According to McCain, it's terrific! He fights against "Buy American" provisions. From the 1996 Congressional Record [Page: S451] (Defense Auth Act - Conf Rpt):
BUY AMERICA
Mr. President, let me take a moment to discuss the `Buy America' restrictions in this bill. The conferees did remove a waiver provision which would have had the unintended consequence of rewarding nations with a history of retaliatory trade practices. However, the bill adds `Buy America' restrictions for propellers, ball bearings, and many other items which, frankly, are counterproductive to our ongoing trade relations with our most important allies.
As an example, the British placed orders for approximately $5 billion in United States-made defense articles last year; United States orders of British-made defense items totaled only about $800 million last year, a ratio of 4-to-1 to our economic advantage. This is a somewhat unusual year, in terms of the size of British orders to United States companies. I am advised that, on average, the British Government purchases twice as much defense equipment from the United States as we do from them.
Yet, even with this obvious economic advantage to the United States of doing business with the British Government, the new restrictions in this conference agreement would require the Pentagon to purchase many items from United States manufacturers rather than allowing competition from British and other foreign manufacturers. The result is that the U.S. taxpayer will not necessarily get the best deal on the price of these goods, and our trade relations with our allies will suffer as a result.
(snip)
I'm disgusted by his words and hate it when we threaten national security in the name of trade or place some unwritten rule (like we should buy as much from them as they buy from us). When it comes to defense, I really don't care if our trade relations "suffer" a little or if the price tag is a bit higher. That said, I think the Northrop Grumman/EADS deal was fair and open--they won. No technology transfer is passing to the foreigners, and measures have been taken to prohibit access to any sensitive technology. In light of a decade of the globalist rhetoric demonstrated by McCain, above, I don't think we can get much better (for now).
NG/EADS lost best I could tell.
Actually, fair and open is not exactly correct. The Air Force had to adjust the requirements to make EADS competitive. Further, NG has a modeling program that the USAF used to model how each proposed tanker would function and perform. Did you get that? The Air Force was using a NG program to evaluate Boeing's proposal, and the NG/EADS team knew the ins-and-outs of the program and can adjust their profiling numbers, numbers they allege but don't have empirical data. Interesting. The transfer of technology is an iffy process right now with "I promise" being the limiting factor when it comes to export (ITAR) limitations. Of course, all military transfers have that same standard, but with EADS, I am not so trusting. At the same time we were adjusting our proposal standards to allow EADS to bid, EADS was in the European Court defending their (France) prohibition against allowing Boeing to bid on their tanker program. 40,000 experienced and highly skilled jobs are in play for Boeing, whereas the original labor numbers for EADS began at 2,500, then rose to 25,000 when the proposal was under review, and now, in response to Boeing's protest (first one in 10-yrs, I might add), EADS upped the number to around 40,000. . . and no one notices? The cost doesn't support the EADS bid, the alleged performance of a blue-print jet does not support the EADS bid, the cost of operating an over-sized jet does not support the EADS jet, reduced access to airfields because the EADS jet is over-sized does not support its selection, the national security aspect can't be ignored and that means the EADS bid is shaky, the labor situation can't support a EADS bid (IAM union is dead-set against EADS), and the program of 179 jets or so for the initial bid that would run for a decade means our industrial base of engineers to skilled labor would be lost forever (this means that even if you remain convinced we can't get much better for now, we won't be able to get any better later). When the protest is ruled on I think you will be interested in the details that will reflect a flawed process. My guess, and it's only a guess, is the ruling will suggest (as the OMB may only recommend) the contract be set-aside and re-bid once the critical flaws in the process are fixed. >>When it comes to defense, I really don't care if our trade relations "suffer" a little or if the price tag is a bit higher.<< Gotcha. I don't give a fig if by buying American angers some country. Our national security demands the best America can provide, and relying on foreign sources to provide 40% of a critically important element of our national security does not protect America. In fact, it puts America at risk. Buying boots from a foreign source, no big deal. Buying billions of dollars of critical airframes at the cost of our national industrial base is not acceptable. But that's just me. . .