Discussion:
End of Delta IV Looming?
(too old to reply)
Ed Kyle
2006-02-12 14:52:04 UTC
Permalink
The end of Boeing's Delta IV EELV could be looming, at least
according to:

"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"

which says:

"Complicating the picture for Decatur is the possibility that the
beginning of
the ULA (United Launch Alliance) would spell the end of Delta IV. An
Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee recently
reported
Boeing would drop its expensive Delta IV program for the cheaper Atlas
5
program if the ULA gets approval from the feds.

A presentation about the ULA, given in May by a Boeing official and
leaked to
the press, tends to support the theory. That might mean problems for
current Boeing employees, who fear they would lose out to Lockheed
workers
for spots on the production floor if Lockheed's heavy-lift product wins
out."

- Ed Kyle
Thomas Lee Elifritz
2006-02-12 15:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Kyle
The end of Boeing's Delta IV EELV could be looming, at least
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
"Complicating the picture for Decatur is the possibility that the
beginning of
the ULA (United Launch Alliance) would spell the end of Delta IV. An
Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee recently
reported
Boeing would drop its expensive Delta IV program for the cheaper Atlas
5
program if the ULA gets approval from the feds.
A presentation about the ULA, given in May by a Boeing official and
leaked to
the press, tends to support the theory. That might mean problems for
current Boeing employees, who fear they would lose out to Lockheed
workers
for spots on the production floor if Lockheed's heavy-lift product wins
out."
And meanwhile NASA wastes $BILLIONS$ on a Schtick for a CLV,
when the Boeing Delta IV Medium is sitting there good to go.

Does anyone else utterly fail to see the logic of that?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Ed Kyle
2006-02-12 15:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Ed Kyle
The end of Boeing's Delta IV EELV could be looming, at least
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
"Complicating the picture for Decatur is the possibility that the
beginning of
the ULA (United Launch Alliance) would spell the end of Delta IV. An
Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee recently
reported
Boeing would drop its expensive Delta IV program for the cheaper Atlas
5
program if the ULA gets approval from the feds.
A presentation about the ULA, given in May by a Boeing official and
leaked to
the press, tends to support the theory. That might mean problems for
current Boeing employees, who fear they would lose out to Lockheed
workers
for spots on the production floor if Lockheed's heavy-lift product wins
out."
And meanwhile NASA wastes $BILLIONS$ on a Schtick for a CLV,
when the Boeing Delta IV Medium is sitting there good to go.
Does anyone else utterly fail to see the logic of that?
Well, for starters Delta IV Medium can't lift enough mass to
haul CEV.

But upon further review, it appears that the "Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee"
was usspacenews, according to:

"http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"

I could not find the story on the usspacenews web site today,
so the "internet aerospace publication" must have pulled its
"story".

Despite the source, the story does have a ring of truth to
it. Why else would Boeing and Lockheed agree to this
United Launch Alliance? If ULA wins approval, Boeing
stands to keep billions of dollars that it otherwise would
have to pay for Lockheed's EELV lawsuit. The only
reason I can think that Lockheed would agree to ULA
would be to eliminate a competitor.

But I'm just speculating. We will know the truth soon
enough. The drop dead date on the agreement is April 1.

- Ed Kyle
Thomas Lee Elifritz
2006-02-12 15:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Ed Kyle
The end of Boeing's Delta IV EELV could be looming, at least
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
"Complicating the picture for Decatur is the possibility that the
beginning of
the ULA (United Launch Alliance) would spell the end of Delta IV. An
Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee recently
reported
Boeing would drop its expensive Delta IV program for the cheaper Atlas
5
program if the ULA gets approval from the feds.
A presentation about the ULA, given in May by a Boeing official and
leaked to
the press, tends to support the theory. That might mean problems for
current Boeing employees, who fear they would lose out to Lockheed
workers
for spots on the production floor if Lockheed's heavy-lift product wins
out."
And meanwhile NASA wastes $BILLIONS$ on a Schtick for a CLV,
when the Boeing Delta IV Medium is sitting there good to go.
Does anyone else utterly fail to see the logic of that?
Well, for starters Delta IV Medium can't lift enough mass to
haul CEV.
There is no CEV just as there is no CLV or lightweight
capsule or ISS lifeboat. VSE and ESAS will be dead
in late January of 2009. We need a Soyuz alternative
right now for the ISS. I posit the Delta IV Medium
is the only credible manned vehicle in the US fleet.
Post by Ed Kyle
But upon further review, it appears that the "Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee"
"http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"
I could not find the story on the usspacenews web site today,
so the "internet aerospace publication" must have pulled its
"story".
Despite the source, the story does have a ring of truth to
it. Why else would Boeing and Lockheed agree to this
United Launch Alliance? If ULA wins approval, Boeing
stands to keep billions of dollars that it otherwise would
have to pay for Lockheed's EELV lawsuit. The only
reason I can think that Lockheed would agree to ULA
would be to eliminate a competitor.
Right, we need less competition. I wonder why the Air Force
even bothered to let them compete in the first place. Oh well,
another 39 billion dollars down the tubes.
Post by Ed Kyle
But I'm just speculating. We will know the truth soon
enough. The drop dead date on the agreement is April 1.
They can all drop dead as far as I'm concerned, as soon
as this corrupt administration and the US economy fails.

What we need is a high launch rate, be it the shuttle
or the Delta IV Medium. It's the only way the numbers work.

The Delta IV Heavy, the Schtick and ESAS are a bad joke.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Will McLean
2006-02-12 16:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Ed Kyle
The end of Boeing's Delta IV EELV could be looming, at least
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
"Complicating the picture for Decatur is the possibility that the
beginning of
the ULA (United Launch Alliance) would spell the end of Delta IV. An
Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee recently
reported
Boeing would drop its expensive Delta IV program for the cheaper Atlas
5
program if the ULA gets approval from the feds.
A presentation about the ULA, given in May by a Boeing official and
leaked to
the press, tends to support the theory. That might mean problems for
current Boeing employees, who fear they would lose out to Lockheed
workers
for spots on the production floor if Lockheed's heavy-lift product wins
out."
And meanwhile NASA wastes $BILLIONS$ on a Schtick for a CLV,
when the Boeing Delta IV Medium is sitting there good to go.
Does anyone else utterly fail to see the logic of that?
Well, for starters Delta IV Medium can't lift enough mass to
haul CEV.
But upon further review, it appears that the "Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee"
"http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"
I could not find the story on the usspacenews web site today,
so the "internet aerospace publication" must have pulled its
"story".
Despite the source, the story does have a ring of truth to
it. Why else would Boeing and Lockheed agree to this
United Launch Alliance? If ULA wins approval, Boeing
stands to keep billions of dollars that it otherwise would
have to pay for Lockheed's EELV lawsuit. The only
reason I can think that Lockheed would agree to ULA
would be to eliminate a competitor.
Atlas V Heavy doesn't exist. US production of the Atlas V engines
doesn't exist.

Will McLean
Ed Kyle
2006-02-12 17:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will McLean
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Ed Kyle
The end of Boeing's Delta IV EELV could be looming, at least
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
"Complicating the picture for Decatur is the possibility that the
beginning of
the ULA (United Launch Alliance) would spell the end of Delta IV. An
Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee recently
reported
Boeing would drop its expensive Delta IV program for the cheaper Atlas
5
program if the ULA gets approval from the feds.
A presentation about the ULA, given in May by a Boeing official and
leaked to
the press, tends to support the theory. That might mean problems for
current Boeing employees, who fear they would lose out to Lockheed
workers
for spots on the production floor if Lockheed's heavy-lift product wins
out."
And meanwhile NASA wastes $BILLIONS$ on a Schtick for a CLV,
when the Boeing Delta IV Medium is sitting there good to go.
Does anyone else utterly fail to see the logic of that?
Well, for starters Delta IV Medium can't lift enough mass to
haul CEV.
But upon further review, it appears that the "Internet
aerospace publication edited by a former Boeing employee"
"http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"
I could not find the story on the usspacenews web site today,
so the "internet aerospace publication" must have pulled its
"story".
Despite the source, the story does have a ring of truth to
it. Why else would Boeing and Lockheed agree to this
United Launch Alliance? If ULA wins approval, Boeing
stands to keep billions of dollars that it otherwise would
have to pay for Lockheed's EELV lawsuit. The only
reason I can think that Lockheed would agree to ULA
would be to eliminate a competitor.
Atlas V Heavy doesn't exist.
True, but I'm not sure that DoD needs an Atlas V Heavy. Atlas 552
can already boost more than 20 tonnes to low earth orbit. At any
rate, the parts for Atlas V Heavy already exist, it is just a matter
of money to put them together to finish developing the vehicle
and its ground support equipment.
Post by Will McLean
US production of the Atlas V engines
doesn't exist.
Also true, but if the President is going to be flown around in
a European helicopter, if the Air Force is going to buy
Airbus refueling tankers (probably), if Boeing's own Delta IV
uses Japanese propellant tanks, and if the majority of Americans
drive foriegn cars and get almost all of their other stuff from China,
then why shouldn't Atlas use Russian engines (and European
payload fairings, etc)?

- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn
2006-02-12 18:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Will McLean
Atlas V Heavy doesn't exist.
True, but I'm not sure that DoD needs an Atlas V Heavy. Atlas 552
can already boost more than 20 tonnes to low earth orbit. At any
rate, the parts for Atlas V Heavy already exist, it is just a matter
of money to put them together to finish developing the vehicle
and its ground support equipment.
That's what Boeing said about Delta IV-Heavy. All we need is a year's
delay in Atlas 5-Heavy when we really need a heavy payload launched.
And a few weeks ago, you were Chicken Littling left and right about
the dangers of launching NH on an untried Atlas 5 variant. Now all of
a sudden, a radically larger Atlas 5 variant is just a simple matter?
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Will McLean
US production of the Atlas V engines
doesn't exist.
Also true, but if the President is going to be flown around in
a European helicopter,
Sorta. VH-71 (US-101) will be built in New York in partnership with
nations which have long-standing military and economic ties with the
US, primarily Britain and Italy, both of whom stood by the US even
during the hugely unpopular (over there) Iraq War. This is about as
safe a safe bet as you're likely to find.

And besides, if the VH-71 is grounded because we can't get Part X for
it from Italy, the President can always hop in a Blackhawk or Osprey.
Post by Ed Kyle
if the Air Force is going to buy
Airbus refueling tankers (probably),
Well, never in a million years. But anyway, they'd be built in Mobile,
AL in partnership with nations which have long-standing military and
economic ties with the US, and would use an aircraft with large Airbus
supply lines and maintenance depots worldwide (unlike RD-180, which is
pretty much buy it from Energomash or get nothing.)

Both of these are vastly different than RD-180 production, which
Lockheed and P&W has thus far refused to begin license production in
the US.
Post by Ed Kyle
if Boeing's own Delta IV
uses Japanese propellant tanks,
We've had good relations with Japan, and extremely strong economic
ties with them, for 60 years. They have far, far more to lose in a
trade war with the US than does Russia. And they too stood beside the
US even during the unpopular Iraq War. Russia, on the other hand, has
a far more tenuous relationship with the US and many of their
political interests are counter to US interests, such as selling
nuclear technology to Iran. They could very easily decide a strategic
partnership with China or Iran, countering US policies wherever
possible, is in their best interest.
Post by Ed Kyle
and if the majority of Americans
drive foriegn cars and get almost all of their other stuff from China,
then why shouldn't Atlas use Russian engines (and European
payload fairings, etc)?
Because the inability to buy Toyotas next year is not a matter of
national security. In time of war, we don't care if people have to
make their 1999 Camrys last a few years longer.

And the US has the ability to manufacture payload fairings and
propellant tanks fairly quickly and easily if we need to. Starting up
RD-180 production will be a lot more complicated and time-consuming,
perhaps not even possible in a realistic timescale.

If one of the EELVs go, it will be Atlas 5. There are just far too
many roadblocks for the Pentagon to kill Delta IV. If Lockheed/P&W had
bit the bullet 7 years ago and begun building an RD-180 plant at West
Palm, it would be an entirely different proposition today. But they
didn't, and Delta IV will be sitting in the driver's seat for the
foreseeable future.

Brian
Ed Kyle
2006-02-12 20:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Will McLean
Atlas V Heavy doesn't exist.
True, but I'm not sure that DoD needs an Atlas V Heavy. Atlas 552
can already boost more than 20 tonnes to low earth orbit. At any
rate, the parts for Atlas V Heavy already exist, it is just a matter
of money to put them together to finish developing the vehicle
and its ground support equipment.
That's what Boeing said about Delta IV-Heavy. All we need is a year's
delay in Atlas 5-Heavy when we really need a heavy payload launched.
And a few weeks ago, you were Chicken Littling left and right about
the dangers of launching NH on an untried Atlas 5 variant. Now all of
a sudden, a radically larger Atlas 5 variant is just a simple matter?
It is not a simple matter. It is just a matter of money
translated into man-hours.

I still think that launching NH on an untried variant added
extra risk.
Post by Brian Thorn
Both of these are vastly different than RD-180 production, which
Lockheed and P&W has thus far refused to begin license production in
the US.
I seem to recall that Glushko (the Russian side) was
delaying the deal too at one point by adding a lot of
proprietary requirements.
Post by Brian Thorn
Russia, on the other hand, has
a far more tenuous relationship with the US and many of their
political interests are counter to US interests, such as selling
nuclear technology to Iran. They could very easily decide a strategic
partnership with China or Iran, countering US policies wherever
possible, is in their best interest.
....
And the US has the ability to manufacture payload fairings and
propellant tanks fairly quickly and easily if we need to. Starting up
RD-180 production will be a lot more complicated and time-consuming,
perhaps not even possible in a realistic timescale.
I agree that there are risks, but our cash-strapped government
could well decide that the benefits in cost savings outweigh the
risks. This might be a short-sighted decision that bites back
later, but it wouldn't be the first example of poor leadership
from Washington.
Post by Brian Thorn
If one of the EELVs go, it will be Atlas 5. There are just far too
many roadblocks for the Pentagon to kill Delta IV. If Lockheed/P&W had
bit the bullet 7 years ago and begun building an RD-180 plant at West
Palm, it would be an entirely different proposition today. But they
didn't, and Delta IV will be sitting in the driver's seat for the
foreseeable future.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Unfortunately, I
would not be at all surprised to see the beancounters (or
the Boeing board of directors) drop Delta IV. The budget
(or bottom line) may not give them any choice.

- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn
2006-02-12 22:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Brian Thorn
Both of these are vastly different than RD-180 production, which
Lockheed and P&W has thus far refused to begin license production in
the US.
I seem to recall that Glushko (the Russian side) was
delaying the deal too at one point by adding a lot of
proprietary requirements.
Well it is their engine afterall. Did Lockmart not see that coming?
Hell, Stevie Wonder could see that coming.
Post by Ed Kyle
Post by Brian Thorn
If one of the EELVs go, it will be Atlas 5. There are just far too
many roadblocks for the Pentagon to kill Delta IV. If Lockheed/P&W had
bit the bullet 7 years ago and begun building an RD-180 plant at West
Palm, it would be an entirely different proposition today. But they
didn't, and Delta IV will be sitting in the driver's seat for the
foreseeable future.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Unfortunately, I
would not be at all surprised to see the beancounters (or
the Boeing board of directors) drop Delta IV. The budget
(or bottom line) may not give them any choice.
Boeing still seems to be favored by the Pentagon, though, and that
counts for a lot with the Boeing Board. Why risk getting more C-17s or
KC-767 production by pissing off the Pentagon about EELV?

Delta IV is clearly the Pentagon's favorite, and this is almost
certainly due to its no-Russia dependencies versus Atlas. That's not
going away anytime soon, if ever, as long as LockMart flies with
Russian engines. The Pentagon will keep Delta IV alive at all costs.
ULA is just a way to ease LockMart's pain of betting badly on Atlas 5
and getting screwed by Boeing in the process. They'll still be in the
business, but the emphasis at Decatur will always be on Boeing's
Delta.

Brian
Ed Kyle
2006-02-13 20:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Ed Kyle
It will be interesting to see what happens. Unfortunately, I
would not be at all surprised to see the beancounters (or
the Boeing board of directors) drop Delta IV. The budget
(or bottom line) may not give them any choice.
Boeing still seems to be favored by the Pentagon, though, and that
counts for a lot with the Boeing Board. Why risk getting more C-17s or
KC-767 production by pissing off the Pentagon about EELV?
I'm not sure I see this. Boeing has been in disfavor, at least
publically, since the EELV and tanker scandals. More recently,
it had the multibillion dollar FIA project yanked out of its hands
and it has been faced with Pentagon plans to stop C-17
production.

On the other hand, Boeing's stock has risen 60% in two years,
no thanks to Delta IV. (The gift shop at Boeing's world HQ
building here in Chicago doesn't carry any Delta IV models.)
Shareholders aren't interested in losing money. They would
support dropping Delta IV if the program continued to lose
money.
Post by Brian Thorn
Delta IV is clearly the Pentagon's favorite, and this is almost
certainly due to its no-Russia dependencies versus Atlas.
I agree in this sense. If Atlas was powered by an U.S. built
engine, there wouldn't be a Delta IV.

- Ed Kyle
Ed Kyle
2006-02-15 00:51:22 UTC
Permalink
To recap:

The original reports at:

"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
and
"http://www.al.com/enter/index.ssf?/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf%3f/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"

said that usspacenews reported in late January that Boeing
was going to drop its Delta IV in favor of Atlas V if the
United Launch Alliance (joint Boeing-Lockheed rocket venture)
was approved. Boeing immediately denied the story, and
usspacenews pulled its report.

Now comes a third story, from the Denver Post:

"http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3506350"

which insinuates that Delta IV could be dropped if the
United Launch Alliance is *not* approved!

The truth is out there, somewhere.

- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
2006-02-15 03:57:42 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Feb 2006 16:51:22 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
Post by Ed Kyle
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
and
"http://www.al.com/enter/index.ssf?/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf%3f/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"
said that usspacenews reported in late January that Boeing
was going to drop its Delta IV in favor of Atlas V if the
United Launch Alliance (joint Boeing-Lockheed rocket venture)
was approved. Boeing immediately denied the story, and
usspacenews pulled its report.
"http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3506350"
which insinuates that Delta IV could be dropped if the
United Launch Alliance is *not* approved!
The truth is out there, somewhere.
Heads Atlas wins, tails Delta loses?
Ed Kyle
2006-03-08 14:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
On 14 Feb 2006 16:51:22 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
Post by Ed Kyle
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
and
"http://www.al.com/enter/index.ssf?/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf%3f/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"
said that usspacenews reported in late January that Boeing
was going to drop its Delta IV in favor of Atlas V if the
United Launch Alliance (joint Boeing-Lockheed rocket venture)
was approved. Boeing immediately denied the story, and
usspacenews pulled its report.
"http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3506350"
which insinuates that Delta IV could be dropped if the
United Launch Alliance is *not* approved!
The truth is out there, somewhere.
Heads Atlas wins, tails Delta loses?
Another series of stories on this recently, one at:

"http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/airlines/article/0,2777,DRMN_23912_4522883,00.html"

The ULA deal could fall through if not approved by the end
of March. This story also quotes an analyst saying that
Boeing could exit the launch business if the deal is not
approved. I wonder if this analyst has done any work for
either company, or for the Air Force ....

- Ed Kyle

Jorge R. Frank
2006-02-15 02:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Kyle
"http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/060212/boeing.shtml"
and
"http://www.al.com/enter/index.ssf?/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf%
3f/base/business/1138702606236670.xml&coll=1"
said that usspacenews reported in late January that Boeing
was going to drop its Delta IV in favor of Atlas V if the
United Launch Alliance (joint Boeing-Lockheed rocket venture)
was approved. Boeing immediately denied the story, and
usspacenews pulled its report.
"http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3506350"
which insinuates that Delta IV could be dropped if the
United Launch Alliance is *not* approved!
The truth is out there, somewhere.
Yup, and if the press keeps speculating, they'll have covered all the
possibilities by the time the real story comes out, so at least one of them
can stand up and say "Told ya so!"
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Michael Kent
2006-02-19 02:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Ed Kyle
It will be interesting to see what happens. Unfortunately, I
would not be at all surprised to see the beancounters (or
the Boeing board of directors) drop Delta IV. The budget
(or bottom line) may not give them any choice.
Boeing still seems to be favored by the Pentagon,
How I wish that were true! OK, the Pentagon isn't so down on Boeing,
but the Air Force is, and it has been for nearly 20 years (starting back
when it was called McDonnell Douglas). If this is an Air Force decision
to make, they will go with Atlas V, no question about it. Lockheed is
their golden child, and nothing else really matters.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO
***@syndicomm.remove.this.com
Brian Thorn
2006-02-19 03:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Kent
Post by Brian Thorn
Boeing still seems to be favored by the Pentagon,
How I wish that were true! OK, the Pentagon isn't so down on Boeing,
but the Air Force is, and it has been for nearly 20 years (starting back
when it was called McDonnell Douglas). If this is an Air Force decision
to make, they will go with Atlas V, no question about it. Lockheed is
their golden child, and nothing else really matters.
Nonsense. Lockheed is the Golden Child only in that it bought out the
old Convair division of General Dynamics which made the Air Force's
favorite fighter, the F-16. Lockheed won JSF later, but really that
wasn't all that hard because Boeing's bird was a horrible misfire.
Prior to winning the ATF, what was Lockheed's last big Air Force
contract... C-5 in the 60s? F-117 maybe, but that was never all that
big. And F-22 is partly Boeing (from before the McDonnell merger),
remember.

Loving Lockheed never stopped the Air Force from buying lots of Delta
IIs and IUS's from Boeing. And C-17s, and CV-22s, and going a long,
long way around federal contract laws to lease 100 KC-767s. Meanwhile,
Boeing got caught red-handed with proprietary LockMart data to cheat
in the EELV competition, and the Air Force *still* gave Boeing
contracts for EELVs. This really tells you all you need to know.

In the end, the "we like Lockheed better" argument, if it really
exists, will be squashed into non-existence by Lockheed's reliance on
an engine built in Russia. The Air Force will *never* put itself in a
position of depending on Russia for anything. It won't happen.
Suggesting that it will is the product of a pipe dream. (Sorry Ed, if
you're listening...)

Brian
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...