Secret Boeing Strike Program in production.

[Sundog]

unmanned surveillance and strike... could be the predator C for the navy...

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.

Yeah, I know what you mean about it not necessarily being the Phantom Works, as I knew someone a few years ago who worked at Boeing in Seattle and just said he wished he could talk about some of what he has seen on the "drawing boards" in Seattle as we would be amazed. Then again, he didn't know how much we know here. Which, of course, is only as much as they let us know.

 

[seruriermarshal]

unmanned surveillance and strike... could be the predator C for the navy...

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.

Yeah, I know what you mean about it not necessarily being the Phantom Works, as I knew someone a few years ago who worked at Boeing in Seattle and just said he wished he could talk about some of what he has seen on the "drawing boards" in Seattle as we would be amazed. Then again, he didn't know how much we know here. Which, of course, is only as much as they let us know.

Drawing boards ?

 

[Sundog]

unmanned surveillance and strike... could be the predator C for the navy...

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.

Yeah, I know what you mean about it not necessarily being the Phantom Works, as I knew someone a few years ago who worked at Boeing in Seattle and just said he wished he could talk about some of what he has seen on the "drawing boards" in Seattle as we would be amazed. Then again, he didn't know how much we know here. Which, of course, is only as much as they let us know.

Drawing boards ?

That's why it's in quotes. As a reference to what they're designing in whatever software they're designing it in. I don't know if they use CATIA or something proprietary, but it was a reference to what they were thinking design wise.

 

[Chris707]

I'm wondering if this system might have something to do with the arch wing hypersonic vehicle patents put forth by Boeing:

http://www.dataviewbooks.com/arch.html

 

[Ian33]

I am wondering if the X-37B has gone into full (if limited) production and they are classing that as a strike prgramme asset? just throwing it out there for thoughts.

Nope - the brief clearly states 'Strike fighter' on it... so manned / unamanned, its got to be a strike fighter and the X-37B ain't one of them! ... and if its unmanned and a strike fighter theres going to be a revolution coming soon at the Pentagon!

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^well, it did say an unmanned surveillance and strike platform so I'm guessing it would be similar to the Predator-C

 

[donnage99]

WAIT! I'm so lost. It didn't say anything about being unmanned or surveillance.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

...

 

[Colonial-Marine]

...

I think that refers to the X-45N. I believe people are talking about the proprietary tab.

 

[crusader97]

What's interesting to me is that they have it labeled as being "in production" through at least 2025. I would think that this makes it extremely unlikely (and unfortunate) that it is not a manned aircraft unless it is being purchased in very large quantity (not likely) or being sold to multiple allies (also not likely). I would think that anything in production for the next 15 years would indicate a UCAV or cruise missile/heavily modified ICBM type vehicle.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Talk about reading so much into so little information on a single table. But what about reading into the position of the picture of the flying wing level with both USAF LRPS and Boeing propriety? But seriously…

The USN’s “UnCLASS” program is independent of whatever Boeing is doing with their own money on X-45. Their funding of their *propriety* X-45 program is to keep it in the running with X-47 which is currently being funded by the USN for UCAS-D. Ironically the exact mirror image of what Northrop did with X-47 when X-45 had the DARPA funds for the UCAV trial.

100-1 that the propriety column is for the Phantom Ray aka X-45 that Boeing want to produce and fly to keep in the market for UCAVs. That the production column stretches out to 2025 is very much objective; much like the F/A-18 and F-15 lines being kept in production beyond 2015/2010 for international customers. Of course that’s what an “Outlook” presentation is all about…

 

[Ian33]

100-1 that the propriety column is for the Phantom Ray aka X-45 that Boeing want to produce and fly to keep in the market for UCAVs.

100-1 says it absolutely is not the Phantom Ray. Boeing top brass and programme managers have no prblem at all talking about and talking up the Phantom Ray programme - and if they wanted to add the Ray to that chart all they needed to do was write 'Phantom Ray'. that they didn't speaks volumes.

Also - remember when the DoD took the Boeing Phantom Ray exhaust for a classified project and hence set back the flight test schedule? Monies on Boeing having a nice little suprise in its stable.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

kinda explains why they didn't put a picture in the slide...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

100-1 says it absolutely is not the Phantom Ray. Boeing top brass and programme managers have no prblem at all talking about and talking up the Phantom Ray programme - and if they wanted to add the Ray to that chart all they needed to do was write 'Phantom Ray'. that they didn't speaks volumes.

So where is the Phantom Ray on that table? Is not it part of Boeing's strike fighter/UCAV strategic outlook? There are many reasons why they would NOT spell it out clearly that they are going to build more Phantom Rays on their own dollar: they may not want the Northrop and Lockheed knowing for certain what they are doing and they may not be using their own money to do so.

Inventing an entire new program to fit this hole because there is some ambiguity is blunting Occam's Razor.

 

[donnage99]

So where is the Phantom Ray on that table? Is not it part of Boeing's strike fighter/UCAV strategic outlook?

Because it's only an internally funded and not a government's program?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Because it's only an internally funded and not a government's program?

Ahh so it would be in the same column as any F-15 and F/A-18 developments and any “proprietary” programs?

Definition of proprietary: owned by us

 

[quellish]

100-1 that the propriety column is for the Phantom Ray aka X-45 that Boeing want to produce and fly to keep in the market for UCAVs. That the production column stretches out to 2025 is very much objective; much like the F/A-18 and F-15 lines being kept in production beyond 2015/2010 for international customers. Of course that’s what an “Outlook” presentation is all about…

Phantom Ray started in 2006-2007, and of course was an extension of work performed previously under J-UCAS and related programs, using DARPA money. Phantom Ray is Boeing's extension of their X-45C work.
That is not reflected by the graphic we are discussing. I do not see how the history (or future) of Phantom Ray could be represented by any interpretation of that graphic.

Pretty charts and graphs, though, are neato.

 

[Ian33]

Inventing an entire new program to fit this hole because there is some ambiguity is blunting Occam's Razor.

Occams Razor? 'The simplest answer is often correct' line of reasoning? yes - truely. So there for, following your own 'Razor', its not the Boeing Phantom Ray. Why not? because its pictures not there and Boeing Bosses won't talk about it. The system is also 'In production' and NOT in testing . . . which the Phantom Ray still is. Thus following the razor / logic / common sense, we get to 'its not the Phantom Ray but some thing different'.

That and the fact that there are still three or more airframes operating out at Kandahar that are as yet unidentified.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I do not see how the history (or future) of Phantom Ray could be represented by any interpretation of that graphic.

That would appear to be assuming that this is a complete and thorough chart and so therefore if Phantom Ray/X-45 was to be represented on it then its row would have a work indication going back to the start of the timeline. But this is not a reasonable assumption to make as there are no firm guidelines any chart maker must follow. Much like assuming the burgundy colour must mean production line work.

What is reasonable is that Phantom Ray is part of Boeing’s “strike fighter outlook” and that it is represented on this chart. Since it is a proprietary program as opposed to a customer (USN/USAF) funded work then that leaves only one row.

If there was a black or secret project then it wouldn’t be in this chart. Being ambiguous is standard commercial operating activity that promotes potential customer interest while confounding commercial rival tracking.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Occams Razor? 'The simplest answer is often correct' line of reasoning? yes - truely. So there for, following your own 'Razor', its not the Boeing Phantom Ray.

OK so your test of simplicity is the following:

Simple: secret planes flying from Kandahar could be a mystery NEW Boeing aircraft in production status because there is a burgundy bar in their public outlook document with no name and no clear picture within its row.
Not simple: that a well known proprietary program is included in an outlook chart beside a picture of its well known configuration but the name is left of

There is only an assumption that the burgundy line must mean ‘production’ despite it clearly being indicated that a production status aircraft (F-15, F/A-18) is coloured by blue. I would interpret the burgundy line to indicate POTENTIAL NEW production. That the “mystery proprietary” line does not have a preceding cream bar for potential development work (as it clearly indicates from five programs) is again another strong indication that it is the X-45 Phantom Ray that has gone through most of that to date.

 

[quellish]

I do not see how the history (or future) of Phantom Ray could be represented by any interpretation of that graphic.

That would appear to be assuming that this is a complete and thorough chart and so therefore if Phantom Ray/X-45 was to be represented on it then its row would have a work indication going back to the start of the timeline. But this is not a reasonable assumption to make as there are no firm guidelines any chart maker must follow. Much like assuming the burgundy colour must mean production line work.

It would be reasonable to assume some degree of internal consistency in the slide.
The other projects shown have a start date on the timeline that represents the start of the program at Boeing - wether that is production, EMD, or wishful thinking is irrelevant. Phantom Ray as a program started years ago. This line starts in 2010. If this represented Phantom Ray going into production, that too would not fit. There is NO chance Phantom Ray is going into production this year.

What is reasonable is that Phantom Ray is part of Boeing’s “strike fighter outlook” and that it is represented on this chart. Since it is a proprietary program as opposed to a customer (USN/USAF) funded work then that leaves only one row.

This assumes that Phantom Ray does not/did not use USG money.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This assumes that Phantom Ray does not/did not use USG money.

Which is why the "proprietary" Phantom Ray would start in 2010 without any previous timescale inupt. Because to add in the DARPA X-45A, USAF/USN JUCAS, USN UCAS-D all as customer funded efforts up until 2007 and then put in proprietary funded 'Phantom Ray' efforts after that would make a dog's breakfast of a table entry. Much easier just to write off what is past (it is an outlook after all) and stick in a new row for their proprietary plans for Phantom Ray. Obviously the F-15 and F/A-18E/F being in production since the 70s and 90s with their TD/EMD well behind them and significant sunk investment can be shown as in production from the beginning of the time scale (which is easy to do graphically since the time scale only goes to 2000.

 

[quellish]

Which is why the "proprietary" Phantom Ray would start in 2010 without any previous timescale inupt. Because to add in the DARPA X-45A, USAF/USN JUCAS, USN UCAS-D all as customer funded efforts up until 2007 and then put in proprietary funded 'Phantom Ray' efforts after that would make a dog's breakfast of a table entry.

Phantom Ray, in it's current incarnation, started in 2007/2008, as previously stated.
See:
http://www.aviationweek.com/publication/awst/loggedin/AvnowStoryDisplay.do?fromChannel=awst&channel=awst&pubKey=awst&issueDate=2009-05-11&story=xml/awst_xml/2009/05/11/AW_05_11_2009_p37-138670.xml
http://www.boeing.com/bds/mediakit/2010/afa/pdf/bkgd_phantomray_0210.pdf

Boeing makes it clear in their own public documents and statements the history of the airframe, and when the Phantom Ray internal effort started. They also never call it proprietary, that position would be entirely indefensible considering the (well known, well documented) history.


I like turtles.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So why isn't the Phantom Ray with a correct timetable in the chart? It is key to their Strike Fighter/UCAV outlook. It is a much simpler to deduce that the properitary line is the Phantom Ray despite its history. As to its properitary status if they are footing the bills to keep it alive despite leveraging USG funded programs then just like the Northrop F-20/F-5G it is a properitary program.

This is all about balance of probabilities. Its either:

(1) a slightly inaccurate chart; or
(2) a highly inaccurate chart (no mention of Phantom Ray at all) and Boeing are going to build an entirely new, self funded strike aircraft/UCAV from scratch.

After the experience of 737 AEW&C fresh on the minds of the Boeing board I think the last possibility is about 1,000,000 to 1.

 

[quellish]

So why isn't the Phantom Ray with a correct timetable in the chart? It is key to their Strike Fighter/UCAV outlook.

Because it is a demonstrator. Phantom Ray supports technology development for Boeing's entry into what you see listed as "Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance & Strike". It will never directly lead to a production system.

It is a much simpler to deduce that the properitary line is the Phantom Ray despite its history. As to its properitary status if they are footing the bills to keep it alive despite leveraging USG funded programs then just like the Northrop F-20/F-5G it is a properitary program.

It may be "simpler" to some, but it would be incorrect.
Bird of Prey was proprietary, Boeing was protecting trade secrets with that program. It was classified because of what those trade secrets enabled Boeing to do with the design and construction of the aircraft.
The F-20 may have been Northrop's intellectual property, but it would be very difficult to argue that it embodied trade secrets of significant value. Of course, I am not an IP attorney, I just have to deal with them often.

Again though, you are assuming all of Phantom Ray's costs are paid for by Boeing.

(2) a highly inaccurate chart (no mention of Phantom Ray at all) and Boeing are going to build an entirely new, self funded strike aircraft/UCAV from scratch.

Again, Phantom Ray is a demonstrator. It is an internal technology development program supporting a program that IS listed on the chart.

Lockheed recently produced a new, self funded, unmanned.... system... from scratch, in secret, put it into production and in the customer's hands. It's been done before, both manned and unmanned.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Again though, you are

No I'm not. But if someone provides you with funding support (a minority of costs) or even pays for a complete component of overall system development then they don't automatically own the project (eg RAAF and 737 AEW&C). It still remains a Boeing proprietary project even if supported from the A to Z of US aerospace agencies.

As to Phantom Ray it may support a USN UCAS and it may also support a USAF LRS UCAS. All of this does not preclude it from being a Boeing proprietary product.

The table is interpretive. Judging from the arguments presented above one has to convolute quite a bit to rule out Phantom Ray and rule in something new. As I stated when first wading into this: the simplest argument is that it is Phantom Ray. I have not heard anything otherwise.

 

[quellish]

As to Phantom Ray it may support a USN UCAS and it may also support a USAF LRS UCAS. All of this does not preclude it from being a Boeing proprietary product.

Phantom Ray is not a *product line* that will stretch into the future - as unambiguously depicted in the slide. Phantom Ray is a demonstrator, not a product. It is a concept car, a batmobile, not next year's model.

The table is interpretive. Judging from the arguments presented above one has to convolute quite a bit to rule out Phantom Ray and rule in something new. As I stated when first wading into this: the simplest argument is that it is Phantom Ray. I have not heard anything otherwise.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There is nothing in that table that supports the idea that the "proprietary" system, having a program life span of many years, is the Phantom Ray demonstrator.

I still like turtles.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

IMHO

leaving it blank(picture wise) would mean:

-still figuring out what sort of platform is needed until a set of definitive requirements are introduced
-something really secret is in the works
-they have just begun on a newer platform with the phantom ray as testbed
-phantom ray
-invisible aircraft...

 

[Tuomasn]

Being ambiguous is standard commercial operating activity that promotes potential customer interest while confounding commercial rival tracking.

Well it certainly didn't confound you so should we believe Boeing expecting it to fool their competitors?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well it certainly didn't confound you so should we believe Boeing expecting it to fool their competitors?

I just have an opinion. That is very different to fronting a corporation board and asking for a hundred million dollars to build a competitor to a Boeing product.

 

[Ian33]

I just have an opinion. That is very different to fronting a corporation board and asking for a hundred million dollars to build a competitor to a Boeing product.

Hate to break it to you - but LM and NG already have competitors to the Phantom Ray. So any 'hide and seek' games with them is pointless to the extreme over that particular airframe. Plus Boeing love to 'big up' their Phantom Ray - hell, they 'unveiled' it what? three times? four?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hate to break it to you - but LM and NG already have competitors to the Phantom Ray. So any 'hide and seek' games with them is pointless to the extreme over that particular airframe. Plus Boeing love to 'big up' their Phantom Ray - hell, they 'unveiled' it what? three times? four?

The whole point of this discussion – which clearly you’ve missed – is not that a particular aircraft does or doesn’t exist but that Boeing have a proprietary program that they think will generate lots of revenue earning work for the next 10+ years. This means production and selling from that production line which is very different to flying around a prototype or a demonstrator (as pointed out by far more informed and reasonable input from Quellish).

Now if Phantom Ray is going into volume production as I conclude from this table that is very different to it being unveiled, tested, shown off, etc and something for which neither Lockheed or Northrop on their public plans can meet. So keeping this vague and ambiguous is a very good idea from Boeing so they can get the drop on the market with a UCAV. This is technology commercialisation 101.

So far from being pointless it is extremely important. That is of course if you consider these things and programs to be more than a pretty picture in a magazine you browse through once a week. If its just the magazine browsing then you’re right it is a pointless difference but you’re welcome to keep that perspective as your own.

 

[mz]

Why would the red block indicate production? It could just as well be "some vague future thing".

 

[Sundog]

Why would the red block indicate production? It could just as well be "some vague future thing".

It was the Boeing Rep that said it was in production, unless that rep was making it up.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Hmm...
On one hand, the slide mentions the USN "Unmanned Carrier-launched Surveillance and Strike" program, ... so no mention of a UCAV for the USAF. Thus, if the "proprieatery" should be the "Phantom Ray" or a variant/derivative which is in production, it is most probably a USAF one. Then the USN gets a Northrop-UCAV (or vica-versa), USAF gets a very similar Boeing one.

But on the other hand... it would surprise me a lot if the "Phantom Ray" or a variant / derivative would already be in production or go in production later this year, especially since Boeing announced it as a demonstrator with it's testing phase just starting up... And they wouldn't have put an earlier version (X-45A or so) secretly in production for the next decades...?

Waiting till further reliable info gets to see the light of day will be best, till then all reasoning-efforts remain speculation.

 

[sferrin]

Why would the red block indicate production? It could just as well be "some vague future thing".

It was the Boeing Rep that said it was in production, unless that rep was making it up.

A RR rep said the F136 would put out 56,000lbs thrust so they're far from infallible. (Of course I'd think it would be a bit difficult to mistakenly think there was a production line going back home if there wasn't one.)

 

[bobbymike]

If there is anyone at Boeing on the site they are either uncomfortable that we are getting close to the truth or laughing because we are so far off the truth. I still find it curious that the VP of Boeing's Global Strike Systems called it a "proprietary strike weapons system" when everything up to that point was being described as "aircraft" While I agree 90% that there is some type of aircraft out there the other 10% thinks she was talking about something else.

 

[mz]

Why would the red block indicate production? It could just as well be "some vague future thing".

It was the Boeing Rep that said it was in production, unless that rep was making it up.

It could be a misinterpretation? I at least didn't read it like that. Someone want to clarify? The only direct observation is this:
AvWeek's Sweetman:
"Secret or "proprietary" programs were included on this chart, colored to indicate that they were in production:"

There is no direct quote saying it is in production. Only this:
"Boeing is in production on at least one "proprietary" strike weapon system, vice-president and general manager of global strike systems Shelley Lavender disclosed here today. Further questions elicited a firm "I have nothing further for you on that.""

 

[Sundog]

Why would the red block indicate production? It could just as well be "some vague future thing".

It was the Boeing Rep that said it was in production, unless that rep was making it up.

A RR rep said the F136 would put out 56,000lbs thrust so they're far from infallible. (Of course I'd think it would be a bit difficult to mistakenly think there was a production line going back home if there wasn't one.)

My understanding is that was a growth version of the F-136, not the F-136 being tested atm. Although, I think, to a certain extent it's a moot point, at least in terms of the F-35B. As the Lockheed rep at Farnborough stated, you can't just uprate the engine, you have to update the fan, drive shaft, and roll jets as well.

 

[Sundog]

If there is anyone at Boeing on the site they are either uncomfortable that we are getting close to the truth or laughing because we are so far off the truth. I still find it curious that the VP of Boeing's Global Strike Systems called it a "proprietary strike weapons system" when everything up to that point was being described as "aircraft" While I agree 90% that there is some type of aircraft out there the other 10% thinks she was talking about something else.

You know, that's what really interested me about her statement. The fact that she said it's proprietary, not secret, at least in classic classification terms. Does this mean it's ready for production, without a customer? Which of course, I highly doubt. I can't think of any company putting a military system in production without a customer. So, are they just calling it proprietary to dampen enthusiasm, in the sense that saying it was a "secret" program in production would be more sensational?