Posted on 07/12/2010 11:09:00 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
One year ago, a nascent F-15 Silent Eagle programme needed to be rescued from what seemed like an internal crisis of confidence given away by a stray comment made by a top Boeing executive.
Tom Bell, a business development director briefing reporters at the Paris air show, pronounced as "premature" a previously announced flight-test schedule to certificate the Silent Eagle's three key technologies: conformal weapons bays; an electronic warfare upgrade; and possibly canted tails. Bell's statement also contradicted a lower-ranking Boeing official, F-15 director Brad Jones, who had only a week earlier said that its first flight was planned in the first quarter of 2010.
According to Bell, Boeing had made no real internal commitment to funding Silent Eagle flight tests and, despite organising a dramatic public roll-out three months earlier, the F-15SE programme could still fall victim to internal funding cuts. "We're not at a point in the programme where we have a definitive path forward," Bell said.
Whether Bell spoke out of turn or mixed up his facts, the potentially damning statement became a blessing in disguise for F-15SE proponents. Just hours after the comment was reported, the Silent Eagle received a political trump card within the company: a personal endorsement by none other than Jim Albaugh, then president and chief executive of Boeing's defence business.
On 17 June 2009 Albaugh reaffirmed Boeing's commitment to the Silent Eagle. He indicated for the first time that a maiden flight for the F-15SE would be delayed by about six months, apparently so Boeing could engage potential suppliers and risk-sharing partners.
But the key message Albaugh sent on behalf of the programme was definitive: Boeing was committed to and investing in the future of the Silent Eagle.
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
Ping
Another WASTE of taxpayer money.More garbage on the runway!
This is a fantastic plane.
How is it a waste of taxpayer money? It’s an internal project from Boeing, developed without any government subsidy.
Short of promoting Boeings marketing attempts of pushing the F-15SE/G which is still one of the best planes ever produced and proven in real world operations! Nonetheless, newer advisories are about, yet not proven.
I am absolutely certain there are clear statistics on cost effectiveness and performance analysis regarding the F-16, 15, 18 and possibly enough on the 22 over the years, the manufactures and Government should make the statistics known so that a clear case for best solution can be made (and yes I am aware of the overall market dynamics).
I believe that for every set of Boeing F-15SE or G, MD F-18E/F/G, LM F-35 or combo which roles off production, about a 4-1 mix there should be a LM-F-22; this would make an exceptionally well rounded F/A solution.
Huh?
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.