lawmakers finally see the light

[bocefus]

House bill would bar Airbus company from US military bids
[size=-1]Financial Times 05/24/05[/size]
author: Demetri Sevastopulo
author: Edward Alden
(c) 2005 The Financial Times Limited. All rights reserved

The House armed services committee yesterday proposed legislation that could prevent the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company from participating in future competitions to supply the US air force with refuelling tankers.

EADS is currently negotiating with Northrup Grumman to become its US partner in any Pentagon tanker competition. The Pentagon is awaiting a Rand Corporation study on the urgency of replacing the existing tanker fleet before deciding whether to have a competition.

Congress last year cancelled a $23.5bn deal with Boeing to sell and lease tankers to the air force after a former senior Pentagon official admitted boosting the price of the deal to benefit the company.

While the measure in the 2006 defence authorisation bill does not mention EADS, it prevents the Pentagon from buying goods from any company that receives state aid, which would target Airbus, EADS's parent company.

The provision, sponsored by Duncan Hunter, the Republican committee chairman who last year unsuccessfully pushed for "Buy America" legislation, is expected to run into opposition in the Senate.

Guy Hicks, an EADS spokesman, said there were too many questions surrounding the proposed measure to speculate on its impact. He said one question was whether it would affect BAE, a shareholder in EADS that has substantial dealings with the Pentagon.

The Bush administration has demanded an end to all European government support for Airbus, alleging that the European aircraft maker has received billions of dollars in subsidies in the form of government loans repayable based on aircraft sales.

Separately, the bill would also prevent the Pentagon from buying weapons from companies that sell weapons, or technologies specifically designed for weapons, to China.

Michael O'Hanlon, defence analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the genesis of the measure was a move by the European Union, which has now been postponed, to lift its embargo on arms sales to China this year.

 

[TonyC]

It really makes no sense to buy the very best product for the very best price. There are so many more important factors to consider.








.

 

[bocefus]

TonyC finallt sees the light

 

[bocefus]

Airbus seeking state aid from Spain: report journal
Agence France-Presse 05/22/05
Agence France-Presse (Copyright 2005)


MADRID, May 22 (AFP) - The European Airbus company, currently under fire from the United States for allegedly taking illicit government subsidies, has sought state funds from Spain to help it build an aircraft that will compete head-to-head with its US rival Boeing , the Spanish news agency Europa said on Sunday.

The agency quoted an unnamed source in the Spanish industry ministry as saying: "We have received a request for aid that we are currently studying."

It said the alleged aid was to help develop the future Airbus A350, a long-haul aircraft that will be similar in size and range to Boeing 's future 787 model.

The report came three days after the United States warned that it might file a complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over the allegations that Airbus, which has overtaken Boeing as the world's biggest manufacturer of passenger planes, has received state aid in violation of WTO rules.

The sources quoted by Europa said that Airbus was not seeking immediate funds from Spain, but only financial aid that would be paid out when the number of orders for the future A350 had passed a certain threshold. Airbus announced last week that it had asked for aid from Britain, which like Spain is a member of the consortium that owns Airbus. It was that announcement which prompted the warning from Washington about possible action at the WTO.

The European manufacturer generally seeks aid for its programmes in the form of repayable advances -- funds which are provided up front to help develop new products, but which are later paid back if they are successful.

 

[enigma]

It really makes no sense to buy the very best product for the very best price. There are so many more important factors to consider.








.

Tony, I'm not really up on defense contractors, but I'd say that national security concerns might take precendence over price.

I worry about the day when we depend upon foreign suppliers for defense. Who's to say that Airbus won't decide that they don't like our next military move and then refuse to supply spare parts?

I hear that we already are in that position with many of our weapons systems (anecdotal evidence). I don't live in a rose colored world, but I would really like to know that we can acquire bullets right here on our home soil if we ever need em.

regards,
enigma

 

[TonyC]

Tony, I'm not really up on defense contractors, but I'd say that national security concerns might take precendence over price.

I worry about the day when we depend upon foreign suppliers for defense. Who's to say that Airbus won't decide that they don't like our next military move and then refuse to supply spare parts?

I hear that we already are in that position with many of our weapons systems (anecdotal evidence). I don't live in a rose colored world, but I would really like to know that we can acquire bullets right here on our home soil if we ever need em.

regards,
enigma

I understand your sentiment, and agree. Our national security should never depend on us being in the good graces of any foreign entity.

That said, you must realize that, first, any such acquisition would be through a domestic partner. In this case, Northrup Grumman would be the principal US partner in the deal. You don't think the T-1 was really a US airplane, do you?

Furthermore, once the acquisition is made, the airplanes would belong to us. It's not like a steady supply of bullets that we become dependent upon and that can be terminated when international relations go sour. Also, unlike the Boeing deal that fell apart, it wouldn't be a bunch of overpriced leases that would have to be returned or purchased at an again outrageously overpriced rate.


All I'm saying is that all arrangements should be considered, and we should choose the one that ultimately fits our needs best. To decide at the outset that all candidates of a particular color, or shape, or ethnic origin should be automatically disqualified is simply foolish. It seems to me that the primary considerations might be something like, oh, I don't know, performance capabilities of the airplane, suitability of the airplane to the mission... then perhaps economy of operation... economy of acquisition... viability of the company offering the airplane (Joe Blow's claims don't mean squat if he can't deliver the goods)... politics is certainly in the picture somewhere, but I don't think it's the top of the list.



Just my opinion ...


Oh, and I know that we need to keep Boeing healthy so they can continue to build airplanes. We also need to keep McDonnell-Douglas healthy... (oops) and Lockheed healthy... ummm... well, who should we keep healthy? I like the T-38, so I could vote for Northrup.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

It really makes no sense to buy the very best product for the very best price. There are so many more important factors to consider.








.

Holy CRAP, I actually agree with something you said!!!

 

[Snakum]

I think limited competition is good for defense spending. And besides, if it gets thick and we need Airbii parts from a disgruntled former ally ... I'm betting we'd only need the 101st to just TAKE what we needed from France.

Well ... also maybe a few A-10s for CAS.

But not much else.




Minh

 

[TonyC]

Holy CRAP, I actually agree with something you said!!!

Next time I'll use the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags to be more clear.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Next time I'll use the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags to be more clear.

Couldn't let it go, could you??

 

[bocefus]

US warns of tough stance on subsidies for Airbus
Financial Times 05/26/05
author: Edward Alden
(c) 2005 The Financial Times Limited.


The US warned yesterday that it would seek to force Airbus to repay billions of dollars in European subsidies if Washington and Brussels could not strike a deal that would bar all future government support for the aircraft manufacturer.

Peter Allgeier, the deputy US trade representative, told a congressional hearing he was pessimistic that such a deal could be reached, and said the US remained poised to take the dispute to the World Trade Organisation.

"It appears to me that at least some of the European member states remain convinced they need to provide launch aid to Airbus, and unless that attitude changes the prospects for a settlement are not high," Mr Allgeier said.

But he added that if the dispute went to the WTO the US would raise the bar by demanding not just an end to future subsidies but the "repayment of launch aid" for the jumbo A380 and the proposed A350.

Mr Allgeier said the US estimated that in total Airbus had received more than $15bn (€11.5bn, £8.3bn) in subsidies through upfront launch aid from France, Germany, Spain and the UK.

The threat may be difficult to carry out. If a WTO case went forward, it would be at least 18 months before a decision was reached, and the normal penalty provided for under WTO rules would be US tariff penalties against European imports.

In addition the EU would likely respond by seeking similar repayment of US government support for Boeing.

The tough US stand comes as the four European governments are weighing a request from Airbus to provide new launch aid for the A350, a proposed mid-sized competitor to Boeing's successful 787 long-range jet.

Airbus is pushing the governments to reach a decision by mid-June, which would allow for the A350 to be formally launched at the Paris Air Show, which begins on June 13.

The US has said it will take the dispute to the WTO immediately if the governments commit new launch aid for the A350.

Brussels has been hoping for a negotiated deal that would reduce the level of government support for both Airbus and Boeing, but would not abolish launch aid.

But Mr Allgeier said the US goal remained "to eliminate the subsidies, not just put a cap on them".

Under the current launch aid scheme, European governments fund up to a third of the upfront costs of each new aircraft, with the money repaid in the form of royalties based on sales.

 

[FR8mastr]

I cant even believe that this is even up for discussion. Airbii's for our tankers? are they out of their politically correct minds? And before somebody starts I dont care if 50% of the widgets come from timbuk tu. Our military equipement needs to be built here! What's next scrap the F-22 and buy some eurofighters, or maybe send the abrams to the junk heap and get some t-72's from russia. I can see it now, some lying no good politician claiming the A-whatever is better because the company propaganda claims it gets 120 miles more range. So lets give the contract to france, our own defense contractors dont need to stay in business. Its not like the Boeing product is junk, geez where did common sence go?

 

[bocefus]

Ohhhh, but FR8mastr, getting the best product at the best price should be the only criteria for procurement according to some. The SU-27 is widely recognized as being a more capable (better) aircraft than the F-15 and its cost is much less. Should we start buying them? Where would these boneheads who advocate such BS draw the line?

 

[Corona]

The SU-27 is widely recognized as being a more capable (better) aircraft than the F-15...

It is? By whose army?

C

 

[bocefus]

That would be as admitted by no less than the USAF after the recent ass waxing by the Indian Air Force. Prior to that, the Luftwaffe rountinely delivered ass spankings with their Migs.

 

[JimNtexas]

That would be as admitted by no less than the USAF after the recent ass waxing by the Indian Air Force. Prior to that, the Luftwaffe rountinely delivered ass spankings with their Migs.

I don't belive that "ass waxing" story one bit, because I've seen the same story appear every two years since I first joined AFROTC in 1970.

Here is what happens in every case:

1) Some other country is invited to exercise with our guys. They are given very favorable ROE, and often the other country has full GCI and our guys have none, or the other side gets BVR but our guys don't.

2) The exercise happens, and the other country gets some shots off on our guys.

3) The Air Force runs up to Congress, wailing, tearing their clothes, streaming tears, crying that "look this little jack s**t country waxed our ass.....GIVE US MORE MONEY FOR THE F-22!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just the Air Force scamming congress.

The whole air-to-air game is way overrated, we waste far to much money on it. Missiles like AMRAAM and the latest flavors of the AIM-9 can do the little bit of dogfighting that may be needed in the future.

 

[bocefus]

The point is, there is some pretty capable equipment produced by other countries. Evaluation of this equipment by methods other than joint excercises indicates that in many cases the equipment is superior at meeting its intended mission as compared to the domestic equivalent. When this is the case and the equipment is cheaper than the US equivalent, should DOD be required to procure it?

 

[TonyC]

The point is, there is some pretty capable equipment produced by other countries. Evaluation of this equipment by methods other than joint excercises indicates that in many cases the equipment is superior at meeting its intended mission as compared to the domestic equivalent. When this is the case and the equipment is cheaper than the US equivalent, should DOD be required to procure it?

No. Neither should they be required to reject it.









.

 

[bocefus]

To date, no such requirement exists, nor is one proposed..

 

[TonyC]

To date, no such requirement exists, nor is one proposed..

I refer you to the first sentence of your first post of this thread.