^At some point they need two new airframes. The F-18 cannot be all things forever and the F-35 . . . don't get me started. Honestly, they need a decent strike fighter and a stellar dedicated interceptor. This one plane for all roles (and all forces) is pure baloney. Once in a while you get lucky and some freak of nature will somehow do more than it was designed to do, but . . . F-4s only come along once in a blue moon.
Just wondering, will this require additional construction at the Boeing plant or do they have available assembly space?
Every article I've read up to this point seems to point to a no. Looks like Boeing already has the employees and facilities necessary to do this work. But should protect the 14,000 or so Boeing jobs for the next decade or so.
I wonder if the China cargo hub deal had not fallen through, if that would have been an incentive for Boeing to relocate even more manufacturing to this area.
I'd be surprised if St. Louis didn't at least get a serious look here when you consider all the infrastructure that is already in place here as far as defense goes. There's plenty of land up by the airport as well.BellaVilla wrote: ↑Oct 02, 2018Remember the 777X package, state and county leaders? Maybe some of those should be back on the table.
Boeing to build new military cargo plain.
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 3203f.html
Also, has any production started on the 777X wing assembly yet? If I'm not mistaken didn't St. Louis end up getting that out of that deal along with around 700 or so new jobs?
^ Believe regional freightway plan includes some significant investment on the north side of Airport as well.
Concerning Air Cargo, I think that is relatively easy thing to ramp up when you have an airport with more than enough runway capacity and space to work with. I also have the understanding that St. Louis secured funds for tarmac/taxiway improvements specific to air cargo operations and now its just matter of performing the work if they haven't awarded & started on those contracts already.
On side note, I always thought St Louis would make a great location for Airbus if they ever wanted to manufacture more components in US to support Mobile AL assembly ops. A well trained aerospace work force and plenty of infrastructure to move materials & components into and out of the areas, even ice free, lock free barge access from St. Louis to the Port of Mobile where Airbus is already bringing in their bigger components.
Concerning Air Cargo, I think that is relatively easy thing to ramp up when you have an airport with more than enough runway capacity and space to work with. I also have the understanding that St. Louis secured funds for tarmac/taxiway improvements specific to air cargo operations and now its just matter of performing the work if they haven't awarded & started on those contracts already.
On side note, I always thought St Louis would make a great location for Airbus if they ever wanted to manufacture more components in US to support Mobile AL assembly ops. A well trained aerospace work force and plenty of infrastructure to move materials & components into and out of the areas, even ice free, lock free barge access from St. Louis to the Port of Mobile where Airbus is already bringing in their bigger components.
- 1,291
^ The cargo ramp/entrance improvements were finished late last year. Really, the airport is waiting for Bi-National to build their U.S.-Mexico dual-customs cargo facility in the North Tract where McDonnell-Douglas used to be. The rest of the improvements are road improvements and a dedicated cargo rail spur into the airport's cargo facilities.
Hopefully, improved cargo business comes out of all that, and it spurs other development as well.
Hopefully, improved cargo business comes out of all that, and it spurs other development as well.
- 1,792
I think it will depend on whether Boeing wants to consolidate this operation at one of their major sites or go o a new place and build a new presence. The other major sites Seattle and southern califonia have capacity but Boeing May not want to invest in expanding/maintaining their presence there due to cost of land and labor. In St. Louis I doubt they could do it within their current footprint especially with the recent wins but at least we hav the othe support infrustructure that other location might lack. But if Boeing wants to secure favorable treatment from another couple senators mayb they put it somewhere completely new. Not sure if we close the deal but’s think we make the short list.
- 6,121
By Southern California you mean the former Douglas Long Beach plant or something else? Long Beach is Mercedes now. Boeing sold it after they wrapped up C-17 production, I think it was. And I'm not so sure they have capacity in Everett. They're still ramping up 787 production there, I think, and Max should keep the 737 lines humming. The 747 line is wrapping up, most likely, but MoM is getting closer every day and I bet that thing sells like hotcakes. I can believe we could make the short list if we made a good pitch. Not sure if we can land it in this era of absurdly competitive tax grabs, but it's not out of the question. I'd think our toughest competition might well be Charleston, with the new 787 line. Boeing has already made a heck of an investment there. I'm not sure we actually do have the talent or infrastructure on hand for that right now. Close, but not quite. Big difference between pants-on-fire Mach 1.6 screamers and well-get-there-eventually delivery trucks. We have a Ferrari plant, basically. Lamborghini has been trying to eat our lunch, but we do still have a Ferrari plant. Haven't had a truck line, so far as I know, since the last locally made trailer literally folded up and killed half the VIPs in town. (Including the mayor and company CEO, as I recall.) In about 1942.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Oct 03, 2018I think it will depend on whether Boeing wants to consolidate this operation at one of their major sites or go o a new place and build a new presence. The other major sites Seattle and southern califonia have capacity but Boeing May not want to invest in expanding/maintaining their presence there due to cost of land and labor. In St. Louis I doubt they could do it within their current footprint especially with the recent wins but at least we hav the othe support infrustructure that other location might lack. But if Boeing wants to secure favorable treatment from another couple senators mayb they put it somewhere completely new. Not sure if we close the deal but’s think we make the short list.
Boeing to Open Its First 737 Plant in China Under Shadow of a Trade War
So here we are. Trump cheers the demise of Harley Davidson for opening a plant in Europe but is strangely silent on a multi-billion dollar Boeing move to China.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -trade-war
So here we are. Trump cheers the demise of Harley Davidson for opening a plant in Europe but is strangely silent on a multi-billion dollar Boeing move to China.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -trade-war
- 1,291
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter
With all the recent talk about the Pentagon potentially wanting an upgraded F-15 (F-15X) for the USAF for situations where an F-35 just doesn't make sense, either financially- or capability-wise, it could mean good news for the Boeing plant here, as it still manufacturers the F-15E. Though only pegged for about 12 F-15Xs right now, the USAF could potentially receive several hundred to replace the older F-15s currently in service.
With all the recent talk about the Pentagon potentially wanting an upgraded F-15 (F-15X) for the USAF for situations where an F-35 just doesn't make sense, either financially- or capability-wise, it could mean good news for the Boeing plant here, as it still manufacturers the F-15E. Though only pegged for about 12 F-15Xs right now, the USAF could potentially receive several hundred to replace the older F-15s currently in service.
- 2,929
The push for the F-15X has gained considerable strength, especially noting its abilities to haul very large armament loads especially when contrasted to either the F-22 or F-35... all while the F-35 remains very expensive and behind in delivery. Look for the USAF to strongly consider a major allocation to its production, with the new Eagle succeeding the F-15C's and D's, both for the USAF and various Air National Guard outfits.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Dec 24, 2018http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter
With all the recent talk about the Pentagon potentially wanting an upgraded F-15 (F-15X) for the USAF for situations where an F-35 just doesn't make sense, either financially- or capability-wise, it could mean good news for the Boeing plant here, as it still manufacturers the F-15E. Though only pegged for about 12 F-15Xs right now, the USAF could potentially receive several hundred to replace the older F-15s currently in service.
The F-35 has been such an incredible boondoggle. In other countries people would have probably been executed for stealing as much as Lockheed Martin has been allowed to carry off.
- 1,291
Capability and technology wise, the F-35 is still the future of fighter jets. Lockheed is still working out the kinks,sure (really just their version of the 787 launch disaster), but the dividends are already starting to be shown - not just in the F-35, but the ability to apply the technology and experience gained on other projects as well. Hell, even Boeing's T-X took some cues from Lockheed's development with regards to modularity, CAD, and seamless linkage of technology between pilot and machine(s).
It's still unclear whether the F-15, even heavily upgraded like the proposed -X variant, is even a worthwhile or feasible investment for the modern world. That said, any new orders for the St. Louis plant is A-OK in my book.
It's still unclear whether the F-15, even heavily upgraded like the proposed -X variant, is even a worthwhile or feasible investment for the modern world. That said, any new orders for the St. Louis plant is A-OK in my book.
Yes, the future of jets that will never see combat unless it is against unarmed civilians in Yemen or something.
- 1,291
Meh. Honestly, I'm 99% sure that the only reason the F-35's so incredibly "over-budget" is so the military can fund a bunch of classified research/projects without having to make a new line item for each one.
Any indications that the Pentagon/DoD would force the issue? Or any indications of potential foreign sales?
Everything I've read so far on the F-15X has said that the USAF has flat-out said it doesn't want an upgraded F-15 and that it's solely the Pentagon pushing for it. Any reason to doubt that? I can see it maybe being alright for ANG use, but I highly doubt the regular AF would want anything to do with it.gone corporate wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2019The push for the F-15X has gained considerable strength, especially noting its abilities to haul very large armament loads especially when contrasted to either the F-22 or F-35... all while the F-35 remains very expensive and behind in delivery. Look for the USAF to strongly consider a major allocation to its production, with the new Eagle succeeding the F-15C's and D's, both for the USAF and various Air National Guard outfits.
Any indications that the Pentagon/DoD would force the issue? Or any indications of potential foreign sales?
- 6,121
I think it more likely that congress would force the issue than DoD. I'm not privy to internal government discussions, however. That said, if you read the military corespondents you can definitely get the impression from some that there are misgivings about the F-35. (It's more overbudget than even the usual military program and even further behind schedule. Doubtless due to the complexity of building one airframe to rule them all, one airframe to find them, one frame to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. (I'll stay away from publicly announcing where Mordor might lie in this analogy.)Trololzilla wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2019Any indications that the Pentagon/DoD would force the issue? Or any indications of potential foreign sales?
It was my understanding that there was at least some foreign interest. Saudi Arabia supposedly looked at them before settling on what amounts to a slightly more conventional variant of the F-15E, the F-15SA. I think I've heard Israel mentioned. Japan is in the market for something, though they're very much thinking of going their own way as I understand it. They bought into the F-35, but . . . there are strains in the F-35 coalition, thanks to the delays. And they want something they can license build themselves. An updated F-15 really could deliver quite a lot of what the F-35 can deliver, albeit not the stealth. It all depends on how much faith you put in stealth. The rest can be bolted on after the fact. And the F-15 already outperforms the F-35 in almost every other way. It's a shame there's no good way to navalize the thing, because I get the impression there are quite definitely branches not so eager to go down Lockheed Lane.
The X is probably to new an idea to have orders yet, as I understand it, but there are certainly enough orders for related models to keep the lights on for at least a little longer. They sure took enough birds on test flights the last couple of years to make one think they're at least pushing hard.
Keeping in mind that I'm just a schmuck that reads War is Boring and the like. Again, no inside knowledge. This is just the stuff that gets bandied about in the popular press.
- 1,291
Seems another retired USAF general has come out against the F-15X:
Really, the only thing I see an F-15X having a use for is as an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons platform, where it handily outperforms the F-35A and stealth isn't really necessary. Though, maybe ASAT capabilities will fall under the purview of the "Space Force".Buying new F-15X fighters for the US Air Force is unsolicited and unwise
Although President Calvin Coolidge was not an expert on air power, his famous quote, “Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence,” should be studied and practiced today by leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force. The OSD’s decision to renege on the Air Force goal of procuring only fifth-generation F-35A fighters and, instead, budget for new fourth-generation F-15Xs in the Air Force budget shows both a lack of persistence and sound logic. It also weakens Air Force support to grow its fighter force and obtain a healthy return on its large F-35A investment, and it adds to the growing list of new programs the Air Force must fund.
In just six months the Air Force appears to have changed its modernization priorities. At the Air Force Association convention in September 2018, Secretary Heather Wilson announced the goal of expanding the force size from 312 to 386 operational squadrons that included seven new fighter squadrons. There was no mention of ever buying new fourth-generation fighters — only the F-35A.
But now we learn that OSD is the driver in the F-15X decision. At an AFA symposium on Feb. 28 in Orlando, Florida, Wilson acknowledged that the Air Force budget for 2020, when submitted to OSD, “did not include additional fourth-generation aircraft.” The F-15X was added by OSD, and apparently Air Force leadership has not been able to change minds in OSD.
Over the past 15 years, the Air Force has been both consistent and persistent in advocating only the new fifth-generation, stealthy F-35A and retiring over time its non-stealthy fourth-generation F-15s and F-16s. Now, the goal announced by the Air Force is to procure 72 new fighters per year including both F-35As and F-15Xs.
The need to deal with great power competition from Russia and China, plus the deployment of advanced air defense systems like the Russian S-400 covering eastern Europe and southwest Asia, has provided overwhelming justification to modernize the Air Force fighter fleet with only F-22s and F-35As which can penetrate these defenses effectively and destroy modern air defenses.
The F-15s and F-16s are no longer able to penetrate and survive, and their effectiveness will only decrease over time. So the OSD decision to add F-15Xs in the Air Force budget is puzzling — a step backward.
Moreover, introducing the F-15X will not allow the Air Force to increase its F-35A annual production rate above 48-60 per year, a far cry from the 84-96 per year in its plans, and thus reducing the return on its investment. The Air Force learned in the F-22 and B-2 programs that continually reducing the annual buys created an acquisition death spiral because buying fewer led to ever-increasing unit costs that further led to their becoming unaffordable, therefore unviable.
The business case for the F-35 was to generate high annual production rates for more than 20 years at low-unit flyaway costs, a huge return on investment much like the F-16 program. That goal now appears unlikely.
The Air Force is attempting to rationalize the OSD decision by criticizing the sustainment costs of the F-35A and invoking the term “increased capacity” with the F-15X. F-35A sustainment has growing pains like any new weapon system. They will come down over time. The Air Force has not defined “increased capacity,” but no amount of capacity can overcome an inability to penetrate modern defenses and destroy high-value targets — severe limitations of the F-15X.
Air Force leaders have a chance to practice Coolidge’s admonition about persistence by finding a way to increase F-35A annual production so it can reach their goal of an all-stealthy fighter force necessary to deal with the modern threats fielded by great power competitors. They cannot achieve this goal buying new, non-stealthy fighters at the expense of F-35As.
Gen. John Michael Loh (ret.) served as the U.S. Air Force vice chief of staff and the commander of Air Combat Command.
- 6,121
^I don't think it's any secret the Air Force doesn't want the F-15 anymore. They want sexy new, no matter the price. Always have. Probably always will. They also don't want the A-10. The not insignificant advantages of the F-15 come in payload, speed, and operating cost. Stealth is really the only advantage the F-35 can count, and there's some dispute about how useful that one is. Speed, payload, and operating cost are all pretty proven. We know they're useful in any conflict we could ever possibly envision. Stealth is really only particularly useful in a peer level conflict. But . . . the USAF wants their sexy. And they lobby well. And they have since the days of Hap Arnold. Charles Lindbergh, in fact, pretty much sounded like he was talking about todays drones and cruise missiles when he was describing the bomber doctrine in the thirties. If you believe peer level conflicts are the biggest threat we face then perhaps the F-15 and A-10 should be consigned to the boneyard. But it's been a mighty long time since we were in a peer level conflict. And we're still involved in several conflicts where putting ordinance on target cheaply is darned useful. And where a fast response is good too. And the F-15 beats the ever living crap out of the F-35 at both of those. It's cheaper, so you can have more of them in more places. It's faster, so you can get it to the target quicker. It carries more, so you can do more when you're there. With due respect, that general is wearing special AirForce goggles. They're a bit like beer goggles, but they can only see stealth. He's looking to wars we're not fighting and ignoring the ones we're actually involved in right now. He's also ignoring missions other branches need but the Air Force doesn't like: principally air support.
Fortunately, neither retired AF generals, nor the entire USAF get to make these decisions all by themselves. There are other military branches, other military thinkers, and . . . at least occasionally . . . civilian oversight.
Fortunately, neither retired AF generals, nor the entire USAF get to make these decisions all by themselves. There are other military branches, other military thinkers, and . . . at least occasionally . . . civilian oversight.
It's all graft and corruption so that the arm chair generals who haven't won a war in half a century can keep their jobs safe.
- 6,121
^I prefer to be charitable and say they believe their own press, thus the AF goggles comment. It's tempting to think airstrikes can win a "bloodless" war. Even if there's no solid proof of it in a century of flight. At the very least there's remarkably good reason to think air power really does make a difference and that it pays to be sneaky. Nobody would dispute either of those two things. So even if the F-35 itself turns out to be a failure, there will still be a place for airframes incorporating some of its ideas.
Of course . . . there could very well also be a place for simpler and less expensive airframes. And the AF really might have institutionally drunk the cool aid. Ninety years ago.
Of course . . . there could very well also be a place for simpler and less expensive airframes. And the AF really might have institutionally drunk the cool aid. Ninety years ago.
If y'all don't mind I'm going to swing us back into Boeing here...anyone know how the 777X wing assembly plant is coming along? When it's supposed to start operating?
- 1,291
Opened in 2016 and produced the first parts in 2017 according to this source. It's likely that the first few frames (very close to readiness for flight testing) do have STL built wing and tail parts if you're keen on seeing them in action in a few weeks when the flight testing's supposed to start.
In some encouraging news for Boeing: the USAF is now considering the T-X frame as a candidate for the Light Attack Experiment (OA-X) program. While the AT-6 and Super Tucano still are probably the front runners, and the T-X only makes sense with foreign orders, it's still good to see it considered especially if it can net the program potentially hundreds of additional orders.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -aircraft/
That said, the Air Force is still trying to keep the T-X focused on its role as a flight trainer (as they should), and even downplayed its potential as a replacement frame for "Red Air" companion trainers which simulate aggressor planes during training. This probably also means that a Light Attack version of the T-X is unlikely considering there's no rush for it to even be used as a complementary trainer. Still, it's worth mentioning simply for the potential for orders.
https://www.defensenews.com/training-si ... ir-option/
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -aircraft/
That said, the Air Force is still trying to keep the T-X focused on its role as a flight trainer (as they should), and even downplayed its potential as a replacement frame for "Red Air" companion trainers which simulate aggressor planes during training. This probably also means that a Light Attack version of the T-X is unlikely considering there's no rush for it to even be used as a complementary trainer. Still, it's worth mentioning simply for the potential for orders.
https://www.defensenews.com/training-si ... ir-option/
“What could be wrong with the 737 Max — and what it means for Boeing”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing ... -1.5054535
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing ... -1.5054535