Comments on: There ought to be a law

By: Bugs

Bugs — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:48:23 +0000

Ancient history, this thread, but I happened across it so what the heck…

My question is: Why, after sixty years of being the world’s leader in aerospace, can’t the U.S. design and produce its own aircraft? Never mind where we build the damn things. Why aren’t they *our* things – designed by our own engineers?

I was asking the same thing about the Army’s small arms years ago.

By: Nose

Nose — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:21:09 +0000

Smithy, that was a bit tongue in cheek, I’m venting a bit o’ frustration as the delay in 787 deliveries is having a negative effect on mine own career path, such that it is.

Plus, they put a yoke in it. Silly Boeing engineers.

By: Blacksmith

Blacksmith — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:01:14 +0000

Nose,

That would be done the same way the KC-135 was offered before it existed as more than a wooden mockup on the shop floor. Not the best way to procure business in my humble opinion, but that sort of decision is way above grade.

By: Nose

Nose — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:19:36 +0000

Hey Blacksmith, how can Boeing offer the 787 as a tanker when they can’t even build it as an airplane?

Skippy, Navy airlift didn’t suck until they started working for the Air Force. TRANSCOM molests collies. They are worse than the worst airline (I know this because I work for the worst airline!).

Remember how NALO used to move EVERYONE in Naval Aviation to Vegas for a weekend and move them all back? (Not that I ever went!)

By: Blacksmith

Blacksmith — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:03:48 +0000

Guppy, Boeing’s overall employee-take on it, as I understand how it was relayed to me (meaning, “take with a grain of salt”) is that the USAF told Boeing in so many words, “We expect you to submit the same aircraft you were willing to rent to us a few years ago.” Boeing asked if an upgraded machine, perhaps the 777 or 787 would do. The Air Force, perhaps at the direction of Congress, told Boeing that those designs would emphatically NOT do, and that they expected to see the price for 767s as delivered to the Japanese recently, and expected to see it quite soon.

Boeing, recognizing that they weren’t entirely in the DoD’s best favor after the rental agreement fell through, did exactly what they were told to do. Except that somewhere along the line, the requirements for the tanker itself changed, making the EADS design the better option more-or-less by default. Had the 777 or 787 been an allowed option for submitting as a bid, the story may have turned out differently BUT having been told in so many words that such bids would not be taken kindly, Boeing is now being told to “Man up and give us something better next time.” Which they could have done *this* time, but were basically told not to bother. Hence the political fallout from our esteemed US-Reps from Seattle, Chicago, and KC.

By: Skippy-san

Skippy-san — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:50:41 +0000

Navy owned tankers sounds like a good idea only in practice the Navy would screw it up. Just like they do currently with Navy airlift. The squadrons would be bastard children within the service and the Navy would not provide adequate resources to make them function well.

Better solution is to get the USAF to do what it is supposed to do-provide assets for CINC verified requirements.