European and US politicians profess to favour free trade, but major military programmes seem to be outside such considerations
So finally an engine has been selected for the Airbus Military (AMC) A400M and now, as expected, the political backlash has begun.
In truth, AMC and EADS, which essentially made the decision, could never win. If the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW180 had been selected, European politicians would have been in uproar - some were already threatening not to approve the programme go-ahead if the Canadian engine was selected. Now, with the Europrop International (EPI) TP400-D6 selected, Capitol Hill is in uproar - supporting P&WC's US-based parent United Technologies - and is threatening various actions, including additional support for US defence manufacturers and taking the Europeans to the World Trade Organisation.
Of course this dispute is set against a background of worsening transatlantic relationships, not only because of some European capitals' response to the US-led war against Iraq, but also a host of simmering trade disagreements.
Both Europe and the USA are supposedly proponents of free trade - whoever offers the best combination of price, capability, technology and availability in theory gets the contract. But let's be honest - free trade all too often means the "most politically acceptable" solution. Perhaps George Orwell would have written: "All bidders are created equal, but some bidders are more equal than others."
While it is possible to have sympathy for P&WC, it is not as if US senators and representatives have a strong record of allowing European businesses to win major Department of Defense work. It is possible that the DoD will be seeking a new high-power turboprop in a few years to power new or upgraded maritime patrol aircraft. If the timetables had been reversed - with the USA's need for a new engine coming first - does anyone really believe that a European consortium would have stood any chance of winning the deal?
European companies that have received DoD work often do so only under stringent conditions. Companies such as EPI member Rolls-Royce, for instance, acquired a US rival in an effort to create a major presence on the western side of the Atlantic, but the deal's conditions called for the advanced development capability to be set up as a standalone company inaccessible to R-R's European business.
Equally, if Europe bars entry to US companies at every turn, it can hardly be surprised when Airbus loses out on programmes such as the US Air Force's in-flight refuelling tanker.
Aerospace companies are fully aware of the need to include local industry on their bids. The PW800 turbofan, on which the PW180 would have been based, already has MTU participation in the compressor and turbine, and P&WC has often stated an intent to increase European content on the PW180.
It is not even as if European engine manufacturers have not had an earlier chance to power the A400M. An earlier but larger consortium, the Aero Propulsion Alliance (APA),was selected to provide the similarly named TP400 in late 2000. However, AMC reopened the engine selection because it could not agree a contract, mainly, it is thought, because weight and specific fuel consumption were too high.
It should also be noted that APA was apolitically inspired formation resulting from the merger of an R-R-led bid with a Snecma/MTU proposal.
The politicians who are making all the noise may have also done European industry a disservice. Snecma chief executive Jean-Paul B‚chat says EPI will not make much from the deal. If the consortium runs into technical problems, the result is likely to be a hefty bill for the companies; they may end up paying for the privilege of powering the A400M. This, in-turn, could threaten their profitability.
One of the biggest problems with political interference is that those in power have only short-term interests, enough to carry them to the next election. Conversely, the aerospace industry is long term - service entry of the A400Mis six years away, while elections tend to be every four or five years. Politicians argue they are protecting jobs - but all too often the only jobs being protected are their own.
So if politicians in Washington DC and Europe's capitals really believe in free trade, it is time they stood back and let competition happen. By doing so, prices would surely be kept low, schedules would be better adhered to and the resulting products would have a global appeal, which, in a military sense, would improve interoperability. And the chances of this utopian ideal ever being realised? Realistically, they are zero. Be prepared for more free trade clarion calls, but expect to see free trade only when it suits the politicians.
Source: Flight International
