Northrop Grumman has announced it will not compete for the contract to build the U.S. Air Force’s new refueling tanker, stating that the specifications of the RFP were unfair. Northrop’s partners in Europe are lashing out at the United States. One French official <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4e64f0242ba28a28c14abbc7f331446b.8c1&show_article=1 “>said this week, “I can assure you that there will be consequences” for the United States. The Euros were planning on using Northrop as the American face of their plane, but the fact remained that most of it would have been built in France and to many observers that seemed like a bad deal for out of work Americans. In fact, EADS/Airbus, who would have actually built the plane Northrop was proposing, was counting on the American taxpayer-funded refueling tanker to help its <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EB4TCG1&show_article=1 “>financial situation.
Meanwhile, an advocacy organization called Build Them Both is urging President Obama to step in “fix” it all. “Build Them Both urges President Obama to step in and – with the stroke of a pen – hire each company to build its proposed new tanker. This will put 100,000 Americans to work, provide the Air Force more tankers more quickly and offer massive taxpayer savings over building only one,” says the group’s spokesperson Carrie Giddins, who is also a Democratic political operative.
Build Them Both, which does not disclose its funders, further argues that the United States should yield to French threats and “European outrage.”
But the “build them both” solution would actually be the worst of all possible ideas. It would, in fact, be a terrible deal for taxpayers. The costs of building two tankers would be astronomical, costing taxpayers more upfront and long term. Designing and building two separate refueling tankers would require two separate sets of specifications. It would also require training two separate groups of pilots and maintenance crews and developing and maintaining distinct resupply networks. Its important to note that Northrop’s partner EADS/Airbus was proposing to build a completely different plane; which would require its own hangars, air base taxiways and landing strips. All of these considerations carry enormous costs.
And of course one cannot forget the principal reason Northrop decided its bid would ultimately be unsuccessful: The jobs it was proposing to create would for the most part have been European – mainly French – jobs. This was confirmed on Wednesday with the release of a new study.
Protectionism is a serious threat to our economic health. But this is not a case of protectionism. Northrop backed our of its deal with EADS/Airbus because they partnership was offering a bad deal, one that would have cost an extraordinary amount or money for little value to U.S. taxpayers.