Congress Drops 'Buy America' for Military Tankers

[Thom Little]

A defense bill approved by Congress would allow open competition for a multibillion-dollar contract to supply refueling tankers for the Air Force.

President Bush is expected to sign the measure, squelching an earlier House-approved bill that would have helped The Boeing Co. by keeping the Pentagon from buying military equipment from the parent company of European jet maker Airbus SAS.

Boeing lost the lucrative tanker contract in 2004 amid an ethics scandal.

"Buy America" language had been inserted by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. However, Hunter agreed to remove the provision last month at the request of Senate leaders and administration officials, who said it could spark retaliatory measures by other countries and limit Pentagon flexibility. Congress voted final passage Dec. 21.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AIR_FORCE_TANKERS?SITE=ALMON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[zalinda]

1. What a stupid move.............

I can see outsourcing clothing, but tankers? Actually, I think anything used by the government should be made by our own countrymen. Period.

zalinda

[Stockholm]

2. Don´t know about that

You risk end up with 250 dollar pencils.

[corporate_mike]

3. Borderline insane

:(

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Really?

I would have thought they should be concerned with buying the best equipment, regardless of where it come from. If there's Bulgarian body-armour with twice the stopping power of US armour, the troops should have it. (I'm not saying there is, it's just an example). Whilst you'd hope it would also be US made, you shouldn't hide behind a flag when lives are at stake.

Sadly, of course, * will buy from the cheapest source, unless there's a nice backhander in it for him.

[Ezlivin]

5. We'd start another war, but those tankers are backordered, sir!

We've got some Chinese knock-offs for about 30% off, though.

They require some assembly and the instructions clearly state that "all of your bases are belong to us."

[InsultComicDog]

6. Airbus... aren't they French?

Maybe if they throw in some Freedom Fries with that...

[kineneb]

7. fatal error to depend on foreign production

think what happens if the company accepts the money and fails to deliver, what recourse does the purchaser have in second country...or if the other country decides that they will not let the supplies go the buyer? Any number of other scenarios float through my head...what if we had orders for something from, say, occupied ____(country of choice) during WWII- would we get it?...No! Also, think supply lines, with coming oil shortages.

Amateurs think of strategy and tactics, professionals think of logistics.

No doubt there is some corrupt payoff involved somewhere. Race to the bottom indeed. Hummmph.

[MetsMatt]

8. Not a fatal error

The only realistic competitor to Boeing is Airbus, and its not like they're some fly-by-night company that's going to default. And even if they did then the contract would go to Boeing which has experience building tankers. (They just built 767 tankers for Italy.) The reason why this isn't guaranteed to Boeing is that there were some iffy deals between Boeing and former USAF officials to get them the contract.
Failing to buy American is only really a problem if doing so would put the only American manufacturer out of business, which this will not do.

[DemoTex]

10. Excellent post MettsMatt (and welcome to DU).

As a 25+ year aviation writer/editor and 40+ year military and airline pilot, I have been around this argument for a while. Concerning Boeing v. Airbus and the Buy American argument, it is rather disingenuous.
A few years back, in answer to this same argument in the corporate jet world, I did an article breaking down both the French-built Dassault Falcon 900-series (Ken Lay's choice) and the American-built (Savannah, Ga) Gulfstream IV (before the V came out). The Dassault Falcon ended up having a higher percentage of US-built components (and it was a very high double-digit number), especially avionics, than the Gulfstream had non-US components. Ditto the BAe-800 and Israeli Westwinds.
Boeing sub-contractors are in Europe and Asia .. Airbus subs are in the US and Asia.
Airbus is subsidized by the EU in the same way that Boeing is subsidized by the five-cornered building in Arlington. Quality-wise, there ain't an ounce of difference. I prefer Boeing technology, but that is the old fart in me. I'd hate like hell to have to check-out on an Airbus A-320-series tomorrow. I'm the old dog and Airbus is the new trick. Know what I mean, Vern?

[burrowowl]

11. Well if the spare parts

are made in China it makes us vulnerable, if the spare parts are made in the US or Europe, we should be OK.

[high density]

9. No surprise

Boeing got a little too greedy the last time around... I can't say I want my country buying Airbus tankers instead of Boeing ones, though!