Secret Boeing Strike Program in production.

Sundog

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
2 August 2006
Messages
3,206
Reaction score
1,319
In one of the Farnborough reports at AvWeek, it reports that Boeing has a secret strike program in production.

Any bets on whether or not it is the Boeing Model 119?

It's also interesting to note in that article that EADS states that the Super Hornet is one of the stealthiest fighters out there, of the reduced observability conventional designs. As opposed to aircraft designed for all out LO from the start.
 
AFAIK the only fighters designed from the start as "reduced visibility" are the Super Hornet, Rafale, and (maybe) the Typhoon. So to say it's "one of the stealthiest" when there are only three is hardly saying anything at all.
 
There's a good chance it's Phantom Ray. Obviously we haven't seen the whole presentation, but I don't see anything there that explicitly says that the proprietary program is in production.

At the same time, Boeing has been fairly active at DET 3 over the past few years. Tracking Janet and other contractor flights shows more than a few flights to Boeing facilities that were not part of normal flight schedules.
 
quellish said:
There's a good chance it's Phantom Ray. Obviously we haven't seen the whole presentation, but I don't see anything there that explicitly says that it's in production.

At the same time, Boeing has been fairly active at DET 3 over the past few years. Tracking Janet and other contractor flights shows more than a few flights to Boeing facilities that were not part of normal flight schedules.
Click to expand...

Phantom Ray (X-45C) isn't suppose to fly until later this year. Maybe they went ahead and put the containerized X-45A into production though? ??? (Note that they did build TWO for some reason which seems a bit strange given that most other demos have only been singles.)
 
Why are we assuming an aircraft? Shelly Lavender is VP of Global Strike Systems. My understanding is that when Generals Cartwright, Chilton and Kehler moved Prompt Global Strike to a sole Air Force Program (when Congress defunded the Conventional Trident Missile) there was an ongoing Boeing program that seemed to describe a conventional Minuteman with an CAV type payload. I am positive I read about it on the Global Security Newswire website. I'll look through the archives :D
 
bobbymike said:
Why are we assuming an aircraft? Shelly Lavender is VP of Global Strike Systems. My understanding is that when Generals Cartwright, Chilton and Kehler moved Prompt Global Strike to a sole Air Force Program (when Congress defunded the Conventional Trident Missile) there was an ongoing Boeing program that seemed to describe a conventional Minuteman with an CAV type payload. I am positive I read about it on the Global Security Newswire website. I'll look through the archives :D
Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm not assuming that. Boeing has more than one ongoing PGS program. You may recall they recently came out and said they could produce a new missile, quickly, that would not at all look like an ICBM launch. That doesn't mean they are anywhere near producing hardware though.
 
sferrin said:
Phantom Ray (X-45C) isn't suppose to fly until later this year. Maybe they went ahead and put the containerized X-45A into production though? ??? (Note that they did build TWO for some reason which seems a bit strange given that most other demos have only been singles.)
Click to expand...

X-45A had specific test objectives that required multiple vehicles. Multi vehicle flights were a major program milestone.
 
We don't assume it's an aircraft, the chart says that it's an aircraft. The title read:

STRIKE FIGHTER OUTLOOK
 
The original article by Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week describes it as a "Strike Weapon System". And because the slide contained information on ISR and Long Range Persistent Strike iterations I was just speculating that their might be more to the Boeing VP statement than seen from a single slide in a presentation.
 
bobbymike said:
The original article by Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week describes it as a "Strike Weapon System".
Click to expand...
Please, look again. The very slide it is in is about aircraft.
 

Attachments

  • e7451351-d704-4b09-b20e-a4d8a95f5e3c_Full.jpg
    e7451351-d704-4b09-b20e-a4d8a95f5e3c_Full.jpg
    88.8 KB · Views: 435
It isn't the Phantom Ray. They aren't going to put something into production that hasn't flown and if it was the Phantom Ray they would have said so. Also, as shown above by donnage99 and reported to the reporters, it was brought forth in the context of strike fighters.

So I've been wondering, is the Boeing model 119 an F-119 or could this be the long rumored F-24. After all, given the time it takes to develop a production aircraft and the report of that test pilot that flew the YF-24 over five years ago, the time frame seems about right.
 
A production of a secret class of strike aircraft can explain why Gates has not been looking so urgent in bringing about the NGB. His answer was "our bomber fleet still has plenty of life left in them" when there are many reports that our fleet are aging rapidly due to the war and an interim solution must be met around 2018. So it's either that Gates has been exceptionally ignorant or that he was hiding something.
 
donnage99 said:
Please, look again. The very slide it is in is about aircraft.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. The unmanned flying wing looks distorted. That means:
1) I'm looking at it wrong
2) The illustration has gotten warped
3) The design is asymmetrical, perhaps an oblique flying wing
 
I'm not meaning to pick nits or be overly defensive but everyone is assuming that a single slide in what I'm guessing was a multi-slide presentation tells the entire story.

Why did the VP at Boeing describe it as a "strike weapon system" and not a "strike aircraft". I'm just saying could a CAV dispensing submunitions meet the definition of aircraft and weapon system?
 
The key here is context. Whether it's a multiple slides presentation or an entire book makes no difference. That one slide is about aircraft exclusively, as the title appropriately suggested, and the other programs within that slide suggested. If the platform in question is anything beside an aircraft, it would not be in that slide. Or else, we just see the Boeing staff having massive fail at context.
 
Maybe I'm just dense - a distinct possibility - but the slide says Strike Fighters and includes ISR and what is obviously a bomber. So is it just me or is the slide confusing. ???

And back to my original remark, why did she call it a strike weapon system? Words have context too. Also, could a CAV or hypersonic re-entry vehicle dispensing munitions still be considered an aircraft? An aerospace vehicle?
 
The ISR is a role in which that particular strike aircraft also has. ISR didn't stand alone with its own platform. As for the words, our conclusion that it's an aircraft fit both the context of her words and the slide. It's the only conclusion that satisfy both context.
 
From Boeing's website:

Boeing's Global Strike Systems answers an emerging requirement in the Department of Defense for systems capable of projecting global power. Boeing's fighters, bombers, weapons and unmanned systems programs are part of the Global Strike Systems organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Bolding mine. I'm not being argumentative you do have me leaning strongly towards "an aircraft" but that division does develop global strike "weapons" in addition to aircraft and unmanned systems. So it makes me curious that the VP of that division called it a "strike weapon system", why not just say "strike aircraft."
 
Yeah, I'm already aware of that. But how do you know that the "weapon" part refers to that particular program in that slide? Like I said, anything else beside an aircraft would be a fail of context. So I don't understand why you just completely ignored its context and quote some vague statement from Boeing's website in which has no proof of relation to the program in question. Isn't that a little forced?

In any case, in wonder if this has anything to do with the rumor that a classified program has been leaked to the Washington Post.
 
bobbymike said:
why not just say "strike aircraft."
Click to expand...
Because saying "system" would still fit. It's just a choice of word that, in light of the slide, has no other intention behind it. In many posts I've made, instead of using aircraft, I've used "platform" or "system" many times. I think you dig too deep into it. If not for the slide, it MIGHT mean something else. But with the slide, I think it's clear enough that it's an aircraft.
 
Very interesting, hope more is revealed sooner rather than later. Personally I would love to see such a strike aircraft as the true replacement for the F-111.

Is Long Range Persistent Strike the latest acronym being used to describe strategic bomber development?
 
what form might such an aircraft take? f-22 or f-23 derivatives?
 
I'm not ignoring the context I'm just keeping an open mind as I understand that this division also is doing work on Conventional prompt global strike with both an active Air Force and Army Hypersonic weapon system program.

I was just opening up the discussion to the possibility of it not necessarily being an aircraft. I am not saying "there is no way in hell it is an aircraft", as my previous post said I am leaning towards that it is an aircraft I just find the VP's choice of words interesting.
 
It's always good to have an open mind when it comes to the black world. However, in this case, the context of it leaves no room for other possibility, so in order to keep your mind open to other possibilities, you have to ignore its context.
 
I'm leaning towards an aircraft since it's the common denominator in the slide...

but that's just my 0.02
 
Can aircraft armed with directed energy weapons (microwave, laser)considered "strike" aircraft? 'Cause if it's just a stealthy platform that drops smart bombs, I don't see why it would be classified.
 
donnage99 - what is also interesting is to speculate what the classified aircraft looks like. Boeing showed pictures of a nominal naval air dominance fighter and long range persistent strike aircraft so what possible configuration does the classified aircraft take? The article discusses the "bird of prey" and Boeing's "tailless" design experience along with 24 hour (daylight) stealth. This will be fun to follow.
 
Does the word "proprietary" mean that Boeing is the chief contractor?
 
Textbook definition leans toward a Boeing designed and built aircraft.

Proprietary - Something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker.
 
quellish said:
There's a good chance it's Phantom Ray....
Click to expand...

Certainly if we build on what we know... earlier in the year we know a Phantom Ray exhaust went to a classified program in relation to:
technology tests to demonstrate reliability and maintainability
Click to expand...
(http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/03/339036/boeing-plots-course-for-phantom-ray.html),

which sounds like something being at least considered for production.

A recent Israeli (?) study as I recall analysed DoD Budgets and came up with the conclusion that the USAF was already (or was about to) operate a fast jet UCAV?

[open question] Other than X-32, X-45, and Phantom Ray what recent experience has Boeing proven to suddenly be able to field a near-production or in-production strike platform?
 
mr_london_247 said:
[open question] Other than X-32, X-45, and Phantom Ray what recent experience has Boeing proven to suddenly be able to field a near-production or in-production strike platform?
Click to expand...

The F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. Remember, McDonnell Douglas is now part of Boeing. I tend to forget that myself. My guess is this design is something that originates in St. Louis, from the Phantom Works.
 
mr_london_247 said:
[open question] Other than X-32, X-45, and Phantom Ray what recent experience has Boeing proven to suddenly be able to field a near-production or in-production strike platform?
Click to expand...
Possibly other black programs?
 
Sundog said:
The F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. Remember, McDonnell Douglas is now part of Boeing. I tend to forget that myself. My guess is this design is something that originates in St. Louis, from the Phantom Works.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more recent, but I was definately guilty of trying to remember who comes under the Boeing stable these days when I posted so I do take this point! :D

donnage99 said:
Possibly other black programs?
Click to expand...

It's true when you say one must keep an open mind when it comes to the black world, but whilst my heart says this be a Mach 6 Penetrator sporting DE weaponary, my head says recent years suggest more a derivative of something we've already seen, cheaper and quicker to produce, building on incremental developements already proven - something like the Phantom Ray?
 
Sundog said:
mr_london_247 said:
[open question] Other than X-32, X-45, and Phantom Ray what recent experience has Boeing proven to suddenly be able to field a near-production or in-production strike platform?
Click to expand...

The F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. Remember, McDonnell Douglas is now part of Boeing. I tend to forget that myself. My guess is this design is something that originates in St. Louis, from the Phantom Works.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, they got Rockwell too (X-15, XB-70, B-1, HiMat etc.)
 
sferrin said:
Sundog said:
mr_london_247 said:
[open question] Other than X-32, X-45, and Phantom Ray what recent experience has Boeing proven to suddenly be able to field a near-production or in-production strike platform?
Click to expand...

The F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. Remember, McDonnell Douglas is now part of Boeing. I tend to forget that myself. My guess is this design is something that originates in St. Louis, from the Phantom Works.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, they got Rockwell too (X-15, XB-70, B-1, HiMat etc.)
Click to expand...

Actually, I did.

Boeing B-1, Boeing F-15, and the Boeing F/A-18. I don't know, it just sounds weird to me, lol. I still consider them by their original manufacturers. I guess that's what I get for being old. ;)
 
Sundog said:
sferrin said:
Sundog said:
mr_london_247 said:
[open question] Other than X-32, X-45, and Phantom Ray what recent experience has Boeing proven to suddenly be able to field a near-production or in-production strike platform?
Click to expand...

The F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. Remember, McDonnell Douglas is now part of Boeing. I tend to forget that myself. My guess is this design is something that originates in St. Louis, from the Phantom Works.
Click to expand...
I feel if a plane is in production by a firm that it should be produced under that firm's name. If out of production before the current firm takes over it should fall under the former firm's name. In other words, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet should be Boeing while the B-1B should not. Steve Pace

Don't forget, they got Rockwell too (X-15, XB-70, B-1, HiMat etc.)
Click to expand...

Actually, I did.

Boeing B-1, Boeing F-15, and the Boeing F/A-18. I don't know, it just sounds weird to me, lol. I still consider them by their original manufacturers. I guess that's what I get for being old. ;)
Click to expand...
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
unmanned surveillance and strike... could be the predator C for the navy...
Click to expand...

GA is partnered with LM, not Boeing, on Avenger.

Boeing has been doing a lot since losing the JSF contract. In the past 2 years Boeing has been very active at the Nevada ranges, and I've been told that the 30th RS at TTR flies more than one type of aircraft. Maybe these things are related, maybe they are not. Whatever Boeing has been doing in NV has involved more personell flights to and from facilities *other* than St. Louis, so it may not involve the Phantom Works.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom