Poland Will Buy 48 Fighter Jets From Lockheed

Lockheed Martin’s F-16 came out the winner Friday in a dogfight between U.S. and European manufacturers battling to sell Poland fighter jets in a deal worth $3.5 billion.

The Polish decision, announced by Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski, handed a high-profile victory to the U.S. firm in the contest for the biggest arms sale to emerge from the 1999 expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The advanced-version F-16s will replace Soviet-era MIGs.

“This is the best decision for the military security of our country,” Szmajdzinski said. “It fulfills our NATO obligations. It is the best possible decision for the safety of our pilots.”

Investments in Poland expected as part of the agreement “can become a stimulus accelerating our economic growth and creating new jobs,” he added.

“It is a very good deal for us ... but it is also very good for Poland and for NATO,” the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Christopher Hill, said in an interview. “This puts Poland in the top ranks of air forces in the world. This is a very serious airplane.”

The agreement, still to be precisely detailed in a contract due to be signed in the spring, involves the sale of 48 fighters by 2008, plus weapons and pilot training. Lockheed Martin committed itself to investments in Poland to help offset costs. A U.S. government-backed loan of $3.8 billion, approved by Congress in October, further tipped the scales to the Bethesda, Md.-based firm.

When Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO three years ago, they agreed to modernize their air forces to defend their airspace.

The F-16 beat out the Gripen jet, made by a consortium of Britain’s BAE Systems and Sweden’s Saab, and the Mirage 2000-5, made by France’s Dassault Aviation. Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet had earlier also been in the competition, which began in the mid-1990s.

Dassault Aviation Chairman Charles Edelstenne, speaking Thursday before the official announcement, told a French radio station that the Polish decision to buy American wasn’t primarily based on economics or technology.

“The political element was the chief element, well beyond the quality or the price,” Edelstenne said.

Hill insisted that Poland “took the best offer.” But he also issued a statement through the U.S. Embassy that declared: “It represents more than just an airplane. It is a fundamental choice about strategic political and military relationships.”

Szmajdzinski rejected charges that by choosing the F-16, Poland had somehow picked the U.S. over Europe.

“If someone thinks politics is of primary value here ... they will say that it was a decision between who we are closer to, Mommy or Daddy,” Szmajdzinski said. “Poland is equally close to the U.S. and to European countries.”

Lockheed Martin’s George R. Standridge, who headed the firm’s effort in Poland, said the decision came down to “price, technical capabilities and offset.”

“We were the strongest across the board simply because of the capabilities of the F-16,” he said.

The offset agreements included in the deal mean that “Poland’s industries will now become linked with some of the very strongest companies in the U.S.,” Standridge added.

Polish officials estimated the value of the offset pledges at between $6 billion and $10 billion, considerably more than the cost of the jets. These investment plans and projected sales orders mainly target Poland’s ailing defense industry but also include potential agreements in computers, energy, petrochemicals, shipbuilding, auto parts, telecommunications and steel. Details of the deals are expected to be settled by the end of May.

Hungary and the Czech Republic earlier chose Gripen fighters. But Hungary’s decision was to lease, rather than buy, 14 Gripens. The Czechs recently canceled their order for 24 of the planes in order to free up funds for reconstruction after devastating floods hit their country over the summer.

The issue of jet fighter purchases has been controversial in all three countries, which are the most prosperous of the former Soviet bloc states.

Advocates have argued that the new NATO members must fulfill their commitment to defend their own airspace.

But some critics say that far more important are pledges by the alliance, such as increasing the mobility, professionalism and communications capabilities of new members’ armed forces. Other opponents argue that there is no real threat for jet fighters to defend against and that the money would be far better spent on social needs such as health care or education.

*

Holley reported from Moscow and Kasprzycka from Warsaw.