Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Proposes EP-8 To Replace Jstars  
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 23954 times:

In yet another twist to the long running quest for a JSTARS replacement (previously dominated by the 767-based E-10A), Boeing is now proposing also an armed variant of their P-8A MMA.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...p-8-variant-to-replace-jstars.html

Quote:
"Boeing has revealed a new version of the P-8 Poseidon aimed at challenging the primacy of the 707-based Northrop Grumman E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) as a platform that detects and strikes moving targets on the ground.

The 737-based P-8 aerial ground surveillance (AGS) concept, unveiled as a wall-sized mural at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium on 18 February, proposes to add a next generation radar, such as the Raytheon Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS), and - unlike the unarmed E-8C - an onboard package of bombs and missiles."


Though this time around, it seems NG's alliances with the competition in previous tenders has caused a fallout, resulting in Raytheon being mentioned as a likely sensor partner. Predictably, NG reacted quickly to the concept.

Presumably, fairings would be built onto the airframe of this old conceptual SIGINT design to accommodate the arrays.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_737_SIGINT_Cutaway_lg.jpg
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ages/AIR_737_SIGINT_Cutaway_lg.jpg

We might also see the "winged torpedo" idea morph into some sort of a "winged smart bomb" --- hopefully, an economic recovery could see this development to completion. And not fall by the wayside as another one of those lenghty, ridiculously expensive, exercises in futility.


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 23838 times:

Intriguing concept. However, as we've seen with Wedgetail, integrating the systems is the tricky part. I'd be suspect of the claim:

Quote:
Boeing claims it can deliver 17 new P-8s for the amount it would cost to modernize the E-8C with a new engine and new avionics, according to Jim Eisenhart, senior manager for airborne warning systems.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 23672 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
I'd be suspect of the claim:

I believe they COULD deliver new 737-based aircraft on time and on budget, but WOULD they..  


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 23515 times:

They should go back to the 767 frame, larger, more range, more space to accomodate gear, more space for crew, more power basically a more fuel efficient a/c than the 707 and more capable than a 737 frame. Add in the fact that is has proven its longevity, and is not too large to be too cumbersome, now that they can get the right sensor partner, the air frame shoudl be an easy winner.

When the 767 replacement program was scrapped was it due to the air frame or the sensor equipment?


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 23492 times:

Why not a 737-900ER frame.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 23328 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
Why not a 737-900ER frame.

Good point! Wouldn't the 738 based version lack enough room to house the crew and their consoles, not to mention the essential equipment?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23236 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 5):

Good point! Wouldn't the 738 based version lack enough room to house the crew and their consoles, not to mention the essential equipment?

I think the 737-900ER would be perfect, range wouldn't be an issue with inflight refueling capability.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 23135 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 5):
Wouldn't the 738 based version lack enough room to house the crew and their consoles, not to mention the essential equipment?

They should be performing new systems design on this. The new systems should be smaller and/or more capable. Who really knows what size is needed? I sure don't. Probably a 737 with tanks can do a really good job. A 767 with tanks would have huge 20 hour range. That's always good. But, it really depends what they want... a huge airplane with 100 engineers? What if you lose something like that? And, do they have enough work to occupy 100 people? Or is this a 15-20 person job? Beats me...

Quoting STT757 (Reply 6):
I think the 737-900ER would be perfect, range wouldn't be an issue with inflight refueling capability.

Sure it's an issue, tankering is very expensive and requires a whole other airplane. But, in a pinch, of course you are right.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 22899 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):

They should be performing new systems design on this. The new systems should be smaller and/or more capable. Who really knows what size is needed? I sure don't. Probably a 737 with tanks can do a really good job. A 767 with tanks would have huge 20 hour range. That's always good. But, it really depends what they want... a huge airplane with 100 engineers? What if you lose something like that? And, do they have enough work to occupy 100 people? Or is this a 15-20 person job? Beats me...

Wiki says E-8C typically flies with flight crew of four, plus 15 Air Force and three Army specialists. It also says there are eighteen operator workstations.

globalsecurity.org says:

Quote:
The Block 20 E-8C's contain commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology computers for operating the Joint STARS surveillance equipment. Each airplane uses 20 AlphaServer ES40CV systems from Compaq Computer Corporation, running the OpenVMS operating system. Eighteen of those systems will function as workstations, one as a central computer and one as a central backup. By using commercially available computer systems, Northrop Grumman was able to provide the customer with increased reliability, advanced technologies and increased processing power, all while achieving the original goal of this program -- to provide lower cost per aircraft. This may be the largest integrated application of COTS technology in a weapons system anywhere in the Air Force. Traditionally, equipment used in the military surveillance and combat environments has been highly specialized and highly customized. The fact that commercially available technology like Compaq's AlphaServer ES40CV systems can be integrated into those environments is a testament to the performance, reliability and functionality of Compaq's industry-leading technology. Application of COTS technology will provide improved maintainability for the Air Force.

I am very familiar with AlphaServer ES40 systems. Clearly they are 2001 era technology, so newer stuff would probably yield improvements in terms of compute power and size, but not necessarily in power consumed if one wanted to preserve the OpenVMS software and thus chose to run it on HP IA64 Itanium systems.

Overall, it'd seem feasible to have 18 consoles plus room for electronics plus room for a bit of crew rest etc.

I just don't know if there will be room for the radar. Clearly the E-8C has radar on the bottom of the plane so it can do its primary mission of ground search. Is there enough room to mount a good radar on the bottom of a 737 with its short landing gear?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 22726 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
They should be performing new systems design on this. The new systems should be smaller and/or more capable. [.....] Or is this a 15-20 person job?

Boeing was on record that they could expand to 25 stations their conceptual SIGINT/ELINT system without problems.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...to-offer-sigint-737-updated-01795/

Quote:
"Indeed, Boeing has said they can increase the mission crew capacity and associated equipment to 24-25 positions without crowding or overloading."

That may also be true for this application.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
I just don't know if there will be room for the radar. Clearly the E-8C has radar on the bottom of the plane so it can do its primary mission of ground search. Is there enough room to mount a good radar on the bottom of a 737 with its short landing gear?

This conceptual image shows a canoe fairing under the belly of the aircraft. So, it's fair to conclude that it has been thought out.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_737_SIGINT_Flying_lg.jpg

Quote:
"The aft weapons bay would be sealed, and a small 'canoe' bulge would be added underneath to house a series of rotating SIGINT/ELINT antennas."

This could mean that ordnance may be limited to wing stations unless they build the fairings on the fuselage bulkheads.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 22696 times:

Update:

This video shows the proposed configuration.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ideo-boeing-unveils-p-8-varia.html

Seeing that this seems to be an unsolicited proposal, would the USAF bite?



[Edited 2010-02-23 20:00:44]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 22678 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
Why not a 737-900ER frame.
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 10):
Seeing that this seems to be an unsolicited proposal, would the USAF bite?

Well, they've also proposed the P-8 to fulfill the ACS requirement, after the initial contract fell through for that. Along with the C-40 and Wedgetail, it seems to me that the 737NG is becoming the new C-135 — that is, a highly adaptable airframe.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19947 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
They should go back to the 767 frame, larger, more range, more space to accomodate gear, more space for crew, more power basically a more fuel efficient a/c than the 707 and more capable than a 737 frame.

The 767-400 was used because it was the smallest airframe they can use that has enough capability to possibly (and I mean possibly) add an airborne radar on top along with the ground search radar bellow. If cost was not an issue, the 777 frame would have been able to handle both the power and space for both air and ground radar.

The 767-400 frame was also used because they want to put on the biggest radar they can, to improve the range and size of target they can detect. With the curvature of the earth, the range limiting, but with the larger the radar, the smaller the size vehicle can be detected.

Of course, the tanker decision impacted E-10 quite a bit.

So with the 737 frame, they may have to go with a smaller radar. However, if there is an increase in radar capability, then they might be able to meet the spec and go with the smaller frame.

Wing pod for weapons are still more than what they have today . . . why wait for a strike plane, when you can take out the target yourself 

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19831 times:

Here is the latest:

http://www.defensedaily.com/publicat...JSTARS-For-$5-5-Billion_12600.html


"Jim Eisenhart, Boeing's senior business development manager for airborne warning systems, said last month that a new fleet of 17 weaponized, 737-based aerial ground surveillance (AGS) planes with a next-generation radar would cost the Pentagon $5.5 billion. Eisenhart noted that it would cost approximately as much to modernize the E-8 fleet with new engines and avionics. "

Don't know if this is going anywhere, but salesmen have to sell . . .

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 19653 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
When the 767 replacement program was scrapped was it due to the air frame or the sensor equipment?

I think it was due to the realization that no one could figure out any possible scenario under which you could afford it. Remember it was meant to replace E-3, E-8 and RC-135.

So Boeing is trying to sneak its nose into the tent. It seems from other news reports that the money to re-engine the JSTARS was budgeted a long time ago, but it seems Boeing thinks it can pull off an "October surprise"?

Refs:

http://www.deagel.com/news/Pratt-and...-Joint-STARS-Fleet_n000004285.aspx

http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/topics/companies/seven-q-seven/



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19455 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):

I think it was due to the realization that no one could figure out any possible scenario under which you could afford it.

Also, the original E-10 767 was intended to be a test bed to develop the NG radar and evaluate other concepts the Air Force was interested in. I don't think the 767 was a lock as the final airframe configuration.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19401 times:

I would favor the 787-8   The 737 seems to be a little small and the 767 is an already outdated aircraft


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19361 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 16):
I would favor the 787-8

. . . and you get some build-in STEALTH with the CRFP airframe and wing  

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18684 times:

The last E-8s were delivered in the mid 2000s but that doesn't truly speak to the actual age of the airframes. Does anyone know the overall fleet age? My information has it that all of the E-8s are ex civilian birds. With civilian 707 production ceasing in 1978, that could make the youngest E-8 a sprightly 32 years old. Some of the photos I've seen show wizzbang computer stations in the back with all the latest and greatest technology...with the adjoining photos of the cockpit showing a steam gauge wonderland. What efficiencies would moving to a new 737 based platform have over the current E-8s? Just because a cockpit doesn't have a computer screen in it doesn't mean the aircaft can't do its job. Heck, my training C-152s were dinosaurs next to the brand spanking new C-172R/SPs that everyone else was flying. Analoge gauges next to computer screens. With that said, mine went for $60 an hour wet while the latest and greatest rang in at $110.


What does a new P-8 JSTARS do for the US military that a re-engined E-8 doesn't already bring to the table? With that said, at some point the 707 airframes have to be retired. It is incredible to think about the actual aircraft age of the many programs flown within the USAF using Boeing's 707.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18675 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
With civilian 707 production ceasing in 1978, that could make the youngest E-8 a sprightly 32 years old.

See this thread: 707's Built In The 90's? (by Matt D Mar 5 2000 in Civil Aviation)

The last 707 was built in 1991.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 18656 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
With civilian 707 production ceasing in 1978, that could make the youngest E-8 a sprightly 32 years old.

The last B-52 was built in 1963, making all B-52s 47+ years old.

Thus the same frame lobbing JDAMs over the 'stans was probably also lobbing dumb bombs over the Ho Chi Min trail.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
Heck, my training C-152s were dinosaurs next to the brand spanking new C-172R/SPs that everyone else was flying. Analoge gauges next to computer screens. With that said, mine went for $60 an hour wet while the latest and greatest rang in at $110.

And yes, you prove your point.

The 'pointy end of the stick' is hugely over budget.

Bad time to just decide to recycle the old stuff just because it's not a Shiny New Jet.

Wedgetail is showing that it's not so easy to sling a new antenna on a new airframe and work out all the gremlins that always come along with working with radio frequencies. One reason they are slinging JT8D-219 engines on the JSTARS frames instead of the more efficient CFM56s is because they don't want to have to chase any RF gremlins caused by the larger nacelles and turbomachinery of the CFMs.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18551 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
My information has it that all of the E-8s are ex civilian birds.

Not all; a couple of airframes are ex-Canadian Forces CC-137's; in particular, these are msn 20316.825, 20317.826, 20318.829, and 20319.833.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18472 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):

What does a new P-8 JSTARS do for the US military that a re-engined E-8 doesn't already bring to the table?

Boeing is trying to pitch the P-8 at the same price as the re-engined E-8. I don't know if this includes maintenance and operation cost. If it doesn't then you have the added bonus of a newer airframe in the 737 with a much larger customer/support base and world wide spares support. From an operation stand-point, the 737 is more fuel efficient.

Also, the 737 frame have been digitized and any mod to the basic frame is much easier accomplished.

Finally, as I think it was mentioned above, the P-8 would have weapon launch capability.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18039 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
Bad time to just decide to recycle the old stuff just because it's not a Shiny New Jet.
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 22):
Boeing is trying to pitch the P-8 at the same price as the re-engined E-8. I don't know if this includes maintenance and operation cost. If it doesn't then you have the added bonus of a newer airframe in the 737 with a much larger customer/support base and world wide spares support. From an operation stand-point, the 737 is more fuel efficient.

With yesterday's award of the tanker contract, does anybody see the USAF reverting to the 767 as the platform (not that it has decided to proceed yet)?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel T Jones




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18016 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 23):
does anybody see the USAF reverting to the 767 as the platform (not that it has decided to proceed yet)?

Using the 767 platform still require significant amount of development work and would not provide immediate result.
The P-8 variant would be less risky and has much of the internal architecture already developed.

I can see the 767 platform as a viable for future development work. But with the current budget constraints, I don't see much money going in to making it reality. By the time the money gets allocated, I would not be surprised if the 777 or 787 become main contenders.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
25 Revelation : Not me. With the current budget I just don't see the feasibility of an all-new C3I fleet being rolled out. I see the JSTARS re-engining continuing. B
26 Stitch : I have read that the airframes chosen for the E-8 conversion were pretty old and decrepit so they were essentially completely stripped and re-built (
27 kanban : I think the 737 (P-8) be will be used for many applications now handled by KC135's and retrofitted 707s... they are easy to schedule into a production
28 KC135TopBoom : It would now make sense to go with the KC-46 airframe, but using the B-767-300ERF lenght. That would make it a C-46B, and you could use the same PW-40
29 Post contains images bikerthai : The problem with this scenario is that Boeing is putting its future in the 737 airframe to do these function (except tankers) and has sunk much money
30 KC135TopBoom : Actually, developing the airframes will not be a major cost factor. The biggest changes would be to the electrical systems, and more powerful engine d
31 Post contains images bikerthai : The 737 development has the benefit of a system architecture and mission system layouts brought over from Wedgetail, and improved upon by the P-8A. T
32 Stitch : The E-10 MC2A program using the 767-400ER airframe would have used a version of the Wedgetail radar for AWACS missions and the Multi-Platform Radar T
33 Post contains images bikerthai : Also true. While the E-10 program looked into many aspect of the system. Allot of those concepts were "wish list" type scenarios that still require l
34 747400sp : really, how can a 737 replace an 707. An 707 is design fly polar routes, a 737NG could maybe do Trans Atlantic, and that extra range a 707 gives, is g
35 Post contains images bikerthai : 737NG can do Trans Atlantic . . . in an all Business Class configuration The P-8A a range of 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) with 4 hours on station. This can b
36 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Update: Boeing is trying mightily to convince the USAF into buying their proposed EP-8 AGS variant by volunteering shocking cost estimates to upgrade
37 Post contains images bikerthai : Chapter one: I don't think the JSTARS fleet had a common airfame block (just guessing . . . someone will have to look at the tail numbers and list th
38 bikerthai : Oh, I forgot about the epilogue. (Thanks to my friend who works Wiring). Stripping out the old wiring and re-routing new ones is a real pain. bikertha
39 Post contains images Devilfish : The question then becomes - "Except for the person being quoted, what else had changed in the last four months which caused the cost they provided to
40 Post contains links bikerthai : Check here for the latest PR video on the Boeing Platform. http://boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8ags/index.html bikerthai
41 Post contains images Devilfish : Very cool! Thanks for that. I wonder how long it would be before Hollywood comes up with another movie based on those?
42 Flighty : I would suggest using Embraer or another more reputable contractor. Boeing should not be eligible IMO
43 par13del : The only major problem that I see with the 737 frame is the military inbuilt genetics of mission creep, whatever else they can get loaded on a new a/c
44 Post contains images cosmofly : It is sad to see that we have to use so much expensive asset to take out a few barbarians. Can we really afford such kind of asymmetric war? Would it
45 par13del : Methinks you are looking at the wrong cost, how much do the projects contribute to the bottom line of the developing companies, how many jobs did the
46 Post contains images bikerthai : Sounds like you want to put bomb bay doors and hard points on a 767 . . . or perhaps a 777 Cheaper than using a B-1or B-2 and uses much less gas than
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Proposes EP-8 To Replace Jstars
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing And Northrop To Merge? posted Sun Sep 12 2010 12:29:33 by Flighty
Was F-35Cs Also Suppost To Replace Tomcats? posted Sat Sep 11 2010 07:23:44 by 747400sp
Belgium: Government Leases 1 A330 To Replace A310 posted Wed Aug 19 2009 10:47:40 by Bralo20
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
Boeing Sells 4 C-17 To Emirates posted Tue Feb 24 2009 06:46:19 by Keesje
Belgium To Replace A310's posted Wed Dec 10 2008 22:58:21 by LifelinerOne
Boeing And EP-X posted Sat Aug 2 2008 15:59:32 by EBJ1248650
Boeing Has Nothing To Lose Protesting KC767 Loss posted Mon Mar 10 2008 02:58:48 by BCAL
Boeing And LM To Team-Up On Bomber RFP posted Fri Jan 25 2008 09:06:42 by Stitch
Boeing/NG Team To Offer B-52H CCJ Core Comp Jammer posted Sat Oct 27 2007 10:38:26 by AirRyan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format