What is wrong with Boeing?

a reply to: Zaphod58

It was from the same source as the person I replied to, so was just going by that. I havent seen any actual figures.

I was under the impression that the X was basically a slave to F-35 or F22 jets...as opposed to a standalone platform. @4 external missiles is gonna have a radar cross section the size of a warship! LOL

a reply to: lakenheath24

He and I have discussed that source repeatedly. Lots of right information, lousy conclusions.

Supposedly the new F-15s are for the homeland alert mission, but we all know that is utter bull#. These will be the first deployed and will be relied on more than any other F-15s in the inventory. They won't have a choice but to. And they won't be deployed in support of F-22s and F-35s.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was on mobile, so that was easiest to grab with the exact number.

Rogoway often has great sources, but where he goes after that...man. it hurts. it hurts a lot.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not in support of....but in conjunction with. The 35's and 22's will be able to deploy all the weapons off the 15x. So send in a 4 ship with nearly 100 missiles...all slaved to one or two Raptors.


That's supposedly the design thinking anyway.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Boeing does all the stealth work on the f35 so if there is a problem then its theirs.

Try Lockheed Martin.

a reply to: lakenheath24

And we all know that's rarely going to happen. The real advantage is if they manage to put hypersonic weapons on them in the future. The only way they'd use them as a missile truck like that, and have them be both useful and survivable, is to extend the range of current missiles, which has been DOA repeatedly.

a reply to: lakenheath24

But that's not what they are saying now.

They are planning on it doing homeland AD.

Their story changes so fast, it's damned ridiculous.

Suddenly, it became an industrial base consideration as well: Boeing is still building Rhinos and has the T-X and apparently, that's not enough to support Boeing's industry. (*cough*bull#*cough*)

The NGAD (USAF) is /well/ under way.

The NGF (USN) is also starting up (AOA done in months).

That money would be better spent on Valkyries or the Boeing Loyal Wingman than on Eagles as weapons carriers. You can get 30 Valkyries or 9 LW for the price of one. Or 372 Valkyries /right/now/ for what they are spending on the first 8 or 111 BOEING Loyal Wingman birds. Either case, more munitions will be carried for the same price.

Alternately, a new attack bird and/or interceptor for the navy or tactical bomber for the USAF if industrial considerations are what's driving this.

Hell, even RR's suggestion to revive the F-32 is a better.

Buying the 15X is beyond stupid.

There is no accountability in Corporate America when banks are bailed out with taxpayer dollars and low bids are accepted for military hardware. What do you expect when "kickbacks" rule the day and not "quality" products....bring on those government contracts, we have super bowl tickets for ya!

International Capitalism now only favors the corps, not the ultimate end user.

Who's prepared for the next bubble to pop?

Boeing has always been run by overpowering egotists that are really good at passing the blame or denying any responsibility. I think they are getting worse lately though for some reason, I think the fragility of electronic sensors and the crazy need to increase technology to look superior is causing them to have more problems now.

Our whole society is going technology nuts.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I worked for a sub-contractor for Boeing in the late 80's. They kept telling us that our parts were wrong

I worked for a relatively small company for a time that was frequently asked to do various forms of work for Boeing (both commercial and defense). I won't go into the details because some aspects may still be sensitive, but Boeing made one particular relatively simple project into a massive headache because they could not seem to make up their mind on what they wanted. "That works great, just like we asked. Can you make it do this instead? How about this , but maybe it takes up less space and weighs less? Well, ideally, it'd be cheaper to add this capability"
They probably funded our entire company's operations for over two years (and we all love money), but it was hands down the worst project management I've experienced (followed closely by Airbus asking for a similar thing). We were asked to provide a capability they were exploring for their commercial fleet as a feature or option in new aircraft or able to be retrofitted.
After buckets of money and ~2 years looking at a million different ways they asked us to try to do one specific thing (which we had taken about a month to figure out what we considered the most reasonable method in terms of price, weight, space per the first requirement), as far as I am aware one single variation of this was eventually employed on two well-known aircraft. I don't think we ever manufactured or sold a single related product to or through Boeing.
I do think we eventually got a couple of somewhat related things out the door for end customers that took advantage of all our mostly unnecessary experience, but nothing for Boeing. They had spent Brinks trucks worth of money evaluating a myriad of different options on the premise they were going to offer this fleet wide as a standard or customer option.
Massive headache, but lucrative (for us, not Boeing). Airbus was only slightly better. Probably tied in terms of competence, but we did less work for them, so it didn't seem as obnoxious, and those European guys always bought nice lunches and had impeccable manners. Haha Boeing defense was much better, but still the worst of the primes we dealt with. Pretty much all the defense companies seem incompetent at least occasionally. Especially when you don't have the reins on a project.

a reply to: JIMC5499

No...LM contracts to Boeing on the LO stuff. At least they did when I worked the 35.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thats what i have been saying. The AMRAAM is good but there is nothing new to take advantage of the bigger radars.

And yeah....i swear its like kids in a candy shop with military brass sometimes.......Ooooh ooooh. Shiny thing!!!!!

I love the 15...second best jet i have worked...but cmon is the x practical???? Or needed????

a reply to: lakenheath24

We are in a pinch for airframes.

This is due to many reasons. There were delays to the F-35 program. No other programs were spun up fast enough. The F-22 was canned in exchange for starting the LRSB/B-21. Then there has been far more use of older 4th gens than what was originally planned for when the JSF program was started: we're fighting 2 or 3 significant wars plus strikes in numerous other places.

We need more airframes. The F-15X is not the way to do it. Either go with a loyal wingman bird or more F-35s. We get MORE F-35s for the same price.

The Eagle is a great bird.

Her time is just past.

Same problem as many other companies. The Left is too busy indoctrinating students rather than teaching useful skills. Hence, little Peter got his BS in engineering but can't put together a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich never mind an air jet. a reply to: JIMC5499

a reply to: anzha

BITE YOUR TOUNGUE!!!!!! LOL Heresy!!!!


I have talked to some Eagle drivers here at Lakenheath and they tell me that back in the day, the Russians had far more airframes, but our tech negated those numbers. But now, their tech is catching up AND they still have all those airframes, so the gap is closing fast.

So perhaps the x makes sense in that regard???? Saturate the airspace. I dunno....we need to see the threat forecast really. With everyone being interconnected via economics, it is hard to see a huge conflict. Especially with all those ICBM's in the hole. I wish I could still afford a Janes subscription.

a reply to: lakenheath24

wuh?

The Russians have 256 MiG-29s, ~300 Su-27s, 78 Su-35s and 6 MiG-35s for pure fighters.

They have 247 MiG-31s (interceptor).

Su-30s are 112 and Su-34s are 120.

We have over 170 F-22s, something like 240 F-15C/Ds, close to or more than 200 F-35s, 1,240 F-16 (not counting guard, over 450 in the guard!)

We have something like 200 odd F-15Es.

We have ability and numbers on the Russians. They have ~200 modern 4th gen fighter. We have something like 2x that in 5th gen alone.

Our problem isn't Russia.

It's China. They have 20 to 30 5th gen in service, not just development. They also have 2, maybe as much as 3, other 5th gens in development. Plus they are working on the follow-on (6th gen?) to the J-20 already. Against 5th gen, 4th gen gets eaten and picked out of their teeth.

a reply to: anzha

Any chinese tech is whats been stolen. I doubt their claimed fourth or fifth gen jets match the f22.. But you will never know unless they drop by Red Flag. Lol

As far as the numbers...im just telling ya what an Eagle driver told me.

a reply to: lakenheath24

First off, getting a 5th gen in the air and working requires far, far more than 'stealing' the tech. They pretty clearly understand anything they "stole." However, have you forgotten we have been training their scientists and engineers for at least 30 years?

Consider the shots the Chinese are willing to show of the first J-31:







They /clearly/ know what they are doing when it comes to composites. Compare that to the shots of the Su-57. The workmanship is infinitely better on the Chinese bird.

Don't assume the Chinese are incapable. The Russians are not nearly as capable. Elevating the Russians above the Chinese tech wise is very 1980s thinking.

You could have easily verified what the Eagle driver was saying as being true. We have more F-35s than the Russians have fighter delivered in the past ten years and /their/ fighters are 4th gen.

Are we pretending Russia doesn't know about composites now?

a reply to: RadioRobert

No. Just that their quality for it has not been great.

That I have seen first hand.