When visiting Shrewd'm with a laptop, it can be pleasant to hold Command (or Ctrl with Windows) and '+' a few times. The site scales to allow any font size, and the larger font can be pleasant to read even for Shrewds with perfect sight! For luxury Shrewdness, you can combine that with setting the browser to full screen. You'll then find yourself Shrewding a lot.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 2
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...After months of delay, the Pentagon (Hegseth personally signed off on advancing plan last week) will select as soon as this week the defense company to design and build the Navy's next stealth fighter, a U.S. official and two people familiar with the decision said, in what will be a multibillion-dollar effort for a jet seen as central to U.S. efforts to counter China.
Boeing Co (BA.N), opens new tab and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), opens new tab are competing to be chosen to produce the aircraft, dubbed the F/A-XX. The new carrier-based jet will replace the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet, which has been in service since the 1990s.
Here are the key factors influencing the F/A-XX program's cost:
Total program costs: Estimates for the entire lifespan of the program, from research and development to production and sustainment, could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars, similar to past major fighter jet contracts.
Unit cost estimates: While a final unit cost is not available, analysts speculate it will be extremely high. The Air Force's comparable sixth-generation fighter, the F-47, is projected to have a unit cost of around $300 million. The F/A-XX, developed separately but with shared technologies, could have a similar price point, putting it in the "hundreds of millions of dollars" per aircraft category.
Historical precedent: Comparisons to other high-tech fighter programs show that costs frequently exceed initial estimates. For example, the F-35 program's lifetime cost has been referred to as a "$2 trillion fighter".
Budgetary funding: Funding has been a point of contention between the Navy and the Pentagon, and congressional intervention has been necessary to secure more money for the program. For instance, in fiscal year 2026, Congress allocated an additional $1.4 billion for F/A-XX, following a year where the Navy had to delay $1 billion in spending due to budget cuts.
Industrial capacity: Concerns have been raised about whether the defense industrial base has the capacity to simultaneously develop two different sixth-generation fighters—the F/A-XX and the Air Force's F-47—which could drive up costs.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 1
The F-35, under "development" since the late 90s, still does not meet original performance specs. The Bock 4 aircraft were supposed to bring the thing up to spec. Nope. More delays. More cost overruns.
Pentagon cuts back F-35 upgrades to slow schedule slips: Auditors
Block 4 is meant to boost the Lockheed Martin-made jet’s weapons capabilities, sensors and sensor fusion, and comes on the heels of another upgrade known as Technology Refresh 3, or TR-3. However, Block 4 is now at least $6 billion over budget and years behind schedule, in part due to delays with TR-3.https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/09/03/pentago...So the F-47 contract goes to Boeing. How many years ago, did Boeing contract to modify two existing 747 "white tails" to be the new "Air Force One" aircraft? Trump converted that contract to fixed price, during his first term. They have not been delivered yet. Boeing is crying a river they are losing their shirt on the fixed price contract. More delays.
So, anyone think the 47, or the new XX thing, will be delivered in our lifetimes? (assuming most here are about my age, 72)
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
anyone think the 47, or the new XX thing, will be delivered in our lifetimes?
Issue ZERO contracts until they know what CAN be delivered in a defined timeframe.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Issue ZERO contracts until they know what CAN be delivered in a defined timeframe.
For years, on the Fool, I suggested that the civilian and flag rank officers at DoD have one ambition: get a cush gig at a defense contractor, and make lots of money. Meanwhile, the contractors have one ambition: make lots of profit. Actually building anything is secondary, if a consideration at all. So, everyone agrees to milk the "development" program, and milk it, and milk it. Look at the "development" time for the F-16, vs that of the F-35. How many B-2s did we get, for the money spent on "development"? How many Zumwalt class destroyers did we get, for the money spent on "development"? We can't get anything built in this country, except profits.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
The J35 project, according to the AI result, is moving along well.
However, there are other results on WS 19. Like us, getting a working engine is a problem.
The WS-19 engine for China's J-35 fighter is in testing, with first public reports suggesting it's designed to provide significantly more thrust than the WS-13 and WS-21 engines on earlier J-35 prototypes, but it may not be in widespread production for operational service yet. While the J-35 aircraft itself has entered service, the WS-19 engine is expected to be the definitive, more powerful engine for the aircraft but is still undergoing testing and integration.
WS-19 Engine Status
Under Development & Testing: The WS-19 is a key, advanced engine intended for the J-35, but it is still undergoing testing to meet its full performance and reliability requirements.
Improved Thrust: It is expected to offer a significant increase in thrust compared to the interim WS-13 and WS-21 engines used on earlier J-35 prototypes.
Critical for Operational Readiness: The engine's development is critical for the J-35 to achieve its full potential and for the aircraft to be considered truly combat-ready.
J-35 and Engine Relationship
Early Prototypes: Early J-35 prototypes were fitted with less powerful engines like the WS-13 and WS-21, which were not adequate for the heavier, redesigned airframe.
Planned for Deployment: The J-35, powered by the more advanced WS-19 engine, is intended to be a crucial component of China's growing aircraft carrier fleet.
Future of the Aircraft: The full operational capability and performance of the J-35 will depend on the successful development and integration of the WS-19 engine.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The Bock 4 aircraft were supposed to bring the thing up to spec. Nope. More delays. More cost overruns."
Well not surprising for a nation that couldn’t up production of 155mm artillery shells to supply Ukraine. Luckily the Ukraine improvised with drones.
Spain & Switzerland have cancelled f-35 buys. Canada, Portugal, Turkey & Germany ate considering cancelling their orders.
Well there will be some that say that we will learn from the F-35 debacle. I don’t think so. We attempted an all-purpose aircraft back in the 1970’s. The f-111. It failed. And we repeated with the f-35.
Same old shyte. Business as usual.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who would have think it? A missile shortage. Perhaps the bombardment of Houtis with missiles weren't such a good idea especially as we had the Ukraine Israel adventures going.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/missile-stockpil...Citing low munitions stockpiles, the Pentagon is urging weapons contractors to accelerate missile production, doubling or even quadrupling production rates, to prepare for possible war with China.
Namely, it hopes to boost production rates for 12 types of missiles it wants on-hand, including Patriot interceptor missiles, Standard Missile-6, THAAD interceptors, and joint air-surface standoff missiles.
Washington needs to assess its current foreign commitments, primarily in Ukraine and Israel, before it depletes its current stores further, requiring more money, more industry, and more time to get back up to fighting shape. In other words, say experts, put the much needed focus back on the U.S. national interest even if that means turning off the spigot for other countries.
Experts told RS that ramping up missile production, in the way the Pentagon wants, could take years, and likely new weapons manufacturing facilities and infrastructure. Didn't we just go through this with 155mm artillery rounds?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Citing low munitions stockpiles, the Pentagon is urging weapons contractors to accelerate missile production, doubling or even quadrupling production rates, to prepare for possible war with China.
______________________________________________________
As has been pointed out, it's far more profitable to be doing "on the job" design of weapon systems than actually building them. Possibly we are donating weapons to Israel, but in the case of Ukraine, the offer is cash on the barrelhead. Apparently, the incentive to sell more weapons is not enough to pump up actual production. Maybe the possibility of imminent peace is a deterrent as that would cause plant expansion at the same time as demand reduction?
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 5
Same old shyte. Business as usual.
Short term profit maximization. Didn't Jeff just offer that Broadway show tix are exorbitantly priced, because it isn't about the art anymore. It's all about making more profit.
I used to hold Disney, but was always uncomfortable that management figured they could juice profits at will, by increasing the prices in the parks. Hardly a good look for a company that is supposed to be "family friendly".
Ford and VW, in particular, have openly said they intend to "go upmarket" by dropping their entry level models, and ramping up prices on the remainder, without a care for the impact on volume or market share.
This morning, I saw a piece on the wire about how the venues in Vegas, as a group, decided to go up market, pursuing people with deeper pockets, while pricing people of more modest means out of town.
When I was in b-school, fifty years ago, we talked about "demand elasticity with respect to price". Is that notion obsolete now? Is McKinsey's panacea du jour telling everyone "jack prices way, way, up, and make more money, while doing less"?
No wonder the Proles are feeling left behind and bitter.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
We were selling munitions to NATO allies who in turn gave them to the Ukrainians.
Ukraine turned to drones.
Our allies stopped buying. We slowed production.
Money trail
No. of Recommendations: 2
"We were selling munitions to NATO allies who in turn gave them to the Ukrainians.
Ukraine turned to drones.
Our allies stopped buying."
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/05/g-s1-81084/europe-u...Four European countries have agreed to buy $1 billion worth of U.S. weapons and send them to Ukraine under a new arrangement announced by President Trump last month.Google AI
The European Union is considering a significant fund of 6.6 billion euros to purchase U.S. weapons for Ukraine, as part of its ongoing military support amid the conflict with Russia.And speaking about drones.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/nato-allies-be...NATO is still betting on tanks despite their limited use in Ukraine.
They have proved vulnerable to attacking drones and are used for fewer roles in this war.
But NATO countries are still buying more and developing new tank types.
Drones are turning tanks and armored vehicles into burning wrecks in Ukraine, but NATO allies are doubling down on the heavy weapons.Ah them crazy Europeans.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Drones are turning tanks and armored vehicles into burning wrecks in Ukraine, but NATO allies are doubling down on the heavy weapons.
The end of the tank was predicted after the 73 war in the middle east, when Egyptian troops made a lot of scrap out of Israeli tanks, using light AT rockets they obtained from the Soviets. I remember reading an article where the jouro described walking through a battlefield full of wrecked Israeli tanks, and noting the guidance wires from the AT rockets laying on the ground all over the place.
The Israelis developed an active protection system that could shoot down an RPG, before it hit the tank. The US Army wanted to buy it, but Raytheon convinced TPTB to pay them to develop a knock off of the Israeli system. Now years and Millions later, Raytheon has yet to deliver anything, while the Israeli system has been in service, saving the lives of Israeli tankers, for years now.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 9
When considering weapon systems, it is more instructive to observe those without resources, rather than the US which has incorporated the military-industrial complex into the national economics and politics.
Every time Ukraine reports a successful strike against a piece of Russian military gadgetry, the replacement cost is also divulged. Without realizing it, they are telegraphing their concern about their own finances. The Ukrainians were willing to take whatever tanks they could lay their hands on. It was pretty quickly determined that the US Abrams tanks were the least favorite for a number of reasons. That said, the use of drones has pretty much made the tanks currently used nearly obsolete. The modern tank is generally designed with armor around its periphery, but the top - where drones tend to hit - is only lightly armored. Nowadays both sides in the war are retrofitting their armored vehicles with anti-drone cages and nets, designed to keep drones at arms length. Similar to the tactics used by Rommel in North Africa, missile systems designed to be used against aircraft are now regularly used as long-range artillery. The Russians use heavy bombers, outside of the range of Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems, to launch long-range missiles and glide-bombs.
NATO nations have recently been "besieged" by (presumably) Russian drones, yet it is not cost effective to use million dollar Patriot missiles against them. Again, the wrong weapon for the job. Russia has moved its entire Black Sea fleet away from Crimea as Ukraine was sinking major ships with cheap missiles and unmanned naval drones.
Warfare has changed back to looking more like the First World War than the Second - with success being to offset the attrition of a larger army with imaginative tactics used by the smaller one.
Back about 20 years ago, my firm was involved in assisting in the procurement of the major components of what Elbit turned into a leading edge tank fire-control system. From design/prototype to final product production was accomplished in a matter of months, using mostly off-the shelf items assembled with a great deal of imagination (and some cool custom software) at a final production cost (of the hardware, at least) of about 20-30 grand. If the US decided to build a similar system, it would take years, everything would be customized, each unit would cost millions and, if they ever got it to work, it would be obsolete by the time it was produced in quantity.
The Gaza war is an example of how difficult it is for a modern, well equipped army, to defeat an agile, well prepared, smaller force in urban warfare.
Something which few have mentioned, but which has to weigh on the Israeli government's bean counters, is the recovery from the vast cost of the recent series of wars - both in material spent and in disruption caused by continually pulling reservists from their jobs, not to mention the significant loss of tourism revenue. They also face a global change in attitude by former allies who were upset at the methods used during the war which may have long-term effects on their economy.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 2
SHLD is an ETF holding defense contractor type companies, whether hardware or software.
It is up approximately 90% YTD. Up 13% in last month.
So, either Countries are loading up on war munitions, or there are strong expectations
that they will be loading up on war munitions.
Feels like the world is turning into even more of a powder keg.
No. of Recommendations: 0
They also face a global change in attitude by former allies who were upset
What is the shelf life of the PMs in France, UK, and Germany?
I do not think Israel is the party that has to worry.
Bibi did not do anything that any American mayor would not have done. It is unclear that the Israeli contractor even consulted with Bibi in the first place. That is all that is being put no trial.
