I just looked up the number of variants and it says 70 (Seventy)! I don't know if that counts the gunship versions. That's going through the alphabet more than TWICE!![]()
There are a few sub variants that aren’t listed.

I just looked up the number of variants and it says 70 (Seventy)! I don't know if that counts the gunship versions. That's going through the alphabet more than TWICE!![]()
Well, the “ BUFFs” saved us a couple times in RVN. Flying on 130’s we counted the “ rattling rivets”, lol
Now who remembers the Caribou?
I worked Buffs for a long time, primarily the G model. Now all of them lie in pieces in the Boneyard. I also worked KC-135s for many years, primarily the A models and transitioning to the R model. Now most of the tanker tail numbers I worked on in all models are sitting in the desert in AZ. I sincerely hope I go before the last of both aircraft goes to the Boneyard.
I worked Buffs for a long time, primarily the G model. Now all of them lie in pieces in the Boneyard. I also worked KC-135s for many years, primarily the A models and transitioning to the R model. Now most of the tanker tail numbers I worked on in all models are sitting in the desert in AZ. I sincerely hope I go before the last of both aircraft goes to the Boneyard.
Nothing against Brazil, but I don’t like outsourcing for military hardware. Not to mention the potential for lost jobs here.
Well, Boeing still has to build an airplane that doesn't fall apart or crash. Since that seems difficult for them right now, those KC135s might be flying for awhile.
Kind of painting with a broad brush aren't you re; Boeing commercial aircraft?
Worked B-52G as well. And KC-135A, Q, and R. I like the R model. No water injection.![]()
Yep. I'm using a roller for sure, but if a company's civilian products kill people are you really wanting to trust your life to their military products? Keep in mind the new tanker is just a reworked 767. While those haven't been a problem for Boeing, it does bring up doubt as to whether their planes are safe. At least in my mind. You may feel differently.
Licensing production of a foreign design in the US is the way to go, EXCEPT there is nearly always somebody in the Pentagon who applies some NIH, leading to increased weight, cost, and reduced performance. ....
What is NIH?![]()
Ματθιας;142043880 said:You're asking about the C-7 Caribou, the one the US Army used to fly?
Ματθιας;142044012 said:So, you're saying, "If it's a Boeing, you're worried about going".
I should've been a poet...
Wheel falling off any A/C seems to be a lack of proper maintenance by the air lines?????
The bigger question is would we be able to build the Embraer here in the US?I think the Embraer C-390 shows a lot of promise. It has about the same overall footprint of the C-130J with a longer cargo area and shorter wings. Jet power gives more speed and more service ceiling. Supposedly it can lift more than the C-130J, too. How the jets cope with austere runways compared with turboprops is a novel in itself. FOD ingestion must always be a concern with jets, but big props are not immune to damage either, according to the Interwebz.
I wonder if the US is standing pat to see how the C-390 works out for our allies. Right now the word is that the USAF is in major money trouble. The costs of the new ICBM are going ballistic (sorry, couldn't help myself) and the latest F-35 troubles are not helping.
The bigger question is would we be able to build the Embraer here in the US?
Big mistake to be dependent on another country for our military equipment.