Should the US Government be giving defense contracts to non-us companies?

[kane]

This kind of pisses me off. Our country is bleeding manufacturing jobs and now our government is joining in. They decided to award Airbus the 40 billion dollar contract to make 179 aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force. Some of the stuff will be built here in the US but much of it will not. So now billions in US tax dollars are going to provide good paying jobs to people outside the country.

The deal could be worth as much as 100 billion because if the pentagon is happy with the first order they may have Airbus make as many as 400 of these planes.

Am I the only one that thinks the government should only be giving defense contracts to US companies?

[L-Pink]

Many defense contracts are money swaps. If a country buys x amount from our suppliers, we buy x amount from theirs.

Could be the case here?

[Snake Doctor]

It's a catch 22. Airbus got the contract because they gave us a better price than Boeing.

So if we give it to Boeing then that helps keep jobs here...but it's a waste of taxpayer's money, because we're overpaying for what we need.

[directfiesta]

Could have given it to Boeing .. to the cost of performance and safety of USAF....

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho....php?p=1222432

[IllTestYourGirls]

The biggest problem with out sourcing all these defense contracts is that they US is ignoring history. One of the main reasons (besides Russia kicking some major ass) that we won WWII on two fronts is because we could produce at a very fast rate. Out sourcing this production makes the US very weak if we are ever attacked by a large nation.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

that we won WWII on two fronts

[IllTestYourGirls]

we as in allied countries. America was doing most of the producing during the war. Or maybe I am mistaken?

Originally Posted by directfiesta

[Diligent]

Seems like fucked up logic to me... :\

It would have been better for Your economy for them to spend a bit more, and get the money circulating within Your borders... with jobs and more.

[Christina Muller]

I agree with you L-Pink a lot of other factors go into deals like this its not just about prices and $$$$

[scottybuzz]

we are in a global world

[D]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

we as in allied countries. America was doing most of the producing during the war. Or maybe I am mistaken?

I think the Soviet Union was the biggest producer of ground-based assault platforms (tanks, artillery, etc), but when it came to aircraft, supply vehicles, raw resources, or ocean-worthy vessels, the U.S.A was certainly the Allied production powerhouse... some production lines were producing more than a couple dozen fighter planes a day - by themselves.

Maybe the question was the use of two "fronts?" There were two main theaters... European and Pacific... but each had their own "fronts" on at least 3 sides.

[brandonstills]

It seems increasingly commonly that wars are started so people can profit from them, taking money out the coffers of the government and the people so a select few in power can profit.

[xmas13]

- Northrop Grumman is a US company

- Boeing offered the USAF an old plane.

- Boeing would have outsourced just like Northrop/EADS.

- Boeing lost the contract a few years ago because of bribery.

- US is world's largest arms exporter. There is nothing wrong with importing latest aerospace technology and paying for it with US treasury bonds, Chinese money.

[MaDalton]

Airbus is going to build a factory in Kansas for 7000 people - maybe we should be pissed cause the jobs do not stay in europe?

[DateDoc]

Originally Posted by xmas13

- Boeing offered the USAF an old plane.

From what I have read that was the key. The USAF would have been the only entity still buying the 767. This posed problems for parts in the future as well as maintenance costs.

[D]

Originally Posted by D

I think the Soviet Union was the biggest producer of ground-based assault platforms (tanks, artillery, etc), but when it came to aircraft, supply vehicles, raw resources, or ocean-worthy vessels, the U.S.A was certainly the Allied production powerhouse... some production lines were producing more than a couple dozen fighter planes a day - by themselves.

Let me only add real quick that, of course, America's production was helped by the fact that there weren't thousands of pounds of bombs and rockets dropping on it on an, at times, hourly basis.

[aico]

They went with the better aircraft. I see no problem with that.

[xmas13]

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...oeing767_300f/

Canadair manufactures the rear fuselage. Fuji is responsible for the construction of the wing and body fairings and the main landing gear doors. Kawasaki manufactures the forward and central sections of the fuselage, the exit hatches and wing ribs. Mitsubishi is subcontracted to manufacture the rear section body panels and the rear doors.

Northrop Grumman manufactures the wing centre sections, the lower centre fuselage and the fuselage bulkheads. Vought Aircraft is responsible for the manufacture of the horizontal tail section. The large manufactured sections of aircraft are transported to the Boeing production facilities at Everett in Washington for final assembly and systems integration.