United States Airpower-Made in China

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Nateman15, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. Nateman15

    Nateman15 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    One who wants the best tech. If that is becoming China, we have more to worry that our American tech is not improving. I'd say us falling behind is a more "unamerican" thing than buying superior tech (again, the assumption is superior) from another country. Seek the real underlying problem. Improve American tech so it doesn't matter if China offers something since ours is better.
     
  3. bandit

    bandit Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    That assumes they are going for quality and not just price.

    There are many very high quality products that used to be produced in the US by americans. However, in this day and age of buy the cheapest and throw it away when it breaks, nobody seems to care about quality any longer.

    Hopefully that wouldn't be the case here.
     
  4. Eberlz

    Eberlz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think vested interest. China has a HUGE population and a HUGE saying in that area of the world. The U.S. buys Chinese goods which are in the spotlight of America and they perform well, it should improve relations. If they performed poorly, relations would decrease.

    If they produced quality items at a good price, why does it matter that the product was built in another country? Isn't that the same as buying any foreign manufactured car? If any company, no matter where it is located, made a crappy product in the eyes of the DOD, the contract would not be granted to them. And this is not going to happen overnight. Look at the USAF tanker situation. Boeing and EADS have been battling it out for how long?

    BTW: The entire article is listed under the WSJ. link -> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
     
  5. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    The caveat for that is you have to be wary of potential electronic back-doors in technology that can be hidden and exploited. That's why I took the approach of making our tech better rather than using theirs if it is better.
     
  6. Chockstock

    Chockstock "Forever One Team"

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    8
    Because it damages morale? As an American, wouldn't you rather find comfort and value in using American-made products? It doesn't necessarily have to do with quality - we still lead the world in all kinds of industry and technology. Yes, our manufacturing sector has weakened but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

    And I think your belief that it will "improve relations" is erroneous. If we have to grant them a contract just to improve relations, something is clearly wrong with the relationship. Sounds like we would be buying their friendship. And besides, what makes you think China wants to be our friend? Sure, they are one of our biggest trading partners and creditors but I will bet that they see us as an adversary more than a partner and definitely not as an ally. Think about China's Asian neighbors...do they feel welcomed or threatened by China's presence? What are China's REAL interests?

    And unless American-made products are so terribly incompetent and poor in quality, which they're not, why CHINA? Why not other allies that produce similar planes? Choosing a foreign company over an American one doesn't help the economy. That should be pretty obvious. If you're troubled by the fact that we outsource so many jobs overseas, then you shouldn't be so eager to buy their products, which eventually decreases jobs at home and sends them over there.

    And besides, if you knew what kind of a government is running that country, I wouldn't trust anything they sell. All those news reports about scandals, corruption, plagiarism...and thats besides other issues that are probably never reported to the West. When Boeing or General Dynamics states that they make their planes and vehicles with American servicemen in mind, I find great comfort in it. Would this relatively unknown Chinese company have the same interest in mind? And personally, I feel they have a long way to go both morally and in quality...is your perception of anything "Made in China" positive or negative?
     
  7. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    I'm glad you feel comfortable that Boeing says they're making tech with servicemen in mind. I just see the corporation maxing profits to make their shareholders happy and making products which work well tends to help with that!
     
  8. Chockstock

    Chockstock "Forever One Team"

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    8
    -_-

    Its a capitalist society. People are driven by "the almighty dollar." What else did you expect? :rolleyes:
     
  9. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    That China is as well (anyone who doesn't think they're driven by the almighty Renminbi is nuts!).

    I say this from reviewing and writing RAND documents on companies like Boeing and Lockheed. Their interests are in their companies. They have done many things not advantageous to the military member. Not to say they try to hurt, but their priority is them self!
     
  10. Chockstock

    Chockstock "Forever One Team"

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    8
    Hopefully their employees believe otherwise. There's a lot of things that don't make sense to me in the world. I will support American defense contractors from an economic standpoint at the very least!
     
  11. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    No problem with that. I just want to remind you that supporting them for their commitment to the country (while I'm not saying they are anti-american!) to do the right thing is short-sighted. Several people in my cohort came to RAND from Northrup and Boeing. They are fantastic, but the horror stories are.....eye-opening.
     
  12. Chockstock

    Chockstock "Forever One Team"

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    8
    Do you mind sharing some of those stories in an abridged fashion? Or is it not allowed.
     
  13. Eberlz

    Eberlz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chockstock,

    The end of the WSJ article mentions the top companies for the Trainer bid. “The leading contenders are Britain's Hawk 128, Italy's M-346, and the T-50, which was jointly developed by the U.S. and South Korea. China's L-15...” So one out of four aircraft had U.S. involvement and that one is manufactured in South Korea. If the DOD gives the bid to Britain, Italy, or South Korea, it would increase trade between the U.S. and that country. Is trade not a form of relation? Wouldn’t giving the bid to China do the same thing?

    A reason why the L-15 is even on the bid is because it is a good aircraft in the eyes of the DOD. The whole “real motives” issue lies in trust. I think China is trying to merge into the Aerospace field. Sure they could do something evil, but couldn’t the other three countries in the bid? It seems like the U.S. consumer trusts China well enough.

    I am not saying American products are crap. The Raptor is the world’s best fighter aircraft, the one I hope to fly, if everything falls in line. Built in America. But for a trainer, the DOD does not find it economical to fund a U.S. based trainer program, when there are alternatives sitting at the door step. In the end, all of the four aircraft are “foreign companies.”

    My view on “Made in China” stamp comes down to the sector. I would trust flying in one of their aircraft than driving in a Chinese built automobile.
     
  14. SubSquid

    SubSquid Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    I deal with DoD acquisitions every day. I can say with no doubt the ChiComs wouldn't make it past the regulatory scrutiny that is part of Federal Acquisitions generally and DoD Acquisitions specifically. Since there some doubters on this site that disparage my facts in my posts, I have included the DFARS clause and the Title 22 specification pertinent to my statement:


    252.225-7007 Prohibition on Acquisition of United States Munitions List Items from Communist Chinese Military Companies.


    As prescribed in 225.1103(4), use the following clause:
    PROHIBITION ON ACQUISITION OF UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST ITEMS FROM COMMUNIST CHINESE MILITARY COMPANIES (SEP 2006)

    (a) Definitions. As used in this clause—
    “Communist Chinese military company” means any entity that is—
    (1) A part of the commercial or defense industrial base of the People’s Republic of China; or
    People’s Republic of China.
    “United States Munitions List” means the munitions list of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation in 22 CFR Part 121. (see Title 22 below)
    (b) Any supplies or services covered by the United States Munitions List that are delivered under this contract may not be acquired, directly or indirectly, from a Communist Chinese military company.
    (c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts for items covered by the United States Munitions List.

    (End of clause)



    Title 22: Foreign Relations
    PART 121—THE UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST
    Enumeration of Articles
    Browse Previous | Browse Next

    § 121.3 Aircraft and related articles.

    In Category VIII, aircraft means aircraft designed, modified, or equipped for a military purpose, including aircraft described as “demilitarized.” All aircraft bearing an original military designation are included in Category VIII. However, the following aircraft are not included so long as they have not been specifically equipped, re-equipped, or modified for military operations:

    (a) Cargo aircraft bearing “C” designations and numbered C–45 through C–118 inclusive, C–121 through C–125 inclusive, and C–131, using reciprocating engines only.
    (b) Trainer aircraft bearing “T” designations and using reciprocating engines or turboprop engines with less than 600 horsepower (s.h.p.)
    (c) Utility aircraft bearing “U” designations and using reciprocating engines only.
    (d) All liaison aircraft bearing an “L” designation.
    (e) All observation aircraft bearing “O” designations and using reciprocating engines
     
  15. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    So is that last part the exception to the prohibition?
     
  16. luckymacy

    luckymacy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    I share a hangar with a chinese made trainer like this one.

    http://www.cj6a.com/

    Based on what I've seen, I'd be pretty leery of spending a lot of money on a fleet of their jets! :eek:

    And can you imagine the Chinglish ops and maintenance manuals and Flight Training material. Gawd, I'm hurting from laughing too hard now just thinking about it...
     
  17. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    Let me give everyone here a recent example of a similar situation, as a ittle pespective:

    After Lockheed Martin won the competition to build the F-35, there were numerous competition for sub-contracted parts that would be used on the final version of the plane. One of these was the ejection seat; LM sent out the requirements and specs to any company interested in competing for the rigth to supply the ejection seat for this aircraft (since so many coutnries intended to buy it, and in very large quantities, this was a HUGE contract for the winning company).

    Well, not many companies desing and build ejection seats for modern military aircraft. In fact, there are just two major players in that game: Martin Baker (British owned; but remember, Britian is one of the original partners in the F-35 program so getting them business as a thank you sharing the cost to build this jet is a good thing), and Goodrich (which makes the ACES ejectin seat, which is the standard for most AF fighters).

    Martin Baker submitted a seat they designed to meet the requirement (the toughest being the ability to safley eject while in the Marine verison's "hover and verticla land" mode). Goodrich didn't have an ACES variant that could meet the hover mode requirement, and didn't have enough time to design and submit an improved variant (their latest versiomn, the ACES 5, wasn't ready yet). So, Goodrich purchased the right's to manufacter a RUSSIAN ejectin seat and submitted that as it's proposal. In fact, the Russian seat was much better than the Martin Baker seat.

    But guess who won the competition, and who's seats will now go in to the F-35? Martin Baker. Why? Because no one in Congress could stop laughing when they saw that Goodrich was submitting a Russian designed ejection seat. Not in this day and age of folks getting on TV to tell their constituents that they support the american worker, and will alsways "Buy American".

    So I ask you; do you really think the Chinese will win this competition? :yllol:
     

Share This Page