Monday, March 10, 2008

Boeing vs the competition continues

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/354416_tanker11.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/354341_eads10.html

Ah, so Northrup/Grumman/EADS gets the deal and we have some coverage about how Airbus to help build the A380 superjumbo planes and local workers couldn't read the manuals because they were printed in the wrong language.

Ah ... the joys of having anything for the United States built with any involvement of a European consortium of companies that don't really have a history of getting along.

I would have hoped that the disastrous attempt at building a joint main battle tank venture we tried with Germany in the 1970s would have told us something. The reason we have the Abrams and they have the Leopard 2 series goes something like this--imperial vs metric measurement system, left vs right orientation in schematic drawings, smoothbore 120 mm vs 105 mm gun that's not smooth-bore, depleted uranium vs tungsten ammunition for armor-piercing rounds ... and, really, do I need to go on? Thirty years ago and a scrubbed collaboration probably indicates something.

Now, theoretically, having EADS and affiliates working on lesser levels than overall design might make a difference but the more I see covered about this situation the less surprised I am. Boeing and Airbus have been duking it out for a while now so Boeing seriously considering protesting the award of the tanker deal to Northrop/Grumman makes sense. I suppose Northrop/Grumman might want something besides the B2. I'm rusty on major military procurements these days but Jack's company hasn't exactly been rolling in contracts ... or I'm just amazingly rusty on department of defense procurment and research and development. Yeah, I suspect that explains it all right there. :)

I don't even know why I'm trying to follow this, actually. Maybe it's that it involves a presidential campaign and Boeing suits have more than hinted that they think McCain is somehow responsible for carting part of a major military contract to a company collaboration that includes companies that aren't in the United States. Protectionism? Maybe, but the consortium members are part of NATO (not that being part of NATO ever seemed to mean much of anything since it seemed like our working assumption was that the United States would have to do a good chunk of fighting.

Ah, well, it's tough to blog about this too much. The story is still breaking news after all.

No comments: