When the F-35B crashed in Florida weeks ago, the F-35 program may have reached a milestone. Things that go wrong for a military aircraft takes years of mishap to determine what can go wrong. The F-35's build evolution may have left its R&D initial build hanger and moved into an operational hanger. Faulty fuel tubes have been deemed as the culprit for the first crash of an F-35, an F-35B to be exact. It is the most complex of three F-35's types offered because of its lift fans and other sundry things that support this avionic marvel. Crashing and burning $150 million in a minute or less because of a fuel tube failure, is not what is ever desired, but having reached this milestone indicates the problems for the program may have approached the nuts and bolts stage rather than its developmental computer stage. It's not saying software and hardware still have some vetting to do and will always having development going on. In fact, the jet is expected to be a frontline fighter for the next 50 years and the R&D phase will chase it into retirement like all self-respecting supersonic fighters have done in the past. Perhaps the F-35 reached its program maturity when its fuel tubes failed on one F-35B. Kind of like a hydraulic line leaking out on a backhoe. Remember this flying supercomputer has parts surrounding it in order to mechanically fly. But it's progressing into its promise on being the very next best JSF nobody else has in its inventory, except for a few our allied "friends" who have emersed themselves into the F-35 culture. I wondered why it only flew at a speed of Mach 1.6 when for the last fifty years fighter jets and even some bombers fly faster than Mach 1.6. Then it dawned on me there is a preponderance of dependency on that "supercomputer" to do the work instead of doing elite airshow stunts like Russia and China prefer to do. After-all stunts impress its masses. War is not about stunts it's about winning and the US is flying its supercomputer against aerobatic displays. The F-35 isn't about 20th-century dog-fighting as found in the movie "Top Gun". However, it is about fighting at the speed of light on a circuit board or in a computer chip. That is the theory in a nutshell. In fact, the aviation weapons progression has not kept up with the F-35 task and purpose. It doesn't have long enough range of missiles, It doesn't hold enough weapons in its stealthy bays. It has too few bullets onboard making the A-10 the ultimate tank killer. However, the F-35 can do so much more from 50,000 feet than at 50 feet. It's survivable from that distance and those on the ground are not without the F-35, as it "directs" tons of various weapons on to targets in a "fixed" battle space. Fixed could be defined as moving slower than a hundred miles per hour going across the land. That pesky little flying computer strikes again firing weapons within a diverse battle space using others artillery, rockets and directing forces to hidden adversarial targets. It can also link ships, submarines and other aircraft in its battle plan, slaving Mach 2+ to its purposes from special built speed aircraft delivering its own payloads with precision. So Mach 1.6 is about right after-all. The coach on aviation's bench isn't needed as a Wide receiver or quarterback in this metaphor, it just has to game plan better than the opposition who doesn't have a coach capable of doing so many things in from the battle sidelines. Its true weapon is that its upgradeble as new inventions of war emerge. The F-35 needs a pilot to bring the speed of light to the battle space in an up close and personal manner. Perhaps this is a stepping stone for a satellite battle management!
Xiamen Airlines a subsidiary of China Southern is in some talks with Airbus. Those talks would include its NEO family of single-aisle aircraft including the A321NEO. Boeing is on the sideline with only its defense on the field. This is a typical American football battle. However, even defense can turn the ball over with a "pick 6". The bigger issue becomes Boeing's NMA play. Boeing can't run it unless it's on offense. Boeing is still in the huddle on this matter. The Chinese Goose gives Boeing its golden egg or so goes the proverb in some sort of quote. The 797 could be squeezed out on an Airbus play with a Chinese airline. Will this Xiamen attempt score the 797 announcement? The answer could come as soon as Paris 2019. If Xiamen holds back on the Airbus advance, then a 797 is on the horizon at the next big airshow it would seem. Boeing can only wait so long until future orders begin to erode away before an NMA announcement is even made, The pressure is on by Airbus to force Boeing's hand into an incomplete move for its next big thing. It's a game of chicken with high stakes on the table. The Winging IT mantra was the NMA was a foregone conclusion several years back. Boeing exclaimed! "Boeing needs more time, more study for a business case and now this from Airbus." A full assault in China on one of Boeing's best customers. What will Airbus flush out of a Boeing hiding place with its play in the Chinese marketplace? The question itself indicates Airbus has a quick and dirty A321NEO plan shoring up against the Boeing 797 move. It will try to diminish any Boeing NMA move with an enhanced A320NEO order book and its Xiamen talks are the first example of the Airbus plans. Perhaps, Boeing all along wanted to see what card Airbus was to lay down first when Boeing was perched to announce a new program. Airbus showed its hand and now more Boeing people are discussing a reaction with action. It was one of those 50 things we can do if Airbus does this or that. Well, Airbus has gone to Xiamen with big plans. An NMA launch customer position for Xiamen is up in the air with a fresh offer from Airbus. Sherlock Holmes would say, "the games afoot!" The Airbus card has been flip and the Boeing response is awaiting a slap. Then Airbus will have to go ahead and announce a fully enhanced single-aisle NEO to square off against a 797. Airbus is calling BS on Boeing with this overture played for Xiamen. Boeing so far doesn't even indicate what it will make until Airbus plays its cards. A boot will drop at the next Paris Airshow.
Several pundits have hinted at a 2019 797 announcement by Boeing. There is starting to be bits and pieces of information coming to the forefront. These bits include some benchmarks in design aspirations for a 797.
Plastic Body
Plastic wings
797-6 with a 2-3-2 seating for 228 passengers (4,500 NM)
797-7 with a 2-3-2 seating for 267 passengers (2 classes) (4,200 NM)
Boeing sees a two-fold market for its 797. One is crossing water between continents comfortably. Meaning landing in Frankfort from Philadelphia, PA becomes a travel pair. Or could it be Toronto to Paris could be another Pair? The Pacific ocean is a giant pond that may stretch 7,000 miles across. Having a range of only 4,500 miles would make the 797 a companion model to the 787 families of aircraft. Those 797 miles would stay in the Asian and Australian regions with ease but not flying trans-Pacific. The second market is for high-density regional flying. Everywhere the A321 goes the 797 will do better. Airbus will have to announce something within six months after Boeing announces in 2019. It sounds like the Paris airshow for the 797 drum roll. Boeing does plan to build a lighter 797 using everything from all its recent programs. The main feature emerging is passenger comfort. I have long wanted a fifteen-foot wide body with seven seats across in a two-aisle configuration. Space can be had in two classes. Boeing's customers could bring back the 22" wide seats and reminisce about the old days of flying. Expect big windows, lots of storage and new engines. This craft will ooze with innovation and comfort. It will encroach upon both the single-aisle 737 and dual-aisle 787 families of aircraft order books as it wedges in between. In the next five years, Boeing may end up with only two Max Types offered with two 797 types offered. If the 797 nocks it out of the park, the growth potential of the 797 comes from customer marketing innovations, on how it would use its equipment from single-aisle to dual-aisle equipment. If the airline industry culture uses the 797 for regional high-density routes, then the 737 Max will have a more balanced looking order book as the 797 reconfigures an airlines business case. The 797 is expected to cause a lot of marketplace disruption worldwide. Originally the 787-300 was going to be that "airplane", but the market wasn't ready for that "disrupter" back in the time ANA was looking at the 787-300 aircraft. Much time has passed and many technologies have emerged making a 797 a better case for the market than a 787-300 did back in 2010. An Article worth reading from:AirlineRatings
"THE PLANE PASSENGERS WILL LOVE – THE 797 – IS GETTING MUCH CLOSER.
Cabin mock-up of the Boeing 7J7 of 1990, very similar to what the 797 will be like . However the 797 will have far more advanced overhead styling.
Airline interest in the yet to be launched Boeing 797 – a plane passengers will love – is growing and the industry expects the Seattle giant to commit it to production next year.
According to New York-based analysts, Bernstein “airline interest in the New Mid-Size Airplane (NMA or 797) is clearly growing, but the demand will be highly dependent on pricing.”
The new report “Commercial Aircraft: High demand, delivery delays, engine challenges, easy money – Themes from Prague ISTAT Conference” states that “Boeing reiterated that it likes the concept, but that it has not yet been able to close on the business case.”
The analysts said that the design appears to be firming, according to many customers at a 2-3-2 cross-section with a composite fuselage and wing.
The key issue here is can Boeing build a far more comfortable plane for the passenger at a price that is competitive with currently cramped single-aisle designs on offer.
The 797 would have twice the overhead bin space, two aisles and most passengers would have an aisle or window seat.
Or put another way will passengers pay a bit extra to fly on the 797 to justify its higher cost to build? The rise and rise of premium economy suggests that “yes” is the answer.
Boarding of single-aisle aircraft is becoming a nightmare particularly in the US where the trend is for passengers to bring all their luggage onboard with them.
This is a major problem as the overhead bins are not large enough and the drama surrounding getting the luggage into the overhead slows the boarding process to a crawl.
Verbal fights often break out over “luggage space.”
Bernstein reports that “Boeing has said it will make a launch decision in 2019 and entry into services (EIS) would be in 2025.”
In June Boeing defined two versions – the NMA-6 (797-6) with 228-passenger, 4,500nm (8,300km) and the NMA-7 (797-7) which would seat 267 in two classes with 4,200nm range.
The 797-6 would be launched first, followed by the larger 797-7. Range appears to be closing in on 4,500 nm (8300km), says Bernstein. This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.
“By not pushing the range further, the NMA should reduce weight and be able to have an engine that can be optimized for more high-cycle usage than the engines used on the A330,” said Bernstein.
Boeing is in stealth mode with executives “mum” on any more details.
Boeing sees the market at about 5000 planes over 20 years. And what is more important they see the 797 as a stimulus to the market creating thousands of new routes, thus new business.
The company says there are 30,000 city pairs currently not linked that would be perfect for the 797.
“The 797 will be like a 787 on steroids,” one UK financial analyst told Airlineratings.com. “It will open up routes everywhere.
The compelling business case for the 797 is that it is designed to fit between the smaller and sshort-range 737/A320 aircraft and the much larger, heavier and longer range 787/A330 types.
The UK analysts said his “sources tell me they [Boeing} are almost there and they are really excited about this aircraft.”
“They expect it to be produced at much higher rates than the 787.”
The massive appeal of the 797 will be its passengers cross section of 2-3-2 with huge overhead luggage bins which will put an end to the economy crush.
The 797 will be a made of composite material like the 787 and it will be able to economically connect hundreds of new non-stop routes between smaller cities.
Earlier this year Boeing moved one of its top engineers Terry Beezhold, to the program signaling that it is very serious about the aircraft.
Mr. Beezhold has had lead roles in the 787 and was project engineer on the ultra-long-range 777X, which will fly next year.
Boeing and its legacy company, McDonnell Douglas both touted a similarly sized aircraft – 7J7 and ATMR – as early as 1980. However, at the time aircraft seating was more spacious and passenger’s carry-on very limited and airlines couldn’t make the business case.
The image below is a publicity from McDonnell Douglas showing the difference between its then proposed ATMR with the Boeing 757 which is virtually identical in cross-section to today’s 737/A320.
Fast forward to 2018 and passenger seating is far more cramped and the demand for overhead space far greater than a single aisle capacity allows.
The 797 with a 2-3-2 configuration means passengers will have more room regardless of the seat pitch and the overhead bin space will be massive.
Another plus will be that boarding and deplaning will be much faster."
Both makers have taken a different tac is this aviation Cup races. The Boeing corporation offers a direct family of aircraft with 787's and Airbus who lacked a complete A-350 by offering only attacking buyers for its A-350-900 and A350-1000 also offers a downwind price for its family of A-330 NEO's, the 800 and 900 versions. Sales have been meek for the low end as just only Kuwait has ordered 8 of the A330-800 NEO. Before there were none on order for Airbus. The takeaway is what this order means in the broader sense. Airbus has succeeded with its market philosophy. Spread the market with a plethora of types like a buffet, where Boeing offers exact menu items for customer entrees. What this means is the Airbus marketing has established a market niche through a true buffet offering. Nothing is quite as good as the main menu item and everything is covered for what a customer may want. On the other hand, Boeing is reading market its surveys and offering 6 oz steaks for airline pallets. It sounds like a Sizzler marketing seminar. Offer a salad bar or steak off the menu completing an Airbus/Boeing market coverage. Here is an opinion, Boeing company builds the 787 to bookend Airbus' buffet offering. The 787 is the steak. The A-330 NEO is the salad bar. Airbus also offers a 20oz steak for $19.99 with its A-350. Having more steak, more calories and more money than a Boeing 787. Then Airbus comes in with its A-330 NEO salad bar for beating the Boeing 8oz steak from its 787 menus. What a mess for a family of five wanting a good eating value. The A350 is too much airplane and money for that proverbial family and the salad bar (A330 NEO) is a lacking immensely for children who just want hamburger and fries from a drive-in.
The Airbus-A-330 NEO salad bar/steak
The A-350 Seat Maker 20 oz Steak
So I compare Boeing to a Texas Road House menu and Airbus to a Sizzler menu. Kuwait just went for the salad bar ordering 8 A-330NEO-800's. It's because Airbus offered a price it couldn't refuse selling an adequate airframe from the A330 NEO barn. It not about who builds what at this point, but it's how the kids in the back seat react when the parents chose where to go on eating out where mom needs a break. Kuwait has chosen the A330NEO as an affordable bridge to an ultimate entree style airline.
Every journalist who uses its craft to express how intelligent they are writing negatively about the F-35 and how useless it is. Well, I've been reading too! That makes me smarter than a fifth grader except the pay falls way short of journalistic adversaries when it comes to the F-35. But reading counts for something except I haven't gone to all those airshows making me an expert. I once read about an F-16 pilot who beat an electronically hobbled F-35. I also read about its problems, lower airspeed. You know airspeed makes it so much like a shooting star from seventy years ago. It can't vector up or down or left or right. It isn't a good fighter for airshow purposes. It can't go faster than Mach 1.6.
So I asked myself how pointless is that? No supercruise, no nine G turning and certainly glitching is its most prominent weapon of choice. The US Airforce, in response to its lack fourth generation constructs, has sprayed sticky stuff on its wings so the journalist has something to say how intelligent they are about the F-35 and that's their story and they are sticking to it. The flypaper application to its F-35 wings gives journalistic sticking power. They have been "boofed" and it shows.
Every journalist who uses its craft to express how intelligent they are writing negatively about the F-35 and how useless it is. Well, I've been reading too! That makes me smarter than a fifth grader except the pay falls way short of journalistic adversaries when it comes to the F-35. But reading counts for something except I haven't gone to all those airshows making me an expert. I once read about an F-16 pilot who beat an electronically hobbled F-35. I also read about its problems, lower airspeed. You know airspeed makes it so much like a shooting star from seventy years ago. It can't vector up or down or left or right. It isn't a good fighter for airshow purposes. It can't go faster than Mach 1.6.
The whole point of the F-35 is that is not an all-weather, all-purpose and all everything Joint air-to-air fighter. It was built to house computers and sensors. Those same sensors and computers that were not operational when it flew past an F-16 in testing. The F-16 could fly circles around the F-35 and shoot it down. It just beat a bi-plane called an F-35 and it showed. It gave Russia and China something to crow about. We can build "a super stealth bi-plane that goes Mach 2+ with supercruise in its engines.
"Watch! What we can do at a Szechwan airshow were people clap in unison as directed?"
"All we did was hang pepper about its snout and it worked great."
The PA system echoes, "The F-35 can't go Mach 1.71 nor can it turn in a tighter circle than a circle can be tight. We have supercruise where without going to afterburner. We can get into harm's way faster than an F-35", and so goes the droning on by the intelligentsia with a journalistic paycheck. It has broken down 5,283 times by a clear mile so goes any sensible reading expert.
So! "I put together some talking points what the Airforce has really built that everyone has missed the point on during the last dozen years and it’s not about invisibility.
·The F-35 is a flying computer which should not vector here or there.
·The F-35 wants a milli-second advantage because the computers work in milliseconds.
·The advantage comes from its weapons truck not a trick pony at the airshow.
·New weapons are built every six months which are plugged into airframes.
·Its the missile systems and computers doing the fighting.
·The F-35 needs to hide like a concealed weapon
After examining these talking points, the F-35 quickly takes shape. Hide and shoot like a gang member. Marching as a formation doesn't win the fight. The year 1776 proved this point when the British fought against the Patriots at Concorde It was a long and deadly walk back to Boston for those British troops. American forces have been behaving that way since the US revolutionary war. The F-35 doesn't want to dog-fight at all, otherwise, it would be missing the point. The Art of War is in deception and the F-35 program has fooled so many by its perceived flaws.
Note this:
·There are many F-35 problems in its development
·Computers have upgrades, please turn on your computer and see what upgrades load up today.
·It isn't a fourth Generation fighter with a club
·It's a fifth-generation commanding shootist that hides really well.
·Thinking is what it is built for.
·Getting to the battlespace makes it more of a truck than a sports car.
·Being in the pole position isn't necessary since it already punched your ticket at the gate.
Once you discern its specialty then you get the F-35. The best question is how many are needed and a follow-on question what's next?
As a guide to Aviationphiles, the below charts show relative backlog between Boeing and Airbus for the period ending 9/30/2018. Notes below this opening are for your convenience, indicates Boeing is slowing closing the backlog gap in the single-aisle category. Boeing having 4,714 units to deliver as compared with the Airbus tally of 6,301units. The $billions in comparison give Airbus the relative dollar backlog lead. It is also important to note Airbus absorbed the Bombardier single-aisle backlog as part of its accounting lump totals. The also hides Boeing's progress with its single-aisle gap with Airbus who has a very strong backlog for A321's where Boeing has answered with newly offered 737-Max 9's and 10's. If Boeing can add an Embraer single-aisle count to its book through a merger, currently in the works, and it continues to book the 737 Max at the same pace it has over the last couple of order cycles, then it will catch Airbus single-aisle backlog in this class. Boeing is within striking distance of meeting the Airbus, $170 billion, single-aisle order advantage when all things are considered.
Wide body is Boeing's strong suit. It beats Airbus in backlog dollars by $30 Billion. When The Embraer merging is complete and using this $30 dollar WB buffer, Boeing should have caught Airbus in both total units and dollar value for its respective backlogs. Enjoy the numerical comparisons, as this is only an estimation using dynamic order and production books while using some assumptions when data is not available which may slightly differ from Boeing's own reporting. All data is based on both the Airbus and Boeing's reporting websites ending 9-30-2018.
·Boeing nets 631 net orders for YTD all types Airbus
·Airbus trails Orders YTD with 311 net orders
·Boeing exceeds 100 net YTD orders for the 787 totaling 104
·Airbus slips further with its A-350 only netting 36 ordered YTD
·Boeing books a net YTD 448 single-aisle 737 with a preponderance for ordering the 737, Max.
·Airbus books only a net of 198 Single-aisle YTD
What does this all mean? Airbus is in second place on the last straight stretch. In horse races, a well strategic race will have the second place horse pass the lead by a nose at the finish line. Airbus typically sandbags orders (holds back) for a December 31 announcement. Last year it dumped hundreds and hundreds of orders in the announcement bin in the 2017 eleventh hour. If Boeing can retain some orders for a December announcement the game is afoot as Sherlock Holmes quips.
The bragging rights of most orders is a tenuous proposition. Many an order could be rated as risky, as many an airline will cease to exist before receiving the first delivery on its mature order. It is imperative to classify order quality and make a risk assessment for all orders booked. An example would be if an ACME airline order is riskier than a United Airline order for reaching full completion. This is an unreported condition and does not contribute to Bragging rights at the end of any given year. Thus a rating system for orders should be based on order risk which can be both subjective and objective through a proven metric table.
The airplane buying metric or indicators would include financial ratings from market success in an airline's business plan including an analysis with its history for achieving its objectives. So one could see it becomes very complicated analyzing a batch of indicators on strength of an order book. Those indicators used could be a subjective choice in itself. Therefore, the current market status is the only sensible way to bet on the actual winning horse and Boeing has a strong lead for the 2018 orders race. It is a foregone conclusion Boeing will win the world's largest airplane maker this year as its product has just started to hit high gear after a production slump mid-year. Airbus has too many problems itself on the production floor as its suppliers are having some production woes on its own.
Airbus needs about another 600 net orders to catch Boeing by year's end, while Boeing could amass only 300 additional new orders by December 31, 2018, and beat Airbus just the same. The race for orders is wide open while deliveries may take a hurricane to stop Boeing winning that battle.
When I was a youngster I played in the basement of a big building with interlocking rooms and hallways. It was a massive game of hiding and seeking with my brother. The F-35 was over hyperbole for its "invisibility". However, the black room theory is better suited for the F-35. All your senses are needed to find it. However, all the F-35 senses have your number. Who will win? By sure capability, the F-35 will. In that black room, I had to use hearing and not much more to find my adversary. The F-35 could be better than a bat flying in the dark battlespace. Invisibility is a strong description, but very "limited" detection is the best reference for the F-35 limited vulnerabilities. If the fastest jet pilot reads this, they are already dead by line two in italics above. Hearing only a moving chair in a dark room becomes a bad assumption in a dark room. Looking at ghosts on a radar screen is a bad technique for defeating an F-35. The F-35 is the darkroom warrior with super sensitive windows to its armaments. The adversary only has hearing in that dark room while the F-35 has its digital number for any of its adversaries, which is processed by a supercomputer, (at the speed of light) from its multiple layers of sensors. The F-35 can only go mach 1.6. But its computer's goes much faster than a speeding missile. The F-35 pilot only "Trusts in Processing", and bam, an F-35 missile finds its target in that proverbial dark room.
Boeing a long time ago suggest building the "Middle of the Market" airplane. It would be somewhere between a 737 and 787 aircraft, tending towards a dual aisle composition. What happened? It's not been announced, nor has the press covered anything 797 for a few months and that's just fine with Boeing. It has said all it's going to say for some time. Lessons learned from the 787 programs allowed Airbus to dampen Boeing's aspirations as it quickly announced its A-350 just after the 7E7 came to the Boeing show and tell at an airshow near Paris. The silence for the 797 ideas is deafening. It almost looks like Boeing has purposefully changed its tactics towards Airbus by not announcing and let Airbus sell copious numbers of A-321's over the next five years. The suspicion grows it is building a 797 in secret from its CAD machines. The computers are sophisticated enough to design and fly a concept on a big computer screen, in some kind of simulation alter reality. Now Boeing has probably already done a 797 computer mock-up with its vast proven technologies, so the trial and error portion has been skipped. Boeing just needs to build a flying example in a warehouse near the space needle. Boeing has lined up at least 500 orders from customers loyal to anything Boeing. Naming "Launch Customers" are a bigger problem than any engine selection. About getting an engine is another step progression. Boeing has the Leap for the 737 and the GE for its 787. Those companies are not standing still as Boeing would be in 40,000 to 50,000 thrust range for a super lean burning and quieter engine than what is currently flying. Selecting an engine is as difficult as selecting a launch customer. The process remains behind closed doors and Boeing will not utter a thing until it can hang an engine on a prototypical 797. It already has a plan to stuff the "Bus" with all things Boeing in a plug and play fashion from its design Bureau, but it needs time for its ultimate strategy of gaining five years on Airbus from its order campaign. When Boeing announces the 797 it will be in Paris and it just might fly-in for a look-see, for all the customers to be amazed. Airbus will counter but it will be five years too late. The airplane "other-shoe" will have dropped. The only way Boeing can steal the market back is through a surprise reveal at the biggest stage. But that is for risk takers and Boeing is risk adverse except if it called a 787. However, the 797 is put back into its box for another day. Boeing is on a rampant errand on a white steed and it will lance the windmill one more time with its 797. Risk aversion is job one on the CAD machine. Once all 797 problems have been shredded the announcement will follow allowing Airbus some time in a thoughtful repose for a reflexive move. The wind won't shift for Airbus because that lance is stuck firm tilting its aspiration out of the picture. Don Quixote has a plan.
Boeing absorbed 9 more 787-9's from United today, as announced. Not knowing whether it's in September or October the below chart includes the latest 787 numbers I have without eventual validation.
The quarter over quarter tracker for 2018 recaps the 787 year-to-date at 105 net 787's ordered.
Below are yearly program recaps including 2018 YTD orders and deliveries as of September 30, additionally, it includes YTD compilations for all program years completed.
