Well, that didn't take long, did it?
This past Friday, the U.S. Gubmint awarded the $40-billion KC-X tanker project to the coalition made up of Northrop Grumman/EADS/Airbus - a group with a distinctly French flavuh.
You just had to know that either ***** was gonna raise the roof to challenge their snub, despite their earlier promises not to do so.
Wellsir, this is getting hot, quick. Evidently, U.S. politicians are playing the patriotic card in Boeing's defense before the ink on the contract has dried. This is an interesting play, because it insulates Boeing while stirring up the public opinion stew.
Hey, wait a minute ... isn't this an election year? Duh.
The take of the politicos is two-fold, simple and brilliant: How dare the U.S. send a lucrative contract overseas?
- It takes jobs away from U.S. manufacturers and sends them overseas.
- It jeopardizes national security by sending critical defense work to another country where it will be difficult to monitor the project.
But this is just mixing the pot, and inciting reactions rather than calm, logical thought. NG/EADS announced early on that if awarded the contract, they would not only build much of the tankers in the U.S. - they would also move substantial commercial manufacturing work to the U.S. U.S. manufacturers aren't getting shut out, as the ranting nabobs suggest.
And the U.S. isn't sending this project to France. It's a collaborative partnership that includes the French and a platform built on the Airbus (French) model. This is nothing new - hasn't GE and Snecma (U.S. & French) been working on jet engines together for years?
And didn't Boeing win this contract originally in 2003, only to have it yanked with Boeing executives & military personnel indicted, and worse? What does that say for managing such an important contract? Should the U.S. just pretended that that never happened?
If there's a good, solid, logical argument here, it's this:
An old military adage says, "Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics." The distance issue will affect costs more than it will the U.S. defense posture. To believe that the logistical and control chain exists that would efficiently manage this project may be a bit naïve. A little like thinking everything can be outsourced, or "open sourced." Many things can, but not EVERYTHING.Now, that's a good argument. But it wouldn't play in the red states.
Did the V-22 Osprey debacle put the U.S. in grave danger? Hardly. But it cost more money than Springsteen tickets. And with U.S. economy in the tank, can we afford to send cash out of the country now?
Pity.
