No, Beretta would offer an ungodly mashup of a block 32 F-16 and Rafale that is somehow still not instantly disqualified because Sig's slop is even worse
>hmmmm will the MIC choose the program that saves a bit of money by building on familiar technologies or will it pursue BRAND NEW TECH WITH A BUDGET OF 500 POMNILIAN DOLLARS THAT COULD GO OVERBUDGET BY 6000%
It will cost ten trillion dollars, be delayed into service by a decade, have multiple congressional attempts to shut it down, and then one of them will destroy an entire Chinese Carrier Battlegroup by itself in the 2nd Taiwan War of 2041
>and then one of them will destroy an entire Chinese Carrier Battlegroup by itself in the 2nd Taiwan War of 2041
F-35 can do this already
Air technology only advances when the US itself advances it. Therefore they have no need to develop new systems because it will just mean everyone else copies them and gets 80% of the performance for 10% of the investment. It's the Dreadnought problem all over again where when the UK created HMS Dreadnought and made every previous capital ship obsolete, the main losers were themselves since they had the most obsolete capital ships as a consequence of their own innovation.
>'s the Dreadnought problem all over again where when the UK created HMS Dreadnought and made every previous capital ship obsolete, the main losers were themselves since they had the most obsolete capital ships as a consequence of their own innovation.
Indirectly leading to WW1 because of the renewed naval arms race.
Modern attack drone is a cheap air-frame with a small piston engine inside and electronic optical system attached to it. All of these are pretty familiar technology that can be utilized by 2nd tier shitholes like Iran at this point.
Of course, one can say that some old schmuck was adamantly against electronic sight w/ laser rangefinder and ability to automatically adjust for elevation on a tank and was advocating for old proven mechanical design but, that doesn't defeat my point. One must not blindly strive to use the newest tech as long as familiar technology still has enough steam left.
They should have some kind of edge at having tried and failed to do this in the 90s with the flying dorito. Hopefully some lessons were learned in that cluster fuck which is still screwing naval aviation to this day (all bugs all the time was not supposed to happen)
Boeing NEEDS to start fucking delivering on time and on budget. There's no reason propping up a MIC silo that can't produce functioning hardware. >SLS >Starliner >737 MAX deaths >KC-46 foreign object debris
>There's no reason propping up a MIC silo that can't produce functioning hardware
I mean, there unironically IS a reason.
Even if they do have a history of failed programs, you can't just magically produce a new company to replace them, so you prop them up regardless, even if they suck now 10-20 years and $50B+ later who knows?
what if you break up Boeing, allow the segments that haven't rotted through to continue, let the bad ones go bankrupt, then consolidate the surviving units alongside some minor MIC players like Kratos?
General Dynamics you mean? (Formerly GM Defense until GD bought them in 2003)
1 month ago
Anonymous
no I mean start merging Boeing into the car company because the corporate wreckage would be funny and GM has experience managing way too many divisions (mostly by violently cutting them)
1 month ago
Anonymous
I think it makes more sense to merge with General Dynamics as they did the F-16 originally before it got taken over by Lockheed in the '90s.
Would love GD to get back to their military aircraft roots with a merger with Boeing's military arms.
You can give the commercial segments of Boeing to GM
1 month ago
Anonymous
>GM buys Fokker >merges it with their own in house aviation division >renames it to North American >North American splits from GM >merges with Rockwell >Rockwell falls apart >Boeing buys the remains >give Boeing to GM
I propose the new company be called Fokker to complete the cycle
1 month ago
Anonymous
General Dynamics you mean? (Formerly GM Defense until GD bought them in 2003)
no I mean start merging Boeing into the car company because the corporate wreckage would be funny and GM has experience managing way too many divisions (mostly by violently cutting them)
I think it makes more sense to merge with General Dynamics as they did the F-16 originally before it got taken over by Lockheed in the '90s.
Would love GD to get back to their military aircraft roots with a merger with Boeing's military arms.
You can give the commercial segments of Boeing to GM
Have a consortium of >General Dynamics >General Atomics >General Motors >General Electric >General Mills
Buy up and divide Boeing. We'll call it General General
1 month ago
Anonymous
>general mills
To assist in cereal production of airframes I assume
1 month ago
Anonymous
Significantly underrated poast.
1 month ago
Anonymous
CARLOS
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you will live to see General Products become a reality
1 month ago
Anonymous
No, General Resource
1 month ago
Anonymous
Beat me to it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
[...]
[...]
[...]
Have a consortium of >General Dynamics >General Atomics >General Motors >General Electric >General Mills
Buy up and divide Boeing. We'll call it General General
/k/ is a Neucom board
1 month ago
Anonymous
>/k/ is a Neucom board
Seeing this based post made me throw away everything I ever knew and, with my own eyes, discover the truth of the world.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I thought that was a redbull branded plane
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Redbull Skyrace
Kino!
1 month ago
Anonymous
iirc red bull dates back like a decade earlier than 1999 in terms of actual history but don't think it was that widely distributed or a household name yet in japan or even america in the 90s doubt they were thinking about it
1 month ago
Anonymous
What does its penis do?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>them neucom designs
Why peepee hard
1 month ago
Anonymous
boop the snoot
1 month ago
Anonymous
god i still love the delphinus don't even quite know why there are other goofy futurejets out there
1 month ago
Anonymous
GG
literally GG
1 month ago
Anonymous
Your forgot >General Insurance
1 month ago
äää
to avoid confusion between the subdivisions, all starting with General, the chaebol itself will simply be known as MG ('miguk')
I don't quite get how Boeing can fuck up the KC-46 so bad. They already developed the 767, how hard is it to slap in a refueling probe and extra tanks?
By being Boeing and selling product that didn't exist at the time to USAF. It has essentially new wing. It needed some development work, then it needed some more development work because the wing didn't meet USAF requirements. KC-46 is essentially 767-200 fuselage with 767-300 wing and 767-400 slats and flaps. It lost the original KC-X tender to KC-45 aka Airbus A330MRTT.
what if you break up Boeing, allow the segments that haven't rotted through to continue, let the bad ones go bankrupt, then consolidate the surviving units alongside some minor MIC players like Kratos?
To understand where everything went to hell with Boeing, at its core is McDonnell-Douglas merger. McDonnell and Douglas merger in late 60's was all about finances, neither company could manage to get funding for future projects and grow at end of 60's. They were too small. Basically McDonnell was the fighter business. Douglas was commercial airliner business, they already had reputation for cutting costs everywhere and doing bit of outsourcing. MCD helicopter business was former Hughes, but they effectively spun off everything that wasn't Apache and outsourced that stuff. Reason they merged with Boeing is because MDC didn't invest into future products on commercial side, MD-11 was dead as soon as ETOPS ranges got extended, DC-9 derived products on narrowbody market were at end of development potential. Douglas was going to drag everything else down with it without merger. After Boeing merger. Boeing inherited the maximize short term profits and cut corners everywhere business model from former Douglas.
>I don't quite get how Boeing can fuck up the KC-46 so bad. They already developed the 767, how hard is it to slap in a refueling probe and extra tanks?
this is after having lost the original progam to airbus then lobbying to have it rewritten so they could win
Giving it Boeing would be a huge mistake, those naggers can’t make a good product to save their lives and I’m pretty certain they’ve never even made a successful stealth aircraft
Actually given their nadir in public perception they are probably as hungry and competent as they are ever going to be. Nothing like a confidence-shattering series of fuckups to get the best deal out of a corporation. I believe we might expect a damn good plane with less-than-normal expenses padding and cost overruns. In other words, more HONEST conduct from a grateful, chastened defense contractor heavyweight.
Also they kind of have to give it to Boeing to maintain the defense aerospace duopoly. Expertise, once neglected, is very expensive to reacquire.
nta but >Actually given their nadir in public perception they are probably as hungry and competent as they are ever going to be. Nothing like a confidence-shattering series of fuckups to get the best deal out of a corporation. I believe we might expect a damn good plane with less-than-normal expenses padding and cost overruns. In other words, more HONEST conduct from a grateful, chastened defense contractor heavyweight.
Nah, sorry anon but no. Boeing hasn't reformed, yes they're at a bad point in "public perception" to some extent but that hasn't translated into any serious changes at the corporate level. They haven't at all been working to reverse the utter MBA rape visited upon them by the McD/GE management bullshit starting in the 90s. They haven't had to flirt with bankruptcy or the kinds of losses that would truly drive change. Institutional culture is very sticky, and it's perfectly possible for a big corp to stumble along for decades after the world moves on, maintaining profitable critical niches and B2B/B2G sales expertise while still being mediocre overall and never regaining its hungry engineering. Corporate reinventions that go well are rare and very hard to pull off.
You can see this all over at Boeing honestly. >Expertise, once neglected, is very expensive to reacquire.
This is true, it's a hard problem. But that doesn't make Boeing less rotten either. Ideally the military (and government) would be working hard to nurture future Boeing replacements even while continuing to support them in the meantime. That's what they're doing with rocket launch and that at least is going very well, Boeing+LM (ULA) is already almost obsolete with SpaceX of course but also a solid 2-4 potential second launch providers coming up.
>Also they kind of have to give it to Boeing to maintain the defense aerospace duopoly.
This sentence makes everything you wrote before invalid, they know they'll be kept around to not lose the expertise, the only thing that could cause them to rethink and reform would be a new competitor
nta but >Actually given their nadir in public perception they are probably as hungry and competent as they are ever going to be. Nothing like a confidence-shattering series of fuckups to get the best deal out of a corporation. I believe we might expect a damn good plane with less-than-normal expenses padding and cost overruns. In other words, more HONEST conduct from a grateful, chastened defense contractor heavyweight.
Nah, sorry anon but no. Boeing hasn't reformed, yes they're at a bad point in "public perception" to some extent but that hasn't translated into any serious changes at the corporate level. They haven't at all been working to reverse the utter MBA rape visited upon them by the McD/GE management bullshit starting in the 90s. They haven't had to flirt with bankruptcy or the kinds of losses that would truly drive change. Institutional culture is very sticky, and it's perfectly possible for a big corp to stumble along for decades after the world moves on, maintaining profitable critical niches and B2B/B2G sales expertise while still being mediocre overall and never regaining its hungry engineering. Corporate reinventions that go well are rare and very hard to pull off.
You can see this all over at Boeing honestly. >Expertise, once neglected, is very expensive to reacquire.
This is true, it's a hard problem. But that doesn't make Boeing less rotten either. Ideally the military (and government) would be working hard to nurture future Boeing replacements even while continuing to support them in the meantime. That's what they're doing with rocket launch and that at least is going very well, Boeing+LM (ULA) is already almost obsolete with SpaceX of course but also a solid 2-4 potential second launch providers coming up.
. Boeing is done and they know it hence trying to sell their share of ULA. SpaceX obviously is already crushing them, but Rocket Lab's Neutron, Relativity's Terran-R, maybe even Blue Origin's New Glenn, as well as other players all have higher odds of making something more competitive before the end of the decade. Boeing's space efforts are now dead man walking and they squeeze the last cost-plus guvbux out of it they can before they're booted.
>Boeing >Ambitious
It's gonna be another X-32, where they promise all kind of things will be there eventually but the actual prototype is meme worthy, isn't it?
Yeah all MD aircraft only under the Boeing brand because of a merger. The MD engineers were let go but the executives stayed and kinda fucked Boeings corporate culture. Weird situation but the guy you are replying to is correct, outside patrol aircraft they haven't made a clean sheet Naval aircraft under the Boeing badge afaik
They have same engineers still there. Former McDonnell is de facto fighter division of Boeing, they have been kept busy by F/A-18 and F-15 since 80's. Even Douglas has manufactured naval combat aircraft in 90's, those just happen to be BAE (formerly Hawker-Siddeley) products made mostly under license. T-45 Goshawk, BAE Hawk with navalized landing gear and arrestor hook. AV-8 Harrier, where MDC redesigned wing, but I kinda suspect work on that happened on McDonnell side of MDC. Both of those were originally built in former Douglas facility in Long Beach, but on final years production was transferred to former McDonnell facilities in St. Louis. When we go to pre-merger aircraft from each part of MDC. Last Douglas designed naval combat aircraft was A-4 Skyhawk. Last McDonnell designed naval fighter was F-4 Phantom II.
Boeing proper was part of F-22 development and production as major subcontractor. MDC teamed up with Northrop to develop YF-23.
Boeing has two helicopter divisions. Boeing-Vertol that produces CH-47 and former Hughes Helicopters that got absorbed into MDC that produces AH-64. After MDC-Boeing merger they sold out rights to other former Hughes helicopters on civilian side. Ironically Hughes sold rights to Hughes 269/300 to Schweizer in 1983, before Hughes was bought by MDC. MDC and Boeing kept rights to Hughes 369/500 until 1999, then sold rights to civilian sales to MD helicopters. I haven't bothered to check out what is actual military production arrangement today, but Boeing retains at least military marketing rights, but production might be for most parts actually by MD Helicopters.
That being said, what Boeing got from the merger with MDC was Douglas corporate culture of cutting costs everywhere, including more modern variation of outsourcing shit to countries where they shit on streets. That leads to 737 MAX MCAS issues.
>They have same engineers still there >F/A-18 First Flight: 44 years ago
0 percent of the engineers involved in developing a clean sheet naval fighter design are still there.
Aside from the massive time gap (even super bug designers are retired or at the end of their careers) the MD engineers were bought out and laid off almost to a man. All St. Louis manufacturing and design was completely liquidated, only corporate stayed to get absorbed in the merger. Experienced Boeing guys were moved into the new teams and promoted, then the entry level vacancies were filled by H1B1 poos. See also: every Boeing product since the merger.
As an aside, I have 168.5 hours in the Goshawk. It is a catastrophic pile of shit and the worst US operated fixed wing of any type by an order of magnitude. That airframe is a complete fucking disaster.
1 month ago
Anonymous
T-45A or T-45C?
Also this is why the Navy has an RFP out for a contract award in 2026 on a T-45 replacement.
1 month ago
Anonymous
But what's wrong with it? It's not known as a lawn-dart or a flying coffin, so can it really be that awful?
1 month ago
Anonymous
It falls out of the sky at a pretty alarming rate anon
Almost 1 every year.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I guess it's not quite a Starfighter, but it IS a training aircraft, is it not? It's sort of the airframe I'd personally expect to have the most crashes, at least.
Anemic powerplant, shit ECS, and worst, it's fucking trash at holding attitude at any kind of high alpha. Which makes it 2-3x harder to trap with than any other tailhook aircraft. It's also the bird you do your first 5 traps in.
Personally, I had a random hydrazine fire in the APU on startup, failure to retract port side main mount, and the fairing right in front of the canopy just come off in flight and spiderweb the front bow glass. Worst straight mechanical issue I've had in any other Navy airframe was a fritzy alternator and a GPS unit that was precessing somehow.
It's real bad. We need to get rid of it.
>It's real bad. We need to get rid of it.
How come it's not being gotten rid of fast as possible then?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Carrier-capable jet trainers aren't cheap.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It more or less is, see
T-45A or T-45C?
Also this is why the Navy has an RFP out for a contract award in 2026 on a T-45 replacement.
The navy has an active RFP out currently seeking proposals with a contract award slated for 2026.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Anemic powerplant, shit ECS, and worst, it's fucking trash at holding attitude at any kind of high alpha. Which makes it 2-3x harder to trap with than any other tailhook aircraft. It's also the bird you do your first 5 traps in.
Personally, I had a random hydrazine fire in the APU on startup, failure to retract port side main mount, and the fairing right in front of the canopy just come off in flight and spiderweb the front bow glass. Worst straight mechanical issue I've had in any other Navy airframe was a fritzy alternator and a GPS unit that was precessing somehow.
Boeing is probably BEGGING for a deal right now since everything else they own is on fire.
I wouldnt be surprised if they took this contract at a loss just to get a success on the books for the first time in a decade. >pic extremely fucking related
last i heard boeing has spent several billion in public funds from NASA and they haven't had one successful test of that thing. they cant even get the landing parachute right.
meanwhile, in a parallel program of the same purpose, Space-X has successfully completed multiple real world missions with complete successful craft for a fraction of the money that boeing has wasted.
In space launch engineering, a failed test still represents progress. Boeing is coming late to the party and if they had immediate success, it'd be pretty obvious that someone was spilling trade secrets. Also SpaceX needs the competition and have their own test failures too.
I'd have to double check but I think it's "only" 1.3 billion or something like that, important Boeing has NOT been able to keep charging, the fixed cost aspect has worked. NASA isn't paying for any of the extra work, testing or delay costs, Boeing has had to eat the loss themselves. Though I think they said that they don't want to do fixed cost ever again for that reason which means they're going to abandon space work as soon as Starliner is done. We already know they're looking to get out of ULA, which no longer gets the assurance payments and just lost a dramatic business change in Phase 2 NSSL contracts.
[...]
Christ you retard. Boeing is not coming late they were in space long before SpaceX, got the Commercial Crew contract at the exact same time, were paid more money then SpaceX was due to a higher bid, and indeed were seen as the "safe" options vs SpaceX, and have also been feeding at the trough of SLS.
understood. but still. for 1.34 billion, what seemingly little progress they've made sounds pathetic.
it's not like they have to invent orbital physics, space craft engine technology or space flight travel concepts from scratch.
they are standing on the shoulder of giants with the wealth of 100 years of aeronautics and space flight knowledge and experience.
I'd expect any place like Boeing to have a virtual galactic encyclopedia of reference materials, tech libraries, and institutional knowledge, skill and experience.
Oh for sure, Boeing has absolutely rotted to hell, I'm just saying the Commercial Crew program worked really well. Two places bid, and there was certainly risk from the start that one or both wouldn't be able to deliver. One was seen as "safer" and it turns out that the safer one failed and the riskier one succeeded, but still from a taxpayer perspective the ROI has been excellent and it proved out fixed-cost at that stage of things. Both sides bid a fixed cost that NASA could assess and agree to or not, and then that's what they get paid for performance and that's it no backsliding like in so much of the worst days of government contracting, no cost-plus for well understood areas bullshit. Boeing fucked up but this time around tough shit for them, now they've lost $1.1 billion and climbing: >https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/boeing-has-now-lost-1-1-billion-on-starliner-with-no-crew-flight-in-sight/
Now they're whining (just a fwe weeks ago) about how fixed-price is bad for shareholders because Boeing literally can't make any money on it so they want to never do it again: >https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/
Which also means Boeing is going to be shut out of more and more government work. Cost-plus will still be a thing for certain aggressive new projects, but military wants to go fixed price more and more where possible. Even for new stuff like NGAD military will not make the mistake of not own the IP again, so there will still be maintenance and such competition.
>tough shit for them, now they've lost $1.1 billion and climbing:
://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/boeing-has-now-lost-1-1-billion-on-starliner-with-no-crew-flight-in-sight/
kek. im not celebrating their loss,
but im definitely celebrating the fact it sounds like the taxpayers aren't getting stuck with that bill.
>Now they're whining (just a fwe weeks ago) about how fixed-price is bad for shareholders because. >privatize the profits >make public pay the losses?
yeah, fuck boeing corpo pimp whores they can go to hell with that shit.
1 month ago
Anonymous
In fairness given the subject of this thread, I will say that cost-plus still can make sense and remain a tool (though on the government side it requires maintaining significant internal competence for oversight not outsourcing that). You can't reasonably fixed-price bid on radical new technology that doesn't even exist yet, when the military wants something cutting edge it makes sense there will be costs. Also, fixed-price requires discipline on BOTH sides, like yeah contractor can't just be shit and overrun like mad, but government has often had the bad customer habit of pulling shit like >Hey DoD we're 75% done things are looking good! >Oh nice to hear, btw we want you to add this whole new set of capabilities some brass just pulled out of their asses that'd be terrific. >FFFFUUUUUUUUUU
or >btw we want to micromanage every last aspect of how you do stuff and make you allocate manufacturing based on congressional district
So it's going to be a learning process.
Still fixed bid could be used in a LOT more places and it's genuinely great to see after a 30 year bad spell that government and military really starting to get that maintaining competition and economics is itself a strategic interest.
they're now saying starship launch might be in just the next 2-3 weeks (could be longer but could be that soon) damn once that thing is working even sls will be under real threat
I'd have to double check but I think it's "only" 1.3 billion or something like that, important Boeing has NOT been able to keep charging, the fixed cost aspect has worked. NASA isn't paying for any of the extra work, testing or delay costs, Boeing has had to eat the loss themselves. Though I think they said that they don't want to do fixed cost ever again for that reason which means they're going to abandon space work as soon as Starliner is done. We already know they're looking to get out of ULA, which no longer gets the assurance payments and just lost a dramatic business change in Phase 2 NSSL contracts.
In space launch engineering, a failed test still represents progress. Boeing is coming late to the party and if they had immediate success, it'd be pretty obvious that someone was spilling trade secrets. Also SpaceX needs the competition and have their own test failures too.
Christ you retard. Boeing is not coming late they were in space long before SpaceX, got the Commercial Crew contract at the exact same time, were paid more money then SpaceX was due to a higher bid, and indeed were seen as the "safe" options vs SpaceX, and have also been feeding at the trough of SLS.
The problem is that the military also wants fixed cost contracts now to be used more broadly since they want more for their dollar. If Boeing just says "no way fag" to those, they will literally go bankrupt.
Boeing is terrible an assessing costs. On the new Air Force Ones, they agreed on fixed cost and are already 2B over budget, with 3/4 years of expected delays as well.
Yeah, I'd assume a more grounded, but still modular, approach would be superior. The NGAD doesn't need to be a hyperfuturistic jet right now, if it's built from the ground up to be properly upgradable.
I thought the NGAD program already had flying prototypes....
Yes, but they hadn't selected a finalist, think YF-22 and YF-23.
The army NGAD, The navy NGAD or the two airforce NGADs?
There is no army NGAD, and both the navy and airforce NGAD are a system of systems that are made up of multiple aircraft.
USAF's NGAD has PCA (Penetrating Counter Air) as the main (manned) component of the program.
USN's NGAD has F/A-XX as the main (manned) component of the program.
Both programs will have MUM-T drones.
>There is no Army NGAD
if there was, you just know somehow Sig would end up winning it.
Only because Beretta's NGAD prototype was just a Block 50 F-16D
No, Beretta would offer an ungodly mashup of a block 32 F-16 and Rafale that is somehow still not instantly disqualified because Sig's slop is even worse
>The army NGAD
Next Generation Army Dakka?
>hmmmm will the MIC choose the program that saves a bit of money by building on familiar technologies or will it pursue BRAND NEW TECH WITH A BUDGET OF 500 POMNILIAN DOLLARS THAT COULD GO OVERBUDGET BY 6000%
It will cost ten trillion dollars, be delayed into service by a decade, have multiple congressional attempts to shut it down, and then one of them will destroy an entire Chinese Carrier Battlegroup by itself in the 2nd Taiwan War of 2041
>and then one of them will destroy an entire Chinese Carrier Battlegroup by itself in the 2nd Taiwan War of 2041
F-35 can do this already
Air technology only advances when the US itself advances it. Therefore they have no need to develop new systems because it will just mean everyone else copies them and gets 80% of the performance for 10% of the investment. It's the Dreadnought problem all over again where when the UK created HMS Dreadnought and made every previous capital ship obsolete, the main losers were themselves since they had the most obsolete capital ships as a consequence of their own innovation.
>'s the Dreadnought problem all over again where when the UK created HMS Dreadnought and made every previous capital ship obsolete, the main losers were themselves since they had the most obsolete capital ships as a consequence of their own innovation.
Indirectly leading to WW1 because of the renewed naval arms race.
Battle of Anchorage and Annexation of Canada here we come!
that's a man.
Even if that were true, it wouldn't stop me
Hasn't yet, homo
brainrot
They will figure out a way to do both.
>program that saves a bit of money by building on familiar technologies
It never worked, it always was a trick, you got m14 in the best case
Modern attack drone is a cheap air-frame with a small piston engine inside and electronic optical system attached to it. All of these are pretty familiar technology that can be utilized by 2nd tier shitholes like Iran at this point.
Of course, one can say that some old schmuck was adamantly against electronic sight w/ laser rangefinder and ability to automatically adjust for elevation on a tank and was advocating for old proven mechanical design but, that doesn't defeat my point. One must not blindly strive to use the newest tech as long as familiar technology still has enough steam left.
Whatever puts your grandma under rubble faster, Abdullah. Preferably unmanned.
Why are you complaining? You're just gonna steal it anyway. I thought your kind was happy to leach of the US?
Boeing needs it. LM has F35 and who knows what else. NG isn't interested in NGAD. LM and NG will fight over FA/XX. LM will probably get that
Northrop dropped out of the NGAD bid to focus on F/A-XX, so if they lose, lmao
I support a new Grumman cat wholeheartedly
Hellcat II
Thundercat
They should have some kind of edge at having tried and failed to do this in the 90s with the flying dorito. Hopefully some lessons were learned in that cluster fuck which is still screwing naval aviation to this day (all bugs all the time was not supposed to happen)
Boeing NEEDS to start fucking delivering on time and on budget. There's no reason propping up a MIC silo that can't produce functioning hardware.
>SLS
>Starliner
>737 MAX deaths
>KC-46 foreign object debris
>There's no reason propping up a MIC silo that can't produce functioning hardware
I mean, there unironically IS a reason.
Even if they do have a history of failed programs, you can't just magically produce a new company to replace them, so you prop them up regardless, even if they suck now 10-20 years and $50B+ later who knows?
what if you break up Boeing, allow the segments that haven't rotted through to continue, let the bad ones go bankrupt, then consolidate the surviving units alongside some minor MIC players like Kratos?
Possible, but no one but Northrop or Lockheed has the management chops to take on and integrate/manage those segments properly.
So you'd just be sliming down from 3 major MICs to 2.
GM does, go full chaebol
General Dynamics you mean? (Formerly GM Defense until GD bought them in 2003)
no I mean start merging Boeing into the car company because the corporate wreckage would be funny and GM has experience managing way too many divisions (mostly by violently cutting them)
I think it makes more sense to merge with General Dynamics as they did the F-16 originally before it got taken over by Lockheed in the '90s.
Would love GD to get back to their military aircraft roots with a merger with Boeing's military arms.
You can give the commercial segments of Boeing to GM
>GM buys Fokker
>merges it with their own in house aviation division
>renames it to North American
>North American splits from GM
>merges with Rockwell
>Rockwell falls apart
>Boeing buys the remains
>give Boeing to GM
I propose the new company be called Fokker to complete the cycle
Have a consortium of
>General Dynamics
>General Atomics
>General Motors
>General Electric
>General Mills
Buy up and divide Boeing. We'll call it General General
>general mills
To assist in cereal production of airframes I assume
Significantly underrated poast.
CARLOS
>you will live to see General Products become a reality
No, General Resource
Beat me to it.
/k/ is a Neucom board
>/k/ is a Neucom board
Seeing this based post made me throw away everything I ever knew and, with my own eyes, discover the truth of the world.
I thought that was a redbull branded plane
>Redbull Skyrace
Kino!
iirc red bull dates back like a decade earlier than 1999 in terms of actual history but don't think it was that widely distributed or a household name yet in japan or even america in the 90s doubt they were thinking about it
What does its penis do?
>them neucom designs
Why peepee hard
boop the snoot
god i still love the delphinus don't even quite know why there are other goofy futurejets out there
GG
literally GG
Your forgot
>General Insurance
to avoid confusion between the subdivisions, all starting with General, the chaebol itself will simply be known as MG ('miguk')
What if you executed everyone that ever worked on the c suite level at GE or MDD?
Liquidate Boeing. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.
I don't quite get how Boeing can fuck up the KC-46 so bad. They already developed the 767, how hard is it to slap in a refueling probe and extra tanks?
By being Boeing and selling product that didn't exist at the time to USAF. It has essentially new wing. It needed some development work, then it needed some more development work because the wing didn't meet USAF requirements. KC-46 is essentially 767-200 fuselage with 767-300 wing and 767-400 slats and flaps. It lost the original KC-X tender to KC-45 aka Airbus A330MRTT.
To understand where everything went to hell with Boeing, at its core is McDonnell-Douglas merger. McDonnell and Douglas merger in late 60's was all about finances, neither company could manage to get funding for future projects and grow at end of 60's. They were too small. Basically McDonnell was the fighter business. Douglas was commercial airliner business, they already had reputation for cutting costs everywhere and doing bit of outsourcing. MCD helicopter business was former Hughes, but they effectively spun off everything that wasn't Apache and outsourced that stuff. Reason they merged with Boeing is because MDC didn't invest into future products on commercial side, MD-11 was dead as soon as ETOPS ranges got extended, DC-9 derived products on narrowbody market were at end of development potential. Douglas was going to drag everything else down with it without merger. After Boeing merger. Boeing inherited the maximize short term profits and cut corners everywhere business model from former Douglas.
point and click wiring design done in India
t. Worked on the first test aircraft
>I don't quite get how Boeing can fuck up the KC-46 so bad. They already developed the 767, how hard is it to slap in a refueling probe and extra tanks?
this is after having lost the original progam to airbus then lobbying to have it rewritten so they could win
agree, you think a military plane would have "manual override" backup eyeballs for the probe instead of ONLY CCTV that don't work.
Giving it Boeing would be a huge mistake, those naggers can’t make a good product to save their lives and I’m pretty certain they’ve never even made a successful stealth aircraft
Actually given their nadir in public perception they are probably as hungry and competent as they are ever going to be. Nothing like a confidence-shattering series of fuckups to get the best deal out of a corporation. I believe we might expect a damn good plane with less-than-normal expenses padding and cost overruns. In other words, more HONEST conduct from a grateful, chastened defense contractor heavyweight.
Also they kind of have to give it to Boeing to maintain the defense aerospace duopoly. Expertise, once neglected, is very expensive to reacquire.
nta but
>Actually given their nadir in public perception they are probably as hungry and competent as they are ever going to be. Nothing like a confidence-shattering series of fuckups to get the best deal out of a corporation. I believe we might expect a damn good plane with less-than-normal expenses padding and cost overruns. In other words, more HONEST conduct from a grateful, chastened defense contractor heavyweight.
Nah, sorry anon but no. Boeing hasn't reformed, yes they're at a bad point in "public perception" to some extent but that hasn't translated into any serious changes at the corporate level. They haven't at all been working to reverse the utter MBA rape visited upon them by the McD/GE management bullshit starting in the 90s. They haven't had to flirt with bankruptcy or the kinds of losses that would truly drive change. Institutional culture is very sticky, and it's perfectly possible for a big corp to stumble along for decades after the world moves on, maintaining profitable critical niches and B2B/B2G sales expertise while still being mediocre overall and never regaining its hungry engineering. Corporate reinventions that go well are rare and very hard to pull off.
You can see this all over at Boeing honestly.
>Expertise, once neglected, is very expensive to reacquire.
This is true, it's a hard problem. But that doesn't make Boeing less rotten either. Ideally the military (and government) would be working hard to nurture future Boeing replacements even while continuing to support them in the meantime. That's what they're doing with rocket launch and that at least is going very well, Boeing+LM (ULA) is already almost obsolete with SpaceX of course but also a solid 2-4 potential second launch providers coming up.
> Nothing like a confidence-shattering series of fuckups to get the best deal out of a corporation.
Boeing announced in their most recent quarterly meeting that they will no longer bid on fixed cost contracts. They have no intention of reforming.
>Also they kind of have to give it to Boeing to maintain the defense aerospace duopoly.
This sentence makes everything you wrote before invalid, they know they'll be kept around to not lose the expertise, the only thing that could cause them to rethink and reform would be a new competitor
See
. Boeing is done and they know it hence trying to sell their share of ULA. SpaceX obviously is already crushing them, but Rocket Lab's Neutron, Relativity's Terran-R, maybe even Blue Origin's New Glenn, as well as other players all have higher odds of making something more competitive before the end of the decade. Boeing's space efforts are now dead man walking and they squeeze the last cost-plus guvbux out of it they can before they're booted.
Boeing moved their HQ to DC for increased lobbying options. They're not hungry. Or competent.
Fuck boeing
You forgot the issues with the P-8A.
And now, apparently even the F-15EX is experiencing delays.
Oh, and I can't believe that I forgot the whole VC-25B debacle.
>Boeing NEEDS to start fucking delivering on time and on budget.
Boeing has gutted their engineering department to make more money. They are dying.
>twitter post from a literalwho
Fuck off and come back with something worthwile
>he doesn't know vago muradian
who the fuck would pick boeing after all their fuckups lately
just look at starliner
NO NO NO I DON'T WANT LAUGHING AIRCRAFT AAAAAAIIIIIIIIIEEEEE
KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK
https://youtube.com/shorts/OXi2poP_T_w
Let this also be a reminder that looks fucking matter. No one wants a fucking clown airplane as the face of air superiority.
I want that smile.
You probably want that clussy too.
>Boeing
>Ambitious
It's gonna be another X-32, where they promise all kind of things will be there eventually but the actual prototype is meme worthy, isn't it?
No way. Boeing is incompetent, if they get NGAD it’s actually ogre for the USAF
>boeing
ready by 2075, $20 trillion cost overrun and it doesn't work
Lockheed should never get another contract for the shit they pulled with the F35
Boeing should be fucking dissolved for the shit they pulled with Starliner, SLS, 737 MAX/corrupting the FAA, etc.
aren't they just juggling government contracts irregardless of who's proposal is better again like they did with F-35
SHOW THE DESIGNS FUCKING ASSHOLES AHHHHHH
USAF doing the needful
>Boeing
Maybe they should wait for them to sort their shit out instead of flooding them with cash to do more of the same.
>choosing Boeing
Serious now, they gonna charge extra for providing a warning light in case of software/hardware failure this time round?
Lockheed gets NGAD, Boeing gets FAXX, and Northrop does B-21, therefore there is balance between the contractors
>Boeing
>Naval Aviation
Please, no. They haven't tried to make carrier fighter since WWII.
>Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet
>Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet
>Boeing EA-18G Growler
Yeah all MD aircraft only under the Boeing brand because of a merger. The MD engineers were let go but the executives stayed and kinda fucked Boeings corporate culture. Weird situation but the guy you are replying to is correct, outside patrol aircraft they haven't made a clean sheet Naval aircraft under the Boeing badge afaik
They have same engineers still there. Former McDonnell is de facto fighter division of Boeing, they have been kept busy by F/A-18 and F-15 since 80's. Even Douglas has manufactured naval combat aircraft in 90's, those just happen to be BAE (formerly Hawker-Siddeley) products made mostly under license. T-45 Goshawk, BAE Hawk with navalized landing gear and arrestor hook. AV-8 Harrier, where MDC redesigned wing, but I kinda suspect work on that happened on McDonnell side of MDC. Both of those were originally built in former Douglas facility in Long Beach, but on final years production was transferred to former McDonnell facilities in St. Louis. When we go to pre-merger aircraft from each part of MDC. Last Douglas designed naval combat aircraft was A-4 Skyhawk. Last McDonnell designed naval fighter was F-4 Phantom II.
Boeing proper was part of F-22 development and production as major subcontractor. MDC teamed up with Northrop to develop YF-23.
Boeing has two helicopter divisions. Boeing-Vertol that produces CH-47 and former Hughes Helicopters that got absorbed into MDC that produces AH-64. After MDC-Boeing merger they sold out rights to other former Hughes helicopters on civilian side. Ironically Hughes sold rights to Hughes 269/300 to Schweizer in 1983, before Hughes was bought by MDC. MDC and Boeing kept rights to Hughes 369/500 until 1999, then sold rights to civilian sales to MD helicopters. I haven't bothered to check out what is actual military production arrangement today, but Boeing retains at least military marketing rights, but production might be for most parts actually by MD Helicopters.
That being said, what Boeing got from the merger with MDC was Douglas corporate culture of cutting costs everywhere, including more modern variation of outsourcing shit to countries where they shit on streets. That leads to 737 MAX MCAS issues.
>They have same engineers still there
>F/A-18 First Flight: 44 years ago
0 percent of the engineers involved in developing a clean sheet naval fighter design are still there.
Aside from the massive time gap (even super bug designers are retired or at the end of their careers) the MD engineers were bought out and laid off almost to a man. All St. Louis manufacturing and design was completely liquidated, only corporate stayed to get absorbed in the merger. Experienced Boeing guys were moved into the new teams and promoted, then the entry level vacancies were filled by H1B1 poos. See also: every Boeing product since the merger.
As an aside, I have 168.5 hours in the Goshawk. It is a catastrophic pile of shit and the worst US operated fixed wing of any type by an order of magnitude. That airframe is a complete fucking disaster.
T-45A or T-45C?
Also this is why the Navy has an RFP out for a contract award in 2026 on a T-45 replacement.
But what's wrong with it? It's not known as a lawn-dart or a flying coffin, so can it really be that awful?
It falls out of the sky at a pretty alarming rate anon
Almost 1 every year.
I guess it's not quite a Starfighter, but it IS a training aircraft, is it not? It's sort of the airframe I'd personally expect to have the most crashes, at least.
>It's real bad. We need to get rid of it.
How come it's not being gotten rid of fast as possible then?
Carrier-capable jet trainers aren't cheap.
It more or less is, see
The navy has an active RFP out currently seeking proposals with a contract award slated for 2026.
Anemic powerplant, shit ECS, and worst, it's fucking trash at holding attitude at any kind of high alpha. Which makes it 2-3x harder to trap with than any other tailhook aircraft. It's also the bird you do your first 5 traps in.
Personally, I had a random hydrazine fire in the APU on startup, failure to retract port side main mount, and the fairing right in front of the canopy just come off in flight and spiderweb the front bow glass. Worst straight mechanical issue I've had in any other Navy airframe was a fritzy alternator and a GPS unit that was precessing somehow.
It's real bad. We need to get rid of it.
Retard… the Hornet is one of the most capable airframes of any service.
I bet on Boeing using the initial cash to bankroll the MAX retrofitting after the MAX 10 certification.
> Boeing anything.
They did a great job on the Pegasus tanker. Why not?
Boeing is probably BEGGING for a deal right now since everything else they own is on fire.
I wouldnt be surprised if they took this contract at a loss just to get a success on the books for the first time in a decade.
>pic extremely fucking related
last i heard boeing has spent several billion in public funds from NASA and they haven't had one successful test of that thing. they cant even get the landing parachute right.
meanwhile, in a parallel program of the same purpose, Space-X has successfully completed multiple real world missions with complete successful craft for a fraction of the money that boeing has wasted.
In space launch engineering, a failed test still represents progress. Boeing is coming late to the party and if they had immediate success, it'd be pretty obvious that someone was spilling trade secrets. Also SpaceX needs the competition and have their own test failures too.
understood. but still. for 1.34 billion, what seemingly little progress they've made sounds pathetic.
it's not like they have to invent orbital physics, space craft engine technology or space flight travel concepts from scratch.
they are standing on the shoulder of giants with the wealth of 100 years of aeronautics and space flight knowledge and experience.
I'd expect any place like Boeing to have a virtual galactic encyclopedia of reference materials, tech libraries, and institutional knowledge, skill and experience.
1.3 billion dollars
$1,300,000,000.00 is alot of dollars
Oh for sure, Boeing has absolutely rotted to hell, I'm just saying the Commercial Crew program worked really well. Two places bid, and there was certainly risk from the start that one or both wouldn't be able to deliver. One was seen as "safer" and it turns out that the safer one failed and the riskier one succeeded, but still from a taxpayer perspective the ROI has been excellent and it proved out fixed-cost at that stage of things. Both sides bid a fixed cost that NASA could assess and agree to or not, and then that's what they get paid for performance and that's it no backsliding like in so much of the worst days of government contracting, no cost-plus for well understood areas bullshit. Boeing fucked up but this time around tough shit for them, now they've lost $1.1 billion and climbing:
>https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/boeing-has-now-lost-1-1-billion-on-starliner-with-no-crew-flight-in-sight/
Now they're whining (just a fwe weeks ago) about how fixed-price is bad for shareholders because Boeing literally can't make any money on it so they want to never do it again:
>https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/
Which also means Boeing is going to be shut out of more and more government work. Cost-plus will still be a thing for certain aggressive new projects, but military wants to go fixed price more and more where possible. Even for new stuff like NGAD military will not make the mistake of not own the IP again, so there will still be maintenance and such competition.
interesting. thanks.
>tough shit for them, now they've lost $1.1 billion and climbing:
://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/boeing-has-now-lost-1-1-billion-on-starliner-with-no-crew-flight-in-sight/
kek. im not celebrating their loss,
but im definitely celebrating the fact it sounds like the taxpayers aren't getting stuck with that bill.
>Now they're whining (just a fwe weeks ago) about how fixed-price is bad for shareholders because.
>privatize the profits
>make public pay the losses?
yeah, fuck boeing corpo pimp whores they can go to hell with that shit.
In fairness given the subject of this thread, I will say that cost-plus still can make sense and remain a tool (though on the government side it requires maintaining significant internal competence for oversight not outsourcing that). You can't reasonably fixed-price bid on radical new technology that doesn't even exist yet, when the military wants something cutting edge it makes sense there will be costs. Also, fixed-price requires discipline on BOTH sides, like yeah contractor can't just be shit and overrun like mad, but government has often had the bad customer habit of pulling shit like
>Hey DoD we're 75% done things are looking good!
>Oh nice to hear, btw we want you to add this whole new set of capabilities some brass just pulled out of their asses that'd be terrific.
>FFFFUUUUUUUUUU
or
>btw we want to micromanage every last aspect of how you do stuff and make you allocate manufacturing based on congressional district
So it's going to be a learning process.
Still fixed bid could be used in a LOT more places and it's genuinely great to see after a 30 year bad spell that government and military really starting to get that maintaining competition and economics is itself a strategic interest.
they're now saying starship launch might be in just the next 2-3 weeks (could be longer but could be that soon) damn once that thing is working even sls will be under real threat
Rewarding failure kinda defeats the point of competition, don't you think? They're so crippled they can't even do fixed cost contracts.
I'd have to double check but I think it's "only" 1.3 billion or something like that, important Boeing has NOT been able to keep charging, the fixed cost aspect has worked. NASA isn't paying for any of the extra work, testing or delay costs, Boeing has had to eat the loss themselves. Though I think they said that they don't want to do fixed cost ever again for that reason which means they're going to abandon space work as soon as Starliner is done. We already know they're looking to get out of ULA, which no longer gets the assurance payments and just lost a dramatic business change in Phase 2 NSSL contracts.
Christ you retard. Boeing is not coming late they were in space long before SpaceX, got the Commercial Crew contract at the exact same time, were paid more money then SpaceX was due to a higher bid, and indeed were seen as the "safe" options vs SpaceX, and have also been feeding at the trough of SLS.
The problem is that the military also wants fixed cost contracts now to be used more broadly since they want more for their dollar. If Boeing just says "no way fag" to those, they will literally go bankrupt.
Boeing is terrible an assessing costs. On the new Air Force Ones, they agreed on fixed cost and are already 2B over budget, with 3/4 years of expected delays as well.
That is what I am saying:
>We won't do fixed cost because we keep losing money!
>Okay then you won't get contracts.
>OH NO WE WENT BANKRUPT!
This is the podcast where they talk about this
https://defaeroreport.com/2023/11/02/defense-aerospace-air-power-podcast-ep40-ask-dr-science/
I don't believe Boeing could still design a clean sheet 4th gen fighter much less a 6th gen.
They are just showcases to get nato standardized euros. SU-57 is the most capable jet fighter ever existed.
They just suck dicks of both american companies evenly, so none european company can come in the market
>the ongod program
fr fr
USA prints infinite money so it will be sold for $34.5 quintillion while a chink slave sweatshop can sell the exact same thing for $200.
>$200 NGAD competitor
May I see it please?
CAN RETARDS STOP NAMING THINGS LIKE "NEXT GENERATION" OR "NEW TECHNOLOGY" USE A PROPER NAME THAT DOESN'T LOSE MEANING AFTER A FUCKING DECADE
RAD (Replacement Air Dominator)
CHAD (Chud Hypersonic Air Denial)
>Thing
>Thing-NG (Next Generation)
>Super Thing-NG
>Thing-NG Future Thing
>FTNG (Future Thing, NEW Generation)
>FTNG-U (FTNG-Unmanned)
>FTNG FPRP (FTNG Future-Proofing Refresh Program)
The monkey's paw curls and the name is now "M1"
Well, if a random Twitter account posts an unverified claim then that's all the proof I need.
>who?
https://defaeroreport.com/about/vago-muradian/
HTH
Skunk Works already have the new secret recon aircraft in service.
Boeing has done right by me. Bought shares when it was less than $30 a share and cashed out near its all time high.
That's nice and all but designs when?
I can't believe USAF prefers Boeings design over mine.
kek, i could see some MIC suits acting like that.
Now let see Northrop Grumman design.
I find that very hard to believe
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/1701679706624389581
Yeah, I'd assume a more grounded, but still modular, approach would be superior. The NGAD doesn't need to be a hyperfuturistic jet right now, if it's built from the ground up to be properly upgradable.
How likely is it this has nothing to do with Boeing's design and everything to do with the fact that Lockheed is *still* in the doghouse?
>LM
An F-22 without vertical stabilizers and the electronics of an F-35
>Boing
Flying scramjet-powered dorito? LED-based visual stealth?
The wording makes me curious. They make it sound like there is a huge difference between the contending aircraft