I have trouble when politicians, even ones we trust, try to interfere with military decisions like this. I understand his 'buy American' philosophy and agree with it, but if the Air Force has specific technical needs that the American proposals were unable to meet, we should not sacrifice that quality or issue over a label stamped on it. Maybe Hunter can focus instead on reducing the regulations that make the American products unable to win the bid? Are regulations keeping it from meeting technical needs? Are taxes keeping it from being competitive. Fix the source or root of the problem. Hitting it at this end doesn't fix the problem in the future.
A rather complicated scenario, but Boeing has basically had a monopoly on this type of aircraft manufacture for decades. They didn't get the award, so maybe they should have worked harder, or had a better design or lowered their costs and passed that on?
Also, there are advantages to having a producer of given military products on more than one continent. In fact, most all government contracts specifically state there must be two, unrelated sources of that product. It's strategery. Just my $.02/
My understanding was that it was over a technical issue, although I am sure the recent scandal at Boeing might have something to do with it...believe me, contract officers do hold grudges. That being said...I am not surprised in the least that Hunter is doing this, as Boeing is one of his major contributors. He’s infamous for sticking his nose into contracting efforts where it doesn’t belong when it benefits him financially and he’s been involved with some sleazy really characters in the process (Cunningham, Wilkes, Rep. Jerry Lewis, etc.). That’s why I could never support him for President.
It’s not at all clear that this was a military decision. Seems that different congresscritters had political reasons for wanting to bring jobs to THEIR district, and that some irregularities may have been introduced into the bidding process.
Even when most of the jobs in question will be located in the US either way, I think it’s a good idea to have a policy of critical military equipment made my US companies unless there’s really a huge benefit in quality and/or cost to having it made by a foreign company. In times of war, political alliances tend to do some shifting, and a country which is an ally at the time a contract is awarded may be at odds with US interests in a wartime scenario. That’s when pressure from a foreign government on companies based in the foreign country could have a seriously detrimental effect on our military effort.
I doubt we can produce one military system totally in this country, does that not give you cause for concern? Do you presume all those foreign entities have our best interests in mind?