3 ms·

P8 went pretty well. Blended wing isn’t sci-fi, B2 and plenty of ucav are full flying wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon https://en.wikipe

by adolph 4y ago

P8 went pretty well. Blended wing isn’t sci-fi, B2 and plenty of ucav are full flying wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

InTheArena 4y ago
Boeing was a very very different company then. I’m bullish on blended wing body, but I would have much more confidence if it were Lockheed or someone emulating the SpaceX, rapid development cycles working on this.
- edrxty 4y ago
  As someone in industry, I can assure you Boeing is still a disaster. I know a fuckload of good people who have turned down working there because the culture is shit and management is braindead even by defense contractor standards.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    I worked at Boeing on both the p8 and the kc46, and it's unreal how poorly leadership let things run. Handing thumb drives with excel sheets around, waiting years to provision vms. Etc.
  - rjsw 4y ago
    I'm working with Boeing people on a project, having their email system randomly fail to deliver incoming messages doesn't help.
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  I am up the road from Lockheed and know quite a few employees there and I'm pleased to hear a better reputation - I've heard the issues with Boeing leadership for years now as well. There's nothing like watching their airstrip for some really cool machines coming and going.
- adolph 4y ago
  P8 to KC46 introductions was 6 years. I think it’s more likely different parts of a large corp get run differently. MQ25 and 28 seem to be proceeding fine.
metaphor 4y ago
> P8 went pretty well. Did it really? According to this fairly recent GAO report[1], the Poseidon's mission capable rates have missed their minimum 80% target since 2015, trending downwards (Table 1); only the first 2 out of 7 years were satisfactory (Figure 7), and yet those years' metrics were based on Increment 1 low-rate initial production lot that were "not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission" and "not effective for wide area anti-submarine search" that they were originally intended for[2]. Even in early years when maintenance staff was stacked balls deep at well over 100% (Figure 5), persistent supply issues plagued the platform, trending upwards (Table 5). To be sure, this outcome was entirely predictable; e.g. picking on Northrop Grumman's Electronic Support Measures system[3] that the Bloomberg article calls out as just one example: if you knew how the sausage was made, then this 2006 GAO report[4] which highlights certain risks "of particular concern" surrounding ALQ-218 development is all of sudden prescient in that it took so long to get the underlying system to acceptable maturity on the Growler that it became a very real commercial obsolescence sustainment risk by the time the Poseidon's full-rate production decision was made! [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104533 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104533 [2] https://archive.ph/356bG https://archive.ph/356bG [3] https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-s-electronic-support-measures-system-for-the-p-8a-poseidon-receives-official-nomenclature https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum... [4] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-06-446 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-06-446

by adolph 4y ago

P8 went pretty well. Blended wing isn’t sci-fi, B2 and plenty of ucav are full flying wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

InTheArena 4y ago

Boeing was a very very different company then. I’m bullish on blended wing body, but I would have much more confidence if it were Lockheed or someone emulating the SpaceX, rapid development cycles working on this.

edrxty 4y ago
As someone in industry, I can assure you Boeing is still a disaster. I know a fuckload of good people who have turned down working there because the culture is shit and management is braindead even by defense contractor standards.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I worked at Boeing on both the p8 and the kc46, and it's unreal how poorly leadership let things run. Handing thumb drives with excel sheets around, waiting years to provision vms. Etc.
- rjsw 4y ago
  I'm working with Boeing people on a project, having their email system randomly fail to deliver incoming messages doesn't help.
6stringmerc 4y ago
I am up the road from Lockheed and know quite a few employees there and I'm pleased to hear a better reputation - I've heard the issues with Boeing leadership for years now as well. There's nothing like watching their airstrip for some really cool machines coming and going.
adolph 4y ago
P8 to KC46 introductions was 6 years. I think it’s more likely different parts of a large corp get run differently. MQ25 and 28 seem to be proceeding fine.

metaphor 4y ago

> P8 went pretty well. Did it really? According to this fairly recent GAO report[1], the Poseidon's mission capable rates have missed their minimum 80% target since 2015, trending downwards (Table 1); only the first 2 out of 7 years were satisfactory (Figure 7), and yet those years' metrics were based on Increment 1 low-rate initial production lot that were "not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission" and "not effective for wide area anti-submarine search" that they were originally intended for[2]. Even in early years when maintenance staff was stacked balls deep at well over 100% (Figure 5), persistent supply issues plagued the platform, trending upwards (Table 5). To be sure, this outcome was entirely predictable; e.g. picking on Northrop Grumman's Electronic Support Measures system[3] that the Bloomberg article calls out as just one example: if you knew how the sausage was made, then this 2006 GAO report[4] which highlights certain risks "of particular concern" surrounding ALQ-218 development is all of sudden prescient in that it took so long to get the underlying system to acceptable maturity on the Growler that it became a very real commercial obsolescence sustainment risk by the time the Poseidon's full-rate production decision was made! [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104533 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104533 [2] https://archive.ph/356bG https://archive.ph/356bG [3] https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-s-electronic-support-measures-system-for-the-p-8a-poseidon-receives-official-nomenclature https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum... [4] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-06-446 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-06-446