The F-47 "Thunderdolt"

So . . . how do you really feel about Trump?

 

who cares

 

There were two competitors; Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Lockheed makes the F-35 and will build several thousand more of them. Boeing only makes F-15s and F-18s. To award this program to LM would leave the government with only one viable fighter manufacturer and they would always like at least two. I’m not really surprised at this decision at all

 

I hope Boeing leadership can pull their shit together and get this done right.

 

This is a bit if a problem, is it not? Certainly the opposite if the situation in 1938-41. Wonder if the Corsair or Mustang even get made in this environment.

 

Another unhinged leftist, poor little fella

 

Actually it is quite an honor, Hope it lives up to the reputation of the P47—
P47 Thunderbolts was one of the best dual role planes of the second world war.
“The P-47, nicknamed the "Jug", played a significant role in the Allied victory, destroying over 7,000 enemy aircraft during the war. “
Republic P47 Thunderbolt
Designed by Alexander Kartveli, and built by Republic Aviation (Curtiss built 354 “G” models late in the war), the first prototype flew in June 1941. Nicknamed the “Jug” (short for “Juggernaut”) by its pilots, it was very tough to shoot down. Yet, because of its outstanding turbocharger, the P-47 had a service ceiling of over 40,000 feet—yet it was the heaviest single engine fighter of WWII.
More than 15,600 Thunderbolts were manufactured between 1941 and 1945. They served in every theater of the war, performing a variety of missions from bomber escort to close air support. They also served with the British RAF, French Free Forces, and the Soviet Union.
Even though the P-47’s combat debut wasn’t until April 1943, it flew more than half a million sorties in Europe and the Pacific. The P-47s would claim nearly 4,000 enemy aircraft, 9,000 trains, 86,000 trucks and 6,000 armored vehicles; all is evidence of its great air-ground role.
After Japan’s surrender, Thunderbolts (re-designated the F-47) continued to serve for years (and in some cases decades) after WWII. The U.S. pulled the plane from front line service in 1949, but NATO allies like Turkey, Portugal and Italy maintained squadrons of Thunderbolts into the 1950s. Latin American countries flew them until the 1960s; Peru didn’t retire its Jugs until 1966.

 

It absolutely is a problem. In the early 90’s, the Clinton administration encouraged/forced mergers in the industry due the reductions in budgets from the so called “peace dividend” from the fall of the Soviet Union. The industry used to consist of Aerojet, Boeing, Chrysler, Ford, GE, GM, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, Loral, LTV, McDonnell-Douglas, Northrop, Raytheon, Rockwell, Westinghouse and several others. After the merger binge we were left with significantly fewer companies. While practical in the 90’s budget environment, it has showed cracks in the foundation with world events over the years since. The biggest crack we have now is giant, slow moving, risk averse corporations serving a risk averse, bloated and outdated DoD acquisition system.

 

That is the $B question. Ever since McDonnell Douglas assumed control they have been in rehearsal for the shitshow that debuted 3 years ago.

The DoD is well aware of this and will hopefully make sure this program is managed for quality. It will not be great for Boeing’s return on this program but they need a good enema

 

CDS (Clinton derangement syndrome)? There has been continual consolidation in *every* sector of the economy. Not just unique to defense. It’s essentially a feature of capitalism, and the only real tool in the toolbox are anti-trust laws (something conservatives are historically much less willing to enforce).

Cold War ends in 1991. At that time in history we were able to roughly cut defense spending in half as % of GDP. So not sure it was “forced consolidation” as much as the natural reality of ending the Cold War era defense spending orgy… consolidation isnt just something govt “orders”, market forces play a huge role.

 

And you would be wrong.

'The last supper': How a 1993 Pentagon dinner reshaped the defense industry

I said “encouraged/forced”. I also acknowledged that it looked like a great idea at the time, but the times changed and now it doesn’t look so good. I said nothing derogatory about Clinton. You can unwad your panties now.

 

32 scale P-47 was the last model plane I built. Put a little 9V motor in it and melted the motor “pin” into the back of the prop. Ran the wires out the rear wheel well to a battery in the back of a 35 scale Jeep with a toggle switch for an antenna. When I flipped the switch the prop spun well enough to drag the plane and jeep across the tabletop. One of my favorites but I just left it on top of the fridge when I moved out of my last apartment.

 

Nothing in there I refutes what I said. Cold War ended, defense budget greatly reduced, and that naturally caused industry consolidation. This dinner just let those CEO’s know the gravy train was over! Key paragraph right here:

“They did. They had made very clear what they could afford and they were going to pay for companies that had one third of all factories and inefficiencies to go with that. And they said that the government was not in the business of redesigning companies or consolidating industries or putting people in or out of business. That was up to us, the CEOs of the companies that were in the industry at the time.”​

I’ll grant you defense is a unique sector, because every merger or possible bk involves govt secrets. So govt has more of a keen interest than a phone company merger or something frivolous like consumer products. Yet your article still confirms exactly what I said if you actually read the whole thing.


The only interesting (if unsurprising) thing is seeing Mitch McConnell’s name pop up as wanting to keep the gravy train rolling. Let’s say he got his way and things kept going from the higher baseline. What would our defense budget be today? $1.5 Trillion? $2 Trillion? You think NOT doing that was… a mistake!!!???

 

If you read my first post you will see that I acknowledged that it was a good thing at the time, and never called it a mistake. I’m simply pointing out that over the years it has become a decision that has created many of the problems that the defense industry into the situation that it is in. Another shortcoming of the decision over time was the politics that entered into many potential mergers. One of the major players in the industry today wielded a significantly oversized influence over potential mergers that would have harmed some of the legacy technologies. One of the unique characteristics of the defense industry is the longevity of the impact of decisions made, whether they be good or bad. There are simply very, very few companies that build basically custom products that fly or operate in extreme environments and designed and built to last 50+ years( with upgrades and technology insertions, the B-52 - has been in service for 70 years, B-1, some F-15, and F-16 have been in service for over 40 years as have many helicopters). The world has changed many times over since 1993, yet that decision is still upon us. The current requirements call for broad mixes of modern low cost solutions with traditional platforms with higher powered, longer range abilities. Low cost drones have been highly effective in Ukraine and there is a place for them in the portfolio. But they are not going to fully replace manned aircraft and older traditional drones for quite some in yours in yours or my lifetime. Counter measures are already being fielded that will render many of the low cost platforms significantly less lethal which will then require costly upgrades to protect. Sensors will find the drones before they can fire and heavier caliber ground fire will take them out before their ordnance can be dropped or launched.

 

I’m just going off the tenor of that post, since you called them forced mergers (raising Clinton) and the peace dividend a “so-called” peace dividend. That suggested to me you thought the govt should’ve kept spending in the 90’s.

I respect your opinion as you’ve stated to have worked in this space. Maybe your take is being colored by experiencing some of this transition in your career? Everyone is aware of Boeing’s issues in particular, but when you look at the actual amounts spent on defense we are *STILL* spending multiples of China or Russia even throughout the post Cold War era, and comfortably ahead of both combined. That’s just a fact. If we aren’t getting bang for the buck it isn’t because of lack of money spent. I doubt it’s really because of “too few companies” either, maybe we could have used another big player or two still in the mix, i couldn’t argue against that point, my take is it’s more a “this is what our markets supported” and “it is what it is” take. Nevertheless we aren’t facing a monopoly condition - there generally *is* competition. Right? We are a free market non-commie economy. Right? It’s just how these companies formed in the capital markets given the lower spending levels (relative to % of GDP and how investors demand returns in the overall economy).


Drones is an interesting one as I think that hypothetically opens the field to new or innovative players, whereas only a couple can legitimately/credibly bid on something massive like a new fighter jet platform. But truly I think you have to look at how much of this $$$ ends up going to executive compensation and shareholders/PE. Esp when you look at the “boondoggle” projects. Govt needs mechanisms to claw money back in those situations even if it’s to the detriment of shareholders and executives.