Sikorsky And Friends Blast "Foreign" Manufacturers

You wouldn't think, at first glance, that a company founded by a Ukranian whose family came from Poland and then moved to America would make an issue out of foreign competition. But that's just what's happening at Sikorsky Aircraft, where executives say the President of the United States shouldn't go hither and yon in a helicopter of foreign manufacture. That might come as a surprise to Sikorsky's competition in the race to build the next Marine One. The competition, in fact, is led by none other than America's second-biggest defense contractor -- Lockheed-Martin.

Lockheed's US101 (above -- note even the patriotic-sounding aircraft designation) would be built at Bell/Textron's Fort Worth, TX, facility by a consortium that includes AgustaWestland. The helicopter's rotor blades will indeed be made in the United Kingdom. But Lockheed Vice President Stephen Ramsey told the Binghampton, NY, Press & Sun-Bulletin that the rest of the aircraft will be built in America.

"We're going to build this helicopter in the US," Ramsey told the New York newspaper. "They're both going to be American-made helicopters. Let's talk about which is going to be the best helicopter."

But, as the Pentagon moves toward a decision on Marine One Friday night, Sikorsky honchos continue to tell anyone who'll listen that the US101 is a foreign aircraft that will lead to the transfer of American technology overseas.

Not so, said Ramsey. In fact, since the aircraft will be built in the US, the net transfer of technology will actually flow the other way across the Atlantic.

But that's not good enough for retired Wyoming Senator Malcom Wallop. "These are high-tech security jobs," he told the Binghamton paper earlier this year. "In the end, we will be building parts for the US armed services with foreign workers."

Wallop is a consultant paid by Sikorsky. But that hasn't stopped him from writing byline articles in publications like the Washington Times about how the US101 will use foreign labor to build American military equipment.

But Wallop's is a rallying cry for those in Washington and elsewhere in the US who believe the US should indeed "Buy American" wherever possible when it comes to defense matters -- even if the equipment in question costs more.

"We may be spending more, but it's an investment in which we get a return," said William R. Hawkins of the US Business and Industry Council of Washington, DC. He told the Binghampton paper that the research and development funded by the Defense Department aids overall American competitiveness.

But hold on, said Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute. "If we artificially restrict the ability of the Defense Department to get the best weapons and the best components possible at the least cost, we are compromising our Defense Department and our national security," he told the paper.

"We're going to build this helicopter in the US," Ramsey told the Press & Sun-Bulletin. "They're both going to be American-made helicopters. Let's talk about which is going to be the best helicopter."

On that score, Loren Thompson at yet another think tank -- the Lexington Institute in Arlington, VA, agreed. "Both of the teams are headed by companies that are headquartered in the United States," Thompson told the Binghampton paper. "Calling one of the helicopters American and the other foreign is really splitting hairs. The simple reality is that they will both be made in America and will both be maintained in America."

Back at the Cato Institute, Charles Pena, the director of defense studies, also agreed. "This should be a fair competition based on the merits," he said. "The question will be how politicized that decision becomes once a decision is made."

But the head-to-head argument is one that some experts standing on the edge of this fray say will cost Sikorsky the contract.

"Both aircraft are capable of doing the mission of transporting the president," said Robert F. Dorr, an author who has written several books on military aircraft. He, too, was quoted by the Sun & Press-Bulletin. "But it's pretty clear that the EH101 (the European version of the Lockheed Martin aircraft) is superior in every respect" to Sikorsky's S-92 (below).

Sikorsky's strength is in its lower cost -- both at the procurement level and in maintenance. But Sikorsky just suffered a huge economic blow in the cancellation of the $39 billion Comanche contract. If the Marine One contract falls through, some observers believe it could be the end of the S-92 line.

FMI: www.lockheedmartin.com, www.sikorsky.com/sac/Home