Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More  
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14271 times:

A price break offered by Boeing paid off, the Navy just ordered an additional 124 F-18s (66 F/A-18E/F fighters, 58 EA-18Gs Electronic attack).

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64D6LB20100514?type=politicsNews

I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard. The F-35s are going to take a while to get to the Guard, and only a handful of Guard squadrons are being considered for F-35 basing. This would be a more desirable solution for the Air Force than to continue to reallocate resources from the active duty Air Force to support the Air Guard, as is being currently being done;

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4075.html


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7502 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14192 times:

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard.

I think the Air Force should follow the Navy, negotiate a fixed price for a bulk buy of additional F-15's and F-16's, why introduce a new a/c into the mix when the existing a/c are still being produced, if the F-15 and F-16 line had been closed I would agree with you, but they are not, and in some quarters, the F-15 and F-16 are just as or even more capable than the F-18, upgrade the electronics and away you go.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14093 times:

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard. The F-35s are going to take a while to get to the Guard, and only a handful of Guard squadrons are being considered for F-35 basing. This would be a more desirable solution for the Air Force than to continue to reallocate resources from the active duty Air Force to support the Air Guard, as is being currently being done;

Good idea but the training and logistics ramp up is where you incur substantional costs.

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
I think the Air Force should follow the Navy, negotiate a fixed price for a bulk buy of additional F-15's and F-16's, why introduce a new a/c into the mix when the existing a/c are still being produced, if the F-15 and F-16 line had been closed I would agree with you, but they are not, and in some quarters, the F-15 and F-16 are just as or even more capable than the F-18, upgrade the electronics and away you go.

This the way to go, infrastructure already in place, just give them upgraded equipment. A KC-135 even though 50 years old does not have hardly systems left in it them when they came off the line thru 55 to 64.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12856 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14080 times:

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Glad it's happening but it's kind of a misleading headline.

Boeing "slashed" its prices by around 10% in return for the four-year contract.

In the business world, this is what's called a volume discount.

And the Navy really didn't order 124 more, the Navy is holding an offer to buy 124 planes but negotiations are still ongoing, and the 124 planes were already in DoD's plans so you really cant use the word "more".

In any case, I'm glad it's happening. I was wondering if the Growler fleet would get built out or not, and it looks like it will be. And the deal is a good one for the taxpayers, unlike the F22 and F35 with their >100% cost overruns.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13984 times:

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard.

Don't forgert the F/A-18E/F does not have the air superiority capability of the F-15, nor the manuverability or speed of the F-16 or F-15.

But if the USAF were to buy some EA-18G/Hs that would make sense to put them into ANG units.

It is a smart move by Boeing and sure to get the attention of Congress as they look at the LM cost overruns of the F-35.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13774 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):

Don't forgert the F/A-18E/F does not have the air superiority capability of the F-15, nor the manuverability or speed of the F-16 or F-15.

Some of the ANG units can go with the F-35, and the rest FA/18E/Fs.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12856 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13746 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):

Some of the ANG units can go with the F-35, and the rest FA/18E/Fs.

Why would ANG units that already have F-16s be transitioned to F-18s?

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
This the way to go, infrastructure already in place, just give them upgraded equipment.

  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13587 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Don't forgert the F/A-18E/F does not have the air superiority capability of the F-15, nor the manuverability or speed of the F-16 or F-15.

AESA powered Super Hornets with the latest AMRAAM's is every bit as potent for the ANG as any of their elder F-15's. I wouldn't mind seeing some new F-16's off of LM's line going to the USAF for a change, but that order would likely never go through simply because LM is trying to sell them F-35A's instead.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13313 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
It is a smart move by Boeing and sure to get the attention of Congress as they look at the LM cost overruns of the F-35.

Can't help but think that the Super Hornet MYP deal is a quid pro quo to stop Boeing from pestering the DoD with incessant offers of the Silent Eagle.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13217 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
And the Navy really didn't order 124 more, the Navy is holding an offer to buy 124 planes but negotiations are still ongoing, and the 124 planes were already in DoD's plans so you really cant use the word "more".

Thank you for some perspective.

At roughly $43 million per plane (and the Growlers probably are more expensive than run of the mill fighters anyway), this is a reminder of what sanity in acquisition looks like. Without these kinds of deals, the exotic stuff we can leverage as our own kind of asymmetric advantage (F-22) becomes unaffordable.

And inhibiting conflict by making adversaries think twice is still a lot cheaper in the long run than the cost of some more F-22s. I'm an unabashed admirer of the F-16, but the current strategy of pairing F-22s with F-15s is rather smart.

We do need *something* like the F-35 in the long run, but not at the wrong price.

Was it so unworkable to further pursue development of the Boeing entrant?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1822 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13176 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
Was it so unworkable to further pursue development of the Boeing entrant?

I believe the Boeing X-32 had a number of major design issues that made it inferior to the Lockheed X-35. Namely, a difficult to manufacture wing, very poor V/STOL performance (the major deal breaker), and poor transition abilities. The Pentagon decided that the X-35 represented a more mature platform that showed better capabilities.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7502 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13151 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
Can't help but think that the Super Hornet MYP deal is a quid pro quo to stop Boeing from pestering the DoD with incessant offers of the Silent Eagle.

So what are they going to do about the lack of F-15's and F-16's in the near future, you cannot believe that they will order the F-35 at whatever price LM decides to charge? The F-35 will go the way of the F-22, too expensive to afford, mathematics will become its best weapon as its smaller numbers will somehow force a re-invention of engagement and deployment methods.
The OEM's in the US are facing down the barrel of a gun, the DOD and Air Force want all the bells and whistles they can get, the OEM wants sustainment financial programs, and someone is finally looking at cost. If existing frames are not purchased to make up for the shortfall in a/c because of inflated prices, the US will have to turn to foreign designs when the F-15, F-16 and F-18 go out of production, is there anything else on the drawing board?

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
this is a reminder of what sanity in acquisition looks like.

Naw the process then was still flawed, difference now is that the amount of money compared to current prices seem low, but adjusted for inflation based on the time, it was bad, maybe not as bad but bad.
Google the introduction of the F-18 into Navy service it had a lot of problems some which required political influence to get over the hump, it biggest failing - short legs - was finally addressed more than 10 years into service, imagine that, for a ship borne a/c.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13066 times:

I think Boeing in recent years delivered F18s at spec, price & schedule.

It's the same as at the office.

You have those guys/girls that don't argue but just do the job, a bit faster then you asked for.

It works.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 12946 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
It is a smart move by Boeing and sure to get the attention of Congress as they look at the LM cost overruns of the F-35.

Can't help but think that the Super Hornet MYP deal is a quid pro quo to stop Boeing from pestering the DoD with incessant offers of the Silent Eagle.
Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
So what are they going to do about the lack of F-15's and F-16's in the near future, you cannot believe that they will order the F-35 at whatever price LM decides to charge? The F-35 will go the way of the F-22, too expensive to afford, mathematics will become its best weapon as its smaller numbers will somehow force a re-invention of engagement and deployment methods.

It is not a quid pro quo if Boeing made the price offer for the F/A/EA-18E/F/G. They just want to continue the production line. Nothing wrong with that, it is sort of like the deal LM made with the RAAF last year for their first 24 F-35As.

As far as the F-15SE and F/A-18E/F goes, they are both Gen. 4.5 fighters, equil to or better than most of the current and near to mid future fighters, except the F-22A. There is not much of a need for the Gen. 5 fighters as not to many can afford them, and I question if the F-35A/B/C is truely a Gen. 5 fighter anyway. I doubt it can take on a good Gen. 4 or 4.5 fighter in the hands of a good pilot anyway. These include the F-15, F-16, Typhoon, and several others from Sweden or Russia, it may even have trouble with the F-4s still flying around the world.

Simply because the F-35 is a stealth fighter does not make it a Gen. 5 fighter.

Quoting keesje (Reply 12):
I think Boeing in recent years delivered F18s at spec, price & schedule.

Correct, just ask the RAAF and USN.


User currently offlineKingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12509 times:

X32 couldn't do super sonic flight without removing pieces from the plane used for VTOL and it had an issue with hot air injestion while in hover inducing compressor stalls.

The X35 was able to do VTOL to super sonic flight without maintenance and with the ducted fan it eliminated the hot air injestion because most of the thrust is cold air from above the plane rather then the exhaust.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12458 times:

Quoting KingairTA (Reply 14):
Boeing "slashed" its prices by around 10% in return for the four-year contract.

In the business world, this is what's called a volume discount.



To expand on the volume discount concept:
The four year contract allow Boeing to go to it's supplier and get a discount which is passed along to the Navy.
With the four year contract a supplier can go to a bank and get the necessary lower interest loans for any up-front tooling, raw materials etc . . .

Boeing and suppliers can also incorporate efficiency improvements that may not be approved by the bean counters if only a year to year buy is expected.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12394 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 15):
To expand on the volume discount concept:
The four year contract allow Boeing to go to it's supplier and get a discount which is passed along to the Navy.
With the four year contract a supplier can go to a bank and get the necessary lower interest loans for any up-front tooling, raw materials etc . . .

Boeing and suppliers can also incorporate efficiency improvements that may not be approved by the bean counters if only a year to year buy is expected.

It also should be known that the Navy is running out of F-18C's, they are quickly approaching the time when all of them will not be able to go the boat due they are trapped out and the center barrel replacement is not cost effective and is not adding many hours or traps to the airframes to make it worth the cost and time to do each F-18C and or F-18A+. Do not know if the USMC F-18C's are in the same boat (pardon the pun) since they don't go to the CV's as much.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12392 times:

Just to put out there as a thought, if the ANG goes the F-18SH route would it be a waste of material if they have all the capability to land on a CV and never use it? Will DOD make it possible for the USN to take newer airframes from the guard and give them trapped out birds for long runway use only? Maybe ANG will deploy for a cruise once in a while just for the beuatiful joint duty of it.
" And now for my point"
Buying a Super Hornet IMHO for land use only is a waste of money, some countries have bought the SH but do not own CV's.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12385 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 17):
Buying a Super Hornet IMHO for land use only is a waste of money, some countries have bought the SH but do not own CV's.

The two nation comes to mind is Canada and Australia. These nations have vast territories without proper landing facilities (not unlike the ocean) so the additional engine would come in handy. Now, why an F-18 instead of an F-15? I would not venture to guess.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7502 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 12365 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18):
Now, why an F-18 instead of an F-15? I would not venture to guess.

1. Not offered for sale
2. Too expensive


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3870 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12314 times:

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More 

But wait there's more!

If Boeing is smart, order another 124 within the next hour and get a additional baker's dozen for free, just pay shipping and handling.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12297 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 17):
Maybe ANG will deploy for a cruise once in a while just for the beuatiful joint duty of it.

During the time the ANG units would need to spin up for that training, would the USN make another CVN available for training only?

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 20):
If Boeing is smart, order another 124 within the next hour and get a additional baker's dozen for free, just pay shipping and handling.

Or we can DOUBLE the order, just pay shipping and handling.

              

All this time I thought Billy Mays was dead.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12288 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
During the time the ANG units would need to spin up for that training, would the USN make another CVN available for training only?

Make the Enterprise or the Kitty Hawk training ships, the the oil spill in the gulf with no commerical fishing and a future crack down on drilling we should use that body of water for something.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12267 times:

Now, what is the drawback of a 4 year contract as opposed to buying year to year?

If the Navy decides not to order the full 124 planes, there will be penalty involved.

If you return those planes . . . you pay the shipping charge and re-stocking fee.   



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12856 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12164 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 23):
If you return those planes . . . you pay the shipping charge and re-stocking fee.

All orders are FOB St. Louis Missouri. They come with a full tank of gas and guns loaded so please return them full, and with ejection seats unused or recharged.

As for the restocking fee, 15% of $43 Million is $6.45 Million. Please have your credit card available when you call.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Would you give the US Government another credit card?
26 DEVILFISH : Apparently, they had decided to settle for the Super Hornet in the meantime. I don't think the Government is that helpless. An RFI to a theoretical p
27 par13del : The Navy has ordered F-18's, the US Air Force who are the users of the F-15 and F-15 have not yet addressed their shortage due to lower numbers of F-
28 KC135TopBoom : $100M for the F-15SE? I thought it was about $70M-$75M each. But everyday I am becoming less impressed with the F-35 JSF, as I see it as less capable
29 Post contains images par13del : Question would be what is a Gen.5 fighter, what we have seen is that definitions are redefined based on financial issues, I would not be shocked if t
30 Revelation : For the same reason we can't just re-engine KC-135s to get another decade or two out of them: not enough Corporate Welfare will be created.
31 bikerthai : Corporate welfare will always be there. It's a question of who will get it. (F15 = Boeing, F35/F16 LM) Some corporate welfare provides wepons for our
32 KC135TopBoom : Well, the USAF did this to themselves, just like retiring KC-135Es with still some 15,000 hours and 20 years of service left in them, they have retir
33 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : I stand corrected. That was what they initially came out with..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-costs-for-100-million-f-15se.html http://w
34 par13del : What Boeing should do is to make a couple development F-15 Silent Eagles and have them out there for folks to test fly and see what they can do, if it
35 BMI727 : A one plane fits all idea? That is terrible. It hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now. Asking one plane to do that many roles is silly. Buil
36 BladeLWS : um, F-4 Phantom?
37 Post contains images SeJoWa : Thank you for the explanation! So basically the extra lift fan paid off for Lockheed. I can't see how the normal version would be greatly penalized b
38 Post contains images BMI727 : Had you bothered to read the rest of my post... and Both of those things are exactly what happened to the F-4, but perhaps in the opposite order. Eit
39 Beta : Careful there, Boom! I'm no defender of the F-35 JSF, and you can beat it on the head with many different things, e.g. out-of-control price, delays,
40 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Boeing doesn't appear to be in too much of a hurry now to accomplish that. They actually seem headed for the minimum change/minimum risk direction...
41 Beta : Ditto. Just a guess, I think the Silent Eagle might be forever Silent. That means it will NEVER get off the ppt presentation and brochure pamphlet. A
42 KC135TopBoom : That is what they should do, but in reality, they (Boeing) won't do that. The F-4 started out as a USN fleet defense fighter/interceptor. It was only
43 N328KF : The F-4 was a lousy multi-role fighter. Frankly, the one that has been the most successful was the F-15. Not so much the air superiority variants (A/
44 bikerthai : Specially if the SE is marketed to those countries who may not want, need or be allowed to have the F35. Still if the US Air Force is willing to buy
45 BMI727 : Exactly. Sit down, build the best fighter in the world and then see what else it can do. Scrap that lemon known as the JSF, restart the F-22, develop
46 bikerthai : If they wait too long, then the next plane would be a UAV. Perhaps not as an air superiority fighter but definitely a strike UAV. bikerthai.
47 KC135TopBoom : Yes, a UAV could do the attack mission, as some are doing it now, I just don't see an air superiority UAV for now, the technology just isn't there. S
48 BMI727 : Boeing came out with a couple of concepts, and I think they said that they were "pilot optional."
49 KingairTA : The 117 was shot down because of idiotic strategy. They were confined to a very narrow corridor and the bad guys found out and were able to zero in on
50 BMI727 : Partially. You are right that coalition aircraft flight paths had become very predictable (a factor that also contributed to the loss of an F-16 over
51 KC135TopBoom : Correct, the F-117, B-2, and F-22 have proven that so far.
52 Post contains images Beta : A matter of differing opinions! I never say "Never" in anything, but in this instance I will go out on a limb and boldly predict the Boeing F15 Silen
53 KC135TopBoom : I think the best potential sale of the F-15SE would be to Israel. I would not rule out the USAF either. Budget realities may force them into buying th
54 Post contains images bikerthai : Besides, S. Korea is currently receiving their latest batch of F-15K and will probably not be in the market for anything new soon. Other "rich" F-15
55 JoeCanuck : A/F UAV's will be the next thing. Without a meat sack aboard, they can be built lighter, faster, cheaper, more maneuverable and all around more capabl
56 bikerthai : Visualize a flight conisting of 2 F-22s in formation with several UAV intercepters. The UAV would initiate the fight and the F-22 would mop up the re
57 Beta : Like Japan the Israelis are clamoring for the F22, but unlike Japan I believe they have the political clouts to make that happens sooner or later. Bu
58 N328KF : I'd say that it's actually the opposite. Japan has far more immediate need for advanced fighters, with DPRK, and to a lesser extent, PRC "on her bord
59 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : I doubt the IASDF would go for the Silent Eagle if it'd only be slightly better than their BAZ and RA'AM, given that they get to fit both with their
60 Post contains images bikerthai : Haven't done real home work for 15 years. Now I just let others do the homework for me bikerthai
61 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Further to the above, a new insight re IASDF's planned acquisition of the F-35..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-study-on-size-of-f-35-fl
62 KC135TopBoom : The RAAF only bought the F-18F, the two seat version of the SH. They needed a weapons sytem operator in their jets. Also they do fly other versions of
63 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : I wonder if the RAAF would consider a two-seat F-35 in the future, like the Israelis..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ets-sights-on-two-se
64 Post contains links DEVILFISH : It appears Boeing has a different Super Hornet strategy vis-a-vis Japan..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...an-develop-new-deriviative-of.html
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More
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...
US Navy Orders More Tomahawks posted Fri Apr 4 2003 01:17:43 by STT757
Turkish Navy Orders 17 Seahawks posted Sat Nov 4 2006 15:22:30 by TK787
UK Army, Navy, Orders Future Lynx posted Thu Jun 22 2006 21:43:55 by GDB
Boeing Gets $61 Million Navy T-45C Contract posted Wed Aug 20 2003 00:11:23 by Flyingbronco05
Saudi Arabia Orders 3 More A330 Tankers posted Tue Jul 28 2009 13:15:46 by Scbriml
Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs. posted Tue Jun 17 2008 17:25:31 by Columbia107
Boeing C-18 posted Tue Mar 18 2008 16:01:25 by Pastorino
2 US Navy F/A-18 Just Crashed In Persian Gulf! posted Mon Jan 7 2008 12:40:25 by 777
Boeing Pitches P-8 MMA To Indian Navy posted Thu Apr 13 2006 17:23:19 by N328KF
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format