I don't disagree with "made in the USA," however, I think the time is ripe right now for something like this. The American people are learning more than ever about the government's wasteful spending, and I think would respond positively to spending less money on something that works right now, not 5 years down the road when something is needed now...
Opening factories in the US that employ American workers would be the proverbial "icing on the cake," what with our employment level as it is, and foreign car makers and gun manufacturers have had a lot of success doing the same thing...
Congress hopefully in the near future will finally learn to listen to the people, and not the ones who line their pockets for "special favors" for contracts and such... Wishful thinking, I know,
Buying "off the shelf" tehcnology and working deals to employ American workers are things the average American understands because that is how successful household budgets are run.
Thanks for the input!
To be honest, I do not think it would be all that beneficial for the US to engage in significant MOTS (military off the shelf) purchases in general, or for the EF Typhoon specifically.
A MOTS purchase, by the very nature of what it is, is basically an in-production piece of gear or equipment. As such, its capabilities are fixed/known, as are the development and production costs, service & maintenance requirements, etc. These are all very good things to know, particularly for a nation/defence force with a small or otherwise limited budget that could not otherwise afford to develop a needed system on their own due to developmental costs and programme risk.
A MOTS purchase is also limited in that its capabilities are already known/fixed. If a piece of gear needed to be able to perform function
n, which was not already in its capabilities set, then a modification programme with developmental costs and programme risk would need to be initiated. This would not only cause the purchase to cease being a MOTS purchase, it would also eliminate two of the major advantages to MOTS purchases.
In the case of the US, which IIRC has a defence budget ~equal to or greater than the defence budgets of all the rest of the world combined, spends more on defence R&D (~13% defence budgetary allocation) than a number of other nations do on their entire defence force... This means that the US is better positioned to develop systems which meet US defence needs, or have entirely new capabilities, than most other countries can.
If the US were to switch to significant MOTS purchases or domestic production of foreign designs, then a significant R&D advantage could be lost. While such actions could reduce the total costs (thus allowing the defence budget to shrink) it could also lead to a reduction in defence capabilities as well as US equipment would no longer be as 'cutting edge'.
Now make no mistake, the US can and should purchase or license-produce foreign defence items when they meet US needs and there are not appropriate US systems to fufil the need. Why reinvent the wheel when someone else has already done so? Three items which immediately come to mind in this situation are; the 120 mm tank cannon used in the M1 Abrams MBT, IIRC this is a licensed copy of a German Rheinmetal tank cannon. Another example would be the 76 mm/62 cal. OTOBreda/Melara naval cannon from Italy which has seen service on USN and USCG vessels. The final example is more historical namely the .30 cal./.30-06 Springfield rifle, the action of which was a licensed modification of a Mauser rifle action Colonel (later President) Theodore Roosevelt encountered in Cuba during the Spanish-American War.
OTOH though, the US should not wait for others to develop equipment to meet current or future defence situations. Using the Typhoon as an example, I will attempt to illustrate what that could mean for the US. When the Typhoon programme initiated, it was to meet a Cold War era 1980's European requirement for an air superiority fighter and reached IOC (Initial Operating Capacity) ~2000 as a 4.5 Gen air superiority fighter. At about the same time the Typhoon programme started, the US launched the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) programme in 1986. This programme ultimately resulted in the F-22 Raptor, which reached IOC in 2006 as a 5th Gen fighter with some strike capability. Given what seems to be the capability difference between the two, I would choose the F-22 Raptor over the Typhoon for the air superiority role. The only other current new fighter programme which the US is involved in currently is the JSF programme using F-35A/B/C Lightning II's to meet the multi-role fighter needs of the USAF, USMC and USN with a 5th Gen platform. For multi-role operations I would again choose the various F-35's (once in service) over the Typhoon, even the still to be developed Tranche 3 Typhoons which are supposed to be multi-role. Basically this means that the Typhoon could be used to replace existing legacy aircraft. However, given the role restriction the Typhoon currently has (air superiority only at present) this would mean that the Typhoon could replace USAF F-15C's, which are themselves being replaced by F-22 Raptor's, albeit in smaller numbers.
Some caveats. I am aware that some British Tranche 2 Typhoons were modified to provide them with a multi-role capability, AFAIK however, this was done post-production. There is the possibility that the delivery schedule of the F-35 could slip further behind. This could cause some problems for US air arms as existing airframes use up their flight hours in operations. To that end, small numbers of legacy aircraft (or their more modern variants) could be ordered. This to me seems a more sensible solution to cover any possible service gap, since the aircraft are still in production in the US (no additional costs to toolup), already in US service or similar to types in service (shorter/no additional training/transition time).
While the Typhoon is a good air superiority fighter, and would likely make a good multi-role fighter if developed, I just do not see it fitting into any US OrBat given US fighter needs and programmes.
-Cheers
