With all the focus on budget cuts, I found a program I think the military could and should spend more on, and in the Air Force at that:
Just before the New Year, the U.S. Air Force finally selected a new Light Air Support plane for ground attack in counterinsurgency, picking the Brazilian Super Tucano over the American AT-6– whose manufacturer, Wichita, Kan.-based Hawker Beechcraft, is filing suit over the decision [update: leading the Air Force to issue a stop-work order on the 4th]. But just as important as what the Pentagon is buying is how many and for whom: just 20 aircraft, with an option for another 15, which will go not to equip regular U.S. Air Force units but to train the embryonic air force of Afghanistan.
The Air Force Light Air Support program [has] been closely watched as a leading indicator of whether the U.S. military was willing to invest in the kind of low-cost, low-altitude, low-tech airplanes best suited for close air support in counterinsurgency. The answer is, not much.
At $355 million for 20 aircraft – just under $18 million apiece – the Super Tucano buy is peanuts by Pentagon standards….
Click here to see the full story online at AOL Defense.
6 Comments
Dear Mr. Freedberg,
I am a retired Marine Corps Colonel and Naval Aviator. Recently, a Marine pilot with whom I flew in 1959 and the early 1960′s sent me your article regarding the Light Attack Support Plane. He was quite critical of the fact that the Obama Administration is selecting a foreign made aircraft vice one that is made in the USA. His complaint on the surface seems valid. Why are we not bidding on an aircraft that provides jobs for American workers and for our economy? Your comments please.
Thank you,
William J. Smith
Colonel, USMC (Retired)
Kalaheo, Kauai, Hawaii
Thanks for your email and for your question — it’s a good one. I’m a skeptic of “Buy American” provisions in defense spending, for three reasons:
1) Our troops should have the best equipment that’s available and affordable, and sometimes the best equipment is just not made in the USA. That’s especially likely when we’re looking at equipment optimized for “low-intensity” warfare, since historically the US hasn’t invested in such gear and had very little experience using it from 1973 to 2001. For example, most of the MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles we bought in haste to protect our troops against roadside bombs were foreign designs, often South African.
2) If we refuse to buy foreign countries’ defense products, they’ll refuse to buy ours. While we may gain on particular contracts, ultimately that’s an eye for an eye that loses everyone export sales and therefore jobs (not just in defense; this is one of the major reasons for the Great Depression of the 1930s). Now, treating other countries’ exports fairly is no guarantee that they’ll treat ours fairly in return, but excluding them is close to a guarantee that we’ll get excluded in turn.
3) Saving jobs for American workers is definitely important for the economy. But so is saving money for American taxpayers. If the best value for money comes from buying a foreign product, then the government would be a poor steward of taxpayers’ money if it bought the domestic one instead. Sometimes it’s worth paying a premium to protect American jobs, sometimes the cost to taxpayers is just too high.
Several retired military officers with whom I am in contact allege that the reason Embraer was awarded the contract vice Hawker Beechcraft is because George Soros, a big Democratic Party financial contributor, owns shares in Embraer. In their view, the White House steered the award his way without a peep from the USAF or DOD. I would appreciate your thoughts, please.
That’s not something I’m aware of, honestly. But Snopes.com, a website I respect, states that they can’t find evidence Soros has invested in Embraer — see http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/hawker.asp — and neither can several other news and research organizations.
And just today Sierra Nevada Corporation, the US company that’s offering the Brazilian Super Tucano, put out a lengthy press release — http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sierra-nevada-corporation-corrects-the-record-on-us-air-force-light-air-support-program-138581094.html — claiming that it’s being smeared by rival Hawker Beechcraft (although they don’t address the George Soros rumor) . Some choice excerpts:
Strong words, to be taken with grains of salt, but this fight is clearly heating up.
More of Sierra Nevada Corporation’s case is presented online at http://www.builtforthemission.com/presskit.php, while Hawker Beechcraft is soliciting letters to Congress in support of its plane via http://missionreadyat-6.com/.
Thanks to Col. Smith’s questions, I ended up diving back into this story and publishing another article on AOL Defense:
Click anywhere on the excerpt above to see the whole story.
Post a Comment