I would be very doubtful Boeing will scrap the MAX.

I think they’d sooner accept the performance shortfall, pay the penalty on any current performance promises and have strong narrowbody cashflow for the next 10+ years. In this years air show season, I expect the MAX to wipe the floor with NEO for one reason and one reason alone – slot availability.

The technologies aren’t really there yet for a new single-aisle replacement (except interim engines), it would take Boeing about 8-10 years to get one to market, so they’d:

– Be giving NEO a ~6 year headstart.
– Screwing over all MAX signatories and pushing other Boeing incumbent customers toward Airbus.
– Effectively withdrawing from the mass narrowbody market between 2016 and 2024.
– Only achieving an incremental upgrade over NEO, allowing Airbus to kill the 737RS dead with an A30X which can incorporate the revolutionary technologies (such as propfans). That would be quite ironic given the original prediction of the A320’s demise prior to launch!

If so, that’s crazy. Fair wear & tear should have been allowed for.

But the clowns making the mistakes are not fired for being idiots.

🙁

In the proposed defense budget the uSAF had to cut several “nice to have” things to keep the more important stuff funded.
Remember, the USAF is not an airline…if they use a larger than necessary aircraft to get an urgent mission done, no big deal…they don’t have to worry about profit and loss.
There is always more money..tax money…available. :rolleyes:

They’d rather use more fuel and have higher flying costs for the few missions than spend a lot of money on a new airframe.

Sorry JB, completely disagree.

This is a turf war and nothing less. There should be USAF top brass and certain members of the US congress/senate up on charges for this.

If I was the relative of any infantryman killed in action for reasons which could be traced back to inadequate supply, I would be seeking to bring criminal charges against the individuals within the USAF/congress/senate that were involved in this decision.

How can the US public accept the following course of events:

1. US Army request need for ‘last tactical mile’ transport back in 2005. Program called Future Cargo Aircraft.
2. USAF want on board, so in 2006 program renamed Joint Cargo Aircraft and a common airframe is specified. The Army were to lead the joint program office.
3. In 2007, moves were afoot to bring the whole fleet under the control of the USAF.
4. In early 2008, USAF reports emerge saying they will have little actual use for the JCA.
5. In late 2008, the US Army are no longer going to receive the JCA and the cut order will go entirely to the USAF.
6. In 2009, the USAF says not to worry, they’ll get the aircraft out and fulfill the role the Army needs.
7. 2012 – JCA cut altogether and the Army left with nothing.

Realy? Then explain how it has garnered almost the same ammount of orders in half the time as the NEO :confused:

I’m not sure it has.

Firm orders ~= “Commitments” (whatever the fook a commitment is – an MoU?)

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers

Exactly!

There was one scenario where it could have made some sense:
In case SU had captured Iceland, some Tu-22M could have harvest supply cargo a/c going from US to Europe, but would have been toast if any real fighter could reach them

I’d say a MiG-31 would have been the prime weapon for that job.

Buckets of range, and fast enough to outrun any potentially dangerous adversary.

Military users would rather suffer higher operating costs on the missions where a small aircraft could do the job than buy another airlift type.

Well, the RAF have just bought a number of second hand 146s for last-mile transport.

The main drawback of course being side-loading only.

Yep.

Only it’ll be DEWS that will differentiate everything.

– Big enough to generate the power for the lasers.
– Powerful enough to supercruise to enter and leave battlefields quickly.
– Heavy enough to have sufficient armouring to withstand DEW attacks upon it.