Posted on 01/30/2005 7:57:07 PM PST by beaelysium
Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:46 pm EST
Outsourcing
A presidential helicopter that isn't all-American?
http://news.newstimes.com/editorial.php
Connecticut was shocked Friday to hear the U.S. Navy has chosen a helicopter made by a European consortium to transport President Bush.
>snip<
Sikorsky Aircraft, based in Stratford, is the company that traditionally builds presidential helicopters.
>snip<
The Lockheed design is actually a British-Italian product. >snip<
But key components will be built overseas, and this $6.1 billion contract for 23 helicopters will mean a net loss of American jobs.
Is this a new avenue for outsourcing American jobs? Well, yes.
It also outsources the development of advanced helicopter technology and gives the Lockheed-European helicopter the edge in future Pentagon purchases.
As House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, said: "It is difficult to understand why we would use U.S. tax dollars to fund the further development of foreign helicopter technology."
Was this decision just about picking the best helicopter? No.
Lockheed's European partners waged an aggressive and offensive campaign against Sikorsky, insisting the Pentagon should share its business with British and Italian companies in return for British and Italian support for Bush policies on Iraq.
So Connecticut and Sikorsky lost a big one.
" I am at a loss to explain why the Navy and the president would choose anything other than an all-American helicopter built by the company that has a flawless, 45-year track record," Governor Rell said. "It simply doesn't make any sense. I'm angry and I'm disappointed."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.newstimes.com ...
whatever
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
A presidential helicopter that isn't all-American?
Connecticut was shocked Friday to hear the U.S. Navy has chosen a helicopter made by a European consortium to transport President Bush.
The Marine One photo op on the White House lawn makes the presidential helicopter famous. It is unthinkable that Marine One be anything but an all-American product.
Sikorsky Aircraft, based in Stratford, is the company that traditionally builds presidential helicopters.
But it lost out to a consortium put together by Lockheed Martin, based in Maryland.
The Lockheed design is actually a British-Italian product. In order to counter criticism of putting the president in a foreign-made helicopter, Lockheed agreed to have some American contractors.
The engines will be built by General Electric in Lynn, Mass. A new manufacturing plant will be built in Owego, N.Y., to work on the project.
But key components will be built overseas, and this $6.1 billion contract for 23 helicopters will mean a net loss of American jobs.
Is this a new avenue for outsourcing American jobs? Well, yes.
It also outsources the development of advanced helicopter technology and gives the Lockheed-European helicopter the edge in future Pentagon purchases.
As House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, said: "It is difficult to understand why we would use U.S. tax dollars to fund the further development of foreign helicopter technology."
Was this decision just about picking the best helicopter? No.
Lockheed's European partners waged an aggressive and offensive campaign against Sikorsky, insisting the Pentagon should share its business with British and Italian companies in return for British and Italian support for Bush policies on Iraq.
So Connecticut and Sikorsky lost a big one.
" I am at a loss to explain why the Navy and the president would choose anything other than an all-American helicopter built by the company that has a flawless, 45-year track record," Governor Rell said. "It simply doesn't make any sense. I'm angry and I'm disappointed."
The Navy defended its decision by praising the Lockheed-European design as more powerful, wider and longer. The Sikorsky "Super Hawk" has two engines. The Lockheed "US101" has three engines.
Can this decision be reversed? That's not clear. But Congress needs to examine what went on here.
At first glance, and at second glance, this decision appears to have been improperly influenced by the administration's foreign policy interests.
A presidential helicopter that isn't all-American? Unthinkable!
That's what I meant when I said that the President himself would need only 4 or 5 customised choppers,which will be far more sophisticated & expensive than other variants.The rest are probably for staff ie. the number 23 is accurate.
ie. the number 23 is accurate=ie if the number 23 is accurate.
/foreign 'bugs'....etc....
There's no way he needs 23.
Incorrect. HMX-1 has a total of 31 helicopters, 19 of which are assigned to the Executive Flight Detachment aka Whiteside; 11 VH-3Ds and 8 VH-60Ns.
No it isn't. It's about the safety of the president of the United States, his family and staff.
Not sure that will happen. Too many don't get it that some in this country have to be responsible. There are those that can't even figure out how to manage procreation of offspring in their own families.
The Beast was deriding President Bush for not doing 'enough' funding family planning.!!!
Personally, I don't want any one, or a government agency to monitor my wife and I copulating in breeding an offspring in our family.
(shaking head, rolling eyes).
Yes, and I'm sure that there are no sons and daughters of Connecticut in Iraq now? What kind of specious argument is this? What about all of the Connectitcutians (NEW Word from this illiterate Arkansan) who DID vote for the President? Besides, I thought the President was the President for all of the "United" States, not just the ones who gave him electoral votes. Using this "logic" (and it pains me to call it that, even with the quotations), those who voted for Kerry should be exempt from any Bush policies. At least Bin Laden thinks this was a good idea.
That said, this whole helicopter business is an insult to the American worker, and for anyone on FR to defend it only goes to show the knee-jerk reactioniary "defend the Leader at any cost" mindset so prevalent here. I'm ashamed at the lack of thought or conviction here at times.
We should support our President when it is warranted, but should have the courage to tell him when he's wrong. Myself, I cannot support the party-spirit when it is in clear contradiction of the spirit of the party.
See post #31. We do honor the sacrifice of Connecticut's sons and daughters and I personally apologize for the stupidity of some of those who have replied to you.
I admit, I only watch FNC and the local New England Cable News, (occasionally a broadcast station for weather or breaking stories) but what's the big deal?
Yeah, 23 sounds like a lot 'copters for a President (I don't know or care what they're used for), but I still don't get why it's a big deal. It's just a couple of dozen helicopters in a bazillion dollar budget.
From some toob commentator, these birds won't even be ready 'til 2009, and won't be used by Dubya. For all we know it could be (BARF!) Hitlery that uses them.
If something more important is going on here, somebody please 'splain it to me.
That's the point, regardless of what the liberals would like us to believe.
Let's take a step back and make an objective observation - which copter is best for the job?
If the "american made" copter was better, I find it difficult to believe it would not have been chosen. OF course, I wonder how much cost plays into the decision as well....
Oh so its all or nothing? 60% isn't good enough you you? I wish the contract included Poland. Lockheed is a great company, ever hear of the SR-71 Blackbird, F-16, JSF, F22 Raptor and tons and tons of other great platforms...
OK, if 19 are Whiteside and the remaining ones are Greenside, then why does he need 4 more assigned to Whiteside? Isn't 19 enough?
Yeah...I was expecting the 23 helicopters to run about $50 a piece.
Let's be clear on what happened here. The Navy sent out bid proposals. They analysed the proposals, including overall cost, and decided on the best design features offered that met the program requirements.
Just to add to the mix, do you know who did the big push for Lockheed to get the deal? ANSWER, NEW YORK SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER!!!!!
The President has absolutely no say on who gets the contract. The contract award process is a long one, and has probably been in the works for years.
If any of us Freepers have a problem with this, contact Chucky Schumer or her highness Hillary.
So this is a slap in the face of senator Lieberman (a big Democratic supporter of Bush policies)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.