Umm...Boeing finally has an opportunity to show it can be part of the military aircraft market (painting your name on aircraft designed and built by someone else doesn't count), hopefully the end result will be useful in the field.
Good point, although I think most of the folks that designed and built those birds are long gone.
While what you said may be exactly true, you might also be far from what really happened. Maybe the AF refined the requirements to the tanker they NEED, not the tanker EADS WANTS us to have. A huge A330 sized tanker isn't always a good option. Besides, the AF had an electron microscope level of observation watching every possible aspect of this competition. Can you imagine being the AF Program Manager for a new acquisition program like this? There's no possible way to make everyone happy or to quell the conspiracy theorists.Great news? After the Air Force changed the requirements so only Boeing can fulfill them? Yeah, that's an open bidding process.
I absolutely agree with the third paragraph. We DO need a lot of new planes. I have no issue with that whatsoever.While what you said may be exactly true, you might also be far from what really happened. Maybe the AF refined the requirements to the tanker they NEED, not the tanker EADS WANTS us to have. A huge A330 sized tanker isn't always a good option. Besides, the AF had an electron microscope level of observation watching every possible aspect of this competition. Can you imagine being the AF Program Manager for a new acquisition program like this? There's no possible way to make everyone happy or to quell the conspiracy theorists.
I've used dual role KC-10s many times, and that's a great plane to pack a lot of gear, people and drag the fighters across a pond--very versatile. You'd think bigger is better with that sole mindset. The problem is that we also need A LOT of tankers in many places, all at once. That drives a more "smart" sized tanker potentially purchased in higher quantities---like the 767. Even this KC-767 tanker will carry more than the KC-10, off-load a lot more gas than anything we have, and get rid of the ancient KC-135s.
We have the oldest Air Force in the history of the Air Force--it's a fact. The average airline is a hair under 15 years old. This year the Air Force's average aircraft age is over 34 years old, and that's much older than most of the people flying, maintaining and sustaining these weapons systems. Bottom Line: we need new tankers NOW.
If we had a problem with foreign made equipment, we would not be carrying Italian made 9mm handguns (shot Expert with one last week), shooting European ammunition (used 90 rounds of it via the Italian handgun), copying Israeli helmet mounted targeting technology (most our fighters are getting it), use South Korean depots to overhaul our F-16s, or have selected a European designed helicopter to transport our President in.
Exactly Fred!The Americans have a great aerospace industry and I can't imagine Boeing turning oiut a bad product. If I were American I would expect that money to be spent in the states unless the foriegn aircraft had a stellar price and performance advantage which I don't believe is the case here. Did any american companies bid besides Boeing? Competition is healthy.
Not exactly. Rheinmetall makes 120 ammo for Germany but not the US. When the US upgraded its M1 Abrams (with a 105mm rifled barrel) to the M1A1 (120mm smooth bore) in the early 80's, Rheinmetall at the time was the only 120mm maker. The US partnered with Rheinmetall for the original 120mm technology, but US ammo and gun systems have always been made here in the US from US sources. The gun system remains largly unchanged from the 80's, but the US ammo designs have advanced well beyond the technology from back then.I'm a bit rusty, but I believe the 120mm main armament on the M1 Abrams is made by Rheinmettal (I'm butchering the spelling, I know) of Germany.
Dern it, you beat me to it.
Not quite correct. They issued an RFP and then received two bids. But various things happened including scoring the Northrup proposal higher because of the larger airframe when the RFP explicitly didn't allow for that. Boeing submitted their bid under the assumption that the ground rules in the RFP would be followed. When they weren't they appealed the award and prevailed.People may disagree with me, but this whole matter stinks.
First they open it to bids. They get some. Then they throw them all out and make drastic changes so that only one company can even have a chance at bidding on it?
The whole thing smells of corruption. If someone didn't get paid off in a major way, I'd be surprised. I do expect congressional hearing will happen though. I have no doubt about that.
.... You forgot boeings early fighter line the p-26 peashooter, there when America needed it most at pearl harbor (good bless them) then the rest of the fighter line the pb-1, f3b, pw-9 p-12 and the rest o the early bombers the b-9 (which lost the contract to the macdonald Douglas B-10) and you remembered the b-29 but you forgot the B-50 for some reason... And what about the Boeing PT-17, one of the most widly used trainers of world war II