Originally Posted by
awax
You side stepping R&D costs.
Try this; buy 2 747-800's on the cheap and have the Air Force convert them. Which procurement do you suppose will cost more?
If one-offs weren't costed primarily on R&D expense we'd all be driving Formula One cars to work.
Carry on with your rants.
You are side-stepping rational argument, not frothy nonsense.
Try this; we're still using B-52s , the last of which was produced in 1962! They just keep getting the electronics upgrades they need and are already shielded for nuclear blasts, etc. Oh yeah, they are Boeing products, too.
AF1 R&D.....for what, exactly? What needs to be researched and developed for AF1 that hasn't been already R&D'd for an airplane that has already been developed and is in production?
More importantly, explain to us how Boeing
isn't using this to add a lot of cream and sugar to their bottom line.
Oh and btw.....Obama did this same thing with Sikorsky helicopters when he was the incoming POTUS. In an almost identical circumstance, there was already a gov't contract with Sikorsky for new presidential helicopters that Obama thought was too expensive (ironic in several ways).