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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 14:20

quicksilver wrote:“...the long 20,000hr life...”

Where did this number come from?


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

According to sources familiar with the discussions, The War Zone has learned about the F-15X's origins, its intended capabilities and features, and where it would fit inside the USAF's tactical airpower ecosystem.

The F-15X will have a 20,000 hour service life. Yes, you read that right, 20,000 hours—pretty much three times that of most fighters being produced around the globe. As such, a new F-15X can serve for roughly 80 years. When you spread the cost of the jet over all that flight time, it does appear to be a comparative bargain.

In addition, our sources tell us that F-15X cost-per-flight-hour has been deeply investigated both by Boeing and by third parties by leveraging metrics from legacy F-15 operations and those of late-model Strike Eagle derivatives and even other fighters in the USAF's inventory. The final figure is said to be around $27,000 per flight hour. This is far less than the aging F-15C/D's hourly operating cost (about $42,000 per hour) and about $6,000 more than what the USAF is paying to fly their largely middle-aged F-16 fleet today.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2582
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 17:38

So, BA (capitalizing on the proclivities of modern-day 'journalism') starts a narrative with millenial/hipster/blogobloviator of little standing about all the stuff that their latest non-flying vaporware will supposedly achieve (i.e. plants/injects a storyline into the interweb where facts and logic are all but displaced by feelings and narrative and repeated over and over without serious scrutiny).

Objective achieved; the web is talking about it -- which means that all kinds of crazy crap is piled on already unverified (and often unverifiable) assumptions. Stuff like the USAF wants it (except 'they' the decision-makers have said they don't)...it's gonna be a 20K airframe (though it is not yet designed, much less tested)...its only gonna cost this much (defies the laws of fiscal reality and sound business practice)...and the CPFH will be less than a smaller, lighter, aircraft that only has one engine.

It just keeps getting faster and funnier...
Last edited by quicksilver on 28 Jan 2019, 19:42, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1718
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 19:01

I assumed it had come from https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15/

20,000 hour Economic operating life - this is on current production models (presumably) so if someone wants to explain that one because that is surely not the same as structural lifetime (even though you can fudge the figures with that as well).
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2582
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 19:39

20K hrs? Really? When did that happen? Seriously, when did Eagles become 20k hour airframes?

https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... vice-life/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8370
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 19:57

They are basically taking every lesson learned for the F-15E and beefing up the weak spots.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2582
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 20:14

So, it is vaporware; that jet doesn't yet exist. And, if it is built (a new build, not a SLEP), how exactly is it going to cost less (~25% less) than the 8K airframes that preceded it?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8370
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 20:45

While it can't be built for 25% less, it can be "sold" for 25% less.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4255
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 21:46

Which is something done with every single airliner.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Jan 2019, 23:34

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Which is something done with every single airliner.


Completely untrue since that would be predatory pricing and illegal.
Offline

Fox1

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16

Unread post29 Jan 2019, 01:25

Well, with even the Air Force Chief of Staff now saying this buy may happen if the money is there, I'm inclined to believe new F-15 production for the USAF may indeed happen. In the end, it doesn't really matter what people like us here on the forum think. It all comes down to what the people at the top think. And if people in high places want to see new Eagles built for the Air Force, then by golly, the Air Force will be getting new Eagles. It's as simple as that.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Just like General Goldfein stated, an F-15 isn't an F-35. But he needs fresh airframes. This is all a by-product of the Air Force not buying hardly any new fighters at all between the mid 1990's and mid 2000's, along with prematurely stopping F-22 production. So now we are stuck with a bunch of old, worn out airframes that belong in the Boneyard and are wearing out at a rate faster than F-35 production alone will be able to keep pace with. Therefore it makes sense that the Air Force might also wish to buy some extras of the second best fighter aircraft we currently have in production, with all the new bells and whistles that are being discussed. An advanced F-15 may not be the absolute state of the art in 2019, but it beats the 5th Gen you don't have or a worn out 1980s airframe that can't be maintained.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7690
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post29 Jan 2019, 01:46

How does a F-16V's acquisition price compare to a F-15X? Operating and sustainment costs would surely favour the former.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Jan 2019, 01:57

The F-15X is never going to happen. As long-term the F-35A is a much better deal. While, short-term you could say the same about upgraded F-16's. Which, can be had far more cheaply and quickly! :D


Remember, 4th Generation Fighters are on the verge of becoming obsolete. Why would the USAF need an F-15 with a 20,000 hour life span???

:doh:
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2107
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post29 Jan 2019, 02:42

SpudmanWP wrote:They are basically taking every lesson learned for the F-15E and beefing up the weak spots.


To go from 8000 hours to 20000 hours, the entire airframe becomes a weak spot.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post29 Jan 2019, 02:55

Fresh airframes: Boeing's own estimate for zero-timing the F-15Cs was in the $20 - 40 million range.
Of course you have Boeing competing with itself (new build vs. refresh) unless you can replace
the F-15 with another type.

But the fundamental problem is, like the A-10 retirements, you have ANG/state/congressional interests
that will prohibit retirement/type replacement on largely flimsy grounds but will provide
congressional add-ons strictly for their cherished aircraft but for no other purpose.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2582
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post29 Jan 2019, 05:30

Quick bar napkin math says they lose $300M on 12 jets. Even cash rich BA can’t afford that. Why would the Air Force pay for a structural service life they’re not gonna (or can’t) use; doing so would lock in obsolescence for 60ish years.

It’s the same communications approach they used w the various iterations of “advanced” SH. Vaporware.

The real story in this is the political engineering that the recent article on Shanahan suggested.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests