Jump to content
Aero Precision provides OEM part support for military aircraft operators across more than 20 aircraft
Sign in to follow this  
118th AES Retired

R.I.P. C-130 and Lockheed?

Recommended Posts

Have we really had a true test of intheater TAC air/land resupply, carried out day in/day out for years, since SEA? Just asking.. I think that TAC airlift could have been used more in Iraq to cut back on the truck convoys that were continually hit...Afghanistan will be interesting...

Without the 123 & 130 (& the Caribou) how would we have resupplied Khe Sanh during the seige? Heck, I remember when they wouldn't let us land any longer and would only let 123's land, in part because of the fear of loosing 130s (tho, I believe that we only lost one Marine 130 during the seige). At that point we started dropping the original CDS. (They wouldn't let us do LAPES anymore either...tho I think that was for a different reason than potenially loosing 130 airframes on the runway). The 17 could certainly do the airdrop and could have assault landed at Khe Sanh, but how would the Marines have handled all that cargo at one hit off a 17? At Khe Sanh, one of the most dangerous places to hang out at was on the runway for those guys (which was true of a lot of the forward air fields...). When the guys came out to unload you they wanted you in and out fast! We were bringing in 5 pallets; what would they have done with ~20 pallets off a 17? Also, what about 90,000 lbs of CDS off the drop zone vs 30,000 lbs (also the recovery and exposure time and the potential for it falling into the wrong hands...). Now couple that with loosing a 17 on the runway at Khe Sanh, or having one shot down during air drop... Anybody remember the "old timers" talking about the 124 that was lost between Korea and Japan during the Korean war that was loaded with Pax on both the main floor and the upper floor? I don't remember how many but, didn't that cause the 124 to be de rated for pax carrying capacity? I believe that a version of the YC-14/15 (and in that size range; not put on steriods like the 17) would have fit the bill for forward operations. The 130 E/H could have taken over the role of the 123... As it relates to TAC airlift, bigger is not always better...Also, reality is that USG, given a choice, would rather lose several 130's than a single 17 (or C5...) (in SEA it was the 123 that was the sacrificial lamb vs the 130...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, you make some excellent points but let me address this one:

I think that TAC airlift could have been used more in Iraq to cut back on the truck convoys that were continually hit...Afghanistan will be interesting...

I think initially they figured the hazard of eating a manpad (shoulder held sam) and associated cost accounting (Army loves to figure "acceptable losses") was greater than the risk of convoy. I had also heard that most airlift was overbooked to begin with and that forced us to use convoys. Look at the DHL that ate the SA-7; they were filling in the airlift gap and almost got snuffed (that was one damn good pilot).

Now as to Afghanistan, (I made it there, but missed out on Gulf War II:mad: ) the terrain and variety of locations don't lend themselves to real convoys outside of a couple of hummers on a mission; aircraft support is essential there.

They have been doing quite a bit of airdrop there (probably the most actual airdrop since VN) and a whole lot of airland.

This is the theater that the C-17 is cutting its Tactical teeth on.

Dan

th_bin-loser.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

Shoulder fired missiles (even the early, inaccurate ones) would have been a total game changer for TAC airlift in SEA. The only area that we worried about missiles was when flying in the northern part of I Corp, as there had been rumors that the NVA had moved SAM's along the north side of the DMZ, in late '67 thru '70, at least. I would add when flying up close to the DMZ it was a major concern, to the point I seem to remember that along with the navigator making damn sure where we were at all times, I think that we weren't anywhere near as high as we would be normally. Of course we had no counter measures either. I don't even want to imagine what TAC airlift would be like when the shoulder fired stuff first started to show up; I suppose that the Russians know...

As far as "cost of loss," it was around in the '60's as well. Before the C5, it was the 123's that were sacrificed instead of the 130's... As far as the 141's were concerned, I don't think that there was any thoughts of using it for in-theater airlift, as well as the primary strategic airlifter... The C5 was going to be the "do all" airlifter (just like the 17)! I think that a combination of the reality of the impossibility of one airframe doing it all (heck, you can't even spec a truck tractor to do that! Same thing, except you hope not to become airborne in the TT) and the resultant design problems that came with trying to satisfy such a divergent group of requirements ended up relegating the C5 to strategic airlift (of course aquisition and upkeep $ played a major role)! Heck, you don't have to go any further than the landing gear on the C5. I seem to remember that the gear on the 130 was going to be fixed originally... Sounds like aerial resupply in the Afghan theater as/will be very interesting; I will readily admit that I would give my eye teeth to be a part of it, on any airframe (tho I wanted nothing to do with the C5 in '70...)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well on one of my last missions in Afghanistan, we had the pilot and nav arguing about where the IP for the refueling was, and the copilot cutting in that we were about to fly straight into a cliff (we were pretty damn close, this was a week after we parked 213 on a mountain in the same area) and I look off at two o'clock and we have a friggin missile launch:eek: (this was about two or three in the AM, on goggles and no moon - damn dark).

It was a busy time in the old cockpit that night, the only big benefit with flying against manpads in the stan is the idiots don't know how to use them. Best we can figure out is the idiot was launching it acoustically, i.e. he heard us, pointed at the sound and fired:confused:. He was too stupid to realize that the cliff face was bouncing our sound off and he was shooting where we weren't:cool: End result, we got to pump all of our gas to the user (and that led to a whole other really puckering situation, but that's another story).

It was also the first time in my flying career where we were having RPG's shot at us and we were in range, made for some un-boring flying.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been some good discussions posted in this thread, and I'm glad to see so many folks here point out their observations and experiences.

We all have our various opinions, and these forums are a great place to discuss those and to present observations and experiences.

As has been pointed out, the C-130 has played an important role over the years. Those of us who have flown this airframe know what it is and what it is not capable of. The C-130 certainly has its' place.

My original point in beginning the discussion however remains. In my opinion, I believe that Lockheed's days are numbered. If Lockheed fails, then the C-130 program eventually fails.

I just wonder why Lockheed (or as someone noted "Lackheed") has failed to remain competitive in the area of R&D for the past quarter century or so.

Why doesn't Lockheed have a (current/future) product to complement the C-130 in various sizes? Sure, the C-5 and the C-141 were compliments, but the C-141 is gone, having been replaced by Boeing's C-17.

What about the Transall C-160? Where was Lockheed when the C-160 was developed to meet a specific requirement?

What about a replacement for the C-123? Where was Lockheed with a replacement?

What about the C-27J? Why is it that Lockheed didn't put forth a true R&D effort to meet the need for this specification, other than to offer its' C-130J?

It has also been noted that the Airbus A400-M has been met with huge cost overruns. But in all fairness, isn't that true of virtually all new developments? What about the C-17? What about the C-141 & C-5? What about the B-1B? And is the same not true of the F-22 and F-35? So, the issue of cost overruns is somewhat of a moot point.

In the end, my point is simply that Lockheed, the once and great world leader in the production of military cargo aircraft has lagged behind in R&D for years and years.

Sure, the C-130 is still a great airframe, and there is still LOTS of room for improvement. My point is that Lockheed cannot put all of its' eggs in one basket and expect to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno, maybe they just figure we will start using their guided missiles to move cargo when the Herk line goes bankrupt (until we start buying our missiles and satellites from the Europeans too, then they are really in trouble). Personally I would love to see Lockheed and Boeing and all the other large corporations go permanently belly up, they are all about money, money money and don't care who they screw. Its a fact that as these company's become just a cog in the conglomeration of corporation, their sense of decency and honor goes into the toilet.

Just look at the crap they were doing with the contract flight instructors at Kirtland (its been 8 years since I was there so don't know if the crap is still going on) they would "transfer" these guys from one division of lackheed to another - but oh wait!! Once they transferred them all benefits were put to zero, just like a new hire.

Sure company's have always been about the money (for the most part) but in the last couple of decades, especially since the 80's, any sense of decency, honor and sense of responsibility towards the customer and their own people has evaporated. Now its 100% of how can we screw our workers and pocket some extra cash and how far do you think we can string the government along and make huge piles of extra cash.

Just like the speculation market, pocket some cash and screw everybody else.

Thats why they don't care about innovation (I am talking about all of em, not just lockheed), they know that can just put the screws to the workers some more to show a bigger profit and for the most part they know the customer is good for at least twice the original contract cost.

If you are looking for innovation and honest product, look to the smaller company's like Snow Aviation and the like, but they usually lose out because they cant afford as many politician's and lawyers as "the big boys" can.

Boeing is just as bad, look at the AMP, instead of designing a custom setup for our specific mission they just throw a 737 cockpit and software at us and get a bigger hammer to beat it into shape. Maybe it worked in the end, like a few of our folks here that are "in the know" say. That doesn't change the fact that if they had actually done what they were contracted to do (morally here, not legally) they would have had an even better program/product, with less cost overruns and closer to contracted price.

Retail isn't much different, record profits but they pass out penny raises and cut workers hours because corporate wants to put more cash in their pockets

In the end this rant comes down to this: we have a culture of "anything for the money" in this country and its getting worse. So when you have a culture like that, innovation and quality get lost because they are not needed to pocket the cash.12735.gif

Dan11565.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done many a reverse taxi on a C-17. Now I'm on Herks. I can tell you from experience that the Herc needs to retire permanently. The weight carrying capabilities/practicality of this AC are stuck in Vietnam times. There are better ways of doing things out there on the market. Things have changed and technological advancements have made the Herk obsolete including the C-130J.

So when was the last time you saw a C17 slow down in flight to 98 knots to refuel a helicopter, That POS would fall out of they sky. How many have you seen with guns sticking out of the side. How many of them have you seen do the jobs of so many herks out there that you probably have no clue about. Maybe you should do a little research before you come on a herky lovers site and start bashing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So when was the last time you saw a C17 slow down in flight to 98 knots to refuel a helicopter"

I hate to throw wood on the fire, but I just saw a C-17 maintain altitude at a Nellis airshow doing about 75 mph. I've seen it do some crazy things just showing off, and I think it's an amazing airplane despite the fact that I've worked 130's all my career and have read a lot of it's history here on this board. I think the point's been made earlier though, they both fill different niche's. The C-130 is a pain to work on, but it just so happens that the C-130 has literally done pretty much everything an airplane can do other than go to space. The C-17 just moves cargo more quickly and efficiently. It's not as glamorous, but it still gets it's job done, very well. I'm sure the C-17 is capable of performing a majority of missions a C-130 has been adapted for, but why ruin the airframes when we already have the purpose-built and more affordable platforms already in place? I just don't think the whole "when was the last time you saw a C-XXX do this" argument holds any water. The C-130 is just at the right place, at the right time, for the right price to pick up all these extraneous missions. Apples and oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when was the last time you saw a C17 slow down in flight to 98 knots to refuel a helicopter, That POS would fall out of they sky. How many have you seen with guns sticking out of the side. How many of them have you seen do the jobs of so many herks out there that you probably have no clue about. Maybe you should do a little research before you come on a herky lovers site and start bashing it.

Obviously they don't do either so your post is pointless. Well the stall speed is less than that. Can a herc carry

40,000 lbs on the ramp alone like a C-17? No. Can a C-17 carry what a C-5 can? No. Not even close. Pointless. See what I mean? And if your on MC-130P's than you've seen C-17's at Multilates doing the same thing C-130's do. Not saying they can do everything a MC can do. Although just about every time I did a multi the two Talons flew and the papa was broke.

Maybe you should do a little research as well. You would have noticed that I said I'm on herks now and I am by no means bashing the plane or it's great history. The J modal I can't stand for the simple fact that I think they could have updated it a little more before Lockheed and the GA congressmen pushed it down the DOD's throat.

I've been coming to this site for a little longer than you so I know not to shit talk about Herc's. Don't turn my OPINION it to that.

Did you defend your old job this much before you cross-trained?

Edited by mooseherc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would jump in here with my opinion, but since neither "mooseherc" nor "mc130pfe" have decided to share their backgrounds or real names with us in their profiles, I'm have no idea what their qualifications are to back up their arguments. My guess is that "mooseherc" is probably in Alaska & "mc130pfe" is in special ops.

OK, my opinion anyway. Apples & oranges. After 40 years in aviation -- 30 years of it as an FE/PFE, military & commercial, I say the C-17, the "legacy" Herc & the J-model are all excellent airframes. I realize that the original thread was about Lockheed and its lack of foresight, but it's turned into a pissing contest between a couple of individuals arguing about the pros & cons of different airframes.

Stepping down from the soapbox now.

Don R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with DC10FE

My points about the C-17 were that it is operating out of its normal mission and believe it or not I am very impressed with its ops record over there. Outside of blowing the landing gear out of an airplane (but then again we in AFSOC got to see that crap happen to two of our planes too) its operated better than I would have ever suspected.

If we got to be pissy about something, be pissed about the original intent of the thread, lack of foresight and innovation from "the corporation(s)"

I mean really guys, I haven't even bashed the J in this thread:eek: shocking isn't it:rolleyes:

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would jump in here with my opinion, but since neither "mooseherc" nor "mc130pfe" have decided to share their backgrounds or real names with us in their profiles, I'm have no idea what their qualifications are to back up their arguments. My guess is that "mooseherc" is probably in Alaska & "mc130pfe" is in special ops.

OK, my opinion anyway. Apples & oranges. After 40 years in aviation -- 30 years of it as an FE/PFE, military & commercial, I say the C-17, the "legacy" Herc & the J-model are all excellent airframes. I realize that the original thread was about Lockheed and its lack of foresight, but it's turned into a pissing contest between a couple of individuals arguing about the pros & cons of different airframes.

Stepping down from the soapbox now.

Don R.

I am a prior C-17 SOLL II Evaluator at CHS. Now I'm at Pope.

I should have worded things better. My fault. I am not bashing the Herc by any means. I apologize if it came off that way. I just wish we would have waited and looked at something better than the J or went with the AMP program on a tremendous airframe. I think it would have been money better spent. But I only have limited experience with Herc's and maybe there is a reason that I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mooseherc and everyone else in this thread. I am sorry if I came off as an A hole with the comments that I made. Everyone is right about apples and oranges. Both aircraft were designed for totaly different missions. I fly on Papas out of Eglin, and yes I did defend my old job as I was a KC-130 Airframes Mechanic in the USMC. I love the herc. She is my baby. God never allowed anyone to build a better plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think Lockheed isn't working on developing a new aircraft for the future? As far -J bashing, hasn't it proven itself to be a good aircraft? So what if Lockheed has grown and diversified, they still have a pretty successful aeronautical division that continues to make damn good airplanes. So whats the beef with a company making a profit? Lockheed went out on limb with the -J development and no customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think Lockheed isn't working on developing a new aircraft for the future? As far -J bashing, hasn't it proven itself to be a good aircraft? So what if Lockheed has grown and diversified, they still have a pretty successful aeronautical division that continues to make damn good airplanes. So whats the beef with a company making a profit? Lockheed went out on limb with the -J development and no customers.

Terry what pinched your panty hose :) even though I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockheed went out on limb with the -J development and no customers.

Yep they sure did, that's a limb they crawled out by themselves because everybody but their accountants were more than happy with the H line, so don't use that lame argument to justify anything.

If you want to defend the J and say its the greatest thing since Sliced Asian Hookers, that fine, I may not agree but I will respect your enthusiasm for the airframe, BUT if you want to come here and wave pom pom's defending the latest stock dividend from Lockgreed or Boiing or even walmart then don't expect too much sympathy for your argument.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s obvious not many people on this thread have C-130J experience. Like the airplane or not it's here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s obvious not many people on this thread have C-130J experience. Like the airplane or not it's here to stay.

Why are the last couple of guys thinking this is a "bash the J" thread?

Sure I hate the J but that's just because I'm an old FE and I hate being replaced by a computer chip, But even if they did put a seat there for an FE I wouldn't want it, hell I want a job and watching a computer isn't a job. But I'm also big enough of a motorhead to really dig on the outrageous design changes with a vehicle that is almost indistinguishable from its legacy vehicle, its really sweet; call it a sleeper if you will.

I got to poke and prod around the J when it was in development and came to Eglin for the Climatic hanger and it is impressive, but you cant kick someone in the balls and make em like it (that's a euphemism for being replaced by a cpu) there are always going to be some hard feelings.

I can understand the J guys being a bit snake bit on the "J bashing" subject but if you will READ the whole thread and not just look and automatically see J bashing, you will see there are very few of the posts even mention the J, and those few posts and just slightly negative against the J, nothing like we have had in the past on this forum.

I tried to not even mention it as it really didn't have anything to do with the thread.

Try to separate the CORPORATION lockwasher from the airframe C130 called J, we are talking about loss of innovation for the future and potential loss of the American Aerospace industry as a whole - not the J. With myself expressing disgust at the "anything for the money" attitude that ALL American corporations (including lackheed) have overtly adopted in the last 30 years, hand in hand with the death of morals in this once great land.

As a matter of fact the C-17 is the subject of most of this threads angst if you have to sort out an airframe.

Off my soapbox for at least the next ten minutes (maybe).

Dan

dead-hooker-storage-535x749.jpg

Edited by Dan Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the beef is so much the J airframe itself as they brought the 130 up to the 21st century and stayed with props! (tho, a wider cargo compartment would have been nice...but, impossible to do when staying with in envelope dim.; really easier to make the Army/Marines make their combat equipment fit the opening...)

I think that the sellout relates to crew complement of the J with the Air Force mgmt and Lockheed complicit. For strategic airlift, in today's GPS environment (as long as it doesn't get knocked out in some way; heck the bad guys have broken into the drone software...) along with eliminating the navigator, you probably could get away with cutting out the Loadmaster positon (this is coming from a former LM), as well... I'm not sure tho, even for strategic airlift, how you justify eliminating the FE position? What was it, a Northwest Crew that overflew their destination by an hour? Who buys into the "laptop distraction"? Do you think those two pilots would have dozed off a FE was sitting between them...

Now combat airlift is a different story! I know that I'm pre GPS, but I would not want to be operating under combat conditions in forward areas (and VFR, to boot...which lots of SEA was) without a live Magellan up front! (I would also have concern with long overwater flights...including vectoring for bad weather...). The importance of the FE, to me, at least, is a no brainer: From my 130 E flight crew experience, from '66 to '70, the FE on our crew was the last word on aircraft airworthiness! I never recall an AC not deferring to the FE when it came to the mechanics of the aircraft! Most all of my flight engineers were "longer in the tooth" than the pilots...Even the Majors an LC's that had started flying in WWII would defer to the FE for airworthiness. Man, at least for combat airlift, nothing replaces experience and a five person flight crew! Eliminating the FE is like eliminating the platoon sargent in the Army...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post, but I have been pretty much reading everything written in the Forum from day 1 and I figured it was time to jump into the discussions. My perspective comes from flying Herks for most of my AF career, being in the AF requirements business for 5 years, and now being in industry for almost 9 years.

Industry is doing a lot of work on the next generation airlifter and making improvements to what they have now (C-130J, C-17) to make them even more capable. You would be amazed at some of the ideas Lockheed and Boeing have. The problem is it's too expensive in most cases to take their ideas to the next level (i.e. working prototype) and they're certainly not going there unless there is some hope their idea(s) might get funded some day.

A major problem is industry sees doing busines with the government as a huge risk. Look at the government's track record over the last 20 years. Terminating the B-2 at 21 aircraft (about 120 were planned), terminating the F-22 at less than 200 aircraft when over 600 were planned, cancelling CSAR-X, threatening to cancel C-130 AMP, and then all the source selection fiascos (KC-X, CSAR-X, & now the Army M-ATV). C-17 production is continuing only because Congress forcing the AF to take them. Even the J was not wanted by the AF initially. It was pretty much forced on them by Congress, albeit with no funding for logistics and training for the first few years. So industry ends up being very cautious about how they spend their own IR&D.

To Lockheed's credit, they developed the J pretty much with their own money without a lot of help on the requirements side from the AF. There were plenty of issues, but after 10+ years of operating the aircraft, I think the AF is very happy with it. Lockheed is also happy they made the decision to offer only the J, although I know they were wondering at one point whether they made the right decision. It took awhile, but the J is starting to gain a lot of traction in the international market and AFSOC/ACC should be getting their MC/HC-Js in the next couple of years. Lockheed will significantly increase their production over the next couple of years.

My 2 cents worth (for now). I'll try not to wait so long for the next post.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have read with interest the debate - many sound, good arguments can be made regarding R&D and industry. My two cents: First, the "acquisition holiday" of the Clinton years and everyones desire to reap the cost benefits of winning the cold war drove the industry to consolidation. That is why you saw the defense industry move into a decade of M&S (Mergers and Acquisitions - an example is Northrop acquiring Grumman and Newport News Ship Building). Second, industry is reluctant to commit R&D funds (known as Internal R and D - or IRAD) without a JROC approved requirements document. They do not have the money to start large IRAD projects without a solid business case as to why the company needs to spend millions of share holder dollars. The big 3 (Lockheed, Boeing & Northrop) are also reluctant, if not opposed, to any contract vehicle that places all of the program risk on them (which is what is being proposed for KC-X) as opposed to sharing development risk (both are known as a Firm Fixed Price versus Cost Plus Incentive). An additional challenge for both industry and government is fully funding programs once they reach a major Milestone decision. Many times a program's cost growth can be attributed to both requirements creep (not nailing down the requirements before you start) and poor funding). Unforntunantly , there is no simple solution. Both industry and governments is at fault, and when you throw politicians into the fray who dictate to the military what to buy and when to retire aircraft, it gets even worse (actually, it does get worse because now you have more lawyers on acquisition programs than acquisition professionals!). Sorry for my rambling, but I have spent the last 5 years in industry and there is plenty of blame to go around. Anyway, my two cents...

Hush

Edited by Hush
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim, and welcome to the light of day (or is it the dark of night?)

With one statement you made, you hit the crux of the biscuit:

It has nothing to do with how tactically able the J is (its filling its role quite nicely by now).

It has nothing to do with how well the J operates out of austere environments (its holding its own here as well).

It has nothing to do with my kind being out of work, digitized out of a job so to speak (emotionally its a different story altogether, but I am not talking about emotions here).

It has nothing to do with overall compliment of the crew (even though, for Combat Ops they really ought to stick at least a third pilot, extra Loadmaster or someone in that extra seat up front, anything to get a spare set of eyes outside whoever it is; however that is a AF issue and not a Lockheed issue.).

It has nothing to do with me playing nice, but, if you've been watching this board for the better part of a decade you will remember I was a very vocal opponent to the J model. But I have (mostly) gotten over that, just my Luddite tendency's. See guys, I really can play nice, really, honest:D

And to be honest it really doesn't have to apply to the J at all! The same arguments could be applied to just about any product Lockheed does, or will produce, like the "Slim Pickens, single seat, fully tactical, low level capable, J model ICBM, (or SPSSFTLLCJICBM in military speak) as well as anything.

It boils down to this statement you and others have made:

To Lockheed's credit, they developed the J pretty much with their own money without a lot of help on the requirements side from the AF.
No, really, its not to Lockheed's credit. It actually shows the current thought of modern business.

The Air Force would have supplied specific requirements, help, specs, requirements, non dead Asian hookers for the line workers and anything you care to name, if they had even wanted a completely redesigned, new, Roswell UFO crash alien technology Herk in the first place.

They didn't risk a single dime as they were guaranteed to get every penny back in spades, because they knew what they were doing.

They get a rough prototype

They shut down the H line for good.

Put on the political pressure

and

They effectively FORCED the AF to take the J model, that is if they ever wanted any more C-130 type airframes without endlessly recycling the older legacy airframes.

So the AF said they wanted a FE on the plane, Lockheed didn't want to do that because they thought it would hurt their foreign sales if they did (the loss of the FE was coming sooner or later anyways).

As to the foreign sales increases, well just like the AF, if you want a herk its now the only game in town so if you wanna play you gotta pay.

Then you use this misplaced (in this case only) logic to justify Lockheed's actions:

A major problem is industry sees doing busines with the government as a huge risk. Look at the government's track record over the last 20 years. Terminating the B-2 at 21 aircraft (about 120 were planned).............
I can very plainly see your point and would concede to it, if it wasn't mixing apples and oranges.

The above shortfalls and early contract cancellations were definitely screw jobs for the private sector (even though lots and lots of cash was paid out to cancel those contracts) but in the end they were weapons systems and contracts that the AF sought out in the first place.

The J wasn't sought out, but was forced upon the service's. So the whole "risk to take a govt. contract" argument doesn't apply to this specific weapon system.

In the end its the whole morality of the big business's in this country that I am in essence, bitching about.

Look at the tanker mess or worse yet the new CSAR helicopter; they get to play their lawyer games and the Warfighter on the front lines get to pay for it!

Its just as wrong as two boys fu uh.. Humping, kinda like Brokeback mountain in three piece suits.

Oh well my brains leaking, and if there's such a thing as thread creep, this thread has become more like a super modified on a half mile dirt track that has sailed over the safety wall, rolled down the hill and bust into flames:rolleyes:

And to you guys out that that read my whining about the J model for several years, please believe me, I am past that and I hold no animosity for the aircraft or its associated personnel.

Now I'm off of this thread and going to do something a bit more worthwhile like figuring out how to get that seventh dead Cuban hooker into the trunk of a Grand Marquis.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm off of this thread and going to do something a bit more worthwhile like figuring out how to get that seventh dead Cuban hooker into the trunk of a Grand Marquis.

Dan

You already filled the glovebox right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...