Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/26/2001 7:17:45 AM EDT
I heard on the news that the military is to make a decision today as to which design, Lockheed or Boeing, will be selected as the winner in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition. Does anyone have any insight or inside information as to who the winner will be? I'm hoping that Lockheed gets the bid. TIA
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 7:22:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 7:41:55 AM EDT
I am curious to see who wins. God, that Boeing plane is ugly.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 7:57:06 AM EDT
Word has it that Lockheed is the winner, but it won't be officially announced until 4:30 EDT. Maybe they'll be hiring in Ft. Worth, and can help some of us who may be laid off in the near future!
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 8:01:02 AM EDT
Does anyone know what CAD system Lockheed uses?
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 8:10:19 AM EDT
Both will win.....The Air Force will choose one and the Navy will choose the other. Just like the old days between the YF16 and the YF17. The later became FA-18.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 9:19:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: Both will win.....The Air Force will choose one and the Navy will choose the other. Just like the old days between the YF16 and the YF17. The later became FA-18.
View Quote
Unfortunately that won't be the case because 60% of these planes go to the Air Force with the other 40% going to the Navy, Marines, and British. The Air Force has the final say in which design is chosen. I work for a sub-contractor for Boeing, and although the Boeing plane is ugly the VTOL version is completely reliable (I mean hey they make the Harrier) compared to the Lockheed version which had nothing but problems and the DOD almost got rid of the VTOL requirement because of it. Don't think the DOD is a little prejudice do you?[thinking] I think an Air Force General said this "Pilots don't want to fly an elephant, they want a Corvette" which is why Lockheed will probably win. [-!-]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 9:22:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jvic: Does anyone know what CAD system Lockheed uses?
View Quote
Yes, they use CATIA, same as Boeing Seattle, Boeing STL uses Unigraphics, but is also switching to CATIA. Madmortigan
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 9:41:31 AM EDT
I've got a friend who has been working on Lockheed's jet for the last 3 years. He along with all the market analysts say that Lockheeds plane should win hands down but that nothing is certain. They were able to build a base jet platform that could be adapted for all the various military needs, regular take off and landings, carriers, and vertical take off.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 10:11:35 AM EDT
Anyone have pictures?
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 10:22:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 10:17:30 AM EDT by jvic]
Originally Posted By madmortigan:
Originally Posted By jvic: Does anyone know what CAD system Lockheed uses?
View Quote
Yes, they use CATIA, same as Boeing Seattle, Boeing STL uses Unigraphics, but is also switching to CATIA. Madmortigan
View Quote
Darn. I am a Unigraphics guy. I know a few guys in St.Louis, and they are still using UG. CATIA sucks. That's just my closed-minded opinion. [:)]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 11:07:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jvic: Darn. I am a Unigraphics guy. I know a few guys in St.Louis, and they are still using UG. CATIA sucks. That's just my closed-minded opinion. [:)]
View Quote
Yes, I'm a UG driver also, here in STL and Boeing is in the start of switching over to CATIA Version 5. I've seen it and it's alot like Solid Works (another CAD prgram I use) not to bad once you get the hang of it.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 11:10:29 AM EDT
Navy Times "The data then was examined by a 30-person JSF source selection advisory council co-chaired by the Air Force and Navy acquisition chiefs. They then handed in their “score cards” on the two designs to Roche, who will make the final decision. Roche is in the hot seat by luck of the draw, explained JSF program spokeswoman Kathy Crawford. The head of the JSF program office alternates between a Navy admiral and an Air Force general. To make sure no one service controls the “joint” program, the rules are set up so the JSF chief reports to a Pentagon official representing the opposite service, Crawford said. The current JSF chief is Maj. Gen. Michael Hough, a Marine, so he reports to an Air Force acquisition official. Accordingly, Roche, the Air Force secretary, will make the final call. His decision will be based on “the best value for the U.S. government,” Crawford said. Each service will get its own versions of the JSF, but all will be built with the same basic design, parts and technology. The Air Force’s model will be the base version, while the Navy’s will feature beefier construction, slightly larger wings and the heavier landing gear needed for operations aboard aircraft carriers. The Marine Corps’ jet will have a different engine configuration, giving it the ability to take off and land vertically, like the AV-8B Harrier II jump jet. It’s an ambitious goal marked by an ambitious scale. The Pentagon is slated to spend more than $200 billion over the next 20 years to buy 2,852 aircraft. The British Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are full partners as well, contributing money and know-how to the program from the outset. Other NATO allies, including Turkey and the Netherlands, have expressed an interest in participating in development once a final decision has been made. The Marine Corps is scheduled to be the first service to receive the JSF, activating its first JSF squadron in 2010. The Air Force will be next, with its first JSF squadron forming in 2011. The Navy is slated to be last to get the plane. Its first squadrons won’t be activated until 2012. "
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 11:29:53 AM EDT
St. Louis Phantom Works? Oh, you mean McDonnell Aircraft Company. [X] Boeing had to buy McDonnell Douglas to get this one. Just like McDonnell had to "steal" the YF-17 from Northrup. The Boeing design looks to be the better design, it is based on proven technology (AV-8B) with mid ship mounted swivle nozzles. The Lockheed Martin design uses a seperate ducted fan assembly with a clutch and a transmission.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 11:45:26 AM EDT
My dad works in St. Louis.... He was one of the logistical engineers in the early development of the Boeing JSF. I hope Boeing gets it. Lockheed sucks. Shawn
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:37:41 PM EDT
I don't give a crap about politics in these matters. I hope that whatever is adopted, works, and does not needlessly endanger our aviators.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:38:21 PM EDT
Oh contraire! The Lockheed X-35 had minimal down time compared to the Boeing X-32. The X-32 had that interesting and well kown indigestion problem during hover tests. It took a couple days for it to get back in the air. Matter of fact Boeing had to take parts off (the inlet cowling)of the X-32 for the pilot to feel comfortable about doing the hover tests. Considering the X-32 would need a complete redesign of it's wings and horizinal stabilizer if it was selected. With Boeing saying that they'll fix things once they're selected, I don't think that gives folks alot of confidence in the X-32. Boeing admits that the Lockheed X-35..."has tons of more lift" than it's X-32. If the X-35 is selected, Boeing better start pitching the 767 to the Air Force as a replacement tanker, EW and C&C aircraft for the K/C-135. The tests have shown that the X-35 is superior. Talyn
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:42:16 PM EDT
It's 1335 west coast time, still no word.....
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:44:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 12:39:13 PM EDT by madmortigan]
And the winner is............. Lockheed? [frag] Booo!!! [-!-!-]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:44:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:45:11 PM EDT
yes lockheed wins!!!
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:48:46 PM EDT
Yes!! The BEST plane won! Better start memorizing "F-35" folks!! Back to the fish bowl for the Boeing X-32 GUPPY.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:50:28 PM EDT
I repeat...."Boeing better start pitching the 767 to the Air Force as a replacement tanker, EW and C&C aircraft for the K/C-135".
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:51:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Talyn: Yes!! The BEST plane won! Better start memorizing "F-35" folks!! Back to the fish bowl for the Boeing X-32 GUPPY.
View Quote
Not the best plane. The best looking plane. Here again the Air Force used its infulance to push for Lockheed. I don't know how you'd know anything about this living in Idaho. I was staitioned there 3 years and your as far off base as you can be.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:56:33 PM EDT
Respectfully sir, I've got about 30 years of experience/knowledge in aviation technology. Comments putting down Idaho won't get you very far out here. We're not abunch of hay seeds out here & don't care much for sore losers. Regards, Talyn
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 12:58:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 12:53:22 PM EDT by USNJoe]
Not too bad, I think my Lockheed stocks just went up! It's just a matter of time before either Boeing buys out Lockheed or Lockheed buys out Boeing. Boeing makes the F-22 Raptor with Lockheed as the major subcontractor, so now (I'll bet) that Lockheed will have Boeing as the major subcontractor for the F-35. I am an aircraft mech, so I am leary of the whole ducted fan/shaft/transmission thing of the F-35. Oh well, I guess if they can make the Osprey work........
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:02:24 PM EDT
Lockheed makes the F-22 not Boeing.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:03:47 PM EDT
Lockheed Wins [:D]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:04:48 PM EDT
USNJoe, Got it backwards. Lockheed makes the F-22, with Boeing as the major subcontractor. STOVL technology moves ahead with the lifting fan of the F-35 STOVL version. Much lower deck temps while in hover and much greater lifting power with greater bring-back payload.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:09:22 PM EDT
From FOXNews.com Lockheed Wins $200B Jet Fighter Contract Friday, October 26, 2001 Lockheed Martin Corp. on Friday won the largest military contract in U.S. history when the Pentagon awarded the company a deal worth well over $200 billion for the engineering and manufacturing of the next-generation U.S. fighter jet. Lockheed Martin won over rival Boeing in the winner-take-all contest. Conventional wisdom had been favoring Lockheed, the biggest U.S. defense contractor. Boeing, the Pentagon's No. 2 contractor, "could more easily absorb the loss,'' partly because it has an unmanned combat aircraft in the pipeline, likely to be a huge new business, said Stuart McCutchan, publisher of Defense Mergers & Acquisitions, an industry newsletter. United Technologies Corp. is already a winner with both teams using the JSF119 engine made by its Pratt & Whitney unit. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is to be a family of high-performance, low-cost ``stealth'' aircraft, designed to evade radar and to replace Lockheed's F-16, the world's best-selling fighter, and a host of other aging warplanes. The United States and Britain, which has committed $2 billion of its own to development, plan to buy a combined total of 3,002 planes for their air forces, navies and marines in the case of the United States -- purchases valued at more than $200 billion by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. In addition, as many as 3,000 more might be sold to other allies, adding another $200 billion or so to contract's worth over the next 30 years. "All the airplanes on the planet are getting old,'' program director, Marine Maj. Gen. Michael Hough said at the Paris Air Show in June. "We're very optimistic we're going to sell roughly another 3,000 airplanes abroad.'' But Merrill Lynch analyst Bryon Callan said in a report on Tuesday: "We would not be surprised to see a figure that is ultimately one-half or less of this total.'' Initial production was due to begin in about 2005, but could be accelerated as part of the U.S. scramble to meet perceived post-Sept. 11-attack firepower needs in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Even before the United States and Britain began retaliatory airstrikes against targets in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, a panel appointed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had urged that the Navy version of the JSF be rushed to put a radar-evading, ``stealth'' warplane on carriers sooner than scheduled. No orders to speed things up have been received, said Kathy Crawford, a program spokeswoman. Under current plans, the first operational aircraft is to be delivered in 2009 and enter service with the Marines in 2010, with the Air Force in 2011, and with the Navy and Britain in 2012. The program's objectives "seem to be satisfied by both of the designs,'' said Jacques Gansler, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer during much of the competition and now a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland. Reuters and the AP contributed to this report.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:12:03 PM EDT
Damn. damn. damn. My dad's retirement is going to suffer.... He's not on the JSF project now, so he's not really in danger of losing his job, but this still sucks for Boeing. Screw Lockheed. Shawn
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:19:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 1:31:53 PM EDT by madmortigan]
Originally Posted By Talyn: Respectfully sir, I've got about 30 years of experience/knowledge in aviation technology. Comments putting down Idaho won't get you very far out here. We're not abunch of hay seeds out here & don't care much for sore losers. Regards, Talyn
View Quote
Sorry about the flame. I know alot of good people in ID. Just mad because the DOD is making a huge mistake. I know that I would not want to be the Marine pilot who had to get in a plane that in its first VTOL engine test locked-up its ducted fan impeller, and on its second test broke its drive shaft, and on its third test stripped its transmission. I'll be the first one to admitt that the Air Force's version is a very good choice. I just don't think that it happens to be the best choice for every branch of the service. Again very sorry for insulting your intellegance and state. I just wondered where you were getting your info from since you are so far out of the loop in regards to these two companies. I also have 30+ years experiance in avaition technology; Flying, designing, matinance, and manufacturing.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:24:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 1:18:26 PM EDT by RichinCM]
Having worked extensively with both companies, I would say that Boeing would be the better place to work at.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:33:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By srv656s: My dad works in St. Louis.... He was one of the logistical engineers in the early development of the Boeing JSF. I hope Boeing gets it. Lockheed sucks. Shawn
View Quote
[shock]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:47:10 PM EDT
Fellow Employees: Just minutes ago, the Pentagon confirmed to me that the Lockheed Martin team has won the Joint Strike Fighter program—a tremendous victory for our corporation and its partners! I am extremely pleased and proud of our team, which includes Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and many subcontractors. JSF is undoubtedly the most significant program in our collective history, with an approximate life-time value of about $200 billion. This multi-role fighter will serve the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps as well as the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy for many years. It represents a cornerstone of our future defense capability. We are honored that our government customers have entrusted our team to build this revolutionary new aircraft. We will reward that trust by delivering a transformational weapon system that will vastly improve air-power effectiveness and strike capability. Further, we will do so at dramatically reduced cost to the taxpayer. We are most pleased, however, for the brave men and women of the armed forces of the U.S., the U.K., and our allies, especially during this time of conflict around the world. These warfighting heros are the true winners of this competition. As we move into the system design and development (formerly called the manufacturing and engineering development) phase of this program, in which we will produce an initial 22 aircraft, we must build on the momentum of our achievement with continued focus on the cost, schedule and performance commitments we have made to our customers. I have full confidence that our outstanding team will meet all requirements with great proficiency. I want to extend my deep appreciation and hearty congratulations to all of those responsible for this great success and to commend, in particular, the extraordinary leadership of Aeronautics Company President Dain Hancock and JSF Program Manager Tom Burbage, along with the leadership from our key partners – Chris Boardman of BAE Systems and Ralph Crosby of Northrop Grumman – all of whom were instrumental in our victory. I know I speak for all of Lockheed Martin in expressing our thanks for a job well done! [:D]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:55:47 PM EDT
madmortigan, Apology accepted. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. You are right about the problems that popped up during the engine/transmission tests. It's good that they did. As you probably know these occurred prior to any flight tests, were fixed and all STOVL flight tests were flawless. We will all have to keep an eye on how this lift fan tecnology develops. BTW, Aviation Week had a real good series of articles on the X-35 system a few weeks ago. Direct lift, with it's several limitations, is second place for now. I guess we can all argue about which company (management-wise)is best, but I stick to which product performs best, or needs the least amount of work to make it to production. Case in point, Grumman made great planes but had a poor management record. They've been assimilated. I think Lockheed, Boeing & Northrup-Grumman will stay the way they are but be specialists in their respective fields for now. BTW, I am a BIG fan of the old McD-D company and morned it's assimilation. Out of the three versions I think the Navy will be getting the lesser part of the deal, considering they just spent a pile of $$ on the F/A-18E/F. Regards, Talyn PS: Boeing really needs to get on the ball with the 767 as a replacement aircraft for the K/C-135, etc.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 1:56:12 PM EDT
I have to admit that I'm worried for pilots not companies invloved in this program. The F-22 made by Lockheed. Where are the 2 prototype planes they built? Both have crashed and burned. The F-23 made by then McDonnell now Boeing. Where are the 2 prototype planes they built? Still flying with NASA. I just have a gut feeling that this was the wrong choice.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 2:01:06 PM EDT
One F-22 prototype crash on landing due to flight control logic problems in the software. The plane was rebuilt & the software was fixed. The other prototype never crashed & neither have any of the pre- and early production F-22's. The F-23 was made by Northrop. One is flying as a test ship for NASA, the other is a hanger queen somewhere. Talyn
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 2:20:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/27/2001 4:15:04 PM EDT by Striker]
Talyn, I think that I had heard that the Second F-22 crashed not long ago, maybe a month or two. I could be wrong on this, but thats what I heard. Anyone wanting to take a look at both JSF planes can go to [url]http://www.jast.mil/IEFrames.htm[/url] This is the home site of the JSF Progam. And yes, I am still not convinced that the ducted fan is safer than proven technology, but, if you look at aircraft history it has been the leaps in technology that have given us the aircraft that we have today. [blue]just tweeked the link[/blue]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 2:22:25 PM EDT
Sorry but i think that the whole JSF thing is gonna end up as a bad deal for the military. The JSF is a totally atiqate replacement for the F/A-18 hornet and the F-16, but the A-10, what the hell are these guys thinking. Replacing a Heavily armed, Durable , and simple aircraft with a complex stealth fighter that can only carry 2 jadams or it loses its only saving grace is perhaps the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. And what About the Navy, the JSF is going to replace the hornets and then the tomcat is going to be phased out. What is going to protect our carriers, a aircraft with a top speed of barely mcah 1.5 and carries only a handfull of weapons. They had better find an atiquate replacement for the turkey or at the very least upgrade more of them or our carriers are going to be practicly inviting someone to sink them. the Joint Strike fighter is exactly that, a STRIKE FIGHTER, Not a Interceptor and most certianly not a Close air support aircraft. It is politics that are screwing the military all over agian. "Stupid Democrats" - Homer J. Simpson
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 2:34:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Raptor1911: the A-10, what the hell are these guys thinking. Replacing a Heavily armed, Durable , and simple aircraft with a complex stealth fighter that can only carry 2 jadams or it loses its only saving grace is perhaps the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. And what About the Navy, the JSF is going to replace the hornets and then the tomcat is going to be phased out. What is going to protect our carriers, a aircraft with a top speed of barely mcah 1.5 and carries only a handfull of weapons. They had better find an atiquate replacement for the turkey or at the very least upgrade more of them or our carriers are going to be practicly inviting someone to sink them. the Joint Strike fighter is exactly that, a STRIKE FIGHTER, Not a Interceptor and most certianly not a Close air support aircraft. It is politics that are screwing the military all over agian.
View Quote
I agree that it should not in anyway replace the A-10, and that it can't replace the F-14. Yes the Navy needs a plane similar to the F-22 until that happens the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will have to fill that roll. [heavy] I think that the DOD is going crazy over the idea of UAV's way too much and have a sneaking suspicion that they will want UAV's to replace the F-14 in this roll. [?]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 3:07:09 PM EDT
... This is good news. Lockheed Martin may not have survived without it. Although our proposal was superior I believe we lost it because of asthetics and politics.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 3:43:49 PM EDT
why are you against UAVs? I think we should pour more money into UAVs, and military R&D in general. We need both the near term refine proven technology solutions and long term radical departures to maintain our long term strategic advantage. Fighter pilots are expensive to train and we're at a point where the operator, human component of the machine is the weakness. New materials can easily withstand much higher Gs than human pilots, I think that if we pour more money into UAV research we can replace our interceptor fleet completely with UAVs. Also, in this day and age emphasis on fighting irregular forces have detracted too much from air defense. Too much have been shifted to strike capability. If we get into a war with China, and they have plenty of aircraft to throw at us, we'd need a capable interceptor fleet to intercept all those Chinese jets and missiles.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 4:39:52 PM EDT
Dyslix am I guess....... I even read the Lockheed press release on the subject. I read in AWST that the transmission, shaft and clutch assembly were built right to minimum design specs so that the prototype could make it's weight target. The Navy really doesn’t need the STOL or the VTOL of the F-35.... That’s what aircraft carriers are for. While the F-14 has one specific function that no other aircraft has, it is old and outdated. And, history shows that it has never been used in war for that purpose. I am not saying that the reason why it was never used was because we had it in the first place, I am saying that for a weapon that costs as much as it does and for it to never be used for it's intended roll is not a very good use of tax-payers money. The A-10 is a great aircraft when ground and air superiority had been achieved. We have passed the point where sheer numbers of aircraft mean anything for the US Armed Forces. If we wanted a large airforce we would have built millions of P-51 Mustangs.... Like I said, my Lockheed stock just went up....My Boeing stock went down. I wonder if Boeing is going to be a subcontractor for the JSF. "If it's not a C-130 then it's the "other" Lockheed product."
Originally Posted By Talyn: USNJoe, Got it backwards. Lockheed makes the F-22, with Boeing as the major subcontractor.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 6:21:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 6:27:19 PM EDT
I worked on the prototype fuel pump for the lockheed JSF. If the rest of the plane is as cool as the fuel pump it should rock. Lockheed makes some real fun toys. Boeing makes lead sleds of the skys. Guncrazy223 ------------------------------------- Some people are only alive because its illegal to kill them.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 7:56:35 PM EDT
The F-22 will replace the F-15 Eagle The JSF- will replace the F-16/18. Both will do more then hold their own in a fight. Both have totally advanced Technologies. and the JSF should be as meneuverable as the 16/18. These designs will be perfected. As you may remember the F-16 in the beginning lost a number of aircraft due to one(the Strain Gauge Stick, not giving the pilot enough feedback to actually fly the plane) The AOA limiter on the F-16 was placed on it to prevent the Aircraft from taking more then a 25 or 35 degree AOA (it can be turned off in the F-18, it may be able to be turned off in the 16). Furthermore the F-16 for years suffered from wire chaffing which caused a few aircraft to loose controlled flight in midair killing several pilots when wires were not properly protected and wore into inside the airframe. Kinks will be worked out and in the end we will have for both the F-22 and JSF two of the best dogfighter/attack aircraft the world has ever seen. Hands Down. Ben
Link Posted: 10/27/2001 12:14:50 AM EDT
Lockheed C-130!
Originally Posted By AeroE: - What was the last carrier suitable airplane built by Lockheed? Rant off
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/27/2001 1:03:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AeroE: - What was the last carrier suitable airplane built by Lockheed? Rant off
Originally Posted By USNJoe: Lockheed C-130!
View Quote
View Quote
[img]http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/hercules/kc130/bin-1/kc130009.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts/forrestal.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 10/27/2001 7:50:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AeroE: " ... JSF is a bad deal for the taxpayer, and I wouldn't hold my breath until I see an airplane. The EMD airplanes are due in 2008, production is slated for ~2015, however there is a move afoot to move that date back to 2013. How the hell do you get politicians interested in programs that bear fruit in 15 years? Rant off
View Quote
Hey my brutha, do I know you? I spent a fair amount of time in StL before "Big Blue" took over. (you might want to put aside your Unigraphics application and brush up on CATIA)[>Q]
Link Posted: 10/27/2001 10:52:51 AM EDT
If JSF was so important to Boeing they should have made sure that Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Carnahan were not elected last year. Both are far-left anti-defense liberals and I would avoid any defense spending in their states until they are out of office. GunLvr
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top