F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 498
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post08 Aug 2020, 00:32

The Indians are quite happy about the Rafales that were just delivered. Indian procurement is a disaster and anything can happen!
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4126
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Aug 2020, 16:51

talkitron wrote:The Indians are quite happy about the Rafales that were just delivered. Indian procurement is a disaster and anything can happen!


Really? You have insight into this??

I'm asking sincerely, since I haven't heard anything and them being happy could mean anything from 1.) They're glad they FINALLY got them to 2.) They find their capabilities as good/better than what they had hoped to 3.) Both or 4.) Neither.

I guess the arrival of any new aircraft is welcomed, especially fresh from the factory room floor...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6855
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 03:37

The Rafales aren't going to help the Indian Air Force against PLAAF J-20's and/or J-31's. Plus, with just 36 aircraft. That is just one maybe two frontline squadrons.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4126
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 17:14

Yes I'd agree. They might make a difference in a conflict with Pakistan though, which I'm sure they think is a lot more likely. I'd imagine that's also why the "F-21" is going to be a tough sell to India - looks/acts too much like what your adversary is flying. If they buy American for the first time, it'll almost certainly be the SH.

Just imagine Indian SH's serving alongside SU-30MKI's. I'm not sure how happy they are with their Mig-29K's, but brand spanking new SH's would look good on their carrier. They're also what the USN currently flies, and will be flying for many more decades so... Assuming they also order the E/A-18G, I think that'll be their first dedicated E/W aircraft as well (at least carrier based). The only downer would be no catapault assist, but if I'm not mistaken Boeing has OK'd the SH for ski jump takeoffs. And I have to believe if they opt for a carrier based strike group of SH's/Growler's, it'll be a massive step up in capability.

An Indian order might also open the door for what Boeing has had in development a long time: The Hawkeye Hornet

:mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24638
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 03:25

Nine Reasons Congress Should Nix the Air Force’s F-15EX Purchase
11 Aug 2020 John Venable

"This year, the U.S. Air Force signed a contract to develop, test and buy at least 140 Boeing F-15EXs. As mistakes go, this is a big one, and its impact will be with us for decades. How bad is it? Consider this analogy.

Let’s say you wanted to purchase home internet service and found two options. The first would cost $102 a month for a dial-up modem that delivered 56 kilobits of data per second. The second would cost $77.90 a month for an upgradeable 5G router that delivered 1 terabyte of data per second. So, your choice is: pay 31 percent more for dated technology that delivers considerably less capability, or get brand-new technology compatible with today’s and tomorrow’s informational demands for $24.10 less. Seems pretty clear cut, right?

In deciding to fund the acquisition of the F-15EX, Congress has chosen the dial-up option. When the Air Force signs that contract, it will be stuck with already-dated equipment for the next 30 years.

Here are nine reasons why Congress should remove the authorization to acquire the F-15EX from the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act....

1. Acquisition cost.
2. Operational capability.
3. Operating costs.
4. Reduced training time and cost.
5. Fighter combat capacity.
6. Defending the continental United States.
7. Weapons capacity.
8. The fighter industrial base.
9. The new construction argument....

...The choice for Congress seems relatively clear. It can fund the acquisition of 140 F-15EXs and field fighters that deliver markedly less capability, will cost more to operate, will reduce our deployable combat capability, are overqualified for the homeland Air Defense mission, and whose acquisition will not affect the fighter industrial base. Or they can acquire 183 F-35As for the same price. Let’s hope they choose wisely."

Source: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/0 ... se/167603/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2766
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 04:41

I like that logic.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1541
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 04:53

Very nicely argued.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 07:40

The venerable Venable is inimitable.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 08:55

These retired USAF ex-f-16 fighter pilot colonels, like those on this site, all make sense from a military standpoint. Just need one more step to translate it into Congress-speak e.g. jobs, industry, votes.

Otherwise, end up like the UK where the NHS is still using the pager...
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 19:15

weasel1962 wrote:These retired USAF ex-f-16 fighter pilot colonels, like those on this site, all make sense from a military standpoint. Just need one more step to translate it into Congress-speak e.g. jobs, industry, votes.


On the jobs front: the F-15 St. Louis line has a workforce of around 300 people.
And Boeing has been keen to emphasize all of the automation they are brining to bear.

You could try to go and add up the workforce at the other suppliers but I suspect
it's not all that large.

For comparison, the F-22 total workforce (all manufacturing, assembly, suppliers tiers) at its peak was
50,000 people.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 498
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 00:25

Wow, 300 (or 600) vs 50,000 is huge. Why the large difference in scale?
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 00:30

talkitron wrote:Wow, 300 (or 600) vs 50,000 is huge. Why the large difference in scale?


\He is comparing the assembly line in St Louis to the entire workforce for the F-22 nation wide. Not just he assembly line in Georgia.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 00:41

h-bomb wrote:
talkitron wrote:Wow, 300 (or 600) vs 50,000 is huge. Why the large difference in scale?


\He is comparing the assembly line in St Louis to the entire workforce for the F-22 nation wide. Not just he assembly line in Georgia.


I'm not. I just don't have numbers for the total F-15 workforce but would be glad to get them.

Even at the end, the F-22 assembly line in Marietta had 600 people on it.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6855
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 01:20

If, the US Government wants to give Boeing a "bone". I would rather see additional funding and production for the T-7A Redhawk and MQ-25A String Ray. Than to waste more money on the F-15EX...


(just saying)

:|
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1541
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 02:51

Corsair1963 wrote:If, the US Government wants to give Boeing a "bone". I would rather see additional funding and production for the T-7A Redhawk and MQ-25A String Ray. Than to waste more money on the F-15EX...
(just saying)
:|


Agree that. And it's likely T-7A will sell to other air forces like hot cakes. So why don't they fund and build twice as many MQ-25A than USN wants, instead? This makes more sense than getting the top brass to say they need more fighters now, then trickle out LIRP F-15-EX until 2030. That's some fertile BS! But as long as F-35A production rate doesn't drop, F-15EX is a bit moot, if necessary they could be put in storage, and F-35A rate accelerated (guess who ends up with the F-15EX then?). It's a horrible long-term kick in the pants for an air force constantly struggling to transform away from old tech, and long-term hindrances they maintain. Less can be more.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: popcorn and 11 guests