Posted on 09/19/2014 11:14:41 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Boeing Co. BA +0.48% , which has built military planes for almost a century, is preparing for the prospect of a fighter-less future.
The steadfast commitment of the U.S. and many allies to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program made by Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT +0.60% is drying up funding for Boeing's fighters. Now, the head of Boeing's defense unit is preparing a road map that would concede the fighter market to Lockheed and pin the business's future on other aircraft, including military versions of its commercial jetliners.
"You have to face reality," Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing, Defense, Space & Security, said of the company's shifting focus in an interview in July.
Boeing's fighters are still heavily used today—its F/A-18 jets have been leading U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq. But it faces a dearth of new orders. Production of the F/A-18 could end in 2017, while the last batch of F-15s bound for Saudi Arabia are due to roll off the production line in 2019.
The company is considering slowing production to keep the F/A-18 line running a little longer in the hope it can persuade the Pentagon to fund some additional purchases for the Navy. This could also buy time for a handful of potential international customers—notably Canada and Denmark—to decide on planned fighter buys
Boeing has said it may decide by April whether to end F/A-18 production at the St. Louis, Mo., plant that makes both fighters. "We're still solidly behind them," Mr. Chadwick said in an interview Thursday following an earlier report by The Wall Street Journal. He believes the F/A-18 can be sustained through the end of the decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Well, at least someone has a clue. Lockheed et al exist because Washington doesn't want to be responsible for employing hundreds of thousands of specialized engineers that can't be laid off - no matter how obsolete their jobs may be.
Boeing manufactured major sub-assemblies of the F-22. And they have built scads of prototypes. You are only correct in so far as they have not had a major contract for a complete airframe in a long time.
Monica! As ugly as it was, the vortex lift leading edge spoiler that popped up on top of the wing is really innovative and patented if my memory is correct. When this program was going on, I totally let that detail slip through unseen. I think their is room for a “Delta” wing in our various service branches especially it the folding wing is done right, they will take up a very small footprint on a Carrier. Imagine this as a low wing with side air-inlets or Yf-23-ish inlets, that might have worked.
No doubt it had some technical advancements, so did the Edsel.
Another fact to consider is when our jets land in a foreign land the appearance of projection of power come into play. When every dog within miles run up to the jet and start humping the landing gear the power thing doesn’t work.
I concur; I heard someone guess that the reason it was abandoned wasn't the cost, but that its Air Superiority role was so far ahead of the rest of the world that it'd bolster our military capabilities too much. (That is, it was too competent in the role it was designed for.)
Whereas, it seems the F-35 is essentially the planned obsolescence/inferiority
so that during the plane's lifetime more and more money can be poured into it to make up for its deficiencies — think the M-16 platform and how much time/effort/money has been poured on it to make it acceptable.
Yes, I did use a bad reference. Someone else pointed that out. Thank you.
All these comments of mine are layman thoughts.
I agree with your comments.
It seems to me the idea of producing the F-22s is deterrence. Whatever happened to that line of reasoning?
You produce those sorts of aircraft to discourage Russia or China from bothering to try to compete.
Build one that doesn’t look pregnant.
Well, correct so far.....
"Several squadrons are on active duty and certified."
Whoa....you just left the rails. While several squadrons are operating them, they are ALL for test and training. They may be 'certified' to fly, but not for anything else.
They are YEARS from being operationally accepted.
It’s tough for a country that UNILATERALLY DISARMS to have much of a military infrastructure, as we’re now seeing...
Or flying cars for the rest of us.
if you don't work for the feds you must never have seen how the government runs its repair centers, you've never seen how the feds account for time or dollars, and you've never seen how a bureaucracy of unionized workers can lose things, cover errors, stifle individuals, and bury production in paperwork.
I have direct experience in or with five maintenance centers in two branches and contracts under almost every government hardware procurement system and customer you can name.
We're a long way beyond a time when one dedicated officer could develop a new rifle at an isolated arsenal, write to a manufacturer for arms for his troops, or influence design of the next model Colt.
Hint:
The government mantra is profit-bad, no profit-good. In their hands that translates into making sure losses are explained by procedures, physical plant is justified (even if not used), staffing is up to (drives) budget, and hours are spread until they cover labor cost demand. Procurement costs are driven by a combination of specifications that try to define every needed element without understanding or knowing what is required to do it, and suppliers who know that there is money to be made by finding answers to the inevitable errors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.