Just have a look at how many European air forces are operating F-16, and how many are operating Rafale... Or even Eurofighter.
The US regularly wins bid. This time it's Europe.
Airbus beats Boeing in US air tanker deal
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
The US regularly wins bid. This time it's Europe.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
AFAIK Europe is the single biggest importer of US weapons, after the US military itself.
EDIT: Damn it, Steph!
Winner, you'll always be a Loser against me
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
The deal probably isn't done, as Congress is now starting to fume...potentially causing a thorn in this deal. I hope they let it go through to bolster honesty from the Boeing defense unit, but I also can't blame some Congressmen from objecting. After all, there job is to look after their constituency, and jobs are truly at stake.
~Chris
~Chris
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
My little sister is an engineer for Northrop, so...cool beans.
Oerdin
Deity
So, what do you think about all this? Is this sudden outburst of economic liberalism going to last? After all, Airbus is European and Europe is evil, because it steals american jobs and threatens US security, as some American politicans say.
Also, how will it affect the Boeing-Airbus rivalry?
Discuss
Jesus. Laying it on a bit thick aren't you? That was just the rantings of union members pissed off that they lost. Besides, the US buys tons of foreign designed military stuff.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
I don't really see that this infringes national security.
I.e, Since the Airbus offering is apparently quite superior to the Boeing offering, surely America will be more 'secure' if it has a better plane.
Consider that it takes quite a time to build all this fancy gadgetry, I don't see how France witholding parts would damage the US more then having an inferior model plane would. That is, countries go to war with what they have. Therefore the US hasn't massivley expanded it's military hardware just because of Iraq, rather it used the tanks, planes and guns it already owned.
Thus the only way this could really be damaging is in a total war situation, at which point the war materials produced during a war have a real impact. But such a situation, given nuclear capabilities, is fairly unlikely.
---------------------------------------
What is curious is whether, overall, the US gains financially. I.e, I wonder whether the saved taxpayer money exceeds the funds lost by not redistributing tax money inside your own country.
Oerdin
Deity
I suspect this has something to do with the backlash for the bribery scandal. A few years ago Boeing did win this contract but it turns out Boeing bribed several officials so the contract got thrown out. Even if Boeing had the lowest bid they likely still wouldn't win due to the taint of that bribery case.
Oerdin
Deity
You're out to lunch on this one, sorry. I'd say around 1/3 of American military hardware is sourced from foreigner providers.
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
These are fuel tankers, not exactly top secret superweapons here. There is ABSOLUTELY no relevant national security argument here, just a protectionist one. Our military and DoD is not a domestic welfare agency. If they got a better plane for a better deal from Airbus, they should got that route.
Congress will whine because Congress must whine. Individuals in tiny little Congressional districts do not care about the overall big picture of the global market and free trade. They do care when the plant down the street lays off or shuts down due to outsourcing. They complain to their Congressman who in turn must complain in Congress if he wants to keep his job. More power to them, but we most certainly should not base defense decisions on the grumblings of a few laid off Ohioans.
If the bids are close, I have no problem giving consideration to domestic companies that have a mostly domestic labor force and manufacturing plants. But if Airbus is substantially better, go Airbus. If you want to use tax dollars to create jobs, do it directly. (amazing how many people have no problem with welfare, until you actually call it welfare.)
That said, most of these contracts are subcontracted in various parts to just about every company in the industry. Even the losing bidders usually get a piece. And too often these contracts are used as a form of indirect subsidy for our domestic manufacturers. Overpriced sweetheart production deals that exist more to supplement Boeing's (or anyone else's) profit margin and labor force rather than get equipment that the military needs. (The military may genuinely need the equipment, but often they know they can get it much cheaper if they needed)
In either case, if our domestic contractors can't compete on an even playing field, they should shape up or make room for others.
Congress will whine because Congress must whine. Individuals in tiny little Congressional districts do not care about the overall big picture of the global market and free trade. They do care when the plant down the street lays off or shuts down due to outsourcing. They complain to their Congressman who in turn must complain in Congress if he wants to keep his job. More power to them, but we most certainly should not base defense decisions on the grumblings of a few laid off Ohioans.
If the bids are close, I have no problem giving consideration to domestic companies that have a mostly domestic labor force and manufacturing plants. But if Airbus is substantially better, go Airbus. If you want to use tax dollars to create jobs, do it directly. (amazing how many people have no problem with welfare, until you actually call it welfare.)
That said, most of these contracts are subcontracted in various parts to just about every company in the industry. Even the losing bidders usually get a piece. And too often these contracts are used as a form of indirect subsidy for our domestic manufacturers. Overpriced sweetheart production deals that exist more to supplement Boeing's (or anyone else's) profit margin and labor force rather than get equipment that the military needs. (The military may genuinely need the equipment, but often they know they can get it much cheaper if they needed)
In either case, if our domestic contractors can't compete on an even playing field, they should shape up or make room for others.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
I was being sarcastic.
Just remember: the countries' goverments don't make the parts, but the corporations that operate in some given country. The corporations can sell to anyone they want to, given that they don't operate in some socialist country. After all, the corporations exist to make profit for the owners, regardless of the country they are based in. Embargos could interfere with this, but they are very extreme actions, and no sensible country would want to stop trading with USA without a very good reason.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Well, military business is not just another kind of business, it is heavily regulated. Companies have to ask their governments if they're allowed to sell their stuff to other countries, governments can deny that from many subjective reasons.
For example the US government sanctions both American and foreign corporations if they sell weapons and other sensitive stuff to countries like Iran, Syria and other countries on the "black list". EU strongly advises its member states not to sell military hardware to China.
Probably the most liberal country in this respect is Russia, which sells to anybody who can pay
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
We have a bit of a conscience and don't sell military hardware to a few regimes. But we're also the biggest arms dealer in the world, we still sell to more than our share of repressive regimes. We've got a bit of a moral high ground over Russia or China who'll do business with the national equivalent of Charles Manson if they feel like it. But for the most part, we're fairly indiscriminate ourselves as well.
i would think almost all the countries involved in airbus use some american military hardware and are all allies of the usa so theres not going to be any denial of parts
El Koeno
Emperor
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,926
For the people who think France will deny access to parts: when's the last time France let morals get in the way of a weapons deal? If you're going to get your weapons from anywhere, make sure it's France, they'll come through no matter what stuff you pull. Well, that's the impression I have anyway.
during the falklands war france denied sales of exocets to peru to avoid them falling into argentine hands so really as long as you dont intend on fighting one of frances allies theyll sell you what you want, they wont sell to china though because of the eu embargo
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
I don't think it is "Anyone" but I know that France has defense agreements with a lot of former French colonies in Africa and that might contribute.
Just for the record, I was not trying to demonize France when I said that. I very much doubt it would ever happen, but it is not impossible. I am just as troubled over M1 tubes being bought from Germany, for example. Heck, I'd not even like the UK being involved in anything we need for our military. All of our military hardware should be "home grown", 100%.
Free market doesn't exist. It's pure bull. Always been and always will, it's just a propaganda.
Anybody that say the U.S isn't protectionist have major lack of information. With emerging nation, free-market is nearly impossible.
As for the subject of the thread, I think this prove there is something we can nearly call a revolution in the U.S. At least, they fight among them for sure. Otherwise this is plain insane and cannot be understand, or maybe this is how they pay the cash they own to europe, who know?
Similar threads
