F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

[Corsair1963]

12 F-15X's is such a small order you could never get it under the price of an F-35A. Which, already has a respectable price of it's own...

[marsavian]

How does a F-16V's acquisition price compare to a F-15X? Operating and sustainment costs would surely favour the former.

Maybe a little cheaper but it would not be as effective as a pure interceptor. F-15X would have twice the range and twice the missile load as well as radar probably twice as rangey. Strip the CFTs off and it would have more top speed too. The only drawback of new build F-15X/F-16V is how they would cope with Su-57/J-20 escorts/strike fighters so they probably would need an ISR F-35 guardian angel directing them.

[madrat]

Twice the range? Be serious.

[SpudmanWP]

Twice the range? Be serious.

Especially when you start loading it up with missiles.

Drag is a B.

[crosshairs]

[quote="Fox1"]

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. /quote]

You do know that Boeing can only build 12-15 F-15s a year, right? Seriously, now do you think buying 12-15 F-15s a year is really going to make dent in the age of the fleet? If we start building them today we would not even have enough to replace the F-15C/D fleet in the year 2030. That's how slow they are building today.

Lockheed can build more F-35s than what the USAF is buying. That's the answer right there.

Do you know how much money it's going to cost the USAF to keep a very small number of 4th gen fighters? Training, logistics, repairs, depot time. It adds up and up and up.

The F-15X would have been nice before the F-22 and the F-35, but now its a moot point that belongs in museums.

[element1loop]

Lockheed can build more F-35s than what the USAF is buying. That's the answer right there.

Agree. There are three factories and three work forces (plus global suppliers who would love to expand further) which could push this to 200 jets per year if the choice were made. And would this higher production volume not (in due course) lead to cheaper airframes after the initial ramp toward 200 per year - say from 2022? The initial investment has already been made in factories and workforces, so just keep ramping production numbers until you get there. And does anyone think there won't be more sales from here to soak up that extra production? Especially if higher volumes causes price to fall to say ~$75 million per F-35A.

These F-15 options should be canned, leave it alone and focus money on ramping production way past this 160 per year level, and also focus on how to get out of the F-15C/D faster, plus fill USN decks with F-35C faster (i.e. spend much less on SH recap and BkIII in the process, which would only mean they'd hang around longer in a 5-Gen force).

[Corsair1963]

Lockheed can build more F-35s than what the USAF is buying. That's the answer right there.

Agree. There are three factories and three work forces (plus global suppliers who would love to expand further) which could push this to 200 jets per year if the choice were made. And would this higher production volume not (in due course) lead to cheaper airframes after the initial ramp toward 200 per year - say from 2022? The initial investment has already been made in factories and workforces, so just keep ramping production numbers until you get there. And does anyone think there won't be more sales from here to soak up that extra production? Especially if higher volumes causes price to fall to say ~$75 million per F-35A.

These F-15 options should be canned, leave it alone and focus money on ramping production way past this 160 per year level, and also focus on how to get out of the F-15C/D faster, plus fill USN decks with F-35C faster (i.e. spend much less on SH recap and BkIII in the process, which would only mean they'd hang around longer in a 5-Gen force).

Actually, there will be only two F-35 assembly lines. As Japan is stopping domestic production after it completes the current order of 38 F-35A's. As American built examples are cheaper. That said, there is still enough production from the two existing plants for all the F-35's needed. Including replacing the F-15C operated by the USAF.

As a matter of fact the US could easily shift a little production from the US and Italy to meet the demand. If, need be....

[Corsair1963]

This is why buying F-15X is such a bad idea. As we want as much F-35 Production as possible. In order to drive down the price and further fuel exports! "HELLO"


Buying the F-15X is "counter productive" and why I don't believe it will ever happen!

[Fox1]

According to some of you guys, anything not made by Lockheed Martin is just wasted money. LOL. Can you at least attempt to hide your manufacturer bias just a little?

[Corsair1963]

According to some of you guys, anything not made by Lockheed Martin is just wasted money. LOL. Can you at least attempt to hide your manufacturer bias just a little?

Sorry, the F-15X has no advantage in either performance or cost over the F-35A. That is just plain fact and has nothing to do with any perceived bias in favor of Lockheed Martin and/or the F-35 Lightning.



Maybe you should consider your own bias before you make such statements?

[Corsair1963]

Bad news for the F-15X....


Lockheed: F-35A Cost To Drop Below $80 Million Per Fighter In 2023
29 Jan 2019 Ben Werner

"Lockheed Martin is committed to producing the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter for $80 million each by next year and further reducing the overall program costs as part of the next production contract negotiations with the Department of Defense, the company said on Tuesday. In 2022, Lockheed Martin officials expect to negotiate the next multiyear F-35 contract with the Joint Program Office. The goal is to use the steady cash flow from a multiyear contract to drive down further the production costs once the contract kicks in...........


Currently, the F-35A, the standard take-off and landing variant primarily used by the U.S. Air Force and foreign partners, has a price tag of $89.2 million. The F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant used by the Marine Corps and some foreign partners currently cost $115.5 million each, and the F-35C carrier variant used by the Navy cost $107.7 million per fighter, according to Lockheed Martin.

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/01/29/40708

[Fox1]

According to some of you guys, anything not made by Lockheed Martin is just wasted money. LOL. Can you at least attempt to hide your manufacturer bias just a little?

Sorry, the F-15X has no advantage in either performance or cost over the F-35A. That is just plain fact and has nothing to do with any perceived bias in favor of Lockheed Martin and/or the F-35 Lightning.



Maybe you should consider your own bias before you make such statements?

Actually, the F-15 does have some advantages over the F-35 for the particular mission set they are talking about buying it to fulfill. It carries more missiles, which is nice if you are tasked with shooting down Russian or Chinese cruise missiles being lobbed at the homeland. It also has a bigger, more powerful radar, which is nice to have for the air defense mission. And unlike the F-35, the units that would be operating the F-15X ALREADY operate versions of the F-15, so there is a large degree of commonality in play. The infrastructure needed to support them is already in place. Of course you already know this. But it doesn't fit the narrative you are pushing.

Save the F-35 for use overseas where it's stealth will be needed to penetrate enemy air defenses. A fifth generation fighter isn't necessary to protect the homeland from lost Cessna pilots or cruise missile attacks being launched from Russian bombers flying a thousand miles away. What about using the proper platform for the mission at hand, rather than proposing a one aircraft solution for everything?

I want to see as many capable combat aircraft that we can afford to buy put into service as fast as they can be built, no matter WHO makes them. I'd like to see the pace of the F-35 buy increased. There's no reason we shouldn't be buying them at a faster rate. But at the same time, I don't think the F-35 is the only capable or militarily useful machine out there. Nor do I think it is the perfect solution for every mission at hand. Therefore it would not hurt my feelings at all if we ultimately purchased two or three hundred new F-15 aircraft to perform the air sovereignty mission here at home, while simultaneously pushing out as many F-35's to the forward deployed units as we can, where they are needed most. Rather than shilling for any particular defense contractor, I am calling for balance. If you consider that biased, I'll wear that badge with honor.

[Corsair1963]

Actually, the F-15 does have some advantages over the F-35 for the particular mission set they are talking about buying it to fulfill. It carries more missiles, which is nice if you are tasked with shooting down Russian or Chinese cruise missiles being lobbed at the homeland. It also has a bigger, more powerful radar, which is nice to have for the air defense mission. And unlike the F-35, the units that would be operating the F-15X ALREADY operate versions of the F-15, so there is a large degree of commonality in play. The infrastructure needed to support them is already in place. Of course you already know this. But it doesn't fit the narrative you are pushing.

Save the F-35 for use overseas where it's stealth will be needed to penetrate enemy air defenses. A fifth generation fighter isn't necessary to protect the homeland from lost Cessna pilots or cruise missile attacks being launched from Russian bombers flying a thousand miles away. What about using the proper platform for the mission at hand, rather than proposing a one aircraft solution for everything?

I want to see as many capable combat aircraft that we can afford to buy put into service as fast as they can be built, no matter WHO makes them. I'd like to see the pace of the F-35 buy increased. There's no reason we shouldn't be buying them at a faster rate. But at the same time, I don't think the F-35 is the only capable or militarily useful machine out there. Nor do I think it is the perfect solution for every mission at hand. Therefore it would not hurt my feelings at all if we ultimately purchased two or three hundred new F-15 aircraft to perform the air sovereignty mission here at home, while simultaneously pushing out as many F-35's to the forward deployed units as we can, where they are needed most. Rather than shilling for any particular defense contractor, I am calling for balance. If you consider that biased, I'll wear that badge with honor.

Sorry, it doesn't and you won't find a credible source that says it does....

[element1loop]

Actually, the F-15 does have some advantages over the F-35 for the particular mission set they are talking about buying it to fulfill. It carries more missiles, which is nice if you are tasked with shooting down Russian or Chinese cruise missiles being lobbed at the homeland. It also has a bigger, more powerful radar, which is nice to have for the air defense mission.

Likewise there is no great difficulty to have the F-35A carry 4 internal AIM-120D, plus 4 or 8 external AIM-120D, for such a cruise-weapon killing role.

As for the F-15 radar aperture, as a desirable advantage, it's not clear that the F-15 would be superior in that case either (See BP's recent comments on that sort of thing), especially when you consider F-35s will be innately supported by system-of-systems networked off-board sensors, plus the fact the F-35s in wide-open 'formation' will continually share data and cue sensors and weapons without even trying, and with its pilots all maintaining the same high level of SA, without trying either.

So which would be better at killing cruise weapons which require superior SA to provide the angles and range for their efficient killing in the shortest time?

SA enabled shorter times to intercept with better angles will average to better pk, and thus less missiles needed per cruise-missile.

It's not clear (to me) that the F-15 would have any advantages here, let alone maintain the equal role-flexibility that a modern adaptive force needs, to change tactics and incorporate new capabilities quickly. Anyway you look at it, that SA advantage of the entire F-35A flight adds a massive time and space advantage for F-35As in every kill-chain cycle and certainly against fast pop-up cruise weapons, that require an immediate SA assimilation and dynamic tactical response.

Then there is the fact that even an F-35A that's fresh out of its 12 x AIM-120D could still chase and provide weapon-quality lock for SAMs to thin-out and kill the remnant, again with ease, precision and rapidity, as well as the in-built high-quality and immediate BDA feedback required for such a role.

You could also simulate such CONUS cruise missile targets and see which aircraft is tactically more effective, at that level of simulated tactical application and exploration.

[Corsair1963]

Honestly, I doubt the F-15X vs F-35 debate will be around much longer. Because as the word spreads that the price of the F-35A will likely fall below $80 Million by 2023. While, the F-15X will easily exceed $100 Million....


Is all Congress will need to make a decision.