Boeing getting out of the fighter Business?

Just trying to scare the pols into buying more Hornets. It's a shame McDonnell Douglas was wasted on Boeing. In hindsight it might have been better if Northrop Grumman had bought them.
 
sferrin said:
Just trying to scare the pols into buying more Hornets. It's a shame McDonnell Douglas was wasted on Boeing. In hindsight it might have been better if Northrop Grumman had bought them.
Click to expand...

That's what you get when you create a joint strike fighter program used by all three branches of the military. The cost savings of economies of scale reduce the number of vendor and model options for the customer. The Department of Defense knew what they were doing and the consequences to the industrial base. They now have to live with the consequences. Lockheed Martin will be the last manned fighter vendor standing. Northrop Grumman was an acquisition target for Lockheed Martin in 1998 until federal regulators rejected the merger. Plus mergers and consolidation are capitalism. Divisions and subsidiaries will stick around so long as they are profitable.
 
Shocking news if true. Anyone know who will buy the various parts of Boeings military business? Lockheed or Northrop for the Phantom Works?
 
sferrin said:
Just trying to scare the pols into buying more Hornets. It's a shame McDonnell Douglas was wasted on Boeing. In hindsight it might have been better if Northrop Grumman had bought them.
Click to expand...
Northrop didn't have a commercial side to fall back on. Buying out McDonnell Douglas might have doomed them both.
 
Perhaps Northrop Grumman would be in better shape if Dick Cheney hadn't killed the F-14 Tomcat or if the company would have had a different suitor in the defense sector consolidation of the 1990s.

It seems that most people couldn't get past the fact that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 was based on a European airliner, the Airbus A330 MRTT, even though it would be built by an American contractor in the United States. The same goes for the A380-based VC-X which is now going to be another Boeing 747. There would be a Northrop Grumman factory in Mobile, Alabama now rather than an Airbus factory.

I don't know why Northrop Grumman spun off its Newport News, Ingalls, and Avondale shipbuilding assets as a new company Huntington Ingalls Industries.

Is the Hughes Helicopter portion of McDonnell Douglas still doing well for Boeing?
 
Today we only have the choice of the Lockheed Martin F-35C or Boeing F-18 Advanced Super Hornet for an American-built fighter. Maybe we would have been better off if JSF had stayed CALF and the Navy had been able to proceed with A/X or the later A/F-X. The JSF program determined the last company standing. F/A-XX is too far in the future to prevent layoffs in St. Louis. I don't know if Typhoon is the last product of the Eurofighter consortium. Perhaps NGAD will be a contest between Lockheed Martin and Dassault or a successor consortium of Eurofighter?
 
It is sad to hear that Boeing may stop designing new fighters, but I think two competitors would be enough in the U.S.. In Europe there will be only one fighter which will be made by a consortium of all BAe, Dassault, Airbus D&S and Alenia.
 
Triton said:
Today we only have the choice of the Lockheed Martin F-35C or Boeing F-18 Advanced Super Hornet for an American-built fighter. Maybe we would have been better off if JSF had stayed CALF and the Navy had been able to proceed with A/X or the later A/F-X. The JSF program determined the last company standing. F/A-XX is too far in the future to prevent layoffs in St. Louis. I don't know if Typhoon is the last product of the Eurofighter consortium. Perhaps NGAD will be a contest between Lockheed Martin and Dassault or a successor consortium of Eurofighter?
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the F-15? The F-15SA in particular is a peach.
 
marauder2048 said:
Triton said:
Today we only have the choice of the Lockheed Martin F-35C or Boeing F-18 Advanced Super Hornet for an American-built fighter. Maybe we would have been better off if JSF had stayed CALF and the Navy had been able to proceed with A/X or the later A/F-X. The JSF program determined the last company standing. F/A-XX is too far in the future to prevent layoffs in St. Louis. I don't know if Typhoon is the last product of the Eurofighter consortium. Perhaps NGAD will be a contest between Lockheed Martin and Dassault or a successor consortium of Eurofighter?
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the F-15? The F-15SA in particular is a peach.
Click to expand...

Of course, another legacy product from Boeing's merger with McDonnell Douglas. Even after a big marketing push to South Korea, the F-15 Silent Eagle lost to the Lockheed Martin F-35. The United States Air Force having zero interest in procuring new F-15s. The 84 F-15SA fighters for Saudi Arabia will probably be the last production F-15s.
 
Triton said:
Perhaps Northrop Grumman would be in better shape if Dick Cheney hadn't killed the F-14 Tomcat or if the company would have had a different suitor in the defense sector consolidation of the 1990s.



Is the Hughes Helicopter portion of McDonnell Douglas still doing well for Boeing?
Click to expand...

If Cheney hadn't killed the F-14, Grumman would have lasted longer as an independent and would have been in a stronger position to deal with potential partners. Who knows? If Grumman had still been independent, it might have picked up MDD, who was in sorry shape after not making it to the finals on JSF. You would have then had a really strong military aircraft company. Would have turned out better for Boeing as well. Or, you might have ended up with Northop MDD which would have been an even better military pairing, and they had a successful history of working together (reportedly GD-MDD paired on ATA because the gov't told them to).

Regarding the former Hughes helicopter, the Apache keeps winning international competitions. Of course one has to wonder what will follow that product, which is probalby parlty why Boeing got interested in JMR
 
Triton said:
Today we only have the choice of the Lockheed Martin F-35C or Boeing F-18 Advanced Super Hornet for an American-built fighter. Maybe we would have been better off if JSF had stayed CALF and the Navy had been able to proceed with A/X or the later A/F-X.
Click to expand...

Amen (on the opinion of how it affected Boeing and our fighter manufacturers, not wanting to get into an F-35 furball here).
 
Triton said:
marauder2048 said:
Triton said:
Today we only have the choice of the Lockheed Martin F-35C or Boeing F-18 Advanced Super Hornet for an American-built fighter. Maybe we would have been better off if JSF had stayed CALF and the Navy had been able to proceed with A/X or the later A/F-X. The JSF program determined the last company standing. F/A-XX is too far in the future to prevent layoffs in St. Louis. I don't know if Typhoon is the last product of the Eurofighter consortium. Perhaps NGAD will be a contest between Lockheed Martin and Dassault or a successor consortium of Eurofighter?
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the F-15? The F-15SA in particular is a peach.
Click to expand...

Of course, another legacy product from Boeing's merger with McDonnell Douglas. Even after a big marketing push to South Korea, the F-15 Silent Eagle lost to the Lockheed Martin F-35. The United States Air Force having zero interest in procuring new F-15s. The 84 F-15SA fighters for Saudi Arabia will probably be the last production F-15s.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the USAF is closely monitoring the F-15S to F-15SA upgrades; the USAF is after all, helping to recertificate the entire F-15 flight regime for the SA.

In any event, I'm amazed that you (Triton) have neglected to mention that Obama killed the F-22 and Boeing's extensive aerostructure workshare on that aircraft as a consequence. If you want to maintain design and manufacturing expertise useful for future fighter development perhaps the F-22 line was more important to preserve
than a line assembling a 90's era rehash of a 70's era design.
 
What has really happened this year is actually quite obvious, if you look at it from Chadwick's perspective. He's got lots of things out there that he can win, one of them huge and near-term, so that's where he's going to deploy his troops.

Even if the Navy scrapped the F-35C tomorrow, the number of extra SHs that he would sell is not that large, and it doesn't carry you far into the 2020s.
 
marauder2048 said:
If you want to maintain design and manufacturing expertise useful for future fighter development perhaps the F-22 line was more important to preserve
than a line assembling a 90's era rehash of a 70's era design.
Click to expand...

It's not the line, but the people from it that you need to maintain.

That, along with the developers, suppliers, maintainers, etc.

If they had continued producing the F-22 for the sake of keeping the line open, they would be stuck with 80's tech for the most part. However, LM did not have to lose anything since they were able to transfer many of the developers, workforce, etc to the F-35 line, which for all intents and purposes is a higher technology and more efficient plane & production line.

With LM's experience now with two different 5th gen fighters, they are in a VERY good position going forward.

Maybe Boeing just read the writing on the wall.
 
marauder2048 said:
In any event, I'm amazed that you (Triton) have neglected to mention that Obama killed the F-22 and Boeing's extensive aerostructure workshare on that aircraft as a consequence. If you want to maintain design and manufacturing expertise useful for future fighter development perhaps the F-22 line was more important to preserve than a line assembling a 90's era rehash of a 70's era design.
Click to expand...

Well if you are going to start picking nits, stopping production of the F-22 at 187 operational aircraft was also advocated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (Republican) , first appointed by President George W Bush, and Senator John McCain of Arizona (Republican). In 2006, Secretary of Defense Donald H Rumsfeld, appointed by President George W Bush, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner (Republican) wanted to stop F-22 production. So don't try to pin this decision entirely on President Obama.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his defense adviser, former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman wanted to re-start the F-22 production line.

Further, the F-22 was never the intended replacement of the F-16, the AV-8B, or the F/A-18. But hey, if you want to go through every program decision since the President George HW Bush Administration, I'm game.
 
Triton said:
Well if you are going to start picking nits, stopping production of the F-22 at 187 operational aircraft was also advocated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (Republican) , first appointed by President George W Bush, and Senator John McCain of Arizona (Republican). In 2006, Secretary of Defense Donald H Rumsfeld, appointed by President George W Bush, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner (Republican) wanted to stop F-22 production. So don't try to pin this decision entirely on President Obama.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his defense adviser, former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman wanted to re-start the F-22 production line.

Further, the F-22 was never the intended replacement of the F-16, the AV-8B, or the F/A-18. But hey, if you want to go through every program decision since the President George HW Bush Administration, I'm game.
Click to expand...

Who is nitpicking? The F-22 line was one of the few hot production lines terminated by Presidential fiat for partisan, political reasons (it was a nasty "cold war weapons system") that had nothing to do with force requirements or harsh strategic realities. The fact that a bunch of Navy-oriented (R)s didn't care for it changes nothing.

Boeing was again injured when the Obama administration blocked Saudi Arabia's request for the F-15SE the development of which the Saudis were fully prepared to pay for. Had that deal gone through it may very well have altered the outcomes of other fighter competitions.

It should be pointed out that Boeing had no objection to participating in the winner-take-all JSF competition despite the very clear implications to the fighter industrial base.

The F-22 is highly relevant in that the quantity and quality of the F-22s available collectively has a major impact on the manner in which F-16/AV-8B/F-18 replacement fleet is employed operationally against a high end threat. Romney and Lehman appreciated that reality and it's something that Gen. Hostage has voiced recently and repeatedly.
 
Ok, I've cleaned up this thread from attempts to restart the F-35 debate here again.
Please, stop yourself from getting into that discussion again ! Pretty sure, Boeings
fighter business can be discussed without any need to quarrel about the RCS of other
types !
 
SpudmanWP said:
marauder2048 said:
If you want to maintain design and manufacturing expertise useful for future fighter development perhaps the F-22 line was more important to preserve
than a line assembling a 90's era rehash of a 70's era design.
Click to expand...

It's not the line, but the people from it that you need to maintain.

That, along with the developers, suppliers, maintainers, etc.

If they had continued producing the F-22 for the sake of keeping the line open, they would be stuck with 80's tech for the most part. However, LM did not have to lose anything since they were able to transfer many of the developers, workforce, etc to the F-35 line, which for all intents and purposes is a higher technology and more efficient plane & production line.

With LM's experience now with two different 5th gen fighters, they are in a VERY good position going forward.

Maybe Boeing just read the writing on the wall.
Click to expand...

Of course, you are completely correct; people are the most important part. But part of recruiting and retaining top talent is keeping them interested and engaged on designing and developing the latest and (hopefully) greatest. To Boeing's credit they spend more on defense IRAD than their peers and to LowObservable's point there are nearer term prospects that will satisfy the recruitment and retention issues I mentioned.
 
One might add that "recruitment and retention" is an important element of Boeing's LRSB strategy.
 
LowObservable said:
One might add that "recruitment and retention" is an important element of Boeing's LRSB strategy.
Click to expand...
Given the heat that LM and the USAF gets for the "monopoly" LM has over next generation fighters, I can't see them getting a hand in the bomber program as well (even if they do manage to put forth the best design). I think it's Northrop Grumman's to lose.
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
I think it's Northrop Grumman's to lose.
Click to expand...

Losing their RCS facility put a gigantic dent in their chances.
Click to expand...

What? How'd that happen?
Click to expand...

California solar project killed the range.
Click to expand...

"Antonovich cited an e-mail from the Pentagon that described the dispute as "a private matter between public parties and Los Angeles County in which the Department of Defense has no position.""
Either it wasn't that big of a deal or somebody at the DoD needs firing.
 
For Northrop it was a VERY VERY big deal. Remember their "secret" Florida project? They were so pissed off that they were going to build NGB in Florida, but then Lockheed snuck in a gigantic California tax break. California has since offered Northrop that tax break too, but Northrop is still pretty screwed without their RCS range.
 
Interesting to watch this discussion. Technology does move on, as does the environment.
 
I think the winner take all jsf program was a bit of a give away that this could happen. There's a great scene at the end of the pbs documentary about the competition where Boeing's CEO gets the call (from the defence secretary?) advising them that they've lost, just as he's saying goodbye he meekly asks "is it still a winner take all deal? It is? Yeah...oh. ok, thanks, bye".

I'm not sure what was expected, if the program went smoothly it was going to eat almost every US fighter dollar for decades, I remember people talking about LM becoming the only game in town even back then. What was the reason behind not apportioning at least a little work to the looser when there was such an obvious risk of a monopoly forming?

I think part of the problem is a lack of imagination though. JSF is quickly pricing itself out of a bunch of markets that SAAB and dassult and UAC will walk right into. There is room for a modern F-5 equivalent for export for certain. Boeing could be doing a lot that doesn't depend on JSF failure but could build on it when and where it happens. I think a new A-10/CAS/COIN style aircraft would fit into that category.

I agree this is a cry for help as much as it's an actual portent of doom but JSF isn't the whole world wide fighter game and the sooner Boeing stop acting that way the better.
 
phrenzy said:
I think the winner take all jsf program was a bit of a give away that this could happen. There's a great scene at the end of the pbs documentary about the competition where Boeing's CEO gets the call (from the defence secretary?) advising them that they've lost, just as he's saying goodbye he meekly asks "is it still a winner take all deal? It is? Yeah...oh. ok, thanks, bye".

I'm not sure what was expected, if the program went smoothly it was going to eat almost every US fighter dollar for decades, I remember people talking about LM becoming the only game in town even back then. What was the reason behind not apportioning at least a little work to the looser when there was such an obvious risk of a monopoly forming?

I think part of the problem is a lack of imagination though. JSF is quickly pricing itself out of a bunch of markets that SAAB and dassult and UAC will walk right into. There is room for a modern F-5 equivalent for export for certain. Boeing could be doing a lot that doesn't depend on JSF failure but could build on it when and where it happens. I think a new A-10/CAS/COIN style aircraft would fit into that category.

I agree this is a cry for help as much as it's an actual portent of doom but JSF isn't the whole world wide fighter game and the sooner Boeing stop acting that way the better.
Click to expand...

Boeing would be doing itself a favor by doing something like Sikorsky is doing with its S-97 Raider. Identify a market and build a demonstrator (that's NOT based on old aircraft). It's not like Boeing is hurting for cash or anything.
 
Why do you need 3 different U.S. companies making military airplanes, anyway (assuming you would find different jobs for the employees)? Current and future programs are already and will be done by several companies working together, since one company cant take the risk going broke on one aircraft.
 
sferrin said:
Boeing would be doing itself a favor by doing something like Sikorsky is doing with its S-97 Raider. Identify a market and build a demonstrator (that's NOT based on old aircraft). It's not like Boeing is hurting for cash or anything.
Click to expand...

What would the market be?

Boeing could go for strategic partnerships with South Korea on KF-X, or help SAAB build a stealth version of the Gripen. But in both cases, Boeing may be blocked by the US government in the government's attempt to save the F-35's market.

Maybe a fighter project for Poland? To build a cheaper lightweight stealth fighter?

As for Boeing leaving the fighter business, what are the odds the USN pushes forward F/A-XX long term R&D to keep Boeing in business?
 
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
Boeing would be doing itself a favor by doing something like Sikorsky is doing with its S-97 Raider. Identify a market and build a demonstrator (that's NOT based on old aircraft). It's not like Boeing is hurting for cash or anything.
Click to expand...

What would the market be?

Boeing could go for strategic partnerships with South Korea on KF-X, or help SAAB build a stealth version of the Gripen. But in both cases, Boeing may be blocked by the US government in the government's attempt to save the F-35's market.

Maybe a fighter project for Poland? To build a cheaper lightweight stealth fighter?

As for Boeing leaving the fighter business, what are the odds the USN pushes forward F/A-XX long term R&D to keep Boeing in business?
Click to expand...

Given that these days Boeing is a distant 3rd behind LM and NG I don't know that the USN would see it as a good investment.
 
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
Boeing would be doing itself a favor by doing something like Sikorsky is doing with its S-97 Raider. Identify a market and build a demonstrator (that's NOT based on old aircraft). It's not like Boeing is hurting for cash or anything.
Click to expand...

What would the market be?

Boeing could go for strategic partnerships with South Korea on KF-X, or help SAAB build a stealth version of the Gripen. But in both cases, Boeing may be blocked by the US government in the government's attempt to save the F-35's market.

Maybe a fighter project for Poland? To build a cheaper lightweight stealth fighter?

As for Boeing leaving the fighter business, what are the odds the USN pushes forward F/A-XX long term R&D to keep Boeing in business?
Click to expand...

The market would be for every current friendly developing county in the world that is friendly or wants to become friendly with the US but can't afford F-35s. Almost every everywhere that's been flying F-5s and A-4s or has been using old and second hand f-16s or f/a-18s that are going to either need replacing or upgrading in the next 10-20 years. Plenty of smaller SEA countries could use a small but effective modern f/a platform that can drop precision munitions and launch modern missiles thats in the <$25m range including everything needed to have it up and wishing abroad.
The best part is that you lock them into munitions sales into the future.

Small and simple to maintain with performance somewhere between the f-5 and f-16 with a little rcs reduction built in from the start but built new from the ground up to be straightforward and simple to maintain with export to smaller countries in mind.

This is where a lot of the gripen sales have been coming from and you can't deny there will be a need for aircraft all over when the hand me down US aircraft start hitting a brick wall in terms of service hours.

I suppose in another 10 years the us will have plenty of new second hand f-16s to market, most of them in modern spec. but I think there's a gap in the market there.
 
sublight is back said:
For Northrop it was a VERY VERY big deal. Remember their "secret" Florida project? They were so pissed off that they were going to build NGB in Florida, but then Lockheed snuck in a gigantic California tax break. California has since offered Northrop that tax break too, but Northrop is still pretty screwed without their RCS range.
Click to expand...

How hard would it be for Northrop to setup a new test facility? Are there any other facilities around?
 
phrenzy said:
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
Boeing would be doing itself a favor by doing something like Sikorsky is doing with its S-97 Raider. Identify a market and build a demonstrator (that's NOT based on old aircraft). It's not like Boeing is hurting for cash or anything.
Click to expand...

What would the market be?

Boeing could go for strategic partnerships with South Korea on KF-X, or help SAAB build a stealth version of the Gripen. But in both cases, Boeing may be blocked by the US government in the government's attempt to save the F-35's market.

Maybe a fighter project for Poland? To build a cheaper lightweight stealth fighter?

As for Boeing leaving the fighter business, what are the odds the USN pushes forward F/A-XX long term R&D to keep Boeing in business?
Click to expand...

The market would be for every current friendly developing county in the world that is friendly or wants to become friendly with the US but can't afford F-35s. Almost every everywhere that's been flying F-5s and A-4s or has been using old and second hand f-16s or f/a-18s that are going to either need replacing or upgrading in the next 10-20 years. Plenty of smaller SEA countries could use a small but effective modern f/a platform that can drop precision munitions and launch modern missiles thats in the <$25m range including everything needed to have it up and wishing abroad.
The best part is that you lock them into munitions sales into the future.

Small and simple to maintain with performance somewhere between the f-5 and f-16 with a little rcs reduction built in from the start but built new from the ground up to be straightforward and simple to maintain with export to smaller countries in mind.

This is where a lot of the gripen sales have been coming from and you can't deny there will be a need for aircraft all over when the hand me down US aircraft start hitting a brick wall in terms of service hours.

I suppose in another 10 years the us will have plenty of new second hand f-16s to market, most of them in modern spec. but I think there's a gap in the market there.
Click to expand...

It was reported in the local Wichita press that Boeing had a hand in designing and developing the Textron Scorpion which can accommodate a swept wing and higher
thrust engines. No price was quoted for that configuration but $25 mil doesn't seem outrageous...
 
Given that these days Boeing is a distant 3rd behind LM and NG
File that statement under "Interesting".

It was reported in the local Wichita press that Boeing had a hand in designing and developing the Textron Scorpion...
Is there a citation for that?
 
LowObservable said:
Given that these days Boeing is a distant 3rd behind LM and NG
File that statement under "Interesting".
Click to expand...

When's the last time Boeing had a stealth aircraft in production?
 
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
Given that these days Boeing is a distant 3rd behind LM and NG
File that statement under "Interesting".
Click to expand...

When's the last time Boeing had a stealth aircraft in production?
Click to expand...

All those people at the Phantom Works facility in St. Louis aren't there for fun. I'm sure they've built a spook or two....
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
Given that these days Boeing is a distant 3rd behind LM and NG
File that statement under "Interesting".
Click to expand...

When's the last time Boeing had a stealth aircraft in production?
Click to expand...

All those people at the Phantom Works facility in St. Louis aren't there for fun. I'm sure they've built a spook or two....
Click to expand...
So, "never". Thus, my 3rd place comment. The fact that Boeing is teamed with LM on the new bomber (no doubt for their stealth expertise) is evidence of that.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom