Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/market ... r-project/

I am kind of mixed on this announcement. While it's no secret that I feel Boeings submission would be the better KC-135 replacement, I just hope that only having one entry won't screw up the bidding again.

F-16.net Sponsor

Of course it will

They need a minimum of three bids or the process is crap. Seriously, we're down to ONE airplane maker stateside?

That's probably the saddest fact that has come out of this whole thing. The US only has the chance of putting up 1 entry into any kind of large aircraft contest.

20 years ago McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, and Lockheed could've competed. Now only one stands. The rest of the world isn't in much better shape. Should the USAF look at any foreign aircraft maker besides Airbus? Can anyone besides Airbus and Boeing even build a tanker aircraft (Russia wouldn't even be considered)? It looks like our only two choices are Boeing and Airbus.

Regulators should have never allowed Boeing to buy MDD.

bjr1028 wrote:

Regulators should have never allowed Boeing to buy MDD.

I agree. It really irks me how many of the aircraft forming the backbone of our forces were not Boeing designs, but now wear that name.

F-18
F-15
C-17
B-1
AH-64
KC-10

Or weapons:
Harpoon
Hellfire
Tomahawk

What was the last pure Boeing military aircraft?

KC-135 variants
B-52

Lightndattic wrote:

but now wear that name.

They don't on the T.O.s or the Manufacturer's plate on the aircraft...even the new birds. Don't believe me? Step onto a Blk. 17 C-17 sometime and in the cockpit, it will say "McDonnell Douglas Aerospace".

Back to the topic at hand, however, the 135 was a Boeing creation. The 10 was a McAir bird, now McBoeing. This is the company that is the world's leading expert on building and operating a tanker. Who better to build the next one?

Plus, no competition hopefully means that they can hurry up and get on with this sooner, rather than later...because in the case of the 135, when you start referring to one of your 1964 tails as "One of the NEW birds", it's well past time for a replacement.

Boeing stirred up the hornet's nest a few years ago. Some folks went to jail, and Airbus-Northrop eventually lost the contract that had been awarded to them. Boeing had better not screw this up. The ice is very thin on this one.

Quote:

Regulators should have never allowed Boeing to buy MDD.

Agreed. It's funny how people scream for new regulations when we fail to enforce the ones that we already have. We don't need more regulations, just better enforce and adherence. Reminds me of how people want laws to keep drivers from using their cell phones while operating their vehicle when there are already a number of laws in many states and cities that cover into that area. People fail to do the right thing and then want government to step in. What a horrible way to think.

I'd consider Boeing a monopoly. I guess their lawyers and lobbyists are very good at keeping them in the "gray area" so nobody can effectively file an anti-trust suit against them. It's almost as if we are slowly merging many businesses/corporations into one larger business and then waiting for the day when government just takes over everything. To put it plainly, it looks as if we're centralizing things. I'm not an alarmist saying that is what's happening, but we've certainly set bad precedents by my observations. We're spending what we don't have and want to continue spending money for some crazy reason. It has to stop. We need a new tanker. It was needed well over a decade ago. I sure hope this isn't a case of the AF brass in Washington not having enough balls to stand up to the retarded a$$ politicians.

TC it's nice to see you back on the board. In my 16 years of flying o nthe mighty KC-135 the newest tail number I have ever logged time in was a 1964 model, and it was a huge POS. The fact is that these jets, even with the upgraded motors from the 80's are really starting to show their age. Even the former USAF Chief of Staff said that all it would take to permenantly ground the entire fleet of KC-135's is 1 structural failure that they could not determine the origin of. AKA and jet falls apart over the ocean and is never found. Just imagine how our current middle east operations would come to a grinding hault if that happens. The only tactical things flying would be the UAV's, while all the manned assets sit idle on the ramp.

EADS has asked for an extension to bid. They must not be happy with Northrop's no-bid.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Northrop drops out of KC-X bid process