via AOL Breaking Defense.
A fourth example, which would clearly roil the protectionists who care more about protectionism than the capability of the US military, would be to get on with the KC-10 replacement and buy the A330 MRTT airborne tanker. Not only does the US Air Force have NO operational new tankers, but the allies have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Air Force made the right initial decision picking this aircraft over Boeing’s KC-46 offering.Story here.
Our allies are operating multiple A330 MRTTs so commonality has already been established and significant investments by allies in a needed US capability already in place.
For example, the Aussies are about to add an operational autonomous boom to their KC-30As. According to the RAAF Commander in charge of lift and tanking: “If it can anticipate and react to movements of the receiver aircraft faster than the boom operator can, then you end up with faster contacts. You also potentially end up with more consistent contacts when the turbulence level increases, in cloud or when night falls.”
The Aussies are moving onto Tanker 2.0 while the US Air Force is still waiting for Tanker 1.0. This makes no sense.
Recently, the UK’s Defense Minister made the argument for the US opening the aperture with regard to non-US systems. I would argue that it is not simply a question of trade policy. It is about getting serious about rapidly equipping a US combat force which needs to prepare for the certainty of high-intensity combat.
Wow. Laird has NEVER seen a foreign weapon system he didn't like. Additionally he has a HARD ON for the A330 MRTT that is bordering on the sexual. Either the dude is a true believer or he's on the payroll. I almost hope he's a true believer cause this has been a drum he's been beating on for almost a decade.
The point he makes about the Meteor is good but the way he arrives there is nonsense. He talks about USMC F-35's operating off the QE class aircraft carrier. I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD A RATIONALE FOR WHY WE WOULD WANT TO DO THAT! IT MAKES NO SENSE BUT THEY'RE PUSHING THE MEME FOR ALL THEY'RE WORTH!!!
The next thing that has me scratching my head is the closing statement that he used to wrap up his article...
Recently, the UK’s Defense Minister made the argument for the US opening the aperture with regard to non-US systems. I would argue that it is not simply a question of trade policy. It is about getting serious about rapidly equipping a US combat force which needs to prepare for the certainty of high-intensity combat.No offense to my British readers but why should we care what the UK Defense Minister has to say about how our Defense Dept looks at buying foreign weapon systems?
This article will not go over well with ANY Americans regardless of politics. Both sides will agree on one thing. We spend too much money on defense to buy anything but the essentials from overseas. Protectionism? You bet your ass. Practical? Without a doubt.
