"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message hlink.net...
s.p.i. wrote:

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.

I think the Boeing plan is to concentrate more on swaying the actual
users -- hence the barnstorming trips. IMO, this is probably a better (or
at least more palatable) way to spend their marketing money.

For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

I'm not quite sure what lesson is to be drawn here. Cost vs performance is a
perfectly valid issue. As long as they fulfil the threshold requirements,
there's always a trade space where aircraft performance can be balanced
against cost.
The lesson is, when cost becomes the overarching factor in weapons
system procurement, bad things will eventually happen.
Keeping the shareholders happy seems to be a more important
consideration than the combat effectiveness of the airframes being
offered.
Of course ISR assets have always gotten the short shrift when it comes
to survivability. During the Cold War (and even more recently off
Hainan Island), when they met hostile misfortune, it was because of a
miscalculation by one side or the other. Now that they are taking on a
more tactical role, the probability of ISR assets taking fire is
increasing significantly(OP-2E reprise). The role of these aircraft in
achieving combat objectives is also increasing. Given the fact that
only very limited numbers of these aircraft will be procured, and
increasingly very limited numbers of skilled people will be available
to man them, keeping these missions on vulnerable airframes is going
to prove a tragically false economy one day.
Its a bit of a tangential example, but the loss of the Atlantic
Conveyor and the subsequent severe impact to the Brit's operational
plan is one such case of using a vulnerable civil platform in a
hostile environment that turned out very badly.


I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business myself,
and our group did some business with Lexington.)
So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?