Hassle over Hardware

A military alliance needs "hardware," and there is some nagging disagreement as to who should be NATO's chief supplier. The British complain bitterly that the U.S. is crowding them out of more and more arms deals, particularly with West Germany. "Tried and proved British weapons," cried London's Sunday Telegraph, "have been pushed out of Germany by political and economic pressure from the U.S."

Stung by a succession of U.S. sales coups, the British are worried that their weapons eventually will be squeezed out of Europe, and that their technology, lacking outlets, will wither. The British had their first taste of things to come in 1956, when a batch of aging American F-84s was given to the reviving Luftwaffe, as one British reporter put it, "like free samples of detergent." One year later, despite a brand-new tank factory in Lancashire, Britain lost out to the U.S. M48 tank in bidding to equip West Germany's armored corps.

Scrap Production. When Britain put up its Lightning jet against the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter in 1959, Bonn chose the U.S. plane in a $780 million deal. Incensed, the British began grumbling that the plane would quickly be outdated, now refer to the project as "organized scrap production." Just two months ago, they were jolted once more when Bonn chose America's Sergeant missile over Britain's Blue Water model. Out the window went $100 million and 2,000 jobs. "A lamentable mockery of the principle of interdependence in NATO," cried Tory M.P. Stephen Hastings, whose constituency includes the plant where the Blue Water was being developed. "I have little doubt that we could have sold it in Germany and perhaps France but for ruthless American salesmanship backed by economic sanctions."

Some time this year, NATO is supposed to select a VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) plane, and even though Britain's P.1154 has a clear jump on the field, officials already are worried. "The U.S. could ask everybody to hold off and wait for theirs," said one Briton, and that might mean grave trouble for big planemakers like British Aircraft Corp. and Hawker Siddeley.

Big Deal. Washington last week coolly replied to British complaints that U.S. arms were simply more competitive. "If the British had anything to sell," snapped one U.S. salesman, "the Germans would have bought it." More to the point, say Pentagon officials, are the facts that 1) big research and development costs have been absorbed by the U.S. armed forces before the weapons go abroad, and 2) high-volume U.S. production to satisfy its own military needs makes for lower costs.

Washington does not deny that it likes to sell as much as it can to NATO, partly to stem the gold drain. And while British charges of undue U.S. pressure may be exaggerated, the U.S., as NATO's leading member, is certainly in an excellent position to influence prospective customers. As the star salesman of the campaign, Deputy Defense Secretary Roswell Gilpatric is just back from Western Europe. He brought home a West German agreement to buy $1.2 billion in U.S. hardware over the next two years. Almost simultaneously, the British announced that they too had closed a deal with Bonn for the same period. Their take: $300 million, or just about one-fourth what the U.S. rang up.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.