Boeing withdrew application for the creation of a new American ICBM

48
The American concern Boeing has withdrawn from the program to create a new intercontinental ballistic missile, having withdrawn its application for the tender announced earlier by the US Air Force. According to Jane's, the corporation was not satisfied with the conditions of the competition for the creation of ICBMs.

Boeing withdrew application for the creation of a new American ICBM




Boeing Corporation withdrew its application for participation in the tender for the creation of a new ICBM, in the long term designed to replace the outdated MinMBs of Minuteman-3. Thus, the American company Northrop Grumman remained the only contender for the development of the rocket and the subsequent delivery of its American army.

As previously reported, the US Air Force announced in mid-July this year a tender for the development of a new ICBM and the creation of five samples of a new missile by the end of next year. Two American companies, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, have submitted applications for participation in the project, which have already received three-year rocket design contracts in 2017. It was assumed that the US Air Force will have a choice of which of the two missiles to adopt and order its mass production.

The US Air Force GBSD (Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent) program, from which Boeing came out, suggests a gradual replacement of all 2027 land-based ICBMs Minuteman-450 from 3 of the year and is estimated at 85 billion dollars.

The reason for the refusal of Boeing to participate in the program is the company's inability to compete with Northrop Grumman on the American market of solid propellant rocket engines (TTRD). It is reported that earlier NG acquired the company Orbital ATK, which occupies a leading position among the suppliers TTRD.
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    26 July 2019 18: 49
    The reason for Boeing's refusal to participate in the program is the company's inability to compete with Northrop Grumman in the US market for solid propellant rocket engines (TRE).
    they would deal with their planes ...
    1. +7
      26 July 2019 19: 06
      Quote: DimDimych
      The reason for Boeing's refusal to participate in the program is the company's inability to compete with Northrop Grumman in the US market for solid propellant rocket engines (TRE).
      they would deal with their planes ...

      . Thus, the American company Northrop Grumman was the only contender for the development of the rocket and the subsequent supply of its American army.

      winked who would have thought that she would be the only contender !? No.
      1. +2
        26 July 2019 19: 17
        Quote: Terenin
        who would have thought that she would be the only contender !?

        If Boeing did not win, then Lockheed Martin won. It’s not hot for us. Boeing is becoming more and more civilized; Lockheed is becoming more and more militarized. Dynamic Electric who bought it? Pratt & Wintley on the line. Lokhoidy devour and do not choke
        1. 0
          26 July 2019 20: 00
          hi
          the corporation did not accept the terms of the tender for the creation

          Sawed it off? lol
          1. +2
            26 July 2019 21: 08
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            hi
            the corporation did not accept the terms of the tender for the creation

            Sawed it off? lol

            hi
            Gosha winked , there from 90 "greens" only for "sawdust", from sawing, will be rolled into the asphalt together with domestic Chihuahuas crying
            1. +1
              26 July 2019 21: 42
              Hi, hello! hi drinks
              Quote: Terenin
              Chihuahua

              Be kind: more about sneezing. wink
            2. +4
              26 July 2019 22: 02
              Chihuahua is sorry ... crying
      2. +3
        26 July 2019 19: 53
        Quote: Terenin
        who would have thought that she would be the only contender !?

        The guys from Grumman are now frolic ... smile
        Moreover, the example of Lockheed with the F-35 is indicative ...
    2. 0
      26 July 2019 19: 23
      Quote: DimDimych
      The reason for Boeing's refusal to participate in the program is the company's inability to compete with Northrop Grumman in the US market for solid propellant rocket engines (TRE).
      they would deal with their planes ...

      It is true that let max be brought to mind, and not kill people in the hundreds on this plane. And here they go on rocket themes. This is a series of how a fish processing plant won a tender for the construction of an overpass. belay
      1. +2
        26 July 2019 19: 32
        Boeing is the main missile corporation now if that. The main Delta, Delta Heavy and Atlas-5 missiles are manufactured by ULA or the Boeing and Lockheed Alliance.

        The future SLS tsar-rocket is developed by Boeing, it also coordinates all cooperation
        The new Vulcan workhorse is also being developed by the ULA (that is, Boeing will get a pretty penny), but with the filing of Lockheed and NASA (or rather, NASA ordered a rocket, and eventually approved the Lockheed concept).

        The future minibus to orbit - Starliner, is being developed by a Boeing.
        1. 0
          26 July 2019 19: 51
          Quote: donavi49
          Boeing is the main missile corporation now if that.

          Well, that’s the main thing for NASA, Ilon Mask., And for the war, Raytheon, as a subcontractor, but the Lockheids will devour them too
          1. 0
            26 July 2019 20: 38
            Only the current few years and most likely not for long (before the Volcano), for who is Musk for Congress? No one. Here is the ULA there all of their own, lobbyists import money - in order to then receive a government order for 420mln / launch of one Heavik (despite the fact that they throw the Mask a year with a price tag in 4 times less).

            Again, give statistics, for example 2018 year (as the greatest success of the Mask):

            2018
            Customer NASA запустил 11 missions из которых Musk brought 4, Atlas 1, Antares 2, Delta Heavy 1, regular Delta 1, Electron 1.

            Customer MO brought 7 missions from which Mask 2, Atlas 4, Delta 1.

            As we see in total, Nasa has an 4 Mask, 2 Orbital (Northrop already), 3 ULA, 1 RocketLaba. At the same time, three Mask rockets and both Antares - worked under the ISS supply program. Musk brought out only one station - Tess. While Yula is all three research stations, Rocketlab is also a scientific workload.

            MO - 2 Mask vs. 5 ULA Missiles.

            Musk brought Xnumx rocket из которых 2 MO, 4 NASA, 14 comedies, 1 test.
          2. +1
            26 July 2019 23: 48
            Quote: Tusv
            Well, then the main thing is for NASA Elon Musk

            Well, wouldn’t its reusable media fit here? In vain, at the slightest malfunction in the systems, the carrier returns the rocket home, to eliminate wink drinks
          3. 0
            27 July 2019 00: 50
            As if the mouth would not be torn for a large fish, too large
        2. 0
          26 July 2019 19: 59
          The future SLS tsar-rocket is being developed by a Boeing,

          According to the drawings of Raytheon. Even the Ax is from him, but the Boeing produces. Ruin Raytheon - Toothless America
          1. +1
            27 July 2019 00: 49
            And where can I read about what sls reyteon developed?
        3. 0
          27 July 2019 07: 41
          Those. Boeing has something to do. And to scatter forces also on ICBMs - weaken these areas.
      2. -1
        26 July 2019 19: 41
        Quote: Proxima
        It is true that let max be brought to mind, and not kill people in the hundreds on this plane.

        The hand of the Kremlin is felt. We supply titanium alloys for civilian Boeing. And the combat ones - well, first of all, for the Yaquem of War
        1. -2
          4 August 2019 18: 24
          Quote: Tusv
          Quote: Proxima
          It is true that let max be brought to mind, and not kill people in the hundreds on this plane.

          The hand of the Kremlin is felt. We supply titanium alloys for civilian Boeing. And the combat ones - well, first of all, for the Yaquem of War

          in 5 years, our titanium will not be needed there ...
          It is within six months that the Chinese will be able to replace it.
          And in 3-5 years - powder and other printers will begin to leave the stage of laboratory copies.
  2. +1
    26 July 2019 18: 49
    Well, they have a lot of money, let them have fun. New ICBMs will have to be loaded with old warheads.
  3. +6
    26 July 2019 18: 51
    Can our companies participate in the competition?
    1. +3
      26 July 2019 19: 20
      Can our companies participate in the competition?

      No well it's five drinks
      1. +2
        26 July 2019 19: 36
        inspired by music ... drinks
        1. +1
          26 July 2019 19: 44
          Ai did not listen to Valera Syutkin with his bourgeois Phone
          and with this rubbish we will try to quietly take off
    2. 0
      27 July 2019 13: 53
      Quote: dr.star75
      Can our companies participate in the competition?

      Put the mattresses "Sarmat"? fellow wassat
  4. +2
    26 July 2019 18: 53
    The United States lagged behind Russia in the development of ICBMs, until recently they hoped for the strength of their AUGs to intimidate the countries of the world .. (Is Russia supposedly on the verge of collapse?)))
    Now it’s not rolling anymore .. There is something to answer and defend, but the main thing is Space, this is where the main game unfolds.
    1. 0
      27 July 2019 00: 39
      They have enough of their own SLBMs. Yes, and as it were before. And AUG, as it was a useful means of intimidating dissent, remains.
  5. +4
    26 July 2019 18: 55
    as I understand it ... they calculated everything, hopelessly ... only business and nothing personal ...
  6. 0
    26 July 2019 19: 06
    Ukroinu ask, for that kind of money they will draw you an ICBM with fantastic characteristics! The main thing is that their "products" will be able to jump, dance a hopak, hide lol They can also fly but quietly and very low so that the warhead does not spin laughing
    1. +3
      26 July 2019 19: 36
      excuse me... love but your comment inspired ...
      - Comrade ensign, and crocodiles fly?
      - What!? Who told you such garbage?
      - Comrade Major!
      - Comrade Major ?! Actually, they fly, but very low!
      1. 0
        27 July 2019 00: 43
        Well, if you dig deeper, it’s not far from the truth, for the Coulomb barrier maintains a certain distance between the atoms and we can say that we all fly, but low-low
  7. +7
    26 July 2019 19: 27
    Quote: Sergey39
    Well, they have a lot of money, let them have fun. New ICBMs will have to be loaded with old warheads.

    By the time the new ICBM is delivered to the troops, they will debug the production of warheads of IW instead W. On the first really can be and put the old. And probably W-87 from their MX. They are more or less new ...

    Quote: Exidna
    The United States lagged behind Russia in the development of ICBMs, until recently they hoped for the strength of their AUGs to intimidate the countries of the world .. (Is Russia supposedly on the verge of collapse?)))
    Now it’s not rolling anymore .. There is something to answer and defend, but the main thing is Space, this is where the main game unfolds.

    Are you so behind? Are you based on the fact that over the past 30 years they have not put into service new ICBMs? So they successfully modernize the old ones, bringing the service life up to 50-60 years. Unfortunately, we cannot modernize that way, there is no well-functioning technology and as a result, Topol is written off after 30-35 years of service.

    Quote: Exidna
    but most importantly Cosmos, this is where the main game unfolds.

    And here we especially brag and cannot
    1. 0
      26 July 2019 19: 53
      So they successfully upgrade the old ones, bringing the service life to 50-60 years.

      Here is a sect lovers of America gives. I am wondering if it happened with us whatever howl you raise regarding the fact that the production of ICBMs in Russia has been lost and, with all its might, support scrap metal that is combat-ready in mines. Well, here you are, in general, a handsome man betrayed that backward Russia every two decades creates a new ICBM instead of extending its high-tech life as your idols do. Well, you and the frame.
      1. -1
        4 August 2019 18: 39
        Quote: WhiteMore
        So they successfully upgrade the old ones, bringing the service life to 50-60 years.

        Here is a sect lovers of America gives. I am wondering if it happened with us whatever howl you raise regarding the fact that the production of ICBMs in Russia has been lost and, with all its might, support scrap metal that is combat-ready in mines. Well, here you are, in general, a handsome man betrayed that backward Russia every two decades creates a new ICBM instead of extending its high-tech life as your idols do. Well, you and the frame.

        I'm not Old26, but I will tell you my opinion about your ridiculous statement.
        Well, it’s already clear that you don’t understand anything in materials science. About strength, loads, degradation of materials and components. It is a fact.

        Little allegory.
        So it was necessary to come up with a rocket.
        Komsomoku, activist, athlete.
        Whatever she thought quickly and was strong and ran far and fast.
        But for some reason, some girls. 30 years later, they turn into grandmothers.
        Dementia is already in my head - the degradation of materials of electronic components.
        The body is already dead - fatigue of metals makes itself felt.
        Yes, and senility has come, it can’t run already - the chemical composition of the fuel mixture is already unstable and decomposes.
        And we are on the terms of reference, for the defense of the country still need the Komsomol. activist. athlete.
        And we have in fact a grandmother.
        So we are building again "a new Komsomol member, activist, sportswoman," and the old one is being disposed of.
        The allegory is clear.

        That we cannot create fuel mixes. which will be in stable condition for 50 years is our misfortune. The fact that our elemental base is degrading from time to time is our misfortune.
        We do not need new missiles, they are no better than the old ones in fact. By reality.
        They just degraded.
        And they cannot provide the required reliability.
        And so we are doing new.
        Only here is our new one. no different from our old, nor from the old Amer.

        Understood by such an example?
  8. +4
    26 July 2019 19: 48
    Quote: Proxima
    And here they go on rocket themes

    If we compare the number of ICBMs issued by Boeing with all the others, the rest have tears in comparison with Boeing products. Minutemans were released more than 2400 pieces. The remaining ICBMs were ten times smaller
  9. +2
    26 July 2019 20: 16
    Quote: Terenin
    who would have thought that she would be the only contender !?

    Yeah, really! (from)
    If you consider that the Minneman 3 is the brainchild of a Boeing, then it is certainly strange that they refused a pie in 85 billion dollars.
    On the other hand, Lockheed devours everyone and turns into a self-sufficient "full cycle" corporation. One F-14 "Tomket" is worth it! And then F-16, 22, 35 !!! And the lunar lander! Participation in the Proton program, ties to RSC Energia, Khrunichev center .... Very serious!
    Let's see what happens with egg-headed amas!
  10. +12
    26 July 2019 20: 27
    Quote: WhiteMore
    So they successfully upgrade the old ones, bringing the service life to 50-60 years.

    Here is a sect lovers of America gives. I am wondering if it happened with us whatever howl you raise regarding the fact that the production of ICBMs in Russia has been lost and, with all its might, support scrap metal that is combat-ready in mines. Well, here you are, in general, a handsome man betrayed that backward Russia every two decades creates a new ICBM instead of extending its high-tech life as your idols do. Well, you and the frame.

    Well, first of all, YOU and I did not drink to the Brudershaft so you Poked me. Secondly, I always say what I know 1%. And almost 2 decades of work in this industry allow me to judge what we have and what we have not achieved yet. A sect is you and others who believe that everything that has been done in Russia NOT LIKE ANALOGUES WORLDWIDE.

    Further,. Russia so far DOESN'T HAVE INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (to do this en masse) replacing bonded solid propellant charges. And so we are forced to write off our "Topol", which were put on alert 10 years later than the American "Minuteman-3". At the same time, since the beginning of this century, or rather since 1998, "Minutemans" go through a cycle of modernization. From those that were put into service in the 70s, only the old name remained. Inside - everything is new, except perhaps for the warheads. so that the Americans do not have metal scrap, but quite combat-ready missiles. True, jingoistic patriots prefer to think that they are rusty. These are their problems.
    Unfortunately, the collapse of the Union led to the fact that certain technologies were lost, in particular, we do not produce the solid fuel that was produced in Ukraine. And it took years to regain these lost positions.
    And we really SHOULD CREATE new missiles instead of upgrading old ones. Now the service life is coming to an end and the "Topol" is being intensively decommissioned. The next step is to replace "Topol-M" with its multi-headed twin brother. Not the replacement of heads at Topoli-M, but the production of new ones. But the first "Topol-M" became on the DB in the mid-late 90s. They are in the area of ​​a quarter of a century. Another couple of years and they will have to be written off, spending huge sums not for modernization, but for the production of new ones. And then you can shuffle as you like. One should not look at the world through rose-colored glasses, and hear NOT ONLY what the president says, believing him 200% ...
    1. D16
      0
      26 July 2019 22: 44
      Russia has not yet possessed INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (in order to do this in droves) replacing fixed solid propellant charges
      .
      Do not give out need for virtue. The much more modern Piskipper TT engine also did not change. And on the R-36M all this time in general only laughing .
    2. 0
      27 July 2019 06: 12
      And you are lying, dear. For reference, a rocket (any, Musk does not count) is a disposable product and therefore it is easier and cheaper to build a couple of new carriers than to "modernize" one old one. The Americans are on their Minutemans and Peacekeepers, just like we are on our Voivods, modernized the guidance and coordinate input systems. In the electronic support of the breeding unit, this can still be done, but in any way at the stages of launching. The replacement of Topol is not because they are "outdated" or the service life is over, but because they have ceased to meet the requirements of the defense. sworn partners. Yars and others like them from their company the same Poplar, only in the original before the "contractual", more lethal version. Most of what is done by our defense industry "has no analogues" not because it is better or worse than their samples, but because we have just its own independent scientific and engineering school.
    3. KCA
      0
      27 July 2019 07: 40
      The Americans also completely changed the control system and from the 360 IBM System / 1964 only the cases remained, and in the filling a dozen Xeons? And instead of 8 '' floppy disks are CDs and flash drives used?
  11. +1
    26 July 2019 20: 52
    This Boeing is seriously flying.
    They generally have a portfolio of military orders cut in recent
    10 years. But they were fed civilian liners.
    And then this MAX shattered them several billion at once,
    and loss of orders ahead.
    F-15 almost do not buy, F-18 - also less and less, Lockheed strongly
    pressured.
    1. +1
      27 July 2019 04: 07
      Quote: voyaka uh
      This Boeing is seriously flying.
      They generally have a portfolio of military orders cut in recent
      10 years. But they were fed civilian liners.
      And then this MAX shattered them several billion at once,
      and loss of orders ahead.
      F-15 almost do not buy, F-18 - also less and less, Lockheed strongly
      pressured.


      Not so bad. There are tankers, P-8, helicopters, and now they are still trying to wrap X-47B to please them. The sailors, of course, got out and carried him like a decked tanker. All in order for the Avenger to receive a contract for a deck UAV.
  12. 0
    26 July 2019 22: 04
    Boeng has an age crisis! Gruman will create what he wants - a semblance of a "patriot" advertising a lot - the result is zero!
  13. 0
    27 July 2019 00: 25
    In how to divide. 85 tax billions - at once! And you say Russia.
  14. 0
    27 July 2019 05: 47
    Boeing specializes in medium and heavy class rocket engines. Light missiles with turbojet engines are not their profile.
  15. 0
    27 July 2019 07: 31
    What does it mean? Loss of competencies or contract? The Boeing position (loss of profitability due to 737) does not refuse such tenders.
  16. +3
    27 July 2019 10: 46
    Quote: D16
    Do not give out need for virtue. The much more modern Piskipper TT engine also did not change. And on the R-36M all this time in general only

    What do you think is a need? Opportunities to upgrade rather than write off after a quarter of a century of operation? I seem to make myself clear. They possess this technology, which allows them to extend the life of their solid-propellant rockets to half a century or more. We are forced to write off missiles after 30 years of operation and build new ones. And if we knew how to do this, our Topolas could still be in operation. But "nge shmogla"
    The Piskiper, of course, did not change its fuel. He generally stood in service for 10-12 years. Why change the fuel after this service life ...
    R-36M and other liquid are generally not for comparison. Liquid have a life expectancy of much more solid
  17. 0
    29 July 2019 19: 08
    Kranty program, only Boeing and Lockheed have experience in creating missiles of this class (ICBMs and SLBMs).