HILLARY CLINTON: I was struck when
the spokesperson indicated that the air force could not and did not take into
consideration the impact of the [KC-X contract] award on the industrial base. ... Title X requires
the air force to do that ...
CLINTON: Well,
Mr. Donley, then it won't surprise you to hear that I disagree. But more
importantly than my disagreement are the very specific requirements within
Title X, subtitle A, part 4, chapter 144, section 2440, which reads: 'The
secretary of defense shall [ed: proscribe] prescribe regulations requiring consideration of the
national technology industrial base in the development and implementation of
acquisition plans for each major defense acquisition program'. So I would
appreciate receiving in writing each of you the specific answer to my question
in relation to Title X.
I'm very well aware that we live in an international economy. I'm also extremely conscious of the impact of decisions made by our government with taxpayer dollars that undermine our competitiveness for the long-run and eliminate jobs and thereby undermine technical skill acquisition in a way that will come back to haunt us. So this is something I take very seriously.
The whole tanker deal is starting to look like the Zimbabwe election. You go through the process, and it all appears above board, but you will keep going round and round and it will never end until the favoured supplier gets the contract. Everyone proffers seemingly plausible objections - yet the real issue remains unsaid. Supplying tankers to the US defence force is reserved for Boeing.
I looked up the citation from Title X and it says the Secretary of Defense shall "prescribe", not "proscribe". Was this a misprint on your part, or Senator Clintons's?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00002440----000-.html
I looked up the citation from Title X and it says the Secretary of Defense shall "prescribe", not "proscribe". Was this a misprint on your part, or Senator Clintons's?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00002440----000-.html
Yowsa. That was my bad. Probably what I get for transcribing a C-SPAN hearing at 5 am. I'll fix.
Worried about the long-term impact of this decision on US jobs and competitiveness? What and see what happens to our future defense industry business with European and other non-US customers once this gets handed to Boeing for clearly protectionist reasons.
Yes the long term prospects could be frightening... The Europeans might decide to spend billions on a transport plane with half the capability of existing US transports, and then dictate a European engine for it when a suitable US/Canadian engine exists...
Or they might create a multi-billion dollar satellite navigation project (which will charge for its services) when they can get GPS for free...
Or they might institute rules that European space missions must use European launchers...
Or they might even open up fighter competitions in countries that had previously committed to JSF!
Oh, wait...
Touche, mon ami.
There's not a single industrialized country that is not interested in promoting its own defense industrial base. That's obvious to anyone that follows the defense industry. The idea that outside of the U.S. there is this free market in defense articles in which all source selections are made purely according to economic efficiency or technical merit just doesn't fit with reality.
See what happens when Boeing talks out of both sides of its mouth. read Trimble's blog here. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/07/irony-or-farce-boeing-ships-us.html
I thought US believes in a 'free market' how come they're acting like that of a protectionist?
Both Northrop Grumman and Boeing are US based companies. Both companies are sourcing a significant part of the total aircraft value from abroad. Boeing tries to shift some of its development and production to Japan. Airbus and EADS try to shift parts of development and production to the US! So looking at concepts like "the industrial base" is less than easy. But one observation is very easy to make: while Boeing was able to win a lot of Airbus A300 airline customers for the 767 two decades ago, 767 customers defected by the wholesale to the A330 later. And most other nations selecting tankers opted for the A330 too. Senator Clinton is lobbying for an aircraft which the professionals around the globe consider to be obsolete. But at least she requests the order "for the industrial base" - and not for "the American warfighter". Since those men and women who risk their lives around the world would possibly request the most modern equipment - and the most capable. If they only were asked!
Let's be fair. Every nation has its own comfort zone on how much they're willing to outsource their industrial defense capability. The US has not been forced to make a lot of these decisions until very recently, and now they're all coming at once. You can understand why it's open for debate.