petertenthije
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
The Stearman (Boeing) Model 75 is a biplane formerly used as a military trainer aircraft, of which at least 10,626 were built in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s.[1] Stearman Aircraft became a subsidiary of Boeing in 1934. Widely known as the Stearman, Boeing Stearman or Kaydet, it served as a primary trainer for the United States Army Air Forces, the United States Navy (as the NS & N2S), and with the Royal Canadian Air Force as the Kaydet throughout World War II.

Yet perhaps USAF would not want to evoke the mental image of an eighty year old biplane?
Just change the name to make it politically correct: "Stearperson". Done!
Attamottamotta!
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:29 pm

petertenthije wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The Stearman (Boeing) Model 75 is a biplane formerly used as a military trainer aircraft, of which at least 10,626 were built in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s.[1] Stearman Aircraft became a subsidiary of Boeing in 1934. Widely known as the Stearman, Boeing Stearman or Kaydet, it served as a primary trainer for the United States Army Air Forces, the United States Navy (as the NS & N2S), and with the Royal Canadian Air Force as the Kaydet throughout World War II.

Yet perhaps USAF would not want to evoke the mental image of an eighty year old biplane?
Just change the name to make it politically correct: "Stearperson". Done!

Why must it be man or person? Call it StearTrainer, or simply Stear.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
EBJ68
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:20 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:36 am

Did a bit of research to see if I could find a name that alludes to where the airplane is built. St Louis has several nicknames, one of which is Archer, referring to the famous Arch in the city. Reference would also be to someone who shoots with a bow. I found no references to the Archer name ever being applied to an airplane.
 
rlwynn
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:39 am

Piper Archer.
I can drive faster than you
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:45 am

Wasp would be the perfect name.

A Hornet is the largest member of the wasp family. This trainer looks like a smaller single engined Hornet.

We have Wasp, Hornet, Super Hornet.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:20 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Wasp would be the perfect name.

A Hornet is the largest member of the wasp family. This trainer looks like a smaller single engined Hornet.

We have Wasp, Hornet, Super Hornet.


I dig it, but again, it goes with the Navy's nomenclature. I think the USAF will either follow course and go traditional (i.e. Lightning II, Raider) or go bird of prey (Raptor, Osprey).
It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.
 
User avatar
SAS A340
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 5:59 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:21 pm

I want to recall that a US Fighter pilot under the red flag called the SAAB Gripen as deadly little Raptors..... Raptor sounds nice ;)
It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:17 pm

How about Sparrowhawk?
It is the common name for small raptors species found in NA and Europe.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:47 pm

bikerthai wrote:
How about Sparrowhawk?
It is the common name for small raptors species found in NA and Europe.

bt


You know, you're onto something there! The Navy has the Goshawk. There is already a Jayhawk, Pave Hawk and Nighthawk. It keeps the trainer nomenclature going with the XXXhawk theme.
It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:38 pm

The F9C Sparrowhawk was also a beautiful biplane that flew from a dirigible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_F9C_Sparrowhawk.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
estorilm
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:55 pm

Stratotrainer! :rotfl:
 
tjh8402
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:01 am

aumaverick wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
How about Sparrowhawk?
It is the common name for small raptors species found in NA and Europe.

bt


You know, you're onto something there! The Navy has the Goshawk. There is already a Jayhawk, Pave Hawk and Nighthawk. It keeps the trainer nomenclature going with the XXXhawk theme.


Considering the plane it's replacing is called the "talon", it would seem that tradition is for some sort of bird of pray reference. Of course, the F-35 Lightning has ended the AF's streak of naming planes from that, so they may be wanting to move on to a new theme.
 
agill
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:45 am

Since it's a trainer, maybe n00bjet?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:32 pm

LM has announced they are not going to protest the award.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/lockh ... -saab-team
 
EBJ68
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:20 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:50 pm

Glad to hear LM won't protest the award. I'm reasonably certain if LM had won, Boeing would have protested.
 
User avatar
himself
Topic Author
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:02 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:20 pm

Probably not. We all knew, all along, that it was going to be a price shoot-out. A race to the bottom. That's why Northrop Grumman pulled out so early. They knew. Losers had no grounds for protest, except possibly in a tie.
 
olle
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:40 am

Dragontrainer?
 
olle
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:15 am

 
mxaxai
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:36 am

How about Merlin? Small, agile and it'd be the first military airplane to bear that name. Also a reference to the Merlin engine that powered the early Spitfires.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:08 pm

open it up to the internet for suggestions. It will end up being named the 'TrainerMcTrainerface'
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:19 am

How about the Boeing Gyrfalcon?
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2428
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:15 am

mxaxai wrote:
How about Merlin? Small, agile and it'd be the first military airplane to bear that name. Also a reference to the Merlin engine that powered the early Spitfires.


Hey mate,
Check out the Leonado (ex-AgustaWestland) EH101, known as the "Merlin" in UK service...
Cheers,
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
Ozair
Posts: 2986
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:05 am

I have read what James Hasik has written about the defence industry for a number of years and thought it was worth posting his comments about T-X and the contract award here. I tend to agree with the BZ he gives the USAF on running the contract and not only extracting the best price but incentivising the bidders to improve. It would be good to see this type of contract used more frequently within the US procurement structure.

T-X: BZ USAF

“How do you set-up a fair competition between existing and clean-sheet aircraft?” That was the question that Steve Trimble of Aviation Week & Space Technology asked last week in his article about “With USAF T-X Award, Boeing Seizes a Trio of Contracts” (27 September 2018). Boeing and Saab won the T-X trainer jet competition with their clean-sheet design; two other teams—Lockheed Martin and Korean Aerospace Industries, and Leonardo and CAE—had missed with already-proven aircraft. Fairness, however, is not my foremost concern with this award of competition, and it’s not even what I think that Steve meant. What interests me in his story is that the Air Force Department may have shaken off its attachment to the inappropriate simplicity of Lowest-Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) contracting. Whatever the fairness, what the Air Force sought first was value.
 
Fairness is an oft-cited objective in public procurement, but I find it a word of subjective and even questionable meaning. I covered this once before, in April 2015. As I wrote back then, in a course at the University of Chicago in 1998, I heard Toby Stuart (now of the Haas School at the University of California at Berkeley) propound that issue of subjectivity. After years of reflection, he had come conclude that the best definition of fair was “I like it”. People will agree that something is fair is it’s good for them. Thus, prospective contractors frequently differ in their views of how fair competitions might be structured.
 
Of far more interest to me is whether the US Air Force, and the US taxpayers, are getting the best deal they can. A recent low point in this regard may have been the competition for new aerial refueling tankers (the KC-X), an issue that I first started covering in January 2010. As part of a series of long essays, I wrote of how applying an LPTA approach would naturally produce a low price, but perhaps not the optimal result. In the third of those arguments, I lamented that the USAF had not written a true request for proposals (RFP), but “just a monstrous RFQ”—a request for quotes. This is because the Air Force ultimately gave no extra credit for exceeding performance parameters in a competition between two seriously dissimilar, off-the-shelf products. In that situation, one can almost assuredly pick the winner before the bids are in. Just ask yourself—which has the lower cost of inputs?
 
Six years later, I wrote of how the outcome was even further sealed by Boeing’s strategic—though perhaps strategically inappropriate—behavior:
 
As an Airbus strategist told me over lunch last week, “we’ve brought competition, and that’s good for the customer.” In the US Air Force's recent contest for the KC-X tanker project, Boeing basically bought the business with a low bid because it was terrified that Airbus would get the chance to build a factory in the US, putting an end to its protectionist arguments. Airbus lost, and the USAF got a great price, but Airbus then decided to build the factory anyway. That’s because in spite of the high corporate taxes... the United States is a remarkably good place for building aircraft. So now Airbus is not just a European company, but an American company too, already delivering A320 commercial airliners from Alabama.
 
The taxes are coming down, of course, and for all the Trump Administration's protectionism, the obsession seems to focus on jobs (in an already tight job market!), and not some goofy sense of anti-Franco-German techno-nationalism. We wish that were all over, but the narrower KC-X drama continues. While Boeing’s KC-46 tanker—based on the off-the-shelf 767—is still having developmental problems, Airbus’s KC-330 MRTT is flying for the air forces of four countries— Australia, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia—with several more to follow.
 
But enough beating on Boeing. Those folks had a deservedly banner month in September. Most notable was how Boeing and Saab won the bid for "up to 475 aircraft and 120 simulators” (as Sydney Freedberg retold the details at Breaking Defense) at an all-in price of $9.2 billion. Only winning bids are public, so unless the other bidders reveal their numbers, we will not know whether the USAF took the lowest, middle, or highest bid. We only know that the service’s representatives concluded that Boeing and Saab were offering the best value.
 
To win the T-X competition, as with any competition for a complex military product, prospective bidders needed to meet a long list of requirements. But unlike the KC-X competition, the scoring would not stop there, with their bids evaluated on an LPTA basis. Instead, the Air Force would assign extra credit, up to certain limits, for proposals whose aircraft offered to exceed requirements in operationally useful ways.
 
The first example in the list that the Air Force provided was high-g maneuvering. The minimum requirement the department sought was 6.5g, because aspiring fighter pilots need to understand how to operate, well, like fighter pilots. The Air Force would then award $13.2 million off the evaluated price for every additional 0.1g from 6.5 to 7.0. Fighter pilots who can learn to turn harder and sharper will presumably learn more, because it’s possible that air combat maneuvering is still a thing. Bidders would get another $4.4 million off their bids for every additional 0.1g from that point, up to a maximum of 7.5g. At a certain point, after all, even the instructor pilots will pass out. This meant that the bidders could earn a deduction from their evaluated prices of up to $88 million for proposing an airplane that could turn at 7.5g.
 
By maximizing every criterion, bidders could earn deductions of $338 million in the scoring. That’s only a 3.7 percent premium to pay for valuable performance, so it’s fair to ask whether the team at the Air Force Department could have acted more aggressively. For now, I won’t. I’ll just observe that the Air Force’s procurement people could have taken the easy way out. They could have sought the lowest bid bar none, and gone home early every day. Instead, they worked hard (quite some time back) to devise an economic case for each adjustable criterion. Last month, they got a best-value result, and they should be pleased with their work. The rest of us who care about defense-industrial matters can simply be relieved that the worst excesses of LPTA may be behind us.

http://www.jameshasik.com/
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6091
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:45 pm

tjh8402 wrote:
it would seem that tradition is for some sort of bird of pray reference.

:scratchchin: Uhmmn.....that seems to suggest that the trainer would somehow be...unsafe?..... :pray:..... :wink2:


Anyway...SAAB just got its initial contract.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-452922/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18973
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:54 pm

Devilfish wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:
it would seem that tradition is for some sort of bird of pray reference.

:scratchchin: Uhmmn.....that seems to suggest that the trainer would somehow be...unsafe?..... :pray:..... :wink2:


Anyway...SAAB just got its initial contract.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-452922/

Interesting comments:

Speaking during a third-quarter results call on 23 October, Saab chief executive Håkan Buskhe said the company has not yet decided on the location for the new facility. However, he notes that its supply chain will need to be developed from having traditionally produced between eight and 12 Gripen fighters per year to rapidly supporting a T-X production rate of 60 units per year.

That's a classy problem to have.

Welcome, SAAB, to the US DoD Sphere of Influence (TM) where things work differently than other spheres of influence.

We don't hear of Typhoon or A400M participants having to deal with problems ramping up to 60 units per year.

On the other hand, we have T-X and F-35.

Buskhe notes that in addition to meeting USAF training requirements, Saab also sees strong export potential for the T-X design. "Many US customers would like to be in the same concept as the US Air Force," he says.

To the victors go the spoils!
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18973
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:00 pm

Interesting tweet ( https://twitter.com/IBD_GRich/status/10 ... 9215555585 ):

Gillian Rich @IBD_GRich

@BoeingCEO said he couldn't comment on @LockheedMartin's comment that it would have lost $5B on 3 defense contracts to meet Boeing's offerings. But said that $BA was "able to bring the affordable solution because of investment in productivity" like advanced digital design etc.

Is LM behind the times on advanced digital design?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Ozair
Posts: 2986
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
Interesting tweet ( https://twitter.com/IBD_GRich/status/10 ... 9215555585 ):

Gillian Rich @IBD_GRich

@BoeingCEO said he couldn't comment on @LockheedMartin's comment that it would have lost $5B on 3 defense contracts to meet Boeing's offerings. But said that $BA was "able to bring the affordable solution because of investment in productivity" like advanced digital design etc.

Is LM behind the times on advanced digital design?

That is a veiled comment for “we simply bid really low”. Digital design doesn’t help that much when the competition had two existing in production designs, which needed little modification, to compete against.

Reality is Boeing needed the Defence work with all their existing fighter work tailing down. LM has sufficient work with sufficient long term stable margins to keep them and their shareholders very happy. LM can focus on what they want to win at the right price/margin while Boeing needed the win. NG was the same, they could have gone in low and cheap with their submission and potentially won the work but it didn't fit with their operating concept, margin and where they see their market niche, hence the withdrawal. (NG hadn’t been the prime on USAF T-38 support for a long time…)

Put the three awards Boeing won in their context (T-X, MQ-25 and USAF RW). Boeing appears to have bid low hoping to win the work. All three bids were submitted months previously so Boeing likely had no idea whether they would win one, two or all three, but probably decided they needed at least one and likely two of them to cement some long term defence revenue and keep the dev areas alive (and move forward from the KC-46 debacle). Both T-X and MQ-25 represented strong future sales and, as BikerThai mentioned up the thread, Boeing could afford to lose some money on the dev work based on the, I think flawed, rationale of winning support work later on.

I expect the three awards will move Boeing's financial position on bidding future contracts back to their more traditional level. There is no point going for bare margins now with the work they have coming in, instead focus back to those areas they see as core and high margin.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18973
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:07 pm

Ozair wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Interesting tweet ( https://twitter.com/IBD_GRich/status/10 ... 9215555585 ):

Gillian Rich @IBD_GRich

@BoeingCEO said he couldn't comment on @LockheedMartin's comment that it would have lost $5B on 3 defense contracts to meet Boeing's offerings. But said that $BA was "able to bring the affordable solution because of investment in productivity" like advanced digital design etc.

Is LM behind the times on advanced digital design?

That is a veiled comment for “we simply bid really low”. Digital design doesn’t help that much when the competition had two existing in production designs, which needed little modification, to compete against.

Reality is Boeing needed the Defence work with all their existing fighter work tailing down. LM has sufficient work with sufficient long term stable margins to keep them and their shareholders very happy. LM can focus on what they want to win at the right price/margin while Boeing needed the win. NG was the same, they could have gone in low and cheap with their submission and potentially won the work but it didn't fit with their operating concept, margin and where they see their market niche, hence the withdrawal. (NG hadn’t been the prime on USAF T-38 support for a long time…)

Put the three awards Boeing won in their context (T-X, MQ-25 and USAF RW). Boeing appears to have bid low hoping to win the work. All three bids were submitted months previously so Boeing likely had no idea whether they would win one, two or all three, but probably decided they needed at least one and likely two of them to cement some long term defence revenue and keep the dev areas alive (and move forward from the KC-46 debacle). Both T-X and MQ-25 represented strong future sales and, as BikerThai mentioned up the thread, Boeing could afford to lose some money on the dev work based on the, I think flawed, rationale of winning support work later on.

I expect the three awards will move Boeing's financial position on bidding future contracts back to their more traditional level. There is no point going for bare margins now with the work they have coming in, instead focus back to those areas they see as core and high margin.

I just read https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... es-to-flow wherein the analyst community largely agrees with your take that they are bidding low to win business, yet that doesn't preclude some confidence (false or otherwise) that they feel they can set lower prices due to many things including advanced digital design.

The fact that T-X gives them enough volume to stabilize the STL factory has to be a big thing to Boeing, and presumably the DoD as well.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
Is LM behind the times on advanced digital design?

Yes.

Learning software takes time.

Lockheed has not had a ground up design that started in the last 10 years. They have been tweaking 15-20 year old designs that would have been built in out of date software.

There is a big difference between bidding low with a very low profit margin because you are desperate and bidding low with a high profit margin because your design is so advanced it can be built extremely cheap.

When new software comes out you would have to trial it, train staff and then import and convert old designs. Usually you would just keep using the original software you designed it in. So it will only be the new projects that will use the new software.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2986
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
yet that doesn't preclude some confidence (false or otherwise) that they feel they can set lower prices due to many things including advanced digital design.

That is certainly possible but how long does that kind of advantage stay with just one vendor? I’d argue perhaps one year or bid cycle at best before the others see the writing on the wall and upgrade their design teams to the new standard. Of course there aren’t very many large contracts to come so this was also likely an attempt to win work before the USAF famine arrives.

Look at the three bids,

T-X - they did really bid low, probably from reports approximately 30% lower than both LM and Leonardo and certainly per the USAF press release and tender guidance lower than the USAF was expecting.

MQ-25 - the assessment was Boeing built the only prototype of the three bidders and had familiarity with the naval environment so that put them ahead. No idea how price conscious they were but building and flying the prototype obviously cost Boeing money.

USAF RW – Boeing bid low with two key factors, using an established production network for a civilian RW aircraft that has minimal modification for USAF ops and much of the aircraft is built overseas and only modified in the US for the contract. If you consider they potentially underbid the remanufacture of ex US Army UH-60A aircraft proposal by Sierra Nevada, which must have been a cheap option, it shows they were hungry for the contract.

Revelation wrote:
The fact that T-X gives them enough volume to stabilize the STL factory has to be a big thing to Boeing, and presumably the DoD as well.

It was a big win, especially for STL.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:52 am

What's funny to me is that Boeing as far as I know plans on building them in a factory that pays well, whereas my company bypassed actual production sites like here in Marietta where we have too much unused space as is to put the T-50 on that cheap ass non-union $24 top out even if you've been there 20 years Greenville labor. LOL still lost.
AKA Andre3K
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
Interesting tweet ( https://twitter.com/IBD_GRich/status/10 ... 9215555585 ):

Gillian Rich @IBD_GRich

@BoeingCEO said he couldn't comment on @LockheedMartin's comment that it would have lost $5B on 3 defense contracts to meet Boeing's offerings. But said that $BA was "able to bring the affordable solution because of investment in productivity" like advanced digital design etc.

Is LM behind the times on advanced digital design?


Digital design is just the front end. The quote from @LockheedMartin just confirmed to me that Boeing low bid was predicated on their ability to take that digital design and flow it into a more simple assembly process that significantly reduce their end item manufacturing time. The key word here is "Process". Boeing have been working on this for a few years now in St. Louis and have probably proved it out on their commercial line in Everett. With this diversity in portfolio and the mass production incentive of the commercial line, Boeing is in a better position to put in $$ for these type of developmental work .

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:20 pm

Ozair wrote:
No idea how price conscious they were but building and flying the prototype obviously cost Boeing money.

Yep, and they just took a charge for it . . .

From the Wall Street Journal

Boeing took a charge of almost $700 million in the latest quarter to cover extra investment after its recent contract wins for a Navy drone, a new Air Force trainer jet and helicopters used to protect nuclear missile bases.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18973
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:55 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
No idea how price conscious they were but building and flying the prototype obviously cost Boeing money.

Yep, and they just took a charge for it . . .

From the Wall Street Journal

Boeing took a charge of almost $700 million in the latest quarter to cover extra investment after its recent contract wins for a Navy drone, a new Air Force trainer jet and helicopters used to protect nuclear missile bases.


bt

All this while buying $2.5B in its own shares and paying $1B in dividends.

They benefited from some tax settlements from previous audits that largely offset the $700M spend on the work related to the new contracts.

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... s-to-flow/
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
himself
Topic Author
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:02 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
No idea how price conscious they were but building and flying the prototype obviously cost Boeing money.

Yep, and they just took a charge for it . . .

From the Wall Street Journal

Boeing took a charge of almost $700 million in the latest quarter to cover extra investment after its recent contract wins for a Navy drone, a new Air Force trainer jet and helicopters used to protect nuclear missile bases.


bt

All this while buying $2.5B in its own shares and paying $1B in dividends.

They benefited from some tax settlements from previous audits that largely offset the $700M spend on the work related to the new contracts.

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... s-to-flow/


Interesting, but the $691 million was just the latest earnings adjustment. Most of the T-X development was done about two years ago. Makes me wonder if they hid their expenses in all those KC-46A charges.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:39 am

Revelation wrote:
Interesting tweet ( https://twitter.com/IBD_GRich/status/10 ... 9215555585 ):

Gillian Rich @IBD_GRich

@BoeingCEO said he couldn't comment on @LockheedMartin's comment that it would have lost $5B on 3 defense contracts to meet Boeing's offerings. But said that $BA was "able to bring the affordable solution because of investment in productivity" like advanced digital design etc.

Is LM behind the times on advanced digital design?


The KAI T-50 Golden Eagle first flew in 2002, so it may not have a modern digital design to start from.


Boeing did build and fly two Trainers, surely they have a pretty good idea of what it cost to get here. In this case a clean sheet could have taken out a lot of systems as well as payload. The engine is stock so pretty easy to estimate.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2986
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:37 am

JayinKitsap wrote:

The KAI T-50 Golden Eagle first flew in 2002, so it may not have a modern digital design to start from.

Boeing did build and fly two Trainers, surely they have a pretty good idea of what it cost to get here. In this case a clean sheet could have taken out a lot of systems as well as payload. The engine is stock so pretty easy to estimate.

The T-50 was built as a trainer though so I'm not sure there was too much they would have had to remove given the engine is also the same between the two aircraft.

Interestingly enough LM initially did go for a clean sheet design but changed their mind along the process to the T-50.

So why did such an organisation choose a mostly Korean-built trainer aircraft over something developed internally? According to Weiss, it came down to the metrics of cost, capability, schedule and risk.

He says work ceased on the clean-sheet alternative in late 2015 with 80% of the detailed design work complete, approximately five years after the two-pronged approach to T-X was approved.

“It’s in the DNA of the Skunk Works to design new airplanes," Weiss explains. “This was a very sweet airplane and folks were passionate about it. It was very capable and it would do everything the US Air Force was looking for in the T-X aircraft.

“[But] we’re all-in on the T-50 now and we’re comfortable about that. “We’re happy we did that study because now we understand the facts and the data. The facts and the data are that this is the right solution for the US air force because it’s here now, it meets their capability requirements, there’s no schedule risk.”

The T-50A will be delivered as a block upgrade to the baseline T-50. It adds an embedded training system, fifth-generation cockpit, open system architecture and in-flight refuelling.

Weiss says the clean-sheet alternative might have cost approximately eight times more to develop, without adding significant capability “beyond a modernised T-50”. Moreover, it would struggle to meet the air force’s recently revised initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2024.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... re-421946/

I struggle to see how Boeing could deliver a new build aircraft for less than LM, or Leonardo, could deliver an already in production aircraft, given little development work was required on the T-50 and T-100 to bring them to the standard. Boeing's design may have translated into a lower per unit cost but you have to amortise that cost to dev, likely at least a billion or two and probably more, across 350 aircraft. That is an extra US$3-5 million per airframe. This I guess is where having the deep pockets of the commercial side allow those costs to be sunk and disappear within the books.

If we consider that Boeing’s cost was reportedly 30% less than LM as per the quote, then we are looking at a massive unit cost reduction above and beyond. Alternatively Boeing went very cheap on the simulator component of the deal hoping ICT advancements will save them costs in the future. All that is before Boeing actually delivers a production worthy aircraft for IOC in 2024. LM per the above quote didn’t believe they could do it deliver that clean sheet before 2024 but perhaps that is a standpoint they developed based on their then ongoing test and dev of the F-35.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:02 am

Ozair wrote:
If we consider that Boeing’s cost was reportedly 30% less than LM as per the quote, then we are looking at a massive unit cost reduction above and beyond. Alternatively Boeing went very cheap on the simulator component of the deal hoping ICT advancements will save them costs in the future. All that is before Boeing actually delivers a production worthy aircraft for IOC in 2024. LM per the above quote didn’t believe they could do it deliver that clean sheet before 2024 but perhaps that is a standpoint they developed based on their then ongoing test and dev of the F-35.


30% less? That is quite a big cab indeed. Do we know the price leave of the different contenders? The Boeing should have cost about the same or less as the Leonardo entry.

We will see if Boeing can make money on this one.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Ozair
Posts: 2986
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
30% less? That is quite a big cab indeed. Do we know the price leave of the different contenders? The Boeing should have cost about the same or less as the Leonardo entry.

We will see if Boeing can make money on this one.


30% should be about right. From DefenceNews
“We saw the T-50A has better price competitiveness than its competitors because the aircraft was the only candidate already in production without development costs, but it was a long shot in the face of price dumping.”

...

“We participated in the price competition strategically in collaboration with Lockheed Martin, but we were not selected due to the wide gap from Boeing low-price offering,” KAI said in a Sept. 27 release, when the contract award was announced.

The T-X contract awarded to the Boeing-Saab team is worth $9.2 billion, about $7 billion less than the originally estimated budget. The partnership beat out both Leonardo DRS and a Lockheed Martin-KAI partnership.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... s-exports/

The industry and USAF expectation was around the US$15 billion mark and Boeing's bid came in at US$9.2 billion. We don't know exactly how much Leonardo and LM bid as only the winning tender is released but clearly Boeing was significantly lower, so much so KAI was happy to call it price dumping (even if that is a bit of sour grapes).
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:50 am

So around the 26million mark per plane, including development and simulators etc. etc. etc. The sole airframe should be around the 20million mark. Not too bad I guess.
So it is 30% below budget.

According to wiki (I know) the T-50 Golden Eagle was $US 21million in 2008, so that should be around 25million in today's money. If we assume all the numbers are correct, then the Golden Eagle should be, including everything, around the 11,4bn mark perhaps a bit more because of American specific thinks or a bit less because of efficiency gains because of the large order. The T-100 / M-346 Master should also be around the US$ 20million mark (according to the Israel contract). Perhaps the 15bn price was a bit inflated?

If all true, then the Boeing won on price plus capability, not just price.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7474
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:01 am

If they can make a light combat version with an AESA radar and ECM for less than 30 million, it should be hugely attractive to many F-5 operators.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:51 am

himself wrote:
Interesting, but the $691 million was just the latest earnings adjustment. Most of the T-X development was done about two years ago. Makes me wonder if they hid their expenses in all those KC-46A charges


The charge probably did include tanker charges. Also, I believe US tax law allow for losses to be spread over multiple years.

And the charge may not be only for the build but the flight test program and continuing development work as well.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:32 pm

seahawk wrote:
If they can make a light combat version with an AESA radar and ECM for less than 30 million, it should be hugely attractive to many F-5 operators.


that will probably happen in not to distant future. Same as with the Kai T-50, turning it into the AT-50 and FA-50.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:47 pm

seahawk wrote:
If they can make a light combat version with an AESA radar and ECM for less than 30 million, it should be hugely attractive to many F-5 operators.


Boeing has said as much:

https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... 18/152306/

That’s because Boeing believes that the Air Force’s order of 351 T-X jets is just the beginning. It could sell up to 2,600 aircraft in training or attack configuration globally over several decades, he said.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:51 pm

Yes and that is the real price. 2,600 seems to be a bit to much, but they should be able to sell another 500 or so in the replacement trainer and low cost fighter market.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
superbizzy73
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:43 am

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:12 pm

Just another name idea...

Boeing T-20 (and later A/T-20) Tigershark II

...think Northrop Grumman would mind?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing Beats Lockheed for $9.2 Billion Air Force Trainer Program

Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:40 pm

Keeping the theme of bird of prey, and linking with the Swedish origin, more names to consider:

Gyrfalcon: The gyrfalcon (/ˈdʒɜːrfɔːlkən/ or /ˈdʒɜːrfælkən/) is a bird of prey (Falco rusticolus), the largest of the falcon species. The abbreviation gyr is also used.[2] It breeds on Arctic coasts and tundra, and the islands of northern North America, Europe, and Asia.

Kind of hard to say though.
These name have already been taken by sea vessels:

Nordic Hawk
Nordic Falcon

or a more general term

Artic Hawk
Artic Falcon

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: texl1649 and 70 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos