Yes - impossible to know split between Commercial and Defense R&D spending of $4.1B for 2019
The digital design initiatives underway enable robust design and follow on services.
I think we can put it together by researching the T-X.
AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... me-changer
; free registration required ) says:
While proving a resurgence in its ability to capture new programs, Boeing’s win of the U.S. Air Force’s T-X trainer also may mark a turning point for the business model at the company’s defense division.
Much as commercial aero engine companies moved years ago toward selling their powerplants below cost to secure marketshare, with the intent of making money later on aftermarket services, Boeing Defense may be headed in the same direction.
Basically, for T-X the push was to spend the time up front (even building and flying two prototypes) to convince themselves they could offer lower prices up front to gain access to aftermarket profits later. I think much of the large amount of R&D spending went in to the (virtual and physical) tools needed to produce these prototypes and validate the results, along with the work needed with the supply chain to make sure the pricing was sound.
Now I'm not saying that BDS and BCA will follow the same business models since their markets work differently, but I am saying they are both strongly motivated to find new business models that capture more of the product's lifetime revenue.
They are working from a position of strength:
Boeing, however, is far more diversified: its commercial aircraft backlog stood at $433 billion at the start of the year, while Boeing Defense was sitting on $50 billion in work, according to the last annual regulatory filing. In addition, the corporation has set a target for the year-old Boeing Global Services division to reach $50 billion in annual revenue by the early 2020s, and it is already around $15 billion.
This article is six months old, whereas https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/01/3 ... 8-revenue/
Boeing's fledgling Global Services division saw 17 percent YOY growth, from $14.6 billion to $17 billion, bolstered by a fourth quarter in which the acquisition of parts distributor KLX helped the segment achieve revenue increases of 29 percent YOY.
Seems they are ahead of target.
The first article says:
Boeing executives spotlighted the company’s turn toward services in July. “This is a bigger market in the long term than the aircraft market,” Boeing’s chief commercial aircraft salesman, Randy Tinseth, said during the Farnborough Airshow. “We only have 7% [services] market share, so what a great opportunity as we grow to expand our share.”
So everyone involved knows where things are heading.
It doesn't look good for vendors:
Part and parcel to achieving those margins has been Boeing’s supply chain squeeze, the Partnership for Success program, and it came into play with T-X. A year ago, Boeing chose Triumph Group as a key supplier for Boeing’s bid. That selection came as Boeing was finalizing a master contract arrangement with Triumph, as has been done with several other Tier 1 and 2 providers. Triumph is in the midst of a restructuring and streamlining in part to profit after meeting Boeing’s terms.
The squeeze was on for T-X, as it almost certainly is for NMA.
It is largely enabled by using new technology in the production/manufacturing space:
The degree of cost-cutting implied by Boeing’s bid for T-X also may hit at other technology breakthroughs. In 2015, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported on the “Black Diamond” project within Boeing, which sought to transform its defense production system with low-cost manufacturing techniques.
“Naturally, Black Diamond played a role,” Merluzeau says. “The per-unit price demonstrates near-‘Scaled Composites-like’ costs.”
Hopefully the business case will close and we'll learn more about what role all of these things play in the NMA program.