the military contractors in this country to be exempt from such.

Outsourcing contracts makes no sense--it's strategically dangerous, and only benefits host contractors in this country.

Roche, in this interview, for example, lies about AirBus. AirBus actually met more of the Air Force's tanker criteria than Boeing in the initial contract round, at a lower cost, and its bid was still ignored.

The real answer to the problem is to decertify US suppliers who cheat on contracts, and live with the results. The tanker deal was, in fact, all along, a boondoggle, and was based on fraudulent data and insider info.

What the DoD has simply forgotten over several decades of the Cold War is that they control the money--contractors who want the business must conform to the national budget, rather than dictate it.

Cheers.

[Redhead488]

3. Cuz the Tornado

isn't as good as the F-15, the F-16, or the F/A-18.

[Kellanved]

4. it is not comparable

The Tornado is not comparable with either of the three. Nor is it an especially new design.

This case is about Airbus-based tankers, and - although many pilots might disagree - the Boeing planes simply aren't as good. ;-)

[Redhead488]

7. Sure it is

The Tornado is a multi role fighter aircraft, best suited for a ground attack role. It is no match for the F-15, F-16, or F-18 in either role. Neither are the F-15 or F-16 new designs. The F-15 was designed in the late 1960s-early 1970s.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Since there is only one or two "air frame" makers

what do they expect. However, I sure as hell don't want that much tax money going directly into the pockets of foreign workers.

[Kellanved]

6. EADS offered to build plants stateside

And many parts are made in the US anyway - for an Airbus compatible with the US Air Force probably much more than for the civilian jets.

Also: Boeings aren't all made in the US either.