Is it really the case that Boeing get no US government money, e.g. for military versions of aircraft which then go on to have shared civil use?
Similarly, do all their engines get R&D paid for without any Government funding for an extent of shared military development?
If there are any military programs at all, as well as civil, there would in principle be three ways to split the costs:
1. Boeing (and/or engine makers) pay total cost of developing the civil version as though there were no military contract. Military contracts are only charged for the marginal costs of doing the extra military version. No subsidy at all for civil, relatively cheap add-on for military.
2. Total costs of both programs are added together and split between civil/military in proportion to some measure, e.g. number of units built. Both programs benefit - each costs less that doing that program on its own.
3. Government pays total cost of developing the military version as though there were no civil contract. Civil program only has to cover the marginal costs of doing the extra civil version, relatively cheaply.
Any of these is open to a certain amount of "creative accounting". Only the first, if accounting is done even approximately fairly, involves no form of subsidy. Is that really how things are done in USA?
Chris N.