by Rich Browne

Created on: May 21, 2008   Last Updated: September 09, 2008

Whether the U.S. should award defense contracts to foreign companies is somewhat of a moot question; in that the Americans have purchased weapons and war material from foreign countries since the founding of the republic. However, a case can be made that the U.S. sacrifices some of its strategic independence in doing so.

By purchasing planes, helicopters, firearms and other weapons from non-U.S. suppliers, the skills and the technology the industrial base that goes in the construction of them are lost. It is sent "off-shore" like so many other seemingly traditionally American jobs in the modern globalized economy.

Whether this good or bad, really depends upon one's view of the value of globalization as whether it is good for the United States or bad. The growing economic interdependence in the world through globalization tends to make wars less likely, but does not eliminate the threat. However, there is a potential danger that the country of origin may switch sides or embargo supplying the American Defense Department during a crisis.

There are many potential problems with foreign suppliers, even if they set up U.S.-based subsidiaries to build the product in factories around the nation. Components, key parts, etc., still may have to come from suppliers who may or may not be willing to respond to the demands of U.S. needs. The suppliers may be more responsive to their own domestic political and economic requirements, rather than gear up to meet U.S. requirements.

This is not to say that key weapon systems currently in the U.S. arsenal are not already foreign.

The AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket is a Swedish design.

A new addition to the U.S. inventory will be a helicopter that will replace the venerable Sikorsky-built VH3. The new VH-71, which will be used to carry the president, will be derived from the airworthy-proven, European-built, AgustaWestland EH101.

The Defense Department, long accused of being too cozy with U.S. defense contractors, has opted to replace the aging C-135 aerial tanker fleet with a European Airbus-derivative instead of going with Boeing, which has traditionally build most of the U.S. aerial tankers. But even Boeing's offer was deceptive because the Boeing design was not really "made in America" as many of its components, like the wings, were to be imported from foreign partner suppliers.

The popular M-240 7.62mm light machine gun, used throughout the U.S. Army, replacing the Vietnam-era M-60 (which was based on a German design) and the Browning .30 caliber machine guns, is a Belgian-built weapon.

The new attack fighter the F-35, still in development, will be built by a coalition of contractors, foreign and domestic.

The U.S. Navy's new littoral combat vessels and high-speed cargo vessels have been based on an Australian design.

During the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq war most of the war materials were carried in chartered foreign-flag ships rather than U.S. merchantmen because the U.S. merchant fleet essentially no longer exists, replaced by ships flying "flags of convenience" in order to evade the costly regulations imposed on the American fleet.

So, the question whether U.S. should award defense contracts to foreign countries basically has been overcome by the reality that the U.S. has imported weapons, and weapon systems, for its entire history.

Learn more about this author, Rich Browne.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.