After Japan loss, Boeing looks for other fighter deals

After Japan loss, Boeing looks for other fighter deals

Boeing didn’t get the deal to sell Japan a batch of new fighter jets. Still, there are plenty of other militaries in the sea, as it were, and the company made clear this week it’s just going to keep right on making the pitch for its portfolio of older-model fighters.

In fact, Reuters’ Andrea Shalal-Esa and Karen Jacobs report that Big B could be right on the edge of a major announcement with Saudi Arabia, which may be close to inking a deal for a new set of F-15 Eagles:

Losing a big Japanese order to Lockheed Martin was clearly a disappointment for Boeing, but a $29.4 billion order from Saudi Arabia for F-15 fighter jets and several other competitions will keep the company in the fighter business for now. The U.S. government and Saudi Arabia are finalizing a letter of agreement on the sale of 84 Boeing F-15s, and may announce that deal soon, according to two U.S. government sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.


Boeing, which has rung up big orders for its commercial planes this year, also remains competitive in several other big-ticket military competitions in South Korea, Brazil, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia and possibly Denmark, company officials say.

“Japan was one competition. There are lots of others to go after,” said Boeing spokesman Paul Lewis, saying that both Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, and the new Silent Eagle, a partly stealthy version of the F-15, had future business prospects. “We’re delivering airplanes today with a known cost and known schedule … I think it’s a bit presumptuous and bit of a stretch to be talking about the demise of our fighter airplanes,” he said.

In fact on Wednesday, the company announced it has signed “memoranda of understanding” with Brazilian manufacturers as part of a potential deal to sell Super Hornets down there. Boeing wants to lay the groundwork for an offer that would not only involve its latest and greatest F/A-18s, but ones that have the potential to be at least partly built by Brazilians. Here’s what the company said in its announcement:

The MOUs resulted from a recent tour of companies based in São Bernardo do Campo and throughout the industrial region in the state of São Paulo. Representatives from Boeing and its Super Hornet industry partners visited businesses throughout the region to assess and match their capabilities with future work-placement opportunities. MSM and Pan Metal join more than 25 other companies throughout Brazil that Boeing and its industry partners have already identified as potential suppliers. This enhances Boeing’s industrial participation offer on the F-X2 fighter program, with a focus on identifying near-term opportunities.

So although Boeing may have lost to Lockheed in Japan — and both companies lost (so far) to Euro-builders in India — Boeing says it’s committed to try, try again. But how long can it capitalize on the same old jets? Shalal-Esa and Jacobs’ Reuters story makes clear that the company is heading into a time as much of risk as opportunity:

“The day of reckoning is looming fast,” said Richard Aboulafia, aerospace analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group. “There’s going to be some kind of sixth generation fighter requirement emerging, but that’s a long way off. Boeing is going to have to consider how to keep their design teams engaged.”

Looming budget cuts in the United States may also constrict funding for a new long-range bomber, the only big new U.S. airplane development program still on the horizon, which will put pressure on companies to team up, or begin shedding design engineers, analysts say.

This is the risk the Aerospace Industries Association has been warning about all this time — the risk that a fallow period for American combat aircraft might mean it could never field another new one.

Join the Conversation

Don’t see no 6th generation fighter for at LEAST another decade! The F-15 is a great fighter and will serve both Saudi Arabia and South Korea well as well as the USAF. I hope they pentagon picks up F-15 upgraded asap. I hope the Philippines would consider buying a fighter like the F-15 since many A models are now in storage to its air forces the F-16 they looked at is a tiny pathetic fighter not to good for a nation close to China.

The financial crisis in Europe and the threat of cuts to F-35 numbers in the US does offer opportunities to Boeing over the next decade given that both the F-15E and Super Hornet are significantly cheaper than comparable rivals like the Eurofighter and Rafale.

Philippines can barely afford to buy a used F-16-what makes you think they can afford F-15s even on military aid. Then there’s the question of how they would maintain them-the PAF is not exactly high on overhaul facilities. Given their resources, the F-16 is the safer and more practical bet.

Until some AFFORDABLE competition shows up on the foreign military sales market that can consistently beat out an enhanced F-15 or F/A-18 in all of their missions, and possibly for a long time after that, Boeing can continue to sell fighters! Some countries, Japan included, are still flying the venerable but many-times-over, upgraded and still credible F-4s that were nominally “replaced” by the F-15A so many years ago, so .… . . Id suspect that the O&M funding for F-15s will be there for a LONG time to come!

Why we give Billions in weapons to the Afghans and there bunch of back stabbing terrorist sympathizers. Give them to a real ally.

Excellent point and the citation of the F-4 is right on point, the F-4 is / was probably the best fighter the US has ever produced (in terms of number of users, numbers built, variety of missions, longevity, upgrades, combat record, etc…). The original “Joint Strike Fighter” — it was an excellent fighter for the USAF, Navy, USMC, Allies, etc… because it was robust enough to be adaptable to a variety of missions and users…

221 — 2 crew members, 2 big engines, 1 big radar… that’s the formula for a great fighter

That’s not a choice you or I make-tell it it to the politicos.

you really mean than Saudi arabia or korea have take the f-15 because he was good? the reason is simple, these country who have one defense assistance pact with USA, need take US airplanes, and it is USA who propose the type of plane.Why the f-15? if no one take it, the production is close and many jobs left.
Arms deal was politics deal, specially when USA is involved, that’s not one supermarket were the buyer take the better object.
And if necessary USA buy the plane for the country, like f-35 in israel with american aid, if israel say no, USA cut this aid.
Do you mean japan have the choice between f-35, f-18 and EF? no USA make pressure for save the f-35, easy when you have 40 000 troops in the country and one military assistance.
Just the f-16 was take for his small price by some country

If I were Boeing, I would not give up on selling them to Japan, the F-35 is not an air superiority fighter, the newer F-15s would supplement it quite well.

Drones people drones!!
That is where the future is headed.Unmanned jet fighter packs.
Boeing will be there. you watch.

You don’t have a clue. The Korea sale was commercial and not government sponsored for starters.

Boeing is already there. The problem with drones completely is there is no situational awareness capability. There will always be a need for manned aircraft for defense.

Drones are great things…. for SOME missions.

If you believe that they will work for ALL missions at any time in the forseeable future…. just back away from the punchbowl and put down your cup of koolaid; I have some property in south Florida that you would find most interesting! Or perhaps a hand or two of goatlocker poker…? ROTGLMAO!

For crying out loud. Where did you “NOT” learn to write? That was the most painful read I have ever encountered. Please go away, far far away.

Wrong. No gun. Cannot be a great fighter without a built in gun (attached 20 mm pod does not count).

Good point — eventually corrected

I imagine in about ten years we’ll hear of the piloted drone platform with a trailing unmanned squadron — one for play and 4 to stray?

Hmmmm .…. Wasn’t that from a few years back, and wasn’t it called ‘Quail’ or something like that?Sent from my iPhone

Still feeling bitter about US weapons making sales, I see? Perhaps, you should feel glad that France is only able to sell the Russians their Mistral ships along with the blueprints and tech know-how, so that one day those could be used against France or its affiliates.

During the first decades after World War II it was almost a honour for every foreign Miitary to buy the best U.S. American arms technology available, U.S. warplanes above all. That was because they were technically cutting-edge and the free World could really rely on them to stay free.

Nowadays U.S. aeronautical products are so embarassingly mediocre that any nation that lets itself be “persuaded” (behind the scenes) to buy such crap looks like a whore.

***** = public woman

I don’t live in one country who need old cold war propaganda for take more money to the taxpayers for make one stupid program like f-35.
IN THE REAL WORLD, country who have nuclear bomb don’t fight one another country who have it.

Situational awareness is a BIG issue with any of the UAS’s until some sensor with essentially a spherical “field of view” is developed (and some method of processing the volume of data generated is provided). A couple of billion years of evolution has done a pretty good job of wiring the biological eyeball and the brain; its going to take a while before silicon circuits do the same.

The other problem is that pesky old 186000 miles per second thing. So long as a UAS must communicate with a human controller via a satcom link, there will always be about a 1/2 second or more “lag” in the control loop. For chasing down and out-maneuvering highly dynamic (LOL!) targets like bridges and bunkers, that control loop lag means nothing, for an A-A knifefight with an aggressively maneuvering 9-G opponent, even with theoretically perfect SA, a 0.5 control lag makes that UCCAS start to look a lot more like a target drone than an attack drone! :-)

What about, for the short term, replacing our existing worn out F-15’s w/the Boeing proposed F-15SE (Silent Eagle) model, which is a redesigned fighter, incorporating stealth technology. It’ll also be cheaper. Who knows when we’ll even get the F-35’s, and you can bet, they will have initial problems.

Can we keep affording to coming out w/entirely new generation of planes all the time, or wouldn’t it make more sense to come out w/intermediate models, that fit in between, which takes an existing debugged and proven plane, and incorporate the next generation of technology into it.

Sadly too, we’re loosing our skill work force here in the US, so w/o keeping a steady force of skilled labor employed, working on something, we could later pay a BIG price in not even being able to build anything in the future.

Good idea — That would be similar to what the Navy is doing with Super Hornets.

At the rate we’re going the only thing we will have is battle weary soldiers with worn out equipment!

Still jealous, I see…

The F-35 is a MUCH better air superiority fighter than you give it credit for being & the F-35A is in fact intended to be an (if not THE) air superiority fighter for all of those aquiring it.

Perhaps Boeing needs to re-do the YF 23 and sell it to Japan.…

The question is will Boeing manage to avoid a Tiger Shark F-20 / F-5 scenario. Where the Air Force and the State Department sank the great export plane to support the F-16.

Hopefully Boeing will survive until the retirements of Air Force finally forgives them for the mistakes of the past.

That problem is caused by the “slowness” of the speed of light for signals to ground controllers?

I thought the problem of drones maneuvering and tracking with targets would be mitigated by very good software on “automatic”, and *not* allowing a controller in the loop for high g maneuvering and such… The decision cycle would be much faster than their human opponents, the main challenge is correct inputs (ie, SA), and programming the correct responses.

Precisely! There is actually more lag than just that because of the internal delays in the satellite transponders, routers and such. And you do pinpoint the basic conflict between man in the loop and autonomy. Just be sure to include the threat of fratricide with a ‘terminator’ drone, real or just perceived.Sent from my iPhone

This is a VERY good question. The F-20 beat the F-16 in everything but total payload and thanks to parts common to the T38 was much less cost per unit than any other credible fighter platform available at the time. General Dynamics pushed the growth capability of the air frame to the DoD with the F16XL concept and took their lobbyists off the leash and killed the F-20.
Boeing has made mistakes and certainly won few friends with flexing its lobbyist mussel to force the USAF to buy the B767 for the KC-X program, but they still build some good weapons and support systems. Besides all DoD procurements should 100% be from domestic manufactures, right?

The F-20 didn’t beat the F-16 at anything other than cost.

The F-16XL had absolutely nothing to do with the F-20, it was General Dynamics’ competitor to the F-15E. General Dynamics didn’t kill the F-20, the US Government/DOD did by clearing the F-16 for export to nations which were previously restricted.

Boeing didn’t force the USAF to buy the 767, the USAF ASKED FOR the 767.

In terms of avionics the F-20 was superior to non-upgraded F-16A/B variants. Yet at roughly the same time the F-16C/D were being introduced which were superior in that area too.

Personally I think the Navy should have bought some F-20s to replace their old F-5Es in the aggressor role.

@ pfcem

The F-35 is a TERRIBLE TURKEY and biggest failure project on the world. The F-35 is in fact intended to be single-seat strike aircraft and for all of those acquiring the failed JSF will be totally useless piece of equipment that will ruin any air force or navy.

Even though it will perform air superiority role, the JSF is too heavy, overweight and sluggish to be successful as an air superiority fighter, due to the fuselage which has too much cross section, the wings are too small which lack the extreme manoeuvrability (the ability to out-manoeuvre the adversary in air-to-air combat), the wing platform is optimised for subsonic cruise and transonic manoeuvre and doesn’t provide enough lift and drag to defeat Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and Within Visual Range (WVR) air-to-air missiles (AAMs) from enemy fighters in the dogfight and stand off ranges.

Again it has inferior acceleration, poor manoeuvrability, short range with no loiter time and very limited weapons payload that is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence and unsuited for air superiority role when compared against Sukhoi family of aircraft, particularly post 2010 configurations; definitely post 2015 evolved growth variants alright.

@ pfcem

Again the JSF’s fuselage is too thinned skinned. Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety precautions on the Joint Strike Fighter to protect against fire. As an close air support which the F-35 is suppose to be (when it attempts to discriminate tanks, convoys, SAMs and AAAs) its totally incapable, the aircraft will be an very easy target to shoot down, because it’s such a delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 turbofan engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the engine and to the fuselage. Very little they can do because the .22 Rifle or any form of gunfire can very easily penetrate the skin on the airframe and causes it to catch on fire like a “blow torch”. You and your colleagues from LM claimed the fire safety pre-cautions are not needed in order for the aircraft to save weight, which is a complete disaster. It will be a very vulnerable aeroplane without fire extinguishing system to put out fire when the aircraft has an engine failure for example.

You, Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon and the USAF will be very responsible for the air crew losses very soon.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement