What's the best run multinational procurement program?

- Truely multinational ... several nations all having an important role. Not one leader nation and a bunch of suppliers. Therefore not the F-35.
- Produced the thing they planed to make, at good price and good timeline. everyone has overruns, but nothing too bad.
- The thing produced was good, in terms of technology and mission fit and price.
- Even better is if it lead to export success.

Possibilities
- Eurofighter
- Sepcat Jaguar
- Fremm class frigate
- Ariane rocket family
- Others ????

I gotta say, the Fremm class frigate seems like a good candidate. 19 ships built, sold to Italy (8), France (7), Egypt (3), Morocco (1) Indonesia (6) and sort of the US (20). The cost of about €600M in 2015 seems reasonable.

Of the ones you've listed, it would have to be FREMM, I think.

Jaguar did not get much love from the French, esp after Dassault took over.

Eurofighter... LOL NOPE

But how's this for one - Airbus? The original multinational idea resulted in a spectacular company that has serious staying power and is one half of a civil aviation duopoly today. I'd call that the best multinational programme of all!

The Concorde.

Financially, it was terribly inefficient. It was a costly prestige project of two governments. But organizing the project and the multinational collaboration among the engineers and manufacturers was a masterpiece. It also led to a lot of useful know-how.

[threeid][/threeid]

flyingturtle wrote:

The Concorde.

Financially, it was terribly inefficient. It was a costly prestige project of two governments. But organizing the project and the multinational collaboration among the engineers and manufacturers was a masterpiece. It also led to a lot of useful know-how.

Wasn’t expecting that one and I’m biased! Fair points though, first really major collaborative program, know how’s beyond that? First albeit partial FBW in a civil aircraft a vital stepping stone for Airbus later, electronic engine controls, carbon brakes to name some others.

Military, I disagree about Typhoon, despite all the political issues and other challenges the producer nations and a decent amount of exports it succeeded.
Likewise the Tornado, unglamorous, some in the UK took a long time, some never did, because it wasn’t a TSR2, to stop disliking it, yet it provided three NATO AFs with. Good interdiction/strike aircraft, from 1990 to retirement in 2019 it was on constant operational deployment, longer than any other RAF type in the services 103 year history. Updated and modernized with updated weapons, a good strike/recon asset.

In 1984 it, new in RAF service, took part in bombing exercises in the US, a senior USAF officer commented beforehand in very disparaging way about the Tornado. How did it do? Well enough for Panavia to take out ads in the aerospace press showcasing the results and throwing back those comments by quoting them!
Never expected to set the world on fire with exports nonetheless it gained some.

I think it’s fair to say that the UK got more from the Jaguar than France, not least since the RAF ones had more capable avionics, some from the cancelled TSR2 and P.1154, the ones exported were the UK standard and improved ‘International’ models.
Speaking of France, the news is full of French anger about the tried to sell the Aussies a submersible pup deal, in 1978 India signed a deal to buy and license produce the Jaguar International. The ink was dry but that did not stop France from applying political and diplomatic pressure to cancel the deal and buy as a strike aircraft, the simplified Mirage F1A. For the next couple of years they kept this up, part French Jaguar wasn’t enough, they wanted THEIR aircraft, not that the French AF wanted the A model of the F1.
Funny old world, isn’t it?

No mention of the A400M and Tiger, too troubled ?

C-160 Transall ?

ATR ?

Aesma wrote:

No mention of the A400M and Tiger, too troubled ?

C-160 Transall ?

ATR ?

From the UK standpoint, the A400M has been less troubled, certainly the RAF like their Atlas aircraft.
C-160, never going to beat the C-130, yet it provided a good machine for the customers, the NG for France being a good update.
Speaking of European projects based on the RR Tyne engine, the Atlantique?

ATR - Roaring success, a few military MR ones sold too.

Ariane Group, and in particular the Ariane IV and V, has been a great success, to no small part thanks to both the US and Russia failing to develop reliable and affordable heavy launchers in the 90s and 2000s.

The ISS has been a great technological and political success, though of limited economical value.

The IRIS-T and Meteor missiles are generally considered to be very good, at least on par with if not better than the AIM-9X and AIM-120.

I concur that the Tornado was a solid program.

GALILEO had a troubled start but is running fairly well nowadays. There's also EGNOS, which augments GPS signals.

I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-European successful joint programs. Can anyone think of any?

kitplane01 wrote:

I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-European successful joint programs. Can anyone think of any?

The ISS space station? Or the large hadron collider?

kitplane01 wrote:

I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-European successful joint programs. Can anyone think of any?

ISS.
U. S., Russia, Canada, Italy and Japan were all major contributors.

kitplane01 wrote:

I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-European successful joint programs. Can anyone think of any?

Define "Joint."

What's a 787?

If you mean "at least one Member is non-European", there's the T-7A with the US as lead but significant contribution from Sweden.
The AV-8B is based on a UK design but the extensive upgrade from the original Harrier was mostly done by the US.

FlapOperator wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-European successful joint programs. Can anyone think of any?

Define "Joint."

What's a 787?

Maybe revisionist history, but seems like the 777 program had less issues than the 787. The 777 had large contribution from Japan.

bt

mxaxai wrote:

If you mean "at least one Member is non-European", there's the T-7A with the US as lead but significant contribution from Sweden.
The AV-8B is based on a UK design but the extensive upgrade from the original Harrier was mostly done by the US.

The RAF Harrier second generation, in their increasingly sophisticated versions, could best be called ‘a British version of an American version of a British aircraft’.
It came about due to the end of would have been another multi national program, the AV-16 in the 1970’s, planned in four versions, for the USMC essentially like the AV-8B as it turned out, for the RAF again like the GR.5, then for the RN what would have been the Sea Harrier but with 2nd gen range/payload, finally for the USN for the then planned Sea Control Ships, a radar equipped one for the USN.

A mix of the inflationary pressures of the time, Congressional disapproval in some areas with ‘buying foreign’, spending pressures in the UK, which led to the project fizzling out, the UK began the Sea Harrier based on the first generation, albeit greatly modified and until a second generation aircraft was defined for the RAF, topped existing orders and updated the GR.1’s to GR.3’s.
Eventually the choice became a GR.3 and/or new build GR.5’s both refitted/produced with BAe’s ‘Big Wing’. Which could also have been fitted to the Sea Harrier.

In 1981, the UK government took a path of least cost and the RAF got an Anglicized AV-8B, a former manager at work started out building these at the BAe Kingston plant, about a dozen miles south east from where I am typing this, where the AV-8A’s came from.
These GR.5’s with more sophisticated night/adverse weather systems, an internal electronic countermeasures fit and a legacy of the AV-16, the Wing Leading Edge Extensions, all for it’s main mission of operating in the European NATO environment.

A kind of multi national program by default.

FlapOperator wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-European successful joint programs. Can anyone think of any?

Define "Joint."

What's a 787?

mxaxai wrote:

If you mean "at least one Member is non-European", there's the T-7A with the US as lead but significant contribution from Sweden.

The T-7A is a US program .. in that the lead is the US the biggest customer is the US and without Sweden there would still be T-7A. It might look different but still a plane that meets some US written requirements.

The 787 is also a US program, with significant parts production by others.

Nether of these programs is the Concorde or Eurofighter. In those cases one nation is not the dominant factor.

I'm really thinking there are no joint programs of note if you exclude the Europeans. And excepting the Harrier, all joint programs are intra-Europe.

angad84 wrote:

Of the ones you've listed, it would have to be FREMM, I think.

Jaguar did not get much love from the French, esp after Dassault took over.

Eurofighter... LOL NOPE

But how's this for one - Airbus? The original multinational idea resulted in a spectacular company that has serious staying power and is one half of a civil aviation duopoly today. I'd call that the best multinational programme of all!

The A300 DOES have a great claim as best multi-national program of all time, because it lead to Airbus. I think every other program is going to have to fight for second place!

Nomadd wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-European successful joint programs. Can anyone think of any?

ISS.
U. S., Russia, Canada, Italy and Japan were all major contributors.

In 1994 the total ISS build budget was forecast for $17B. I'm having a hard time calling ISS successful, if "successful" means something like "delivering the thing promised on time and on budget".

ISS however might be the largest international program ever, with $150B spent as of 2010 (I cannot find more recent figures, but would guess something around $200B by now).

mxaxai wrote:

Ariane Group, and in particular the Ariane IV and V, has been a great success, to no small part thanks to both the US and Russia failing to develop reliable and affordable heavy launchers in the 90s and 2000s.

I don't know the answer ... I'm asking.

Was Ariane a success? Using standard technology, to launch, and lowering fees by governments subsidies, does not sound that great. What am I missing?

GDB wrote:

Aesma wrote:

No mention of the A400M and Tiger, too troubled ?

C-160 Transall ?

ATR ?

From the UK standpoint, the A400M has been less troubled, certainly the RAF like their Atlas aircraft.
C-160, never going to beat the C-130, yet it provided a good machine for the customers, the NG for France being a good update.
Speaking of European projects based on the RR Tyne engine, the Atlantique?

ATR - Roaring success, a few military MR ones sold too.

Doesn't the A400 cost something over double what was planned? That would seem troubled to me!

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm really thinking there are no joint programs of note if you exclude the Europeans. And excepting the Harrier, all joint programs are intra-Europe.

If you arbitrarily set the goal posts that the program has to be bigger than Eurofighter then no. But there are so many joint projects without Europe

T-50 trainer was developed by South Korea with Lockheed Martin.

The Mitsubishi F-2 is Japan with Lockheed Martin again.

JF-17 Thunder we have Pakistan and China.

Boeing Loyal Wingman we have Australia with Boeing. A very smooth program with the first six on order and production in Australia.

kitplane01 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Ariane Group, and in particular the Ariane IV and V, has been a great success, to no small part thanks to both the US and Russia failing to develop reliable and affordable heavy launchers in the 90s and 2000s.

I don't know the answer ... I'm asking.

Was Ariane a success? Using standard technology, to launch, and lowering fees by governments subsidies, does not sound that great. What am I missing?

Ariane is a commercial enterprise and made a profit off every Ariane IV and V launch. The Falcon 9 has pushed the Ariane V out of the market, but for about 20 years, Ariane was the number one choice for commercial launches, especially for heavy GEO satellites. There was some government funding through government launches and initial development support, but that's no different from any other launch provider.

Would the P-51 qualify? An American frame with a Brittish engine?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Would the P-51 qualify? An American frame with a Brittish engine?

bt

Based on the goalposts as set by the op here, I don’t think so. They’re looking for more of a true 50/50 or otherwise evenly split program.

And following the dismissal of other projects for similar reasons, I’d say the Eurofighter isn’t a great candidate either. If I recall correctly, it went a few billion over budget, was perpetually delayed, and in the end each unit cost somewhere around 75% more than projected.

Budget overruns and delays are one thing, but the scope of the project should be taken into account. I have a lot more sympathy to hear how putting the largest ever man made object in space cost far more and took much longer than projected than I do with a fighter jet or ship

Did anybody mention the EH-101/AW101/Merlin?

mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Ariane Group, and in particular the Ariane IV and V, has been a great success, to no small part thanks to both the US and Russia failing to develop reliable and affordable heavy launchers in the 90s and 2000s.

I don't know the answer ... I'm asking.

Was Ariane a success? Using standard technology, to launch, and lowering fees by governments subsidies, does not sound that great. What am I missing?

Ariane is a commercial enterprise and made a profit off every Ariane IV and V launch. The Falcon 9 has pushed the Ariane V out of the market, but for about 20 years, Ariane was the number one choice for commercial launches, especially for heavy GEO satellites. There was some government funding through government launches and initial development support, but that's no different from any other launch provider.

I'm not sure what dates you want .. but here's an article from 2012 about the subsidies for Ariane. I believe they've been subsidized every year of their existence. I really really don't think one can call Ariane profitable in the normal sense of the word.
https://spacenews.com/32697esa-chief-ex ... r-subsidy/

Yes, lots of companies are subsidized. Yes, I know you wrote "profit off every launch of Ariane V" and not "profitable" but that just sounds like accounting tricks. It remains that Ariane has been subsidized (I think) every year it has existed.

FGITD wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Would the P-51 qualify? An American frame with a Brittish engine?

bt

Based on the goalposts as set by the op here, I don’t think so. They’re looking for more of a true 50/50 or otherwise evenly split program.

And following the dismissal of other projects for similar reasons, I’d say the Eurofighter isn’t a great candidate either. If I recall correctly, it went a few billion over budget, was perpetually delayed, and in the end each unit cost somewhere around 75% more than projected.

Budget overruns and delays are one thing, but the scope of the project should be taken into account. I have a lot more sympathy to hear how putting the largest ever man made object in space cost far more and took much longer than projected than I do with a fighter jet or ship

The original P-51 kinda counts. It was a british engine, british requirements, and a british contract to an American firm. The Americans clearly took it over but the original P-51 was rather multinational. The P-51H maybe less so.

Scope of project clearly matters just as you wrote. I'd forgive more budget overrun on the ISS than the Eurofighter, but isn't the ISS at something like 5x the original cost?

IADFCO wrote:

Did anybody mention the EH-101/AW101/Merlin?

Not yet. Good idea. Is it on budget and on time (as much as other similar military projects)?

So far the best international programs suggested are ..
(1) Airbus, by a lot!
(2a) Harrier
(2b) Fremm frigates

(Others are still under discussion)
Biggest international programs
(1) Airbus!
(2) ISS
(3) Maybe Eurofighter???

I still don't know of any international programs outside of Europe except the JF-17.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm really thinking there are no joint programs of note if you exclude the Europeans. And excepting the Harrier, all joint programs are intra-Europe.

If you arbitrarily set the goal posts that the program has to be bigger than Eurofighter then no. But there are so many joint projects without Europe

T-50 trainer was developed by South Korea with Lockheed Martin.

The Mitsubishi F-2 is Japan with Lockheed Martin again.

JF-17 Thunder we have Pakistan and China.

Boeing Loyal Wingman we have Australia with Boeing. A very smooth program with the first six on order and production in Australia.

The T-50 and F-2 were not really international in the spirit I mean. They had one customer and used American companies are suppliers/designers.

The JF-17 is a really interesting example. It has exported 10 airframes, with another 12 loosely planned. Actual production is 50/50 Pakistan/China. So lets be inclusive and say yes. I'd consider the Tejas as more Indian than multinational. The Tejas seems more like an Indian plane with lots of foreign suppliers.

kitplane01 wrote:

Yes, lots of companies are subsidized. Yes, I know you wrote "profit off every launch of Ariane V" and not "profitable" but that just sounds like accounting tricks. It remains that Ariane has been subsidized (I think) every year it has existed.

ESA subsidizes rocket development in the same way NASA subsidizes SpaceX, Northrop Grumman and ULA. They pay for their own launches and also finance R&D for future launch vehicles. Commercial launches are sold at a profit.

mxaxai wrote:

ESA subsidizes rocket development in the same way NASA subsidizes SpaceX, Northrop Grumman and ULA. They pay for their own launches and also finance R&D for future launch vehicles. Commercial launches are sold at a profit.

I get the feeling this thread is just a question meant to seek a specific answer.

Everything is being written off as over budget or delayed, but for some reason certain projects are exempt from that as being reason for dismissal.

FGITD wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

ESA subsidizes rocket development in the same way NASA subsidizes SpaceX, Northrop Grumman and ULA. They pay for their own launches and also finance R&D for future launch vehicles. Commercial launches are sold at a profit.

I get the feeling this thread is just a question meant to seek a specific answer.

Everything is being written off as over budget or delayed, but for some reason certain projects are exempt from that as being reason for dismissal.

Errr .. not at all.

The question was about "successful" international programs, and being over-budget and past-time is not successful. Of course some amount of this must be tolerated.

I never considered the Harrier, yet added it to my list of successful programs. I never considered Airbus as a program, because I was thinking of individual aircraft and yet Airbus should count as the most successful international program ever. In other words, I asked to learn (and thanks to the people who educated me).

It seems farcical to say the SpaceX and Ariane were subsidized in the same way or the same extent. The common understanding is that Ariane was founded because the French government wanted a space program and jobs, and it's been subsidized every year it has existed. SpaceX was founded because Musk had a dream, and spent years with no income from NASA at all. These days Ariane gets explicit subsidies and SpaceX bids on competitive contracts for services.

Depends what the definition of "successful" is. Is it on budget? Is it number produced? Is it number of countries involved? Knowing the OP's history, I kind of agree with FGITD. As far as Airbus, isn't this in the military forum?

kitplane01 wrote:

The common understanding is that Ariane was founded because the French government wanted a space program and jobs, and it's been subsidized every year it has existed. SpaceX was founded because Musk had a dream, and spent years with no income from NASA at all. These days Ariane gets explicit subsidies and SpaceX bids on competitive contracts for services.

Ariane was founded because European governments - including France - were fed up with having to rely on foreign launchers. Ariane 5 was developed to offer cheap and reliable launches to GTO with heavy telecommunication satellites. It achieved that goal so well that it dominated the commercial market for two decades.

SpaceX is awarded money for R&D just like Ariane. USAF funded the Raptor engine. USAF is funding heat shield development. USAF is paying triple the price per launch compared to commercial customers. NASA is funding Starship. NASA funded the CRS program and the development of Crew Dragon. NASA lets SpaceX use Launch Complex 39A for free. Don't pretend it's just Musk's private money, that pretty much stopped being the case when the US DOD bought the first two Falcon 1 launches.

You can argue that Ariane has been overtaken by SpaceX in recent years, and I would agree, but both companies achieved their goals, including commercial success. The main difference for the purpose of this thread is that one is multi-national, and the other one isn't.

mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The common understanding is that Ariane was founded because the French government wanted a space program and jobs, and it's been subsidized every year it has existed. SpaceX was founded because Musk had a dream, and spent years with no income from NASA at all. These days Ariane gets explicit subsidies and SpaceX bids on competitive contracts for services.

Ariane was founded because European governments - including France - were fed up with having to rely on foreign launchers. Ariane 5 was developed to offer cheap and reliable launches to GTO with heavy telecommunication satellites. It achieved that goal so well that it dominated the commercial market for two decades.

SpaceX is awarded money for R&D just like Ariane. USAF funded the Raptor engine. USAF is funding heat shield development. USAF is paying triple the price per launch compared to commercial customers. NASA is funding Starship. NASA funded the CRS program and the development of Crew Dragon. NASA lets SpaceX use Launch Complex 39A for free. Don't pretend it's just Musk's private money, that pretty much stopped being the case when the US DOD bought the first two Falcon 1 launches.

You can argue that Ariane has been overtaken by SpaceX in recent years, and I would agree, but both companies achieved their goals, including commercial success. The main difference for the purpose of this thread is that one is multi-national, and the other one isn't.

Can you tell me more? I've not read that subsidies to SpaceX are anything like what Ariane gets. I'm not saying SpaceX gets $0, just that they don't get anything like the billions of Euros that Ariane gets. But I'm willing to be educated since this is not my area of expertise.

• I read that the USAF paid $33.6M to help fund Raptor development. But that seems a very small part of the Raptor costs, and a very very small part of the Falcon 9 costs. Compare with: "Ariane 6 is being developed in a public-private partnership with the majority of the funding coming from various ESA government sources—€2.815 billion—while €400 million is reported to be "industry's share".
  
• As for SpaceX charging more for USAF launches. But that's a price set in a competitive auction, and not a subsidy. "But, for military launches, there are additional range costs and service contracts that add tens of millions of dollars to the total price. It therefore seems possible that SpaceX is taking a loss or launching at little or no profit to undercut its rival and gain market share in the high-volume military launch market." https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06 ... ch-prices/
  
• SpaceX gets various state/local subsidies, just like every other large business.

That nonsense about the AF paying over $300 million for FH launches comes from two contracts that included developing vertical integration and a longer fairing. And that little amount they gave for engine development was for exploring the feasibility of using a Methane engine on the Falcon upper stage. And NASA has nothing to do with Starship.
Who exactly do you think you're fooling anyhow?

Nomadd wrote:

Who exactly do you think you're fooling anyhow?

The only one being fooled is the US taxpayer, who's mortally afraid of the term "subsidies". European governments are simply a lot more open in that regard. You can call it 'contract' or 'award' or 'additional services' or whatever you want, fact is that SpaceX has received billions of dollars from the US government. Sure, SpaceX has to bid on many contracts. But who's the competition? Atlas 5, which costs at least twice as much per launch? Blue Origin, who have yet to demonstrate that they have a working launcher?

The quoted price tag for a commercial Falcon 9 launch is reported to be around $50-60 million. None of the government launches comes close to that. And frankly, $300 million for a longer fairing is a ridiculous price tag when the original Falcon 9 reportedly only cost less than $500 million to develop (some reports even say just $300 million). You say NASA has nothing to do with Starship. Then what's the lunar lander contract worth $2.89bn. for? Oh, right, a lunar Starship. It's just accounting tricks to avoid the nasty word "subsidies".

johns624 wrote:

Depends what the definition of "successful" is. Is it on budget? Is it number produced? Is it number of countries involved? Knowing the OP's history, I kind of agree with FGITD. As far as Airbus, isn't this in the military forum?

Precisely what I don’t understand.

Eurofighter-years late, overbudget, massively inflated cost per unit, yet keeps making the top 3 list. It also wasn’t really the picturesque EU working together project that is being depicted

Concorde was dismissed easily, even though it’s a great example of 2 countries working independently but together to create a truly unique program. Sure the budget was blown up, and it didn’t revolutionize things like expected, but again…factor in the scope of the project. There’s a reason it’s often compared to the American Apollo program.

People keep saying that the EU is "better" at multinational projects, but they don't say why. It's because a country has to be huge to have all the "pieces of the puzzle". Whether it's money, technical knowledge, manufacturing, etc. The US, China and Russia, for the most part, can do that. The UK, Japan, and France, to a lesser degree. Just about everyone else needs considerable help. They aren't doing it because they want to, but because they have to.

johns624 wrote:

They aren't doing it because they want to, but because they have to.

The EU is also the only group of countries that are fairly wealthy and approximately equal in terms of capability and willingness to cooperate, and they have an existing political framework to make international programs easier.
Other organisations like ASEAN or the AU have only very few if any members that have the financial and technological ability for major aerospace programs. Korea, Japan and Taiwan don't have any close partners except the USA; they certainly don't cooperate much with each other. The states in the middle east would rather fight against each other than cooperate. Etc. etc.
So most countries end up either with their superpower of choice in the lead role, or they try and do it on their own.

FGITD wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Depends what the definition of "successful" is. Is it on budget? Is it number produced? Is it number of countries involved? Knowing the OP's history, I kind of agree with FGITD. As far as Airbus, isn't this in the military forum?

Precisely what I don’t understand.

Eurofighter-years late, overbudget, massively inflated cost per unit, yet keeps making the top 3 list. It also wasn’t really the picturesque EU working together project that is being depicted

Concorde was dismissed easily, even though it’s a great example of 2 countries working independently but together to create a truly unique program. Sure the budget was blown up, and it didn’t revolutionize things like expected, but again…factor in the scope of the project. There’s a reason it’s often compared to the American Apollo program.

The Concorde was a novel program that created a supersonic plane when every other (American, Russian) attempt failed. But they didn't really achieve their goal. Even worse, their goal was the wrong goal. The 747 was the other choice, and the right choice. I guess it depends on what you value, and reasonable people can value different things. Either way I find the discussion educational.

And I think your "scope of work" argument is exactly right.

FGITD wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Depends what the definition of "successful" is. Is it on budget? Is it number produced? Is it number of countries involved? Knowing the OP's history, I kind of agree with FGITD. As far as Airbus, isn't this in the military forum?

Precisely what I don’t understand.

Eurofighter-years late, overbudget, massively inflated cost per unit, yet keeps making the top 3 list. It also wasn’t really the picturesque EU working together project that is being depicted

Can you educate me. Was it more over-budget than the Rafale or Tornado or similar? My understanding is that the Eurofighter is about the same cost and about the same capability as the Rafale????

mxaxai wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Who exactly do you think you're fooling anyhow?

The only one being fooled is the US taxpayer, who's mortally afraid of the term "subsidies". European governments are simply a lot more open in that regard. You can call it 'contract' or 'award' or 'additional services' or whatever you want, fact is that SpaceX has received billions of dollars from the US government. Sure, SpaceX has to bid on many contracts. But who's the competition? Atlas 5, which costs at least twice as much per launch? Blue Origin, who have yet to demonstrate that they have a working launcher?

Words have meaning. Winning a competitive bid to provide a service is not a subsidy. It's revenue, not subsidy.

The fact that SpaceX has lower costs than ULA is to SpaceX's credit. The fact that SpaceX has lower costs than Ariane even though Ariane continues to get large subsidies shows just how amazing SpaceX is.

This is not America vs Europe ... SpaceX is lower cost than everyone, European or other American or even Russian!

The Alfajet ticks a lot of the required boxes.

kitplane01 wrote:

Words have meaning. Winning a competitive bid to provide a service is not a subsidy. It's revenue, not subsidy.

Semantics. A subsidy doesn't need to officially bear that name to be one. Determining whether something is or isn't a subsidy can occupy lawyers for years. At the end of the day, a large chunk of SpaceX' money is provided by the government, including funding for R&D. While the origins of Ariane and SpaceX are quite different, both required government support to arrive at the place they're at today.

I'm not doubting that the Falcon 9 is a great product. It just doesn't fit the question of this thread, while Ariane 4 and 5 do.

mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Words have meaning. Winning a competitive bid to provide a service is not a subsidy. It's revenue, not subsidy.

Semantics. A subsidy doesn't need to officially bear that name to be one. Determining whether something is or isn't a subsidy can occupy lawyers for years. At the end of the day, a large chunk of SpaceX' money is provided by the government, including funding for R&D. While the origins of Ariane and SpaceX are quite different, both required government support to arrive at the place they're at today.

Semantics: What something means.

If you think "I bought something from you at a competitive price" and "I gave you money" mean the same thing ... please understand the rest of us are going to call the first thing a "purchase price" and the second a "subsidy".

I guess you can give anything you want any name you want ... but it just confuses the rest of us who use standard nomenclature.

kitplane01 wrote:

I guess you can give anything you want any name you want ... but it just confuses the rest of us who use standard nomenclature.

Sorry if you thought that a word can only have one meaning. You can check out the WTO case between Boeing and Airbus for all the different forms that subsidies can take on.

Tax and nontax incentives provided by Washington state and local municipalities (Everett) to support Boeing’s assembly facility.
Property tax and sales tax breaks provided by Kansas and local municipalities (Wichita), as well as interest payments on state development bonds.
Tax and nontax incentives provided by Illinois and local municipalities (Chicago and Cook County) to support relocation of Boeing’s headquarters.
Payments and access to government facilities provided by NASA, as well as equipment and employees provided by NASA under research and development programs.
Payments and access to government facilities provided by the Department of Defense, as well as equipment and employees provided by the DOD under research, development, testing, and evaluation programs.
Payments and access to government facilities provided by the Department of Commerce under joint ventures and consortia.
Waivers and transfers of intellectual property rights under NASA and DOD contracts.
Bid and proposal reimbursements under NASA and DOD independent research and development contracts.
Worker training grants provided by the Department of Labor, specifically related to the Boeing 787 series aircraft.
Tax breaks relating to the Foreign Sales Corporation and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act.

And that's just the US side of things, the list gets even longer when you include how European states support Airbus and how Canada supports Bombardier. Some may call it "a competitive price" to pay an extra 50% or more compared to commercial contracts, others would consider it support of a business that relies on lucrative government contracts to survive. Is money handed out to all (domestic) competitors, for the purpose of fundamental R&D, a fair price for a service or a speculative financial support in hope of more mature technologies down the road? Etc. etc.

The fixed-price, milestone-based contracts, awarded via NASA's Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program, will fund work over the next 15 months. The companies getting money are:

Blue Origin Federation of Kent, Washington, $25.6 million;
Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, $40.8 million;
Lockheed Martin of Littleton, Colorado, $35.2 million;
Northrop Grumman of Dulles, Virginia, $34.8 million;
SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, $9.4 million.

"These companies will make advancements toward sustainable human landing system concepts, conduct risk-reduction activities and provide feedback on NASA's requirements to cultivate industry capabilities for crewed lunar landing missions," agency officials said in a statement Tuesday.

Btw this whole discussion made me forget Rocket Lab and the Electron rocket, which has significant activities in both the US and New Zealand. Even though it's not a political cooperation between the two but a private enterprise.

mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I guess you can give anything you want any name you want ... but it just confuses the rest of us who use standard nomenclature.

Sorry if you thought that a word can only have one meaning. You can check out the WTO case between Boeing and Airbus for all the different forms that subsidies can take on.

Tax and nontax incentives provided by Washington state and local municipalities (Everett) to support Boeing’s assembly facility.
Property tax and sales tax breaks provided by Kansas and local municipalities (Wichita), as well as interest payments on state development bonds.
Tax and nontax incentives provided by Illinois and local municipalities (Chicago and Cook County) to support relocation of Boeing’s headquarters.
Payments and access to government facilities provided by NASA, as well as equipment and employees provided by NASA under research and development programs.
Payments and access to government facilities provided by the Department of Defense, as well as equipment and employees provided by the DOD under research, development, testing, and evaluation programs.
Payments and access to government facilities provided by the Department of Commerce under joint ventures and consortia.
Waivers and transfers of intellectual property rights under NASA and DOD contracts.
Bid and proposal reimbursements under NASA and DOD independent research and development contracts.
Worker training grants provided by the Department of Labor, specifically related to the Boeing 787 series aircraft.
Tax breaks relating to the Foreign Sales Corporation and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act.

And that's just the US side of things, the list gets even longer when you include how European states support Airbus and how Canada supports Bombardier. Some may call it "a competitive price" to pay an extra 50% or more compared to commercial contracts, others would consider it support of a business that relies on lucrative government contracts to survive. Is money handed out to all (domestic) competitors, for the purpose of fundamental R&D, a fair price for a service or a speculative financial support in hope of more mature technologies down the road? Etc. etc.

The fixed-price, milestone-based contracts, awarded via NASA's Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program, will fund work over the next 15 months. The companies getting money are:

Blue Origin Federation of Kent, Washington, $25.6 million;
Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, $40.8 million;
Lockheed Martin of Littleton, Colorado, $35.2 million;
Northrop Grumman of Dulles, Virginia, $34.8 million;
SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, $9.4 million.

"These companies will make advancements toward sustainable human landing system concepts, conduct risk-reduction activities and provide feedback on NASA's requirements to cultivate industry capabilities for crewed lunar landing missions," agency officials said in a statement Tuesday.

Subsidies can take many forms. And almost every large business gets subsidies including SpaceX. I'm agreeing with you.

But winning a competitive contract to provide services is NOT a subsidy. And if you think SpaceX is charging too much I'd just reply that (1) others who have looked at it disagree, with citation already provided and (2) they just need to underbid ULA, which they do.

ESA is giving Ariane over $2B to develop Ariane 6. SpaceX is getting $9.4M for NextStep. It feels like a difference.

The Italian/Brazilian AMX light attack / trainer is another candidate.

A bit of an outsider, the Italian/Russian venture for a light attack jet. The cooperation broke apart, however, both countries continued with the same basic airframe giving us the M-346 and the Yak-130.