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

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1858
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 07:36

quicksilver wrote:One more time — The F-15 is less capability for MORE money.

This has been posted before. Boeing offered a fixed contract. Less flyaway cost than the F-35 and with a $27,000 CPFH

Plus they can deliver it sooner. The General said he needs to replenish capacity now.

Lockheed has a limit on how many planes they can deliver per year.

Meanwhile you got another giant aerospace company out there with assembly lines going cold.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 08:23

zero-one wrote:
quicksilver wrote:One more time — The F-15 is less capability for MORE money.

This has been posted before. Boeing offered a fixed contract. Less flyaway cost than the F-35 and with a $27,000 CPFH

Plus they can deliver it sooner. The General said he needs to replenish capacity now.

Lockheed has a limit on how many planes they can deliver per year.

Meanwhile you got another giant aerospace company out there with assembly lines going cold.




Absurd.....how many F-15's are they producing per year vs how many F-35's??? :doh:


Also, the F-15X doesn't even exist! It's a paper airplane! They would have to build a number of prototypes. Then flight test them and finally ramp up production.

This while the current F-35 production line is producing aircraft in the hundreds. With two other lines going in Italy and Japan*.

* The line is Japan is set to close after the completion of 38 F-35A's for the JSADF.


BTW How can Boeing build a handful of F-15X's for under $100 Million. When similar but less capable F-15's sold to the Gulf States all cost over $100 Million???
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 08:30

Fox1 wrote:I think people are starting to recognize that there isn't a need for a total 5th Generation fighter force. In a few years we're going to have plenty of 5th Gen platforms to send into combat. Eventually, between the 3 services, we're going to have a fleet of between 2000-2500 F-35 fighters alone, plus the 180+ Raptors. Now tell me, what nation is going to be able to mount a credible challenge to that force?

Knowing this, I fail to see why some people are reacting to the news that the USAF might buy 200-250 new build Eagles as if the sky is falling. They aren't being bought at the F-35's expense. And it isn't going to hurt our ability to conduct warfare. These aircraft will be more than capable of conducting the air defense mission at home, the air superiority mission against the bulk of the air forces in the world today, and would still remain useful as strike platforms against even the most technically sophisticated enemies that exist (Russia, China). With weapons like the JASSM-ER (575 NM mile range) that is currently in service or the JASSM-XR (1,000 NM range) which is being developed, you can still use these aircraft to hit even the most well defended targets, even on the first day of war.

The notion that a nation needs a fighter force composed of nothing but 5th Gen platforms to be effective is a bunch of baloney, especially when said nation is going to be fielding more 5th gen fighters than most of the world's air forces combined will be able to match numerically even with 4th gen (and earlier) fighters.



Really, I guess in 1950 we should have told the USAF to forget about buying F-86's Sabres and go back to P-51 Mustangs! :doh:


QUOTE:
In an exclusive Sept. 5 interview, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said she believes the service needs to expend its precious financial resources on stealthy, fifth-generation platforms — specifically the F-35 — and thus buying even an advanced fourth generation fighter like the so-called F-15X is not in the cards.


"We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth generation aircraft,” she said. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.”
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 08:39

firebase99 wrote:The ONLY benefit of buying these Super Eagles is keeping Boeing alive as LM is and likely to remain Head Honcho. Competition. Few companies left that actually build fighter jets. Imagine 30 years from now and LM is the ONLY one?



Lockheed Martin hadn't build a fighter in decades before it built the F-22 and F-35.



Also, you can count the F-16 as it was designed and built by General Dynamics. Which, was later purchased by LM.
Offline

hkultala

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 08:51

firebase99 wrote: Few companies left that actually build fighter jets. Imagine 30 years from now and LM is the ONLY one?


Don't worry, in addition to LM there will be also be OAK ;)

Though their newest fighter is also on hold...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 08:52

quicksilver wrote:
I really think that with the F-35, your paying for a lot of capabilities that the ANG doesn't need anyway
-Stealth (RAM coatings)
-Components for Strike capabilities
-components for SEAD/DEAD
all these things need maintenance and upgrades overtime and the ANG doesn't need them


One more time — The F-15 is less capability for MORE money.





Honestly, the F-15X is really overkill. As any 4th Generation Fighter will be "obsolete" much past 2030. So, what is needed is a short-term "stop-gap". Which, is already in the works and readily available.....(i.e. Upgraded F-16V's) These could be produced far quicker and cheaper.

Honestly, four options....


1.) Increase the F-35 buy.

2.) Upgrade existing F-16's as they're replaced by New F-35's.

3.) Buy new F-15X's. Which, would be the most expensive option and take the longest!

4.) Upgrade existing F-15C's.

Sorry, option three looks like the least "attractive" option to me???
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 07 Feb 2019, 11:17, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1858
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 09:36

Hey I'm not the one saying those things its Boeing and the USAF General I quoted.

Personally I'm more inclined towards buying more F-35s. But I'm also puzzled by why people here are having such a hard time believing official statements.

You keep saying the F-15 will cost more. We don't know that but even if it did, it would be offered at a fixed contract so the USAF will stick to the contract price.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1109
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 09:59

zero-one wrote:Plus they can deliver it sooner. The General said he needs to replenish capacity now.


1 per month isn't that.

Life-extending the existing fleet would be much faster, thus more likely, if speed and having a capability were the issue, as opposed to another reason.

zero-one wrote:Lockheed has a limit on how many planes they can deliver per year.


There's a pot calling a kettle black.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 10:06

zero-one wrote:But I'm also puzzled by why people here are having such a hard time believing official statements.


Because they don't withstand scrutiny and contradict the analysis and testimony that was very recently
provided by the same officials that are now uttering these statements.

At the end of the day, if it's an OSD mandate, Air Force leadership is compelled to put
forward arguments to justify it.

But as a form of signaling "it ain't us" you'll see some deliberately flimsy arguments
along with press leaks like "Shanahan leaned on the Air Force " and "CAPE briefed Air Force leadership."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 11:04

zero-one wrote:Hey I'm not the one saying those things its Boeing and the USAF General I quoted.


Yet, recent statements directly from the USAF Secretary Heather Wilson state they don't want the F-15X. They want more F-35's.....

Personally I'm more inclined towards buying more F-35s. But I'm also puzzled by why people here are having such a hard time believing official statements.


Because of the contradictory statement from the USAF Leadership. Plus, you can't make a good case for the F-15X. Over either buying more F-35's or upgrading existing F-16's.

You keep saying the F-15 will cost more. We don't know that but even if it did, it would be offered at a fixed contract so the USAF will stick to the contract price.


Really, Boeing has sold F-15 Eagles to a number of Gulf States plus South Korea. Yet, they "all" have cost over $100 Million. Now years later when only a handful of F-15's coming off the line. Boeing says it can build the most Advance Eagle yet for less....

I can't speak for the other members. Yet, personally I am highly skeptical!
:shock:
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 14:59

The difference being that Boeing is prepared to sell close to or even at cost price to ensure the production line stays open because they can make money on exports plus it's a big company with other revenue/profit streams. This will ultimately come down to politics, the F-35 favoring Congress vs the Boeing favoring Defense Secretary/President as Congress will hold Boeing to their cost quotes. Don't forget F-18 is bought for the USN at well under $100m even if it costs over $100m for foreign customers.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2684
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 15:18

Wow, this is getting unwieldy! We now have conflicting USAF statements as to their want/need for the F-15X. We have confusion as to just what an F-15X constitutes. We have confusion as to how said F-15X's can be produced for under $100 million. And we have doubts about whether or not LM could ramp up F-35 production if they were asked to. About the only thing that's certain is that Boeing says they're willing to sell the F-15X to USAF at a loss. Which I'm sure just thrills Boeing stockholders, LOL. Let's take these 1 by 1..

USAF WANT/NEED FOR F-15X

Seems to me there's still a strong Eagle lobby within USAF. They could upgrade F-16's for less. They could produce more F-35's for less. They could upgrade F-15C's for less. But... some within USAF want the F-15X anyway? Conclusion? Internal politics within USAF favor the F-15 vs. (virtually) every other platform.

WHAT IS AN F-15X?

Is it an F-15C on steroids? Or an F-15E on steroids? Or is it a 2040C Eagle? Or a Silent Eagle?? About the only thing that's clear is that it'll be better than F-15C's currently flying in ANG units.

HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST?

A lot. And the more bells and whistles (see above), the bigger the bill. The only way Boeing builds any of them for under $100 million is if they eat the "fixed contract" price. The other cost may be in lives. As in the F-15X is going to be a lot more vulnerable to everything from enemy aircraft to IADS.

COULD LM RAMP UP PRODUCTION IF ASKED TO BY USAF?

The popular answer seems to be "no". But I'm not buying it. If war broke out tomorrow with China, they'd find a way to start stamping out F-35's at an accelerated rate. But this may be more about keeping two companies in the US building fighters. In fact, I suspect that's one of the very real reasons this is even being entertained.

Personally, I hope we buy more F-35's. If not, I'll look forward to seeing shiny new F-15's fly out of the 104th fighter wing here in Westfield, MA for decades to come. Sure beats SH's serving until 20forever...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1858
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 15:38

Corsair1963 wrote:i]Yet, recent statements directly from the USAF Secretary Heather Wilson state they don't want the F-15X. They want more F-35's..... [/i]


Yes given a choice between the 2 they would choose the F-35 all day. The General even said it. If he had the money those would be 72 F-35s but he doesn't have the money. So whats the next best thing?

Corsair1963 wrote:i]Because of the contradictory statement from the USAF Leadership. Plus, you can't make a good case for the F-15X. Over either buying more F-35's or upgrading existing F-16's.


I dont like it either. I'm not some pro F-15 nut. I'm trying to look at the situation through their glasses and This is what I see.

Corsair1963 wrote:I can't speak for the other members. Yet, personally I am highly skeptical![/i] :shock:


As am I but, think about it. Can Boeing afford to tarnish their reputation now? 6th gen is already being cooked up. In the 2030 time line the USAF and soon the USN will pick the primary contractor for the F-X and the NGAD programs.

If Boeing can't keep their promise on that fixed price contract and chose to milk the cow now. They just shot themselves in the foot long term. They'll make some profit over the F-15X but theres a good chance Lockheed will take the cake for FX and NGAD.

Consider if they were able to deliver F-15X on schedule and on budget. All of a sudden the last memory on the DOD's mind is the last fighter programs of Boeing and Lockheed.

As good as the F-35 and F-22 are, they're management and adherence to schedule are far from perfect.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3807
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 15:52

mixelflick wrote:
WHAT IS AN F-15X?

Is it an F-15C on steroids? Or an F-15E on steroids? Or is it a 2040C Eagle? Or a Silent Eagle?? About the only thing that's clear is that it'll be better than F-15C's currently flying in ANG units.

HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST?

A lot. And the more bells and whistles (see above), the bigger the bill. The only way Boeing builds any of them for under $100 million is if they eat the "fixed contract" price. The other cost may be in lives. As in the F-15X is going to be a lot more vulnerable to everything from enemy aircraft to IADS.



The F-15X is a single seat F-15SA. Done. Easy. The F-15SA is an E on steroids. By definition, the C is air-to-air only. They do not train for mud missions, that is what the E is for. The F-15X is to bring the capabilities of the advanced F-15E+ to teh USAF while alleviating the need for a second crew-member due to advances in system management. It is NOT a Silent Eagle as the CWB has never been mentioned. It is similar to the 2040C Eagle, but with the F-15E CFT instead of the F-15C CFT. That is what it is.

DO NOT, and I repeat, NO NOT get hung up on this idea of Boeing needing to BUILD them for under 100M$. Every single airliner on earth from both Boeing and Airbus are sold at a loss. Every. Single. One. They sell them at a loss to recoup the money later on a lifetime of maintenance. What I am reading on the F-15X is the same thing. They will SELL them to the USAF at under F-35A prices no matter what and EAT the lost COST to themselves. That should clear up the cost issue.
"Spurts"

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

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2684
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 15:55

OK thank you.

But what is the difference between and F-15E CFT and F-15C EFT? I wasn't aware there was a difference?? And related, how much of a maneuvering penalty does the F-15C have when carrying them??

It's tempting to slap them on, bringing internal fuel to that of a Flanker. But I wouldn't want to enter a dogfight with them, IF they degrade performance that much..
Last edited by mixelflick on 07 Feb 2019, 16:49, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: crosshairs, Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests