What's up with them going overseas to EADS for these, though? Couldn't have Bell, Boeing, McDonnell or Sikorsky provided something suitible?
Quite frankly, I'm both surprised and disappointed that the US hasn't bought more aircraft and helicopters from Europe. Some of their products are very good indeed, and I think the "not invented here" syndrome has kept the US armed forces from being able to use some excellent aircraft for less money than they've had to pay to local manufacturers.
A good example is the new fleet of Presidential helicopters. A European helicopter won the competition, deservedly, as it's superior to the US Blackhawk in almost every respect. However, as soon as the results were announced, a bunch of US commentators and politicians started moaning and groaning about it, demanding that the purchase be of US helicopters. This makes no sense to me. The winning 'copters will be locally built, under license, so no US jobs will be lost; and the superiority of the winning entry, to anyone who bothers to read up on the size and performance of the competing 'copters, is obvious.
These utility helicopters are another good example of a superior product. No US machine could match the price/performance mix of the European entry. As a result, there has been (and, I'm sure, will continue to be) pressure from US politicians and lobbyists to either adopt a less-suitable US design, or have a brand-new 'copter designed from scratch in the US (at vastly higher expense, needless to say). I think the right decision was made - and again, these will be built in the US under license, so no US jobs will be lost.
If the US expects to sell its allies aircraft, and objects when they buy elsewhere, why shouldn't our allies expect us to buy from them when their products are clearly superior for the designated mission?
