Solid rebuttal. The F-35 contract was awarded in 2001, things haven't been bad at the Boeing plant since then.sc4mayor wrote: ↑May 07, 2020^ It's almost like you're rooting for that to happen...even though it probably won't. People were saying the F/A-18 line would go dormant in 2017 and the F-15 line would this year. Wrong on both counts. Probably not entirely unrelated to the unmitigated disaster that has been the F-35 program thus far.
It also appears you haven't been paying attention here at home:Now Boeing’s St. Louis presence, which includes a missile and munitions plant in St. Charles and a facility in Mascoutah, has a new lease on life and confidence that it will keep churning out jets for more than another decade.
In the last 18 months alone, Boeing’s regional workforce has grown by 2,000 people to about 16,000, said Shelley Lavender, who leads Boeing’s St. Louis operations.On top of the commercial work, military orders picked up in the last couple of budget cycles: orders of F/A-18 Super Hornets for Kuwait and the U.S. Navy, plus a retool of older Hornets, so they can fly longer; F-15 orders for Saudi Arabia and Qatar; plus a new version for the U.S. military, called the F-15EX, though Congress hasn’t given final approval on the new fighters. Last year, Boeing won the competition to build the MQ-25 refueling drone; the company is still deciding whether to assemble it in St. Louis County or in its Mascoutah plant. And its win last year in the Air Force’s trainer competition means the company will be churning out its new T-7 trainer jet until at least 2034. It anticipates more orders of that jet from the U.S. and abroad, plus opportunities to trick it out as a light fighter for foreign customers.https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... d0dcf.htmlAll of a sudden, the St. Louis campus will go from producing about three jets a month to 11 or more. “As we look forward to the next several decades here at the site, this is a very viable and healthy site for the long term,” Lavender said.
If St. Louis can hold onto its position as an aviation manufacturing hub, Boeing eventually may have another shot at a lucrative, decades long contract: competition for the Air Force and Navy’s sixth-generation fighter. “They’ll probably get there with their current working pipeline,” said Richard Aboulafia, a longtime military aircraft analyst for the Teal Group.
They're going to be producing close to a dozen jets a month for at least the next decade. What was the point of this comment exactly?
- 2,929
The Air Force is indeed ordering the F-15EX. They will all be built in STL. Good times y'all.
STL Biz Journal: Boeing wins $1.2B Air Force deal for new F-15EX fighters (note: Paywalled)
Boeing Press Release: Boeing and U.S. Air Force Ink Historic Deal for F-15EX Fighter Jet
Quick Notes
STL Biz Journal: Boeing wins $1.2B Air Force deal for new F-15EX fighters (note: Paywalled)
Boeing Press Release: Boeing and U.S. Air Force Ink Historic Deal for F-15EX Fighter Jet
Quick Notes
- The first order is for 8 planes at $1.2BB, of which 2 are currently in production and will roll out in 2Q 2021.
- There's another allocation in the 2021 budget for 12 more planes.
- Biz Journal says the USAF plans on 76 aircraft in the next 5 years, what they call the Future Years Defense Program.
- Biz Journal: "In its own news release, Boeing said its F-15EX "carries more weapons than any other fighter in its class," and can launch hypersonic weapons up to 22 feet long and weighing up to 7,000 pounds — a fact omitted from the Air Force's news release."
- The Boeing press release says: "Future plans call for as many as 144 aircraft." Holy crap.
- This order comes as Boeing STL is already producing a March 2019 order for 78 F/A-18s, of which the first 2 have just been delivered.
- 443
^That must be a misprint. Hebeters assured us that the future is dim along McDonnelll Blvd.
- 9,560
the gentleman as assured us that the MLS stadium wouldn't be built for a decade if at all.....the construction has never stopped.BellaVilla wrote: ↑Jul 14, 2020^That must be a misprint. Hebeters assured us that the future is dim along McDonnelll Blvd.
I don't understand how an F15 could cost $150 million. But this is certainly welcome news for St. Louis manufacturing.
- 3,762
i seem to recall that hebeters referred to hebeters' self as a lady at some point, but maybe i'm misremembering.
hebeters, could you clarify by posting a few dozen articles that aren't related to the thread in any way and then revelling in their defeatism?
hebeters, could you clarify by posting a few dozen articles that aren't related to the thread in any way and then revelling in their defeatism?
- 6,120
^Wabash,
The unit cost of the F-35 seems to be running at about 90 million ea right now. (On average. The USAF version costs less and the USN and USMC versions both cost more.) And this is early days. I believe early units tend to cost more than later units off the same line, particularly when you order a few here and a few there in small piecemeal batches. (That 90 million average cost for the F-35 is on an order of more than five hundred aircraft. Not counting foreign duplicates.) You'd think the new Eagles would be a bit cheaper, what with the fifteen hundred that came before, but as I hear it told it's not far from being a new aircraft. And it does have twice the engine of an F-35, so there is that. Even so, if they order enough of the things I wouldn't be surprised if the overall unit cost comes down pretty close or even below the F-35. And I don't doubt the F-15EX will be much cheaper to operate over the entire aircraft lifecycle. (I'm fairly certain I've heard that touted in the armchair military press. You know, cheaper paint. Cheaper parts. Less need for fancy maintenance. Established parts inventories. That sort of thing.)
Anyway, I was glad to see this.
And hey, stealth will most likely end up solved if it isn't already. (Russia claims to have a fancy new system that can fix it. And by fix I of course mean detect and destroy.) Speed and payload, however, are forever. And you can't knock a plane that will fly on one wing.
The unit cost of the F-35 seems to be running at about 90 million ea right now. (On average. The USAF version costs less and the USN and USMC versions both cost more.) And this is early days. I believe early units tend to cost more than later units off the same line, particularly when you order a few here and a few there in small piecemeal batches. (That 90 million average cost for the F-35 is on an order of more than five hundred aircraft. Not counting foreign duplicates.) You'd think the new Eagles would be a bit cheaper, what with the fifteen hundred that came before, but as I hear it told it's not far from being a new aircraft. And it does have twice the engine of an F-35, so there is that. Even so, if they order enough of the things I wouldn't be surprised if the overall unit cost comes down pretty close or even below the F-35. And I don't doubt the F-15EX will be much cheaper to operate over the entire aircraft lifecycle. (I'm fairly certain I've heard that touted in the armchair military press. You know, cheaper paint. Cheaper parts. Less need for fancy maintenance. Established parts inventories. That sort of thing.)
Anyway, I was glad to see this.
And hey, stealth will most likely end up solved if it isn't already. (Russia claims to have a fancy new system that can fix it. And by fix I of course mean detect and destroy.) Speed and payload, however, are forever. And you can't knock a plane that will fly on one wing.Boeing as we know it will be gone:
US May Need to Nationalize Military Aircraft Industry, USAF Says
https://www.defenseone.com/business/202 ... reaking_nl
US May Need to Nationalize Military Aircraft Industry, USAF Says
https://www.defenseone.com/business/202 ... reaking_nl
- 2,929
Hebeters: I'm not really sure we'll see full nationalization of the military industrial complex as the article kind of indicated, but I do agree that, following years of corporate consolidation, there are fewer manufacturers of high-end aircraft today than there were 30 years ago. I also should point out that the author didn't include Northrup-Grumman in the list of current primary USAF manufacturers.
Symphonicpoet: I agree with your understanding of per-cost reductions as the F-15EX goes into full production. Once the assembly line becomes dedicated and fully operational, I also see reduced costs from economies of scale as well as increased efficiencies. Same time, I do see the EX being more costly than the traditional E, noting technology enhancements as well as design (stealth-esque additions + increased payloads). No matter what, it's got to be a whole lot cheaper than the JSF to get this initial order rolling in the first place.
Between the T-7, the F-15EX, and the F/A-18, Hazelwood should be rolling steady & heavy for a number of years. Good stuff.
Symphonicpoet: I agree with your understanding of per-cost reductions as the F-15EX goes into full production. Once the assembly line becomes dedicated and fully operational, I also see reduced costs from economies of scale as well as increased efficiencies. Same time, I do see the EX being more costly than the traditional E, noting technology enhancements as well as design (stealth-esque additions + increased payloads). No matter what, it's got to be a whole lot cheaper than the JSF to get this initial order rolling in the first place.
Between the T-7, the F-15EX, and the F/A-18, Hazelwood should be rolling steady & heavy for a number of years. Good stuff.
It's a head scratcher. Strange that a 4th gen aircraft would have to "come down pretty close or even below" a 5th gen. Sure it has some significantly upgraded systems, but it's coming off the same manufacturing line that has existed for years. But I suppose the big $$$ is probably just intended to prop up the line - keep Boeing's lights on really. I don't think the Pentagon necessarily wants or needs planes from a prior generation that were first introduced in the 70's.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jul 15, 2020You'd think the new Eagles would be a bit cheaper, what with the fifteen hundred that came before, but as I hear it told it's not far from being a new aircraft. And it does have twice the engine of an F-35, so there is that. Even so, if they order enough of the things I wouldn't be surprised if the overall unit cost comes down pretty close or even below the F-35.
^ pound for pound, the F-15 Eagle is still the best fighter plane in the world!
- 6,120
A hundred years ago the idea that a ship would have a fifty year life expectancy or more would have seemed ludicrous, but we now live in a world where ships are reasonably expected to serve fifty years. Why? Because the basic structure of shipbuilding is an entirely mature technology. There's really no dramatic changes that have occurred in hull forms in nearly a century and no big changes even in maritime powerplants in nearly fifty years now. You can bolt new parts on the deck. You can add new guns or new sensor arrays. You can automate things and add computer controls. But there's really no dramatic disadvantage to a hull from World War II. Ships aren't any faster now. Engines are better. More fuel efficient, or more responsive. They're simpler and require less maintenance and fewer people to operate. But drop in a new engine and away you go. Bolt the new tech on the old hull and the old ship is good as new. Because ships are mature.
Aircraft are increasingly looking like a mature technology. And engines are easier to change, since they're not buried so deeply in the middle of everything. There is precisely one advantage that 5th generation fighters have over 4th generation fighters that can't just be bolted on as above: stealth. And it comes at the cost of decreased payload, decreased maneuverability, and often even decreased speed and range. And for how many missions does the U. S. military really need stealth? The only place we would really need it would be in the one sort of conflict that the nuclear genie requires us to avoid at every possible cost, since everyone would lose as soon as it started. You know what that means? It means we don't really need stealth. It's nice, maybe, but not vital. We can achieve absolute air supremacy over any conceivable opponent save Russia or China entirely without it. And more to the point, it's a passing advantage, as new technology will most assuredly outwit it sooner or later anyway. New technology the Russians and Chinese are working on furiously and will gladly sell all of our opponents. (I sincerely hope we're working on it too for exactly the same reasons.) With that many people looking for the "cure" to stealth it will assuredly come. And sooner than later.
And after that, the aircraft with the better speed, payload, and range will suddenly be far the better investment. And if it's cheaper? Win win. The F-35 is a dead end. The F-22 is almost worse. Don't listen to the [redacted]. They have a long history of steering us down the primrose path of ever more expensive junk that doesn't solve any of our national security problems. Maybe there's a place for stealth, but it cannot and should not be our default answer. It's simply too expensive and too limiting.
Besides, the future is drones in front and mother ships with people in them to the rear. And for that? You might well be better off with a converted surplus 747 filled with air launchable drones and nerds to control them. (And maybe a few F-15s or F-35s to lug along some extra love. And the F-15 can carry more and bigger stuff further and faster. So . . . yeah, the stealth window is closing fast.)
Aircraft are increasingly looking like a mature technology. And engines are easier to change, since they're not buried so deeply in the middle of everything. There is precisely one advantage that 5th generation fighters have over 4th generation fighters that can't just be bolted on as above: stealth. And it comes at the cost of decreased payload, decreased maneuverability, and often even decreased speed and range. And for how many missions does the U. S. military really need stealth? The only place we would really need it would be in the one sort of conflict that the nuclear genie requires us to avoid at every possible cost, since everyone would lose as soon as it started. You know what that means? It means we don't really need stealth. It's nice, maybe, but not vital. We can achieve absolute air supremacy over any conceivable opponent save Russia or China entirely without it. And more to the point, it's a passing advantage, as new technology will most assuredly outwit it sooner or later anyway. New technology the Russians and Chinese are working on furiously and will gladly sell all of our opponents. (I sincerely hope we're working on it too for exactly the same reasons.) With that many people looking for the "cure" to stealth it will assuredly come. And sooner than later.
And after that, the aircraft with the better speed, payload, and range will suddenly be far the better investment. And if it's cheaper? Win win. The F-35 is a dead end. The F-22 is almost worse. Don't listen to the [redacted]. They have a long history of steering us down the primrose path of ever more expensive junk that doesn't solve any of our national security problems. Maybe there's a place for stealth, but it cannot and should not be our default answer. It's simply too expensive and too limiting.
Besides, the future is drones in front and mother ships with people in them to the rear. And for that? You might well be better off with a converted surplus 747 filled with air launchable drones and nerds to control them. (And maybe a few F-15s or F-35s to lug along some extra love. And the F-15 can carry more and bigger stuff further and faster. So . . . yeah, the stealth window is closing fast.)
Are the days of "secret technologies" over?
I still vividly recall being amazed when the U.S. released the Stealth Fighter on the world; a fully-operational all-new platform that (virtually) nobody knew about.
I still vividly recall being amazed when the U.S. released the Stealth Fighter on the world; a fully-operational all-new platform that (virtually) nobody knew about.
- 6,120
^I don't get that impression from acquaintances at Boeing or in the military, but . . . they can't talk about seekrit stuff, obviously.
There was a story a few months back on a satellite capture of a mystery plane out at China Lake, I think it was. Nobody could ID it. Only the front half or so of the aircraft was visible. The back was still in the hanger. Maybe they got caught putting it away too slowly. Maybe it was one of those intentional accidents to say "oh by the way, did you know we have this new thing you've never seen before? Satellite flyovers aren't exactly something you can hide. Even classified spy satellites are pretty well all tracked and photographed by amateurs. (Albeit not at the best spy-grade resolutions.) Some of ours look suspiciously like Hubble, but . . . pointed back at us and not up. Anyway, it looked to be in about a manned fighter sort of size range, but it wasn't an especially good image. Maybe 1/3 meter resolution or so, but no better than that.
The takeaway? Yes, the military can still develop stuff in secret. (Though it is a bit harder at a large commercial airport. But hey, they have a perfectly nice facility at the other end of the Metrolink line that doesn't have a commercial flight coming or going every five minutes.) On the other hand, you might want the other guy to have at least some suspicion that you have certain weapons and that they might be fairly effective. Things like fighters you might actually want seen . . . at least until you don't.
There was a story a few months back on a satellite capture of a mystery plane out at China Lake, I think it was. Nobody could ID it. Only the front half or so of the aircraft was visible. The back was still in the hanger. Maybe they got caught putting it away too slowly. Maybe it was one of those intentional accidents to say "oh by the way, did you know we have this new thing you've never seen before? Satellite flyovers aren't exactly something you can hide. Even classified spy satellites are pretty well all tracked and photographed by amateurs. (Albeit not at the best spy-grade resolutions.) Some of ours look suspiciously like Hubble, but . . . pointed back at us and not up. Anyway, it looked to be in about a manned fighter sort of size range, but it wasn't an especially good image. Maybe 1/3 meter resolution or so, but no better than that.
The takeaway? Yes, the military can still develop stuff in secret. (Though it is a bit harder at a large commercial airport. But hey, they have a perfectly nice facility at the other end of the Metrolink line that doesn't have a commercial flight coming or going every five minutes.) On the other hand, you might want the other guy to have at least some suspicion that you have certain weapons and that they might be fairly effective. Things like fighters you might actually want seen . . . at least until you don't.
- 2,929
Absolutely. Remember when Seal Team 6 killed UBA, how they flew in stealth choppers based on the Blackhawk that no one had a clue about beforehand? Yeah, there's still stuff out there. I'm still paying attention for more word to break on the X-37B OTV (DoD's space plane).framer wrote: ↑Jul 16, 2020Are the days of "secret technologies" over?
I still vividly recall being amazed when the U.S. released the Stealth Fighter on the world; a fully-operational all-new platform that (virtually) nobody knew about.
- 6,120
Well, whatever the word is, I gather she's still up there. Yet another good Boeing project. Not quite absolutely tippity top secret, but they do keep pretty mum on it.
Well I'll be damned; we were just talking about it. Now let's hope Boeing gets a piece of the action:
"The Air Force Secretly Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter Jet"
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/air- ... 00768.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/air-force-al ... 09289.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force ... 55998.html
"The Air Force Secretly Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter Jet"
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/air- ... 00768.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/air-force-al ... 09289.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force ... 55998.html
- 2,929
^That's amazing, truly amazing. Here's the Defense News article on the new jet, the Next Generation Air Dominance program (NGAD). This really is game-changing advancement for the entire aerospace defense industry. It's a big "if" whether or not Boeing played a big part in NGAD, but it is already proving the underlying business case with the T-7...
“This is not just something that you can apply to things that are simple systems” like Boeing’s T-7 Red Hawk trainer jet, the first Air Force aircraft to be built using the “holy trinity” of digital engineering, agile software development and open architecture, Roper said.
- 6,120
^Interesting. Very very interesting. Yep. They still make seekrit sausage.
- 9,560
Boeings massive Leadership Center in Florissant is closing. Part of big workforce reduction move
I had no idea that existed. What are those buildings? Are those hotel rooms or something?
According to a Google Maps photo of a plaque, the chateau on the site was built in 1926. It doesn't say who had it built but mentions the Desloge Family.
According to a Google Maps photo of a plaque, the chateau on the site was built in 1926. It doesn't say who had it built but mentions the Desloge Family.
- 9,560
its where Boeing brings people from all over the world for training and they stay on campus....or at least it did before this decision.aprice wrote: ↑Sep 29, 2020I had no idea that existed. What are those buildings? Are those hotel rooms or something?
According to a Google Maps photo of a plaque, the chateau on the site was built in 1926. It doesn't say who had it built but mentions the Desloge Family.
- 8,912
StlToday- Aramark to lay off 81 at Boeing Leadership Center
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... faa1f.html
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... faa1f.html
I grew up across New Halls Ferry from this site. We used to ride our bikes up the to mansion before Boeing acquired the site-- it was pretty creepy back then. As soon as Boeing bought it, they fenced the site, installed cameras and guards everywhere, and then heavy equipment was brought in and out of the compound for about 3 years. Now I know what they were building up there.aprice wrote: ↑Sep 29, 2020I had no idea that existed. What are those buildings? Are those hotel rooms or something?
According to a Google Maps photo of a plaque, the chateau on the site was built in 1926. It doesn't say who had it built but mentions the Desloge Family.