Any US defence contractor (or its legislative surrogates) who plays the protectionism card to trump an encroaching foreign competitor is simply being dishonest, and that contradiction continues to create shamefully embarrassing moments for everyone.
The dishonesty is right at the surface. No matter how much a defence company will "wave the flag" in pursuit of a major contract, you can be sure that each of them are simultaneously trying to save money or score offset points by outsourcing work on other contracts.
It's a farce that has been going on for decades, but has intensified in recent years with the rapid gains of foreign aircraft manufacturers in the US defence market, sometimes at the expense of a US-based competitor.
In 2004, Sikorsky rebranded the S-92 from the "world's first global helicopter" with parts made in Brazil and China to the "all-American" aircraft. Sikorsky was fighting - and losing - a campaign against the AgustaWestland EH101 for the coveted contract to build the next presidential helicopter fleet.
A Sikorsky executive said during that campaign: "What is a socialist country and a socialist company going to teach us about competition?" Quite a lot. The Lockheed Martin/AgustaWestland US101 team won.
But the lesson was ignored. The KC-X tanker contest, pitting Northrop Grumman's Airbus A330-based platform against the Boeing KC-767, has ignited a protectionist backlash in Congress that Boeing has refused to repudiate. It was only a matter of time before Boeing's public stance on KC-X and private dealings on other contracts would be shown to conflict.
One of those moments was revealed last week by Flight's The DEW Line blog. Last year, Boeing outsourced outer-wing panels for the Fairchild A-10 to South Korea. The catch: Boeing had defeated a different Northrop team for the A-10 re-wing contract. If Northrop had won, the same jobs would have been located in St. Augustine, Florida.
This conflict reveals more than hypocrisy. US politicians and business leaders need to accept that "buy American" is, at best, a quaint anachronism. The USA makes many things well, but those which can be bought more cheaply abroad should be imported unless the country wants to slash consumption. The guns-and-butter trade-off is unavoidable, and applies to military hardware as much as consumer goods.
Source: Flight International
