Stop Supporting Foreign Weapon Makers
There are a number of reasons why America needs to preserve the industrial base for military hardware.
First and foremost, is the issue of national security. Becoming too reliant on foreign producers for military hardware is risky as the foreign manufacturer could stop sending the hardware to the U.S. - negatively impacting our preparedness and ability to engage.
If a foreign producer stops, because they have changed allegiances or their economy has collapsed, then the domestic industrial base has to be recreated - and such a feat cannot be accomplished overnight or without significant cost.
Right now, America is exporting large amounts of armaments to allies which has motivated some members in Congress to push a bill to spend $95.3 billion aid package to Ukraine and Israel. History tells us that exporting arms which are needed here at home might lead to a shortage right when America needs to respond to a threat with military force.
At a minimum, our nation should stop importing military hardware which duplicates equipment and capabilities being manufactured in the U.S. today.
When the United States entered World War I, it had a significant problem. The country had a small army and not enough equipment. After war was declared, Gen. John J. “Pershing and his staff soon realized how ill-prepared the United States was to transport large numbers of soldiers and necessary equipment to the front, where supplies, rations, equipment, and trained soldiers were all in short supply.” After entering the conflict is the wrong time to be thinking about logistics.
The same problem happened when the United States was set to enter World War II. A National Parks Service site says: “There weren’t enough weapons to train adequately, and when weapons were to be had there was often no ammunition.” After prevailing over the Axis powers, the U.S. vowed to solve that problem. We developed a robust and resilient weapons industry, designing and manufacturing weapons right here in the U.S.A.
This approach has protected us for 80 years. There is no reason to return to the unpreparedness of the early 20th Century or the Depression Era. Our Pentagon should maintain its contracts with American companies to produce military infrastructure.
However, foreign military manufacturers are always trying to break into our market. They realize how difficult it will be to sell weapons in, say, Europe, where countries do not invest in their own defense. So, Airbus - a company based in Europe - is looking to break into the American weapons market by selling the Air Force a tanker to refuel other jets.
“Airbus remains committed to providing the U.S. Air Force and our warfighters with the most modern and capable tanker on the market and will formally respond to the United States Air Force KC-135 recapitalization” a company spokesman told Defense News last Fall.
The French company has been trying to get into this business for years. A decade ago, the Pentagon went with a domestic manufacturer, and nothing has really changed. Airbus is still pushing a design based on a larger frame which has its own limitations. It would be difficult to operate on smaller airfields, such as those in Asia, and it would require retraining pilots, mechanics, and ground crews.
Further, the Airbus approach would be more expensive. “The Airbus tanker is going to look like a budget-buster to the Air Force, and many of its costs such as post-production sustainment are beyond the company’s ability to control,” writes defense expert Loren Thompson. Not to mention that the result of this investment would be flowing to a foreign company instead of funding jobs here in the U.S.
Meanwhile, Airbus isn’t exactly trustworthy or without any controversy. In 2020, Airbus agreed to pay more than $3.9 billion to settle an international bribery case. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General David P. Burns added that “International corruption involving sensitive U.S. defense technology presents a particularly dangerous combination.” Indeed, it does, and that is another reason to keep Airbus away from American defense supply lines.
The company has also enjoyed illegal subsidies from governments in Europe “that have seriously injured the U.S. aerospace industry and our workers,” then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said. The World Trade Organization recognized the harm, and handed down a $7.5 billion penalty, the largest in its history.
For its part, the Air Force doesn’t even want what Airbus is trying to sell. Experts in acquisition say the service is comfortable relying on the KC-46 for years to come, and that it doesn’t welcome a competition for a second tanker at this point.
It is important now, more than 100 years after the First World War, we should keep buying American, keep our domestic infrastructure thriving, and insure we are never caught unprepared again.
Peter Mihalick is former legislative director and counsel to former Reps. Barbara Comstock, Virginia Republican, and Rodney Blum, Iowa Republican.
