Sikorsky And Friends Blast "Foreign" Manufacturers
You wouldn't think, at first glance, that a company founded by a
Ukranian whose family came from Poland and then moved to America
would make an issue out of foreign competition. But that's just
what's happening at Sikorsky Aircraft, where executives say the
President of the United States shouldn't go hither and yon in a
helicopter of foreign manufacture. That might come as a surprise to
Sikorsky's competition in the race to build the next Marine One.
The competition, in fact, is led by none other than America's
second-biggest defense contractor -- Lockheed-Martin.
Lockheed's US101 (above -- note even the patriotic-sounding
aircraft designation) would be built at Bell/Textron's Fort Worth,
TX, facility by a consortium that includes AgustaWestland. The
helicopter's rotor blades will indeed be made in the United
Kingdom. But Lockheed Vice President Stephen Ramsey told the
Binghampton, NY, Press & Sun-Bulletin that the rest of the
aircraft will be built in America.
"We're going to build this helicopter in the US," Ramsey told
the New York newspaper. "They're both going to be American-made
helicopters. Let's talk about which is going to be the best
helicopter."
But, as the Pentagon moves toward a decision on Marine One
Friday night, Sikorsky honchos continue to tell anyone who'll
listen that the US101 is a foreign aircraft that will lead to the
transfer of American technology overseas.
Not so, said Ramsey. In fact, since the aircraft will be built
in the US, the net transfer of technology will actually flow the
other way across the Atlantic.
But that's not good enough for retired Wyoming Senator Malcom
Wallop. "These are high-tech security jobs," he told the Binghamton
paper earlier this year. "In the end, we will be building parts for
the US armed services with foreign workers."
Wallop is a consultant paid by Sikorsky. But that hasn't stopped
him from writing byline articles in publications like the
Washington Times about how the US101 will use foreign labor to
build American military equipment.
But Wallop's is a rallying cry for those in Washington and
elsewhere in the US who believe the US should indeed "Buy American"
wherever possible when it comes to defense matters -- even if the
equipment in question costs more.
"We may be spending more, but it's an investment in which we get
a return," said William R. Hawkins of the US Business and Industry
Council of Washington, DC. He told the Binghampton paper that the
research and development funded by the Defense Department aids
overall American competitiveness.
But hold on, said Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute. "If we
artificially restrict the ability of the Defense Department to get
the best weapons and the best components possible at the least
cost, we are compromising our Defense Department and our national
security," he told the paper.
"We're going to build this helicopter in the US," Ramsey told
the Press & Sun-Bulletin. "They're both going to be
American-made helicopters. Let's talk about which is going to be
the best helicopter."
On that score, Loren Thompson at yet another think tank -- the
Lexington Institute in Arlington, VA, agreed. "Both of the teams
are headed by companies that are headquartered in the United
States," Thompson told the Binghampton paper. "Calling one of the
helicopters American and the other foreign is really splitting
hairs. The simple reality is that they will both be made in America
and will both be maintained in America."
Back at the Cato Institute, Charles Pena, the director of
defense studies, also agreed. "This should be a fair competition
based on the merits," he said. "The question will be how
politicized that decision becomes once a decision is made."
But the head-to-head argument is one that some experts standing
on the edge of this fray say will cost Sikorsky the contract.
"Both aircraft are capable of doing the mission of transporting
the president," said Robert F. Dorr, an author who has written
several books on military aircraft. He, too, was quoted by the Sun
& Press-Bulletin. "But it's pretty clear that the EH101 (the
European version of the Lockheed Martin aircraft) is superior in
every respect" to Sikorsky's S-92 (below).
Sikorsky's strength is in its lower cost -- both at the
procurement level and in maintenance. But Sikorsky just suffered a
huge economic blow in the cancellation of the $39 billion Comanche
contract. If the Marine One contract falls through, some observers
believe it could be the end of the S-92 line.