F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 03:34
by talkitron
This article uses anonymous sources to say that the USAF is considering the F-15X at a cheap, fixed price from Boeing. It would replace F-15Cs in five Air National Guard and three active duty squadrons. Fun times!

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

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 04:50
by popcorn
'Cheap' and F-15 are a contradiction in terms.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 05:16
by geforcerfx
popcorn wrote:'Cheap' and F-15 are a contradiction in terms.

But what does the air force consider cheap any more? If they order these, plus have the orders from foreign military sales production rate could get them down around or under $100 million. Since they have decades of experience with the jet it's a easy injection of newer more capable air frames.

I don't mind the plan, there are def missions a nice 4th gen can still do for the USAF and allow us to save hours on the raptors and deploy more F-35's abroad. If they can for sure network seamlessly with the F-35 and F-22 then this will be a great missile truck.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 05:49
by chucky2
I don't get if they want this as a multitasking airframe, why they'd make it single seat. I know I've watched a video or read a transcript of an interview with a F-35 pilot that said something to the affect, The plane itself is easy to fly, it's working the systems that is a challenge. I took that to mean that sorting through the wealth of info and making decisions was what was challenging the pilot. It would seem to me that having a GIB, whoops, PersonIB, helping with that would be advantageous.

How much worse if you use a current F-15D model, flown with just the pilot, is performance compared to the C model? Is it really that much worse?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 05:50
by Corsair1963
Laughable as the USAF has no interest in the F-15X. Hell, it would like to retire it's current F-15C Fleet.


Plus, does anybody believe you could purchase a brand new F-15X for $80-85 Million??? Which, will be the price of your average F-35A in a couple of years.


:lmao:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 06:46
by wrightwing
If the article is accurate, it would appear that the USAF may in fact be interested. Whether Boeing can deliver at below $95m remains to be seen. They might be able to, with an order of 235.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 07:08
by quicksilver
C’mon man...

Tyler Rogoway — hipster ‘reporter’ who hasn’t reported diddly since he got his new gig at ‘the drive’ — writes a rambling ‘exclusive’ devoid of named sources or even where or by whom those sources might be employed — and you swallow it as credible (i.e. not talking points from Boeing or the Air Guard guys who have long-standing ‘close’ relationships with that company)??

Whomever his ‘sources’ were, they are smart enough to know that this guy is eager to deliver something/anything right now, and he has virtually no editorial oversight (as the quality of the writing suggests). I really like the part about hundreds of hush-hush conversations. Were there secret handshakes to get into the Mouseketeer Clubhouse too?

You guys are smarter than this. C’mon. :roll:

F-35 is proving so capable that it may put the Eagle mafia out of business — and they know it. And, as suggested by other(s) above, Eagle unit cost won’t sniff anything less than $95-100M (except where ‘hush-hush’ conversations happen) and that’s before we talk about total ownership costs.

C’mon...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 07:39
by sferrin
They could have had the F-15 MANX decades ago. They didn't want it then and they don't want it now. And Tyler Rogoway? Anybody posting his BS should be ashamed of themselves.

post-9221-0-61629000-1342189284.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 08:09
by talkitron
I agree Rogoway is not a trusted source. However, Boeing has landed a massive Super Hornet block III sale to the Navy under similar terms. Note how the article goes out of its way to argue that F-15X would not take away from F-35 buys or even F-15E upgrades. I find this entirely plausible in a political situation where the national debt is apparently not a binding constraint on military spending. Most of the spending craziness has been with the Navy (355 ship fleet, Super Hornets) but there is no reason the Air Force cannot benefit.

The F-15X buy could be curtailed if Democrats take over and hold the line in defense spending increases. Nothing is locked in stone.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 12:37
by quicksilver
Block III SHs are an industrial trial base decision that keeps St Louis and certain USG activities viable until there is a new start for FA-XX/NGAD. They are also cost competitive; Eagles are not cost competitive — NRE paid for by others, or not.

Oh, and it looks like mr hipster’s ‘story’ (regurgitation of BA talking points) isn’t such an ‘exclusive’ this morning —

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2 ... d-topstory

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 14:31
by mixelflick
Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...

Having said that, never under-estimate the Eagle mafia in the USAF. Like a comfortable old shoe, they may just slip into it if the situation calls for it. And the most likely situation is without question, a truncated F-35 buy. They're already talking about it, and if one big foreign buyer opts out... could be a slipper slope.

We shall see. I LOVE the F-15 but let's be honest - it's best days are behind it...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 09:52
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...


It isn't similar because Su-35 is dirt cheap in comparison with Su-57 and Su-57 isn't finish yet (without new engine it is more less pointless). New F-15 would cost same or maybe higher then F-35 and F-35 is more less finished.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 15:58
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...


It isn't similar because Su-35 is dirt cheap in comparison with Su-57 and Su-57 isn't finish yet (without new engine it is more less pointless). New F-15 would cost same or maybe higher then F-35 and F-35 is more less finished.


SU-57 has an established price tag? I've seen estimates, but nothing concrete. It uses the same engines and avionics as the SU-35, which are by far the most expensive parts of any airframe.

How much more expensive is it?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:25
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...


It isn't similar because Su-35 is dirt cheap in comparison with Su-57 and Su-57 isn't finish yet (without new engine it is more less pointless). New F-15 would cost same or maybe higher then F-35 and F-35 is more less finished.


SU-57 has an established price tag? I've seen estimates, but nothing concrete. It uses the same engines and avionics as the SU-35, which are by far the most expensive parts of any airframe.

How much more expensive is it?


Su-35s are ~$65M+. I've seen estimates of $100M+ for the Su-57.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:41
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:If the article is accurate, it would appear that the USAF may in fact be interested. Whether Boeing can deliver at below $95m remains to be seen. They might be able to, with an order of 235.



USAF has "NO" interest is acquiring any more F-15's...."PERIOD"

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:46
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:If the article is accurate, it would appear that the USAF may in fact be interested. Whether Boeing can deliver at below $95m remains to be seen. They might be able to, with an order of 235.



USAF has "NO" interest is acquiring any more F-15's...."PERIOD"

You've already expressed this opinion. No more reminders will be necessary. Thank you.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:52
by Corsair1963
Then the discussion is over until the USAF places an order for New F-15's.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 00:01
by wrightwing
The discussion is over, when everyone stops talking. I think most agree that F-15Xs aren't likely. That's another matter entirely, than whether any consideration has been discussed. In any case, you don't get to decide for everyone else, when they're done.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 03:00
by Corsair1963
I wasn't trying to decide for everyone. Just point about the whole line is absurd in my opinion..... :?



Remember, the USAF would like more funding for the F-35A and would like to retire it's existing fleet of F-15C's. So, now are we to believe they would go out and buy new F-15's! :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 06:07
by edpop
You tube video on the same story..............it takes about 1 1/2 minutes before some one starts talking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ2g5VmYVOw

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 06:09
by Fox1
It sounds like any interest is mostly in using the F-15X in the air sovereignty role, with a secondary ground attack capability which the C model lacks. I would not mind seeing the Air Force purchase a couple hundred of these for such purposes, so long as it doesn't take away from F-35 buys. It might actually make better long term sense to buy new F-15s as opposed to trying to upgrade old, worn out C models or using upgraded and likewise aging F-16s for the role. A new build F-15 with the features of the Saudi F-15SA model would be quite sufficient for defending U.S. air space or performing stand-off strike missions, while being cheaper and easier to maintain and fly. I'm just not sure there is enough service life left in the legacy fleet to warrant any significant upgrades. Once you start talking structural modifications and the like, you're probably just better off going with new builds, especially if you get the unit cost down into the $85 million range they seem to be implying.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 06:36
by madrat
Sounds like a troll story by Russians

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 08:12
by Corsair1963
Surprising so many have short memories....


Remember F-15SE....


The USAF was supposedly interested in it too! :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 11:29
by zero-one
One major disadvantage the F-15 will always have is that you're basically using 1960's air frame sciences.
You can change the innards all you want, AESA, Barracuda EW Suite, Internal IRST maybe even DAS.
but it'll never be a real VLO aircraft,

some might argue that you don't always need VLO and the teen series fills that nitch perfectly.

To that I say, the F-15 is a stable air frame, did they even manage to make the Eagle unstable? because if you can be seen, the need for you to turn and burn is that much more relevant than if you're nearly invisible. Yeah the F-15 is no slouch, but except for high altitude maneuvering at high speed, the Eagle is out turned by a lot of the unstable airframes that came after it.

Then again some would argue that you won't need to turn and burn very much in today's network centric battlefield with helmet cued aiming and networked SA from all around.

Well, what about efficiency and persistence, is the Eagle's SFC with the latest PW-299 or GE-129 engines superior to it's stablemates with the same engine?

To me the Eagle's airframe has become its weakest asset. It was state of the art in 1976, but a lot has been learned from it and thanks to it, airframe design has advanced so much since then.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 13:50
by talkitron
Corsair1963 wrote:The USAF was supposedly interested in it too! :?


Can you link to articles claiming ongoing plans and particular squadrons that might be replaced?

5

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 14:08
by vilters
Pretty sure that the F-15 you buy today is a completely different animal then when it first flew.

Some airframes are hard to improve upon, just like the good old A-4 and F-5E. Some of these still give the "best BANG for the BUCK."

About the F-15, F-35 AND F-22.


There is not a country in the world that has ANYTHING like them in ANY numbers servicable.

A few F-27 left and right (wonder how many of these can fly versus being "combat ready" in any numbers.)
A few Migs, even rarer to find any of these still 100% combat ready. And what's more, they"ll burn their engines at first contact and drop out of the sky without firing a single bullet.

A few Rafales and Tiffys, both combat ready fleets can be counted single handed + a bit of tax. (Not worth the cost of the alu that went in them.)

With our fleet of F-16, F-15, F-18, F-35 and F-22 we are in pretty good shape for my, and my kids lifetimes.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 15:50
by southernphantom
Corsair1963 wrote:Surprising so many have short memories....


Remember F-15SE....


The USAF was supposedly interested in it too! :?


The F-15SE was a completely infeasible project that never developed beyond an internal bay before being shelved. It would have required quite a lot of money to have been invested into its development before an operational version was finalized, if an operational version was finalized. The F-15X leverages off-the-shelf technology from the Saudi and Qatari buys. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 21:13
by icemaverick
PROS:
-MIGHT be cheaper to buy a few new F-15s compared to upgrading/maintaining decades old F-15Cs
-Would be a great missile/bomb truck
-Will keep Boeing in the fighter business and prevent the Air Force from having an all-LM fighter force
-Tech is already developed and it leverages an already active production line

CONS:
-It would be cheaper to just buy more F-35s
-F-16s could do many of the proposed roles and the F-16 fleet is younger

I’m betting it doesn’t happen. It would be cheaper to use F-16s to perform the F-15X’s proposed missions.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 21:34
by vilters
Correct, the F-16 fleet is younger.

If I had any say in the matter? I would drop the F-15C, and "IF" I was looking for a missile truck? ? ?
I would re-open the books on the F-16XL and continue with an all F-16 fleet. in support of the stealth fleet

Single engine, logistical support everywhere, cheaper fuel burn, spares and qualified personal all over the place.

Won't happen, too simple, too logical, too easy, too cheap. No pockets to fill.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 23:51
by jetblast16
X marks the spot!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 03:09
by That_Engine_Guy
The USAF won't even spend the money to outfit their Eagle fleet with the newest PW-229 engines, why would they spend 10x more for new airframes?

Some ANG F-15s did get re-engined, and they came from ANG F-16s that received new engines that the GUARD lobbied Congress to get in their "combat coded" Vipers. The ANG F-15 fleet had it's readiness and capabilities greatly enhanced by hand-me-down engines that were almost 20 years old! If it wasn't for the ANG getting $$ directly from Congress, the USAF would have NEVER paid for ANG aircraft (that the USAF didn't want anymore in the first place....) to receive engine upgrades.

You're talking about the same USAF that has flown B-52s with outdated engines for the last 40 odd years. New engines would have paid for themselves way before now in fuel savings alone, not to mention maintenance costs of TF33 engines over the last 30 years. Now that they are 50 years old, the USAF is kicking the idea around again.... They should have done it the first time I saw the proposal kicked around in the mid 1990's when there were still hundreds of them flying.

Moral of my story; USAF typically isn't interested in 'upgrades' to their aircraft if it's going to exceed 25% of the aircraft's value; I highly doubt they're going to allocate funds/procurement of "legacy" aircraft if they cost even 75% of what the F-35 is costing. If the USAF had stood it's ground, and not paid politics with the F-22, we may still have Raptors rolling off the line, maybe the F-22B, and I'm sure they'd be less than $100M each; but then they couldn't have justified "waiting" for the more advanced F-35 to enter service 20 years later. Making future bets with money they had already invested in the Raptor.

Enter the aircraft "shortage" we have now, with "old aircraft" because NOBODY can stick with a program in the face of questions from the political hacks that know nothing of combat readiness or aviation in general.

Any Eagle driver out there would be "intrested" in a new Eagle, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.
For that matter any Viper driver out there would be "interested" in a new Viper, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 15:42
by mixelflick
Fox1 wrote:It sounds like any interest is mostly in using the F-15X in the air sovereignty role, with a secondary ground attack capability which the C model lacks. I would not mind seeing the Air Force purchase a couple hundred of these for such purposes, so long as it doesn't take away from F-35 buys. It might actually make better long term sense to buy new F-15s as opposed to trying to upgrade old, worn out C models or using upgraded and likewise aging F-16s for the role. A new build F-15 with the features of the Saudi F-15SA model would be quite sufficient for defending U.S. air space or performing stand-off strike missions, while being cheaper and easier to maintain and fly. I'm just not sure there is enough service life left in the legacy fleet to warrant any significant upgrades. Once you start talking structural modifications and the like, you're probably just better off going with new builds, especially if you get the unit cost down into the $85 million range they seem to be implying.


Not so sure about the air sovereignty thing. Do you really need new build F-15's carrying 16-22 AMRAAM's for this role? Sounds to me more like they want these F-15's as missile trucks, flying alongside F-22's...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 21:48
by elvis1
mixelflick wrote:
Fox1 wrote:It sounds like any interest is mostly in using the F-15X in the air sovereignty role, with a secondary ground attack capability which the C model lacks. I would not mind seeing the Air Force purchase a couple hundred of these for such purposes, so long as it doesn't take away from F-35 buys. It might actually make better long term sense to buy new F-15s as opposed to trying to upgrade old, worn out C models or using upgraded and likewise aging F-16s for the role. A new build F-15 with the features of the Saudi F-15SA model would be quite sufficient for defending U.S. air space or performing stand-off strike missions, while being cheaper and easier to maintain and fly. I'm just not sure there is enough service life left in the legacy fleet to warrant any significant upgrades. Once you start talking structural modifications and the like, you're probably just better off going with new builds, especially if you get the unit cost down into the $85 million range they seem to be implying.


Not so sure about the air sovereignty thing. Do you really need new build F-15's carrying 16-22 AMRAAM's for this role? Sounds to me more like they want these F-15's as missile trucks, flying alongside F-22's...


The missile truck role is really about the only real advantage the F-15 has over the F-35. It can can carry a large load at higher altitude and at higher speeds providing better boost for missiles. With stealth, the F-35 can get closer to adversary (negating the altitude / speed advantage of the F-15); however, it cannot remain stealthy while carrying a large load in Beast Mode. This gives the F-15 an advantage in the missile truck role. Newer F-15X would serve as good support for 5th gen aircraft until another high/fast/long range jet (with stealth) entered service (FB-22 style PCA); however, the F-15 makes little sense outside of the missile truck support role, unless you didn't have access to a true 5th gen fighter.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 22:16
by talkitron
elvis1 wrote:The missile truck role is really about the only real advantage the F-15 has over the F-35. It can can carry a large load at higher altitude and at higher speeds providing better boost for missiles. With stealth, the F-35 can get closer to adversary (negating the altitude / speed advantage of the F-15); however, it cannot remain stealthy while carrying a large load in Beast Mode. This gives the F-15 an advantage in the missile truck role. Newer F-15X would serve as good support for 5th gen aircraft until another high/fast/long range jet (with stealth) entered service (FB-22 style PCA); however, the F-15 makes little sense outside of the missile truck support role, unless you didn't have access to a true 5th gen fighter.


Israel might be disagreeing as the IAF is rumored to be buying a version called the F-15IA. They are using US military aid to pay for this but they certainly could instead use this aid to buy more F-35As. It is possible the IAF will use the F-15IA only as a missile truck, but I doubt it. Maybe the newer F-15s have a range / persistence advantage over the F-35A? Here is the Israel story:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-lo ... rm-boeing/

Take this with a grain of salt:

The F-15s being considered in the deal, to be dubbed IA for “Israel Advanced,” according to Israel Hayom, would be an upgraded version of the old plane that would include certain stealth capabilities, such as radar-absorbing paint and internal weapons carriage.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 22:32
by hythelday
Israel's adversaries do not have credible air forces to justify F-15 as a missile truck companion to the F-35. Even if Iran orderes a whole lot of Flankers today, Israel would still have the pole position.

If this report (that has already been floated around and caused so many rustled jimmies in the Israel thread) turns out to be true, then it'll have more to do with Eagles A-G prowess rather than anything else.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 04:07
by Corsair1963
lrrpf52 wrote:

F-15X is a pipe dream like the Phantom 2000 or Super Phantom was.


Honestly, wasn't that long ago that Boeing was trying to sell us on the F-15SE (Stealth Eagle). Which, came to nothing. So, why would the F-15X being any different??? :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 07:14
by aaam
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
Moral of my story; USAF typically isn't interested in 'upgrades' to their aircraft if it's going to exceed 25% of the aircraft's value; I highly doubt they're going to allocate funds/procurement of "legacy" aircraft if they cost even 75% of what the F-35 is costing. If the USAF had stood it's ground, and not paid politics with the F-22, we may still have Raptors rolling off the line, maybe the F-22B, and I'm sure they'd be less than $100M each; but then they couldn't have justified "waiting" for the more advanced F-35 to enter service 20 years later. Making future bets with money they had already invested in the Raptor.

TEG


In defense of USAF and the F-22, it wasn't a matter of standing their ground. Congress and DoD wanted the F-22 stopped. There was no question about it . It was going to happen, come hell or high water. Right or wrong became secondary, It became a matter of, "Who's in charge here". USAF was, "...made an offer they couldn't refuse". Heck! The Secretary of the Air Force and the USAF Chief of Staff were fired for trying to continue the F-22 (the official nuclear incident explanation was a smokescreen for press consumption). The message was received and understood.

As Kenny Rogers once said, "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em".

BTW, this isn't the only time such a thing has happened.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 08:08
by Corsair1963
That_Engine_Guy wrote:The USAF won't even spend the money to outfit their Eagle fleet with the newest PW-229 engines, why would they spend 10x more for new airframes?

Some ANG F-15s did get re-engined, and they came from ANG F-16s that received new engines that the GUARD lobbied Congress to get in their "combat coded" Vipers. The ANG F-15 fleet had it's readiness and capabilities greatly enhanced by hand-me-down engines that were almost 20 years old! If it wasn't for the ANG getting $$ directly from Congress, the USAF would have NEVER paid for ANG aircraft (that the USAF didn't want anymore in the first place....) to receive engine upgrades.

You're talking about the same USAF that has flown B-52s with outdated engines for the last 40 odd years. New engines would have paid for themselves way before now in fuel savings alone, not to mention maintenance costs of TF33 engines over the last 30 years. Now that they are 50 years old, the USAF is kicking the idea around again.... They should have done it the first time I saw the proposal kicked around in the mid 1990's when there were still hundreds of them flying.

Moral of my story; USAF typically isn't interested in 'upgrades' to their aircraft if it's going to exceed 25% of the aircraft's value; I highly doubt they're going to allocate funds/procurement of "legacy" aircraft if they cost even 75% of what the F-35 is costing. If the USAF had stood it's ground, and not paid politics with the F-22, we may still have Raptors rolling off the line, maybe the F-22B, and I'm sure they'd be less than $100M each; but then they couldn't have justified "waiting" for the more advanced F-35 to enter service 20 years later. Making future bets with money they had already invested in the Raptor.

Enter the aircraft "shortage" we have now, with "old aircraft" because NOBODY can stick with a program in the face of questions from the political hacks that know nothing of combat readiness or aviation in general.

Any Eagle driver out there would be "interested" in a new Eagle, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.
For that matter any Viper driver out there would be "interested" in a new Viper, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG


Only way the USAF is going to keep the A-10 and/or F-15C. Is if Congress forces them too! In short by the numbers you can't make a case for either. Only a political decision could change that.... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 20:39
by sferrin
aaam wrote:BTW, this isn't the only time such a thing has happened.


Blackbird and Tomcat come to mind.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 22:46
by aaam
sferrin wrote:
aaam wrote:BTW, this isn't the only time such a thing has happened.


Blackbird and Tomcat come to mind.


Tomcat is indeed one of the instances where this happened. In the case of Blackbird, AF wanted the F-12B as their interceptor to replace F-106. In that case, Congress supported the AF to th extant that they even funded the bird. McNamara wanted to force USAF to use more of his darling, the F-111, as its next interceptor and impounded the F-12B funds. it seemed likely that Congress was going to overrule him, so he ordered the Blackbird production line destroyed. This not only had the desired effect of preventing the F-12B from ever coming to fruition, it also precluded any possibility of any further production of any version of the Blackbird. I believe there were going to be three more SR-71s built as replacement birds, but that became impossible.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 11:36
by zero-one
I remember back then, mid to late 2000s, everyone was thinking future combat would be against insurgents and terrorist in caves. The word "non-state" actors became the new buzz word.

Almost every single weapons system being was being geared towards fighting "cave men" with no high end equipment.
*LCS
*Hi-Mars
*Zumwalt
*All them drones.

They we're all being described as a shift away from "cold war mentalities" where 2 rival forces go up against each other.
Instead they would be lighter, less armed, but more easily deployable than their counterparts.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 14:04
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:I remember back then, mid to late 2000s, everyone was thinking future combat would be against insurgents and terrorist in caves. The word "non-state" actors became the new buzz word.

Almost every single weapons system being was being geared towards fighting "cave men" with no high end equipment.
*LCS
*Hi-Mars
*Zumwalt
*All them drones.

They we're all being described as a shift away from "cold war mentalities" where 2 rival forces go up against each other.
Instead they would be lighter, less armed, but more easily deployable than their counterparts.


Excellent point!

Now that these non-state actors have been marginalized, we're going back to defending large swaths of land/ocean vs. a near peer adversary. The new defense budget seems to reflect that (thankfully), but we missed the F-22 boat (and presumably other weapons systems) thought to be "cold war relics". The next war is almost always different than the last, but it's likely going to be with China. Russia wouldn't last long and it'd have to resort to nukes sooner or later. China has the numbers, the tech is improving and the will to impose its authority over said large swaths of land/ocean.

Relative to airpower, the F-35 and increasing numbers of autonomous, unmanned platforms will be necessary to offset the Chinese quantity. We're still ahead quite a bit in most areas qualitatively, but damn - F/B-22's rolling off the production line would be a nice hedge against a LOT of unforseen "issues". Personally, I hold out hope the F-23 survived in some black program. Even a small force of 50-100 jets would make a big difference, especially in less than an all out war in the South China sea...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 02:12
by madrat
F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 09:39
by zero-one
In the case of the F-35, it was so versatile that they we're able to sell it to congress as a true post cold war fighter for striking "non state" actors that are hiding inside other countries.

You need to strike a terrorist cell in Pakistan but are hesitating in asking for permission as they may have a mole. No problem. F-35s can get in, drop bombs and get out.

But now that we are returning to peer adversary conflicts, the F-35 can accurately locate air and ground assets better than anything else, shoot them or share targeting info to other shooters making them more effective.

So peer adversary with high end threats or cave men hiding inside other countries. the F-35 delivers

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 13:26
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.


Have you seen the black budget? It exceeds Great Britain's total annual defense spending. I think it's pretty well established a lot of this is for work on things like the RQ-180, but there are undoubtedly others. I didn't say it was likely, I said I was holding out hope.

And the size of that black budget affords me a whole lot of hope... :)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 01:09
by jetblast16
USAF has "NO" interest is acquiring any more F-15's...."PERIOD"


But I have interest in watching them :twisted:


Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 22:38
by sinusoiddelta
I noticed some interesting features I noticed looking at the F-15E vs SA vs X vs 2040c
Image
The 2040c concept had fairly drastic changes to both the left and right wing root/cannon geometry. The F-15SA has similar looking “ears” on either side of the canopy. Does anyone have an idea what their purpose might be?

The F-15X concept has less drastic reshaping at the right wing root but appears as though it may not have a cannon at all.

Sorry if this has been brought up before!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 02:27
by sferrin
ECM. Singapore (F-15SG) has them too.

maxresdefault.jpg


5l-image-F-15SG.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 06:21
by Corsair1963
The USAF isn't buying the F-15X......(again for the thousand time) :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 15:37
by SpudmanWP
They are part of the ESM, Rafale has a similar layout.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 16:00
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.


Perhaps, but consider this...

The US "Black" budget is as large (or larger) than the entire defense budget of Great Britain. That's a lot of buckaroos, and not all of them are going toward stealthy flying wing ISR type aircraft. The YF-23A demonstrated phenomenal speed, agility but especially supercruise. In fact, it was said that it could fly an entire mission in super-cruise. The Raptor isn't capable of this, nor is the F-35. Nor is any other US platform that you can name.

A small force of 50 or so F-23A's would generate an incredible set of capabilities for the USAF, in the same way the F-117 did (total of 59 produced). Could be easily absorbed by that black budget, and would also be a nice hedge against F-35 program delays, which would have been occurring in spades right around the time this F-23A would have become operational.

The fact YF-23A performance specs are to this day still classified should tell us something. Nearly 30 years ago, it flew with capabilities still unrealized today. I rather doubt the USAF just sat on them, nevermind developed them further...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 17:09
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.


Perhaps, but consider this...

The US "Black" budget is as large (or larger) than the entire defense budget of Great Britain. That's a lot of buckaroos, and not all of them are going toward stealthy flying wing ISR type aircraft. The YF-23A demonstrated phenomenal speed, agility but especially supercruise. In fact, it was said that it could fly an entire mission in super-cruise. The Raptor isn't capable of this, nor is the F-35. Nor is any other US platform that you can name.

A small force of 50 or so F-23A's would generate an incredible set of capabilities for the USAF, in the same way the F-117 did (total of 59 produced). Could be easily absorbed by that black budget, and would also be a nice hedge against F-35 program delays, which would have been occurring in spades right around the time this F-23A would have become operational.

The fact YF-23A performance specs are to this day still classified should tell us something. Nearly 30 years ago, it flew with capabilities still unrealized today. I rather doubt the USAF just sat on them, nevermind developed them further...


They didn't do anything with the YF-12, XB-70, Skybolt, or ASALM, so doing nothing with the YF-23 wouldn't be unprecedented.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2018, 14:18
by mixelflick
Not entirely true..

The YF-12A's weapons systems eventually made their way into the F-14. And NASA continued using it as well as various Blackbird iterations for high speed/high altitude research. Ditto for the XB-70.

"Despite the accomplishments of the XB-70, time was running out for the research program. NASA had reached an agreement with the Air Force to fly research missions with a pair of YF-12As and a "YF-12C," which was actually an SR-71. These represented a far more advanced technology than that of the XB-70. In all, the two XB-70s had logged 1 hour and 48 minutes of Mach 3 flight time. A YF-12 could log this much Mach 3 time in a single flight.:"

We are told both died with NASA. Perhaps. But the data collected undoubtedly made its way into other programs, and its a safe bet at least some of it found its way back into the black world. You don't just ditch aircraft and associated technologies that are so cutting edge. And there's at least one suspicious quote out there from the YF-23A team that it "continues to fly today, in one form or another".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 06:02
by Corsair1963
What happen to the USAF interest in the F-15X??? :lmao:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 13:53
by jetblast16


The old girl still has some life in her :D

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 09:59
by edpop

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 11:17
by Corsair1963
Please, we've been over this again and again. The USAF has no interest in the F-15X and is not going to buy it.... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 14:01
by mixelflick
edpop wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdF-wpGbg70


12 new F-15X sounds like a test/evaluation squadron, not an operational capability. It probably doesn't even go this far, as the Pentagon may be looking for a price quote, vs. real aircraft. I love the F-15 and salivate at Boeing building the penultimate air to air version, but there's no point IMO. The F-35 does almost everything better and cheaper (total AAM loadout and cost per flight hour, off the top of my head).

I spoke with an F-35 pilot at this year's Great New England Airshow. He came from F-15's and said, "90% of what I can do in this airplane, I could never do in the F-15...". An F-16 pilot at the same show said his radar couldn't detect 2 F-35's that were 12 miles away. And that was after ground control told him where to look...

Speaks volumes..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 04:49
by weasel1962
Looks like Boeing's building a sales pitch around the carrying capabilities of the F-15X.

The USAF benefits from long ranged AAMs that are too big to fit into the internal bay. External mounting on F-35 really defeats the whole purpose of the F-35 in the first instance and even then the F-15X can carry 20+ AAMs. So ta-da... the quintessential missile truck.

12 just enough to test the concept. Longer range AAMs can be develop which will benefit the PCA. Win-win. Then in the 9th inning, pitch for more F-15Xs after the initial 12.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 05:35
by SpudmanWP
If you are betting the farm on a concept that at best might be used one or twice in your lifetime, then you have failed in defining a need for your airframe.

You don't need F-15X to "test the concept". Put some on some F-15Es.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 06:36
by weasel1962
12 F-15X is not "betting the farm". If I'm not wrong the X has 2 extra wing stations. Boeing is pitching an E upgrade as well so Boeing isn't dumb enough to bet their farm on the success of the X either.

If the X is "too expensive", hey there's that upgrade program by the way....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 07:30
by SpudmanWP
By "betting the farm", I meant that the only reason they give for buying it over current systems.

They should develop the missile and tactics before determining what platform will carry it. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 07:39
by weasel1962
Boeing's not in the AAM building business so there's no cart, only a horse. Its an old horse with claims it can win the grand derby and it can carry carts that's too wide or heavy for other younger stealthier one horse powered horses.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 07:49
by SpudmanWP
You are making my point for me.

The DoD (Not the USAF) is pushing this buy for the sake of keeping the line open. It's not about tactics or need. Now you are starting to see its supporters come up with an unproven niche for it to fill where the customer (the USAF) does not want it as it does not fit in the operational plan that they are developing.

bth, You is describing the cart before the racing commision has even ruled on what the race will look like, the distance, etc.

Corporate welfare, pure and simple.

It reminds me of the LCS program. They designed & built the ships before the modules were done and now there are a ton of problems with the modules. Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work. They need to make the systems stable and THEN build the ships around them, not the other way around.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 09:17
by geforcerfx
SpudmanWP wrote: Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work. They need to make the systems stable and THEN build the ships around them, not the other way around.


I thought the guns worked fine, just not going to be able to buy enough ammo with the massive class numbers reduction to make it cost effective to use.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 11:16
by weasel1962
SpudmanWP wrote:You are making my point for me.

...


I agree with what you have stated. If Boeing doesn't even try to make a case, they're not going to get any welfare. Can't fault them for trying.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 16:59
by SpudmanWP
I do fault them for trying, the pols in DC for accepting the bribes, and the "leadership" in the Pentagon who are layering their nest in preparation to move to the private sector after retirement.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:35
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work.


The only reason they, "don't work" is because after cutting the class to 3 units the unit cost of the ammo is such that they don't want to produce it.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:48
by SpudmanWP
They also down-gunned the secondaries and had no "plan-B" for the primaries (to shot normal 155mm Excalibur rounds).

I'm reminded of the saying "Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance"

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 22:54
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:They also down-gunned the secondaries and had no "plan-B" for the primaries (to shot normal 155mm Excalibur rounds).

I'm reminded of the saying "Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance"


Yeah. The USN definitely didn't cover itself with glory in the way they handled the Zumwalt. They could still turn it around but I doubt there is anybody who wants to touch it. :(

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 02:27
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Boeing's not in the AAM building business.


They were one of the DARPA T-3 contractors. For the missile truck concept to be remotely useful
against a high-end threat (anything with even basic HAVE GLASS signature reduction will have a first-look, first-shot advantage over the F-15X) you'll need the same AARGM-ER class (or bigger) missile.

The only plausible utility for the F-15X is in the cruise missile defense role but a lot of MQ-9s
with IRSTs and AIM-9X/CUDA/MHTK might be just as good.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 05:58
by Fox1
When it comes to the F-15X, it sure seems like everyone takes an extreme position on it. Either it will be the greatest thing ever (for supporters) or completely obsolete and useless (for the critics). I don't find either of those extreme positions to be valid. Such an aircraft certainly has limitations in a 5th generation fighter world. But it is also far from useless.

It would perform the homeland air sovereignty mission quite well. A big jet that can carry a lot of fuel and missiles, with good range and a powerful AESA radar are an ideal platform for such a mission. You don't need an F-22 to do that mission. It's not going to be tangling with the Su-35, the J-20, the J-31 or Su-57. It will be intercepting Bear bombers or shooting down cruise missiles launched by said Bear bombers in the event of hostilities breaking out. Otherwise, it will be intercepting and investigating wayward civilians in their Cessna or Beechcraft that get too close to something sensitive. For CONUS air defense, an F-15 variant will work just fine. You don't need a 5th generation fighter tied up performing such missions.

Otherwise, they would also remain quite useful in the stand-off ground attack mission. With weapons like the JASSM-ER, the F-15X can hit targets from distances well outside the engagement range of Russian S300 and S400 systems. In any war with a credible adversary, much of the early action is going to involve such strikes. Even with stealthy aircraft, you aren't going to send them right down main street. Anytime we are facing a credible air defense threat, we will exercise extreme caution, as we did during the Syria strikes last April. The F-15 can carry certain weapons that don't fit inside the F-35's weapons bay or that aren't well suited to use by the F-35. Though it is far more limited now that it once was, the F-15 is still capable of playing a role in today's air forces. Why else would countries like South Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Qatar be buying them? And why would Israel, which is currently receiving the F-35 into inventory be planning for an additional F-15 buy? Obviously they think it is still quite a useful platform that performs some task really well, otherwise they'd be buying a 100% F-35 fleet going forward. To me, that is a clue.

I am all aboard with the F-35. I think it is an awesome aircraft with immense capabilities. We need it. And we need it in numbers, as quickly as we can produce them. But I'm also not against keeping a second fighter type in production because I've never liked keeping all my eggs in one basket. Outside the F-35, the F-15 is the second most capable overall fighter the United States has in production. PCA is still years away, so it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to see us add some additional new build F-15 aircraft to our inventory. If nothing else, they'd be better than the worn out hulks we continue to fly now that should be retired to the Boneyard.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 06:54
by marauder2048
A US exit from the INF treaty greatly reduces the need for air-launched standoff from fast jets.
And it's not like there's a shortage of JASSM compatible airframes in the US inventory now.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia bought the F-15 because they were not allowed to buy the F-35. Singapore bought
the F-15 before the F-35 was available. South Korea is buying the F-35 and Japan is looking to sell their F-15s
in order to purchase more F-35s.

Israel is considering new F-15s because the IAF lost the argument with the the ground forces + Boeing is able
to bundle tankers, attack helicopters, V-22 and heavy transport helicopters.

If there's really a persuasive F-15 argument then $1.2 billion would zero-time between 40 - 60 F-15Cs all of
which already have AESAs and can carry a large number of missiles.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 19:56
by SpudmanWP
There are two other major reasons why Israel is getting (notice I did not say "buying") the F-15I+.
    --Boeing will dev & upgrade all the existing Israeli F-15Is to the same standard as part of the "sale".
    --The sale includes tankers and large helicopters which all come from the same manufacturer. Big discounts when you "buy" that much.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 19:58
by wrightwing
geforcerfx wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote: Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work. They need to make the systems stable and THEN build the ships around them, not the other way around.


I thought the guns worked fine, just not going to be able to buy enough ammo with the massive class numbers reduction to make it cost effective to use.

The guns work. The ammo is too expensive, so they aren't buying any.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 20:01
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:They also down-gunned the secondaries and had no "plan-B" for the primaries (to shot normal 155mm Excalibur rounds).

I'm reminded of the saying "Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance"


Yeah. The USN definitely didn't cover itself with glory in the way they handled the Zumwalt. They could still turn it around but I doubt there is anybody who wants to touch it. :(

They should remove the guns, and figure out how to use the space for more VLS tubes.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 21:57
by madrat
They just need a cheaper round to run through them. Settle for less range than original, but keep its high RoF. It's not exactly useless without LRAP.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 02:16
by 131stfwfan
marauder2048 wrote:A US exit from the INF treaty greatly reduces the need for air-launched standoff from fast jets.
And it's not like there's a shortage of JASSM compatible airframes in the US inventory now.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia bought the F-15 because they were not allowed to buy the F-35. Singapore bought
the F-15 before the F-35 was available. South Korea is buying the F-35 and Japan is looking to sell their F-15s
in order to purchase more F-35s.

Israel is considering new F-15s because the IAF lost the argument with the the ground forces + Boeing is able
to bundle tankers, attack helicopters, V-22 and heavy transport helicopters.

If there's really a persuasive F-15 argument then $1.2 billion would zero-time between 40 - 60 F-15Cs all of
which already have AESAs and can carry a large number of missiles.


Qatar's situation is true, they can't have the F-35 so instead the 4th gen programs all get a stimulus, but they also evaluated the F-15 in late 2009- The order has been in the works longer than the F-35 was even a possibility.

Not true for Saudi Arabia, who started asking for the new Eagles in 2007. As soon as the final ones are delivered, look for an F-35 buy about three-four years later, depending on their situation at the time. They will most likely be approved.

Israel also wanted more F-15's but as other's have posted on here when you are not directly 'buying' something you will take what is given. The U.S. needed another firm export customer for the F-35 in 2010, so why would they turn that down? Yes, the combo package helps, but as you wrote the F-15 is better for the ground forces than an F-35I.

Japan is selling half of their F-15's, and working with the U.S. to heavily upgrade/modify the other half. Again, there's a key reason for that.

Let's not pretend the F-15 is the consolation prize for the F-35. They are two separate missions and needs. One could argue drones, Tucanos, and F-16's would fulfill the role equally as well, but then you gut an entire community. If it were that easy the A-10 would have been retired already.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 03:38
by marauder2048
131stfwfan wrote:but as you wrote the F-15 is better for the ground forces than an F-35I.


Although the architect of it has since resigned, the IAF seems to have
lost the argument to the ground forces (which haven't achieved much in a long time)
with respect to doctrine; their F-15s are going to be reduced to flying TELs which is a
questionable use of fast jets for a country with vulnerable airfields.

131stfwfan wrote:Japan is selling half of their F-15's, and working with the U.S. to heavily upgrade/modify the other half. Again, there's a key reason for that.


Aside from Boeing's inside track with Japanese aerospace?
Japan at least sensibly recognizes their airfield vulnerability problem.

131stfwfan wrote:Let's not pretend the F-15 is the consolation prize for the F-35.


Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary...

131stfwfan wrote:They are two separate missions and needs. One could argue drones, Tucanos, and F-16's would fulfill the role equally as well, but then you gut an entire community.


You seem to be arguing for doctrine-by-inertia which history has a bad habit of punishing.

Cruise missile defense (CMD) is about the only area where (if you insist on fast jets) the
F-15 has an edge by virtue of stowed kills. For NORAD operations you still have to solve the
OTH detection problem which is going to require some type of persistent airborne asset which
if it's a drone you might as well arm.

For expeditionary operations, the F-15's (any stripe) high fuel consumption in max endurance makes
it much less suitable for CMD and you aren't likely to have the deep inventories of AAMs required to exploit
the F-15s greater magazine depth. And the OTH detection problem remains.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 02:36
by Corsair1963
First, the USAF isn't buying the F-15X plain and simple. Second, there is no mission that the latter could perform better than the F-35A. Which, explains the first part....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 13:28
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:First, the USAF isn't buying the F-15X plain and simple. Second, there is no mission that the latter could perform better than the F-35A. Which, explains the first part....


I largely agree.

But doesn't the high cost per flight hour of the F-35A play into this? Comparatively speaking, the F-15 (any variant) should be lower. Surely, over the life of the airframe (pretty dramatic, from what I've read for the F-15X) this has some bearing?

Or do you propose the cost per flight hour of the F-35 will come down with maturation?

Total number of missiles carried and cost per flight hour (and aircrew training) seem to be the F-15X's value proposition. I'm just wondering what your take is on those 3?

Many thanks..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 16:20
by weasel1962
still like to see the F-35A fly 1000nm combat radius unrefuelled but since when facts matter?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 17:01
by SpudmanWP
The CPFH of the F-35A is on par with the F-15E now and will be headed even lower as the depots come online and early LRIP jets are brought up to 3F. By this time next year the CPFH of the F-35A should be lower than the F-15E and nothing Boeing can do will change that. The SAR estimates that the lifetime average CPFH of an F-35A will only be 14% above an F-16C.

Here is a historical chart of RCPFH (a subset of CPFH covering fuel and maintenance) that covers several US fighters from the 1st year the F-35 appeared in the list to today. It is the only annual CPFH number that is published (ie not a lifetime estimate).

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 17:28
by zerion
sferrin wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work.


The only reason they, "don't work" is because after cutting the class to 3 units the unit cost of the ammo is such that they don't want to produce it.

The ammo is underperforming on range badly enough for them to consider removing the guns entirely.

madrat wrote:They just need a cheaper round to run through them. Settle for less range than original, but keep its high RoF. It's not exactly useless without LRAP.

Raytheon proposed adapting Excalibur with or without rocket boost but the navy doesn’t seem interested in developing a new round for the guns. You need the extra range to help keep the ship safe.

But :offtopic:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 08:05
by zero-one
Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 17:10
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?


Lightly loaded, it should. But it isn't designed to be lightly loaded, it's designed to carry considerably more air to air weaponry. Now some of that could be offset by using more powerful engines, and I'd suggest something in the neighborhood of 30,000 - 32,000lbs of thrust being optimal.

It's salivating to think about: New, more powerful motors. 16 to 24 AMRAAM's/9x's. New, more powerful radar, EW suite and infra-red search and track. But even with all that, it won't be an F-35. It won't have the sensors, SA or stealth. If it's AMRAAM PK is comparable, it's only because it can carry more of them, but then again will have to dispatch more for the same PK. And it will cost more, so I can't see why they're requesting these 12.

The only logical conclusion? There are still elements of the "Eagle" Air Force that remain in positions of power. That's the only reason I can come up with. That, and perhaps they're doing it to keep Boeing in the fighter game...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 21:44
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?

They'll have the -229 motors, at the very least. They're based on the latest Saudi/Qatari F-15s, but with a single seat cockpit.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 02:05
by weasel1962
All newbuild F-15s since 15K has been GE-129s. ADVENT is also retrofit-table to legacy engines...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:08
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:still like to see the F-35A fly 1000nm combat radius unrefuelled but since when facts matter?




Source and with what payload???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:12
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Lightly loaded, it should. But it isn't designed to be lightly loaded, it's designed to carry considerably more air to air weaponry. Now some of that could be offset by using more powerful engines, and I'd suggest something in the neighborhood of 30,000 - 32,000lbs of thrust being optimal.

It's salivating to think about: New, more powerful motors. 16 to 24 AMRAAM's/9x's. New, more powerful radar, EW suite and infra-red search and track. But even with all that, it won't be an F-35. It won't have the sensors, SA or stealth. If it's AMRAAM PK is comparable, it's only because it can carry more of them, but then again will have to dispatch more for the same PK. And it will cost more, so I can't see why they're requesting these 12.

The only logical conclusion? There are still elements of the "Eagle" Air Force that remain in positions of power. That's the only reason I can come up with. That, and perhaps they're doing it to keep Boeing in the fighter game...


Sorry, I've seen nothing that supports the F-15X or any version of the Eagle. Offers superior performance either lightly loaded or heavily loaded vs F-35A. Just another one of the many misconceptions when comparing a 4/4.5 Generation Fighter with the F-35.

:bang:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:13
by weasel1962
What the radius for a clean F-35A vs combat radius for 8 AAMs for an F-15C w CFTs?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:14
by Corsair1963
Anybody want to speculate on the cost of the F-15X vs the F-35A??? :wink:


fg18-23978_003-f35_91deliveries.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:22
by weasel1962
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:31
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:What the radius for a clean F-35A vs combat radius for 8 AAMs for an F-15C w CFTs?



Never seen an USAF F-15C fly with two CFT in the real world have you???

That said, with two external fuel tanks. We know the F-35 has far better range......(per former F-15C pilot Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn USAF)

https://youtu.be/QTgDTC8_PM0

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:34
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter

What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.



Laughable as nobody has recently purchased any model of the F-15 Eagle for under $100 Million. So, we're to believe Boeing can develop and build just "12" of the New F-15X for under that....

:lmao:

As for $95 Million for the F-35A that is not support by US Government or Lockheed Martin Sources....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:36
by Corsair1963
As I have said over and over again. The USAF is "not" going to purchase the F-15X or any other version of the Eagle. Why because you can't make a case for doing so....


:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 06:24
by weasel1962
F-15C fact sheet by USAF

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... -15-eagle/

Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks


F-35A fact sheet by USAF

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... htning-ii/

Range: More than 1,350 miles with internal fuel (1,200+ nautical miles), unlimited with aerial refueling

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 08:37
by wrightwing
You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 09:44
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.



We also have first hand accounts that the F-35A has superior range to the F-15C (Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn USAF) and F-15E (Lt. Col. Christine Mau USAF)......

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 10:03
by weasel1962
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.


What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 10:07
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.


What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.


So, you don't believe Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn and Lt. Col. Christine Mau......(former F-15C and F-15E pilots) :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 10:28
by weasel1962
Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:24
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...


You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:26
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...




The F-15C and F-15E carry about the same internal fuel at ~ 13,500 lbs each. While, the F-35A carries no less than 18,500 lbs. Now the Eagles can carry considerably more external fuel. Yet, to do so takes away from the weapons load it can carry. While, also having a far bigger penalty on performance!

As a matter of fact just to overcome the weight and drag of carrying external fuel tanks. You need "half" the fuel in those tanks. In short only half of the fuel is "useable".

BTW You think the twin F100's or even F110's are more fuel efficient than the single F135 in the F-35??? :doh:


As for needing 7 air refueling for a 3,000 mile trip. That is hardly what is needed or an accurate representation of the F-35 range. As such transit err on the side of caution. Which, would be no different for the F-15 or any other fighter flying on a similar ferry mission.


Oh, and Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn stated the F-35A had much more range than a F-15C with "TWO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:30
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.


They also use them as a training tool for both the Tanker and the Fighter. As the Tanker is going to fly 3,000 miles and only refuel once! Hell, they want the experience (training) and the US Government is already paying for the time (i.e. flight)....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:36
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.


They also use them as a training tool for both the Tanker and the Fighter. As the Tanker is going to fly 3,000 miles and only refuel once! Hell, they want the experience (training) and the US Government is already paying for the time (i.e. flight)....


That's what I was referring to. Plus it of course depends if F-35A pilots are flying to maximize range, or just to get there quickly.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:45
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.


They also use them as a training tool for both the Tanker and the Fighter. As the Tanker is going to fly 3,000 miles and only refuel once! Hell, they want the experience (training) and the US Government is already paying for the time (i.e. flight)....


That's what I was referring to. Plus it of course depends if F-35A pilots are flying to maximize range, or just to get there quickly.


Honestly, many reasons like keeping the F-35 pilots active. As flying for long hours is very fatiguing. You need something to keep you awake....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 18:03
by mixelflick
Pretty sure they use modafinil for that. It's an interesting drug. Not a stimulant (which were used plenty prior), but it keeps you alert/sharp for hours and hours.

Modafinil is a controlled substance/prescription only in the U.S.. But it's precursor (Adrafinil) is not. Takes a little longer to kick in (about 40-45 minutes), but you get the same effect.

Fun stuff :mrgreen:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 18:21
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.


What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.

Image

The source is an F-35 pilot talking about the amount of fuel it took to fly from Florida, to the Oshkosh airshow. There are other F-35 (prior F-15)pilots that have said the F-35 has more range than an Eagle with external fuel tanks, and by a good margin. The number of refuelings isn't based upon a "need." It's based upon keeping a certain fuel state for emergencies, and for proficiency training.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ight-stuff

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 00:52
by weasel1962
wrightwing wrote:The source is an F-35 pilot talking about the amount of fuel it took to fly from Florida, to the Oshkosh airshow. There are other F-35 (prior F-15)pilots that have said the F-35 has more range than an Eagle with external fuel tanks, and by a good margin. The number of refuelings isn't based upon a "need." It's based upon keeping a certain fuel state for emergencies, and for proficiency training.


Thanks for sharing. I have no doubt the F-35A is more fuel efficient than the eagle but by a factor of 2+? What is being claimed is an engine efficiency that is way more fuel efficient by 200% over the previous generation. If one is comparing 25k lbs of fuel (3 tanks) vs 18k lbs of fuel, possibly. But add 9500lbs in the CFTs, there's no range comparison.

Also disagree on the second point. If its 3000nm range, one doesn't need 7 air refuels for a 3000nm transit.

Its smoke and mirrors. I can understand the USAF (and its pilots) pushing for more F-35As, but clearly its PR rather than fact. The F-35A does not have a 3000nm range, not even close.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 00:58
by Corsair1963
Question isn't that the F-35A has a 3,000 mile range. It's how the F-35A compares to the F-15C/E/X with a given payload and range.

This claim that the Eagle has superior range and payload either clean or dirty isn't supported by facts. Just another one of the many F-35 misconceptions.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:15
by weasel1962
We seem to have a difference in definition of what is fact vs claim.

To me, what is fact is when there is a F-15 flight manual that indicates 10.45 lbs per nm fuel burn for optimum long range cruise (with 4 AIM-7s) that translate into 3000+nm range on a 34000 lb fuel load. What is also fact is when the USAF and Boeing being the manufacturer claims range of the same and a combat radius in excess of 1000nm.

To me, what is a claim is when the USAF says that the F-35A has a range of 1200nm, LM briefs in 20 documents all stating a combat radius of 600nm but a poster claiming that all the docs posted by LM and USAF are wrong, based on selective and distorted reading of what pilots have claimed, and stating categorically that the F-35A has a longer combat radius than the F-15 w CFTs.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:25
by weasel1962
It'd be also fun to see claims of the combat radius of an F-35A lugging 7 x 2000lbers...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:26
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:We seem to have a difference in definition of what is fact vs claim.

To me, what is fact is when there is a F-15 flight manual that indicates 10.45 lbs per nm fuel burn for optimum long range cruise (with 4 AIM-7s) that translate into 3000+nm range on a 34000 lb fuel load. What is also fact is when the USAF and Boeing being the manufacturer claims range of the same and a combat radius in excess of 1000nm.

To me, what is a claim is when the USAF says that the F-35A has a range of 1200nm, LM briefs in 20 documents all stating a combat radius of 600nm but a poster claiming that all the docs posted by LM and USAF are wrong, based on selective and distorted reading of what pilots have claimed, and stating categorically that the F-35A has a longer combat radius than the F-15 w CFTs.


Most of the original data for the F-35 was wrong and we know that for a fact. Likely because those numbers were "predictions" not hard numbers. To add to that we have first hand accounts from very respected pilots. With first hand experience. So, honestly don't understand what you don't get???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:41
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:It'd be also fun to see claims of the combat radius of an F-35A lugging 7 x 2000lbers...



As I have posted before the F-35A/C could easily carry 6 - 2,000 lbs JDAMs, 2 - Amraams, and 2- Sidewinders with ease. (well under gross) Hell, it can even go supersonic with that load. While, an F-15E Strike Eagle with just "5" - 2,000 lbs JDAMs, 2- Amraams, and 2-Sidewinders. Plus, Targeting / Nav Pods and External Fuel would be at GROSS! It also has far more drag and suffers much more of a "performance penalty" than the F-35.

F35GBU31.png




F15ELO.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:09
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The source is an F-35 pilot talking about the amount of fuel it took to fly from Florida, to the Oshkosh airshow. There are other F-35 (prior F-15)pilots that have said the F-35 has more range than an Eagle with external fuel tanks, and by a good margin. The number of refuelings isn't based upon a "need." It's based upon keeping a certain fuel state for emergencies, and for proficiency training.


Thanks for sharing. I have no doubt the F-35A is more fuel efficient than the eagle but by a factor of 2+? What is being claimed is an engine efficiency that is way more fuel efficient by 200% over the previous generation. If one is comparing 25k lbs of fuel (3 tanks) vs 18k lbs of fuel, possibly. But add 9500lbs in the CFTs, there's no range comparison.

Also disagree on the second point. If its 3000nm range, one doesn't need 7 air refuels for a 3000nm transit.

Its smoke and mirrors. I can understand the USAF (and its pilots) pushing for more F-35As, but clearly its PR rather than fact. The F-35A does not have a 3000nm range, not even close.


The number of refuelings aren't based upon the F-35s range. They're based upon safety margins for diverts, loiter, etc..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:18
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:We seem to have a difference in definition of what is fact vs claim.

To me, what is fact is when there is a F-15 flight manual that indicates 10.45 lbs per nm fuel burn for optimum long range cruise (with 4 AIM-7s) that translate into 3000+nm range on a 34000 lb fuel load. What is also fact is when the USAF and Boeing being the manufacturer claims range of the same and a combat radius in excess of 1000nm.

To me, what is a claim is when the USAF says that the F-35A has a range of 1200nm, LM briefs in 20 documents all stating a combat radius of 600nm but a poster claiming that all the docs posted by LM and USAF are wrong, based on selective and distorted reading of what pilots have claimed, and stating categorically that the F-35A has a longer combat radius than the F-15 w CFTs.

Again, you're comparing ferry range of the F-15 vs combat radius of the F-35. The ferry range with 2 CFTSs and 3 EFTs, is longer than the F-35s range. The combat radius with payload, is a lot less than the ferry range, though. Much of the difference is due to routing. An F-15 won't fly the same route/altitude as an F-35, in combat (unless it's completely permissive airspace.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:39
by weasel1962
Actually no I'm not. The range of the F-15C with CFTs and 3 tanks isn't very much different w 4 AIM-120s and 4 AIM-9s. The drag of the AAMs don't actually reduce the range as much. What affects combat radius significantly more is when lugging 2000lb-ers e.g. F-15Es.

ANG F-15Cs will fly exactly the same route for CAP as F-35As. I don't see why not. Agree it may be different for A2G for threat avoidance but that's again assuming there's no threat suppression.

The real impact kicks in is when the afterburner kicks in/mil-power and that's both the F-35A shines because of the fuel efficiency and has a disadvantage in terms of TW.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:57
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Actually no I'm not. The range of the F-15C with CFTs and 3 tanks isn't very much different w 4 AIM-120s and 4 AIM-9s. The drag of the AAMs don't actually reduce the range as much. What affects combat radius significantly more is when lugging 2000lb-ers e.g. F-15Es.

ANG F-15Cs will fly exactly the same route for CAP as F-35As. I don't see why not. Agree it may be different for A2G for threat avoidance but that's again assuming there's no threat suppression.

The real impact kicks in is when the afterburner kicks in/mil-power and that's both the F-35A shines because of the fuel efficiency and has a disadvantage in terms of TW.


The F-15C/E will have considerably more drag under any similar load than the F-35. Especially, the F-15E Strike Eagle as it will always carry external fuel and usually Nav/ Targeting Pods. This greatly effect not just the performance but the range of the Eagle.

As for the Amraams and Sidewinders not having much drag. Jon Beelsey says otherwise. As he was quoted as saying even Amraams (AIM-120's) have a big impact on performance. When carried externally........

https://youtu.be/96Kx6b7oKA8

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:15
by weasel1962
of course the F-15 has considerably more drag than the F-35. Yet with all the drag of carrying 2 CFTs and 3 tanks, it still reaches 3400nm.

Its a real testament of what PR means. Get a pilot to say the F-35A is magic plane and voila...hook, line, sinker.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the drag index of a AIM-120 on an F-15 is 1.7 on a CFT station, 2.3 on a wing station and 2.1 for an AIM-9. That has a major impact, all of less than 1% on the range. For comparison, the CFT drag number is 20.1 or a 600 gal tank is 12.2.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:16
by element1loop
wrightwing wrote:The combat radius with payload, is a lot less than the ferry range, though. Much of the difference is due to routing. An F-15 won't fly the same route/altitude as an F-35, in combat (unless it's completely permissive airspace.)


And that's where the comparative range discussion becomes moot.

First, the F-35 can remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes, even under full internal load.

Second, the F-35's planning system is thus much more likely to produce a very fuel-efficient optimal routing plan (speed vs altitude, ISA, wind-modelling, AOA change, etc) which sips the least cruise fuel to obtain the desired TOT, given also that the clean cruise speeds will be much higher, and will probably descend and climb half as much as an F-15E is likely to need to do, on a different flight profile.

Third, the F-35 will not need (and will avoid using) A/B thrust, due its light internal load (compared to available payload) and its clean configuration. Plus there’s the need to reduce thermal signature and maintain stable aspect control.

The loaded F-15E does not have the ability to rule-out potentially protracted use of A/B so needs a much larger buffer to keep a reserve viable, thus reducing its practical combat range substantially, in high-threat areas. The F-15E will necessarily avoid penetration, so needs standoff (and its range will gain benefits) but needs supports, or else it's unable to participate until the area is made benign via F-35s efficiently penetrating and controlling it.

So stated range is not that comparable in practice, and once F-35A does its thing the tankers can come in closer and the range and external drag becomes less of a hindrance for both types.

But I think we can all see the potential for F-35A to much better manage its fuel flow in combat in that, and to go relatively further as a result of better fuel management options, unless those are also being pushed hard to maximize radius. And at the beginning of a fight they probably will be pushed hard ... so which jet do you want more of in there?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:25
by weasel1962
No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:27
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


Were you not both also discussing CFTs, bags plus LGBs and minor AAM loads, comparatively?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:27
by h-bomb
weasel1962 wrote:of course the F-15 has considerably more drag than the F-35. Yet with all the drag of carrying 2 CFTs and 3 tanks, it still reaches 3400nm.

Its a real testament of what PR means. Get a pilot to say the F-35A is magic plane and voila...hook, line, sinker.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the drag index of a AIM-120 on an F-15 is 1.7 on a CFT station, 2.3 on a wing station and 2.1 for an AIM-9. That has a major impact, all of less than 1% on the range. For comparison, the CFT drag number is 20.1 or a 600 gal tank is 12.2.


Not per the USAF:
Range: 2,400 miles (3,840 kilometers) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ike-eagle/

But they are just posting PR BS here:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... htning-ii/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:28
by weasel1962
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


Were you not both also discussing CFTs and LGBs and minor AAM loads?


F-15C w LGBs? Which air force?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:30
by weasel1962
h-bomb wrote:Not per the USAF:
Range: 2,400 miles (3,840 kilometers) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ike-eagle/

But they are just posting PR BS here:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... htning-ii/


Strike eagle. See earlier link also by USAF for F-15Cs. Having to do a lot of reposting continuously so apologies if I just do a referral.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:42
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


And why would one want an F-15C CAP, when you can have and F-35A CAP? Six BVR missiles with VLO, EOTS and DAS not going to cut it?

The justification has to be for the F-15C to exist in service at all. And also to justify some imaginary need to obtain an F-15X (in any numbers) with CFT on the basis of A2A and AAM numbers 'advantage'. The F-15X would need all those weapons just to put the other guy off their game, and be lucky to get kills and survive.

But the F-35A is able to engage closer unseen, auto-organize a multi-axis ambush unseen, and fire weapons in numbers and timing sufficient to decimate an opposing flight quickly, from different directions unseen, and the remnant, if there is one, still has no SA. So are they sticking around or prosecuting anything at that point? So are more AAMs needed? Or are just more F-35As needed?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:45
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


Were you not both also discussing CFTs and LGBs and minor AAM loads?


F-15C w LGBs? Which air force?


This was part of the discussion:

viewtopic.php?p=408362#p408362

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:46
by weasel1962
Hell, I totally agree. F-35A is a better plane, no doubt and that's the plane I'd take for CAP vs a F-15C (or X) if I was a pilot.

Just don't like people denigrating a legacy unfairly just to sell more planes. The F-15 flies further. That's a simple fact by virtue of the crazy fuel loads it carries. Doesn't make the F-35 a lesser plane.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:55
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Hell, I totally agree. F-35A is a better plane, no doubt and that's the plane I'd take for CAP vs a F-15C (or X) if I was a pilot.

Just don't like people denigrating a legacy unfairly just to sell more planes. The F-15 flies further. That's a simple fact by virtue of the crazy fuel loads it carries. Doesn't make the F-35 a lesser plane.


An F-15E can theoretically fly further due crazy fuel loads, but not necessarily in practice in combat from here.

The C is much more doubtful and the A2A-capability-only is not a great reason to keep it around (and you would hope an F-15X is much more useful than that).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:03
by weasel1962
Agreed but I see it more as a F-15C vs F-16C/D rather than vs F-35. The F-35A buys are accelerating so the all legacy sqns will be earmarked for replacement. Its just a question of which goes first. Some people might call it a happy choice having to choose between an F-16C/D or an F-15C on which gets moved first since whichever remains is still a fantastic aircraft.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C. The alternative is using the F-35A in the A2A role. I don't see a right or wrong answer here.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:04
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Hell, I totally agree. F-35A is a better plane, no doubt and that's the plane I'd take for CAP vs a F-15C (or X) if I was a pilot.

Just don't like people denigrating a legacy unfairly just to sell more planes. The F-15 flies further. That's a simple fact by virtue of the crazy fuel loads it carries. Doesn't make the F-35 a lesser plane.



LOL :lmao:

HELLO, the F-15 doesn't fly further.......Yet, feel free to go tell Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn (USAF), the Commander of the 33rd Operational Support Squadron at Eglin AFB, FL and Lt. Col. Christine Mau (USAF), Deputy Commander of 33rd Fighter Wing Operations Group also from Eglin AFB. Which, are both ex Eagle Drivers. (F-15C and F-15E respectively) That you "know" more than them.......

:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:15
by weasel1962
I don't claim to know more than pilots. Just stating facts which are supported by USAF, manufacturer data, a lot of F-35 presentations that show combat range and a simple explanation reconciling what the pilots stated to the data. Still haven't read anything that is contradictory.

What however is clearly debunked is that the F-35A is way better in every conceivable role the F-15 can do which is not the case nor what the pilots have suggested (which you appear to say "supports" your stance).

Just wanted to state that I'm not the first to claim the other party is crazy which is what you have just done (same as in the past). So run along and complain to the mods again.......that's incredibly christian...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:18
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Agreed but I see it more as a F-15C vs F-16C/D rather than vs F-35. The F-35A buys are accelerating so the all legacy sqns will be earmarked for replacement. Its just a question of which goes first. Some people might call it a happy choice having to choose between an F-16C/D or an F-15C on which gets moved first since whichever remains is still a fantastic aircraft.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C. The alternative is using the F-35A in the A2A role. I don't see a right or wrong answer here.


I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.

F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:20
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:I don't claim to know more than pilots. Just stating facts which are supported by USAF, manufacturer data, a lot of F-35 presentations that show combat range and a simple explanation reconciling what the pilots stated to the data. Still haven't read anything that is contradictory.

What however is clearly debunked is that the F-35A is way better in every conceivable role the F-15 can do which is not the case nor what the pilots have suggested (which you appear to say "supports" your stance).

Just wanted to state that I'm not the first to claim the other party is crazy which is what you have just done (same as in the past). So run along and complain to the mods again.......



Sorry, that your online sources aren't supported by people that have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A. Yet, what do they know....... :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:23
by weasel1962
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Agreed but I see it more as a F-15C vs F-16C/D rather than vs F-35. The F-35A buys are accelerating so the all legacy sqns will be earmarked for replacement. Its just a question of which goes first. Some people might call it a happy choice having to choose between an F-16C/D or an F-15C on which gets moved first since whichever remains is still a fantastic aircraft.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C. The alternative is using the F-35A in the A2A role. I don't see a right or wrong answer here.


I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.

F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.


Noted. That's why the SLEP starts with F-16.

I'm keeping an open mind but I haven't seen any hard data that supports a different conclusion.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:24
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, that your online sources aren't supported by people that have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A. Yet, what do they know....... :shock:


USAF, LM and Boeing doesn't have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A? Shocking is indeed the word.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:31
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C.


I forgot to address that bit.

That would have been valid logic 2-years ago, but the upgrade of data comms and IRSTs on legacy fleet, and the provision of a massive gusher of situational awareness, makes this not a prohibitive concern. The F-16C/D likewise just got a whole lot more deadly in A2A, so are probably sufficient for the support escort role until more F-35A are built.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:42
by element1loop
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I don't see a right or wrong answer here.


I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.


One other point here, the cost to operate per hour with a single light-fighter (with bonus A2G) as opposed to a twin heavy-fighter, where more fuel = more dollars spent, and more fuel to do less is not conserving resources efficiently to smooth the transition towards an F-35A force, sooner.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:44
by weasel1962
Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:58
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...


Come on, you know why that happens.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 05:04
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...


Come on, you know why that happens.



Of course he does but it never stops him..........

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 05:52
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...


Come on, you know why that happens.


Of course he does but it never stops him..........


Seriously, how is that not "time wasted?"

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 10:04
by weasel1962
Just thinking out loud here. If some posters are right that the F-35A's real combat radius is 1000 or 1500nm, then what would be the real combat radius of the F-35B and F-35C? 1000nm and 1650nm?

So what are those senators on the hill complaining of the lack of combat radius on the navy F-35s? They should listen to the USAF pilots.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 12:08
by hkultala
zero-one wrote:Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?


"turning into unstable airframe" and getting any reasonable benefit from that would mean moving the wings forward, or somehow moving the center of gravity backwards. I don't think there is any reasonable possibility for that with any reasonable cost in F-15, too much structure would have to be changed.

Though AFAIK F-16 was designed in a way that there were two different positions to attach the wings, forward (unstable) position, and a "stable backup position" slightly behind it.
If they would not have gotten the FBW system to work well enough , they could have easily converted it into a stable plane with less performance by moving the wing to the stable backup position.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 16:00
by mixelflick
I too, am interested in F-15X motors.

The 229 would seem the logical choice. Already in the inventory, powerful and efficient. But what of the new, more powerful GE motors in the Saudi F-15SA? If memory serves, the 229 delivers around 25,000lbs of thrust, and the newer GE motors around the 30,000lb mark.

Or is thrust less of an issue in the F-15X than it is in the SA, given the SA has a decided Strike Eagle flavor to it. The X seems to be a purely air to air machine, and as such won't weigh nearly as much as an SA?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 19:00
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:Just thinking out loud here. If some posters are right that the F-35A's real combat radius is 1000 or 1500nm, then what would be the real combat radius of the F-35B and F-35C? 1000nm and 1650nm?

So what are those senators on the hill complaining of the lack of combat radius on the navy F-35s? They should listen to the USAF pilots.

Nobody is suggesting that the "real" combat radius of the F-35 is 1,000 to 1,500nm. The combat radius isn't the ferry range divided in half. Nobody is claiming a 3,000nm ferry range, either. 900 miles is 782nm, and no plane flies till it's empty, so part of the the fuel is unusable, in the range calculation.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 19:09
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:I too, am interested in F-15X motors.

The 229 would seem the logical choice. Already in the inventory, powerful and efficient. But what of the new, more powerful GE motors in the Saudi F-15SA? If memory serves, the 229 delivers around 25,000lbs of thrust, and the newer GE motors around the 30,000lb mark.

Or is thrust less of an issue in the F-15X than it is in the SA, given the SA has a decided Strike Eagle flavor to it. The X seems to be a purely air to air machine, and as such won't weigh nearly as much as an SA?

The -229s are 29k motors.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 19:38
by chucky2
I wonder if the 12 plane order could be used as aggressor aircraft. Given how far behind Russia is, they'd be perfect for imitating SU-35, and future SU-35+. Same size, same radar return'ish, really long airframe life, provides better than adversary radar and jamming so can train harder than real fight, etc. Sorta complete overkill for that role though, be cheaper to just rehab existing F-15C.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 00:02
by marsavian
element1loop wrote:F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.


Disagree. F-22/F-35 could be forward controllers vectoring in F-15 missile trucks which would be radar silent either outside of an enemy's radar cone detection or inside that cone but protected by the stealth aircraft's EW jamming. The stealth aircraft then passes target tracks through Link 16 for the radar silent F-15 to shoot their missiles to. The advantage of the F-15 over the F-16 in this scenario is twice the missiles and twice the endurance as well as superior high altitude performance which increases missile range.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 01:29
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:
element1loop wrote:F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.


Disagree. F-22/F-35 could be forward controllers vectoring in F-15 missile trucks which would be radar silent either outside of an enemy's radar cone detection or inside that cone but protected by the stealth aircraft's EW jamming. The stealth aircraft then passes target tracks through Link 16 for the radar silent F-15 to shoot their missiles to. The advantage of the F-15 over the F-16 in this scenario is twice the missiles and twice the endurance as well as superior high altitude performance which increases missile range.


In the early days of the F-22 they did this in an exercise and the F-15s doing so cleaned everybody's clocks. (Maybe they still do this. . .probably.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 01:46
by element1loop
marsavian wrote:
element1loop wrote:F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around. So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.


Disagree. F-22/F-35 could be forward controllers vectoring in F-15 missile trucks which would be radar silent either outside of an enemy's radar cone detection or inside that cone but protected by the stealth aircraft's EW jamming. The stealth aircraft then passes target tracks through Link 16 for the radar silent F-15 to shoot their missiles to. The advantage of the F-15 over the F-16 in this scenario is twice the missiles and twice the endurance as well as superior high altitude performance which increases missile range.


I question the premises of this whole 'scenario'.

There's some real and anticipated need for this?

And even if there were a need for it for say 2-years of bridging capability (which I think is already covered from 2020 anyway) the F-35 fleet is set to grow by 360 new jets every 2-years. So there goes the presumed ‘need’ for F-15C, or F16C/D, for front-line A2A mix in 2021. That mix requirement is going to evolve very quickly after the current year is over.

And why should the F-22A or F-35A need or want to be 'forward controllers' for F-15Cs even prior to that? Do we think the initial squadrons of 5th-gens will empty their missile load and fail to get sufficient kills to decisively stymie an air attack? Or that there will be insufficient follow-on 5th-gens coming in, within minutes, to replace them? Will the OPFOR presume there will be no more 5th gens from that point?

In two years the USAF alone is going to have hundreds of F-22As and F-35As available to fight that way. Let's say there's 200 5th-gens with an average of 6.5 AAM missiles per jet, or 1,300 missiles per flight cycle of that force. That conservatively equates to a kill potential of ~325 opposing fighters per flight cycle of that force (presuming 4 missiles expended per kill). What opposing force could sustain that battle for a week, and hope to win? And that's from USAF F-35A FOC time-window forward.

And it's the F-35A that's the adjunct to the smaller fleet of F-22As. The F-15C was that and now the F-35A's growing numbers are supplanting it. USAF FOC of F-35A will be the final part of the replacement of F-15C within that F-22A A2A support role. That was made clear years ago. Hence the higher numbers of F-35A to be bought for the USAF. Thus the prior Hi-Lo mix paradigm is fading away due to the relative lack of F-22A and the better than expected F-35A A2A result, plus the lack of need for it when you have BVR air dominance coming from both types.

Achieving VERY high BVR missile range is also moot with the F-35A as they can flank, ambush and kill unseen, as a stealthy wolf-pack, against non-alerted opponents, from 40 to 80 km BVR radius with excellent pk and energy killing. Just fly to not get closer and fight to not be seen.

Thus the supposed speed and altitude BVR ‘advantage’ of mixing in F-15s has also become moot – that’s a 4th-gen consideration and will be increasingly operationally inconsistent with a rapidly evolving 5th-gen CONOPS

But if more missiles were actually required (which I currently don't accept) F-35A could carry them externally too, and could be made to do so long before you could build an F-15X. So much for that aircraft. Consequently an F-15 "magazine depth" argument is misguided and not a solution to anything, including with respect to keeping the F-15C longer. It’s back of the bus now and in a few more years it will be dead wood – and time to go.

Plus even the F-16C/D will be on the ground when a large-scale stealth fight gets rolling. Having those in the air and forwards would just provide early-warning markers (same applies to F-15C so where's its 'magazine' when you want it? Going to sacrifice/compromise surprise?).

Plus an OPFOR will be almost all 4th-gens with low SA and getting totally reamed by 5th-gens. It’ll be a long time until that changes. And the F-35A could do both A2A and A2G Day-1, Hour-1. If the OPFOR don’t know where you are then you can do that, plus complete your attack mission, especially when using an AIM-120D as you won't even need to use the afterburner to throw it within the NEZ. And even if it missed do they know where you are? No. So keep on truckin'.

The only sensible question is how do you get more F-35A faster and retire legacy A2A sooner and save more money in the process?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 01:47
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
In the early days of the F-22 they did this in an exercise and the F-15s doing so cleaned everybody's clocks. (Maybe they still do this. . .probably.)


How did that work given that the F-22 is only now Link-16 receive? IFDL gateways on the F-15s?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 02:15
by marsavian
F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.

So along with this high altitude air superiority dedicated hunting pack capability the F-15X could also provide high kinematic continental defense against incoming missiles and long range bombers. Could the F-35 do the job as well ? Mostly yes but why waste an F-35 standing by just for air defense and superiority when it is more suited to deliver payloads on contested battlefields ? Sure it is a Boeing political ploy to prolong the life of the F-15 but the F-15 still is one hell of an interceptor and if it can basically back up F-22 in its air superiority tasks it will not be a useless new aircraft even if it is non-stealthy.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 02:40
by element1loop
marsavian wrote:F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.

So along with this high altitude air superiority dedicated hunting pack capability the F-15X could also provide high kinematic continental defense against incoming missiles and long range bombers. Could the F-35 do the job as well ? Mostly yes but why waste an F-35 standing by just for air defense and superiority when it is more suited to deliver payloads on contested battlefields ? Sure it is a Boeing political ploy to prolong the life of the F-15 but the F-15 still is one hell of an interceptor and if it can basically back up F-22 in its air superiority tasks it will not be a useless new aircraft even if it is non-stealthy.


This is still not taking into account the total effect of a large penetrating VLO F-35 attack force. It will positively eat up an OPFOR with DEAD and ground attack OCA, much faster and more persistently than the legacy force ever did, along with far better sensors and weapons that are basically immune to weather, noise and obscurants and a faster engagement cycle, with more decisions being made from cockpits.

And will the USA be fighting alone in such a large-scale fight? Very unlikely. But we'll necessarily presume it is. I would then agree that until about 2021, the F-15C will have a place working with the F-22A to provide support. And because of the potential for multi theatre fighting, it may have a place to do it until about 2023.

At which point there will be more than enough upgraded F-22A and initial implementations of Block 4 on hundreds of US F-35s of all types, to not need the legacy A2A fleet to support F-22A at all, so I would have all F-15Cs in storage from end of 2023. The A2G effect of that many penetrating Bk3f and Bk4 F-35s can eliminate the bulk of the A2A threat on the ground and render the whole grand BVR battle scenario a nothin'-burger.

As it's supposed to.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 03:48
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.



I'm sure the F-22/F-35 force is going to just *love* having hot, flying corner reflectors betraying their position; the
geometry for the missile truck arrangement is going to be obvious to a high-end adversary.

I also like this battlefield where the F-35 is compelled to fly around with no external stores but the F-15X can
fly around with impunity.

marsavian wrote:the F-15X could also provide high kinematic continental defense against incoming missiles and long range bombers.


So could SLEP'ed F-15Cs at a fraction of the cost of new builds.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 03:49
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
In the early days of the F-22 they did this in an exercise and the F-15s doing so cleaned everybody's clocks. (Maybe they still do this. . .probably.)


How did that work given that the F-22 is only now Link-16 receive? IFDL gateways on the F-15s?


Voice.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 03:51
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.



I'm sure the F-22/F-35 force is going to just *love* having hot, flying corner reflectors betraying their position; the
geometry for the missile truck arrangement is going to be obvious to a high-end adversary.


Why would they? They wouldn't be flying in formation. F-22s would be miles away, sitting up at 65k ft.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 04:56
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:Why would they? They wouldn't be flying in formation. F-22s would be miles away, sitting up at 65k ft.


Sure but you have a very observable F-15 flight that's responding to threat movement that's
beyond the range of the flight's organic sensors. That threat movement (along with comms analysis)
could be deliberately contrived to help tease out the unseen AWACS.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 08:51
by weasel1962
Can always put a freedom 550 on an F-15X instead of a U2 or global hawk. Might be a better platform to go into battle with.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08 ... hawk-uavs/

Forgot too, Talon Hate.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 10:35
by marauder2048
The Air Force rightly regards gateways as band-aids which is why only 4 Talon Hate pods were purchased;
it's an fairly limited capability.

Shouldn't an essentially new build/new type have integrated MADL/IFDL antennae?
That's always been the pitch for the ease of enhancing non-LO, legacy designs.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 11:06
by popcorn
Another possibility not requiring a gateway ... L3 Communications' Chameleon waveform demoed as part of Project Missouri. It utilizes existing the L-band antenna on fighters to transmit and receive data transmissions spread within in background noise,

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 01:51
by vilters
Modern warfare is not WW2 any more.

First waves are cruise missiles only.

Then send in the lot of F-15/F-16/F-18 to keep the remaining enemy radars/fighters/ busy so you can find out where these cruise missiles attacks survivors are.

Let the F-35 go in lower and do guerilla style prime target attacks and the clean-up of the leftovers.
Unseen in, unseen out.
All the enemy sees is the rest of their assets blowing up...

Let the F-22 stay at 65K + and do the "on site organization/coordination", and "emergency help here and there.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 03:13
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
So could SLEP'ed F-15Cs at a fraction of the cost of new builds.



Yes, and the USAF doesn't even want to do that! Speaks volumes in my book..... 8)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 06:38
by element1loop
vilters wrote:Modern warfare is not WW2 any more.

First waves are cruise missiles only.

Then send in the lot of F-15/F-16/F-18 to keep the remaining enemy radars/fighters/ busy so you can find out where these cruise missiles attacks survivors are.

Let the F-35 go in lower and do guerilla style prime target attacks and the clean-up of the leftovers.
Unseen in, unseen out.
All the enemy sees is the rest of their assets blowing up...

Let the F-22 stay at 65K + and do the "on site organization/coordination", and "emergency help here and there.


Nah, disagree.

Cruise weapons plus MALDs to provide EA and then simulate legacy jets, with the F-35 maxing its altitude to keep well away from GBAD. That provides a much better footprint for sensors and comms, plus almost no cloud, precipitation and lower turbulence, plus far better fuel burn for more distance and much better loiter. Plus a much lowered thermal-signature in cold air cooling the airframe and skin. Plus far better weapon application parameters and range, plus more vertical standoff. And altitude can be converted quickly into speed to get somewhere, and it's much harder for any SAM to track, lock or hit. And much easier to kill a SAM's engagement radar, or a VHF sensor. And to hunt for and locate IADS elements. Even a snap-shot of AIM-120D or AIM-9X-3 at precisely located sensors from altitude would often be enough.

If you go down low you just get more disadvantages that far outweigh the presumed advantages, and the effective enema sensor footprints are all much greater volumes at lower altitude, and overlap more, and the number of weapons enema can use on you goes up sharply.

And it remains to be seen how well VHF can operate against area-EA from so many potential noise-floor altering sources. Not that well I expect. Plus HF and VHF emitters will effectively be 'fixed' first-wave cruise missile targets, so getting tracked becomes just a weapon management issue.

So it's EO that's the lingering quiet potential problem for the F-35, and that's much better to defeat if you're high as possible, in cold air with a fighter DIRCM and EA.

Legacy jets are ...................... --> "... back of the bus ...".

2c

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:05
by zero-one
I think the USAF is interested not because the F-15X is better than the F-35 in any way, shape or form but simply because its cheaper.

Not to buy because the F-35 already went below the $90M mark which I think the F-15X can't do. I'm talking about operation and life cycle cost.

Lets face it, we don't need to be stealthy in every single mission. In fact there are missions where you want your presence to be known. Sure putting the Loony lenses will do that, but every minute in the air the F-22/35 spends is a minute worth of unnecessary battering on the RAM coatings.

I think the F-15x will fill a niche role. by the year 2030+ the USAF will be made up mostly of 5th gens. But who does the occasional Tu-95 intercepts? who takes down the pesky Su-22 that decided to breach the no fly zone. by that time most F-16s and F-15 will have been retired and withdrawn from front line service . Using the F-22's precious flight hours on that will be overkill.

Plus I read a report before that says a team of F-15s and F-22s actually produced better results than a team made up of either type

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 13:17
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:I think the USAF is interested not because the F-15X is better than the F-35 in any way, shape or form but simply because its cheaper.

Not to buy because the F-35 already went below the $90M mark which I think the F-15X can't do. I'm talking about operation and life cycle cost.

Lets face it, we don't need to be stealthy in every single mission. In fact there are missions where you want your presence to be known. Sure putting the Loony lenses will do that, but every minute in the air the F-22/35 spends is a minute worth of unnecessary battering on the RAM coatings.

I think the F-15x will fill a niche role. by the year 2030+ the USAF will be made up mostly of 5th gens. But who does the occasional Tu-95 intercepts? who takes down the pesky Su-22 that decided to breach the no fly zone. by that time most F-16s and F-15 will have been retired and withdrawn from front line service . Using the F-22's precious flight hours on that will be overkill.

Plus I read a report before that says a team of F-15s and F-22s actually produced better results than a team made up of either type


That would make sense if they were buying 24-36 copies per year until they had around 200+ for those missions. But the buy looks limited to a dozen here and there and Boeing isn't capable or producing much more than 1.25 airframes per month. PCA will be flying while they are trying to stock up on new F-15s.

Seems like a jobs program for Boeing.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 14:13
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:
That would make sense if they were buying 24-36 copies per year until they had around 200+ for those missions. But the buy looks limited to a dozen here and there and Boeing isn't capable or producing much more than 1.25 airframes per month. PCA will be flying while they are trying to stock up on new F-15s.

Seems like a jobs program for Boeing.


Well the plan could be, buy 12 for evaluation
Buy another 36 in 2025+ if you like it
buy 48 in 2030 when F-15Cs start being retired.

by 2035+ you'll have 96 F-15Xs making up your low end air superiority squadrons.
They'll do all the mundane task "unworthy" of the F-22/35's time.

-No fly zones
-intercepting the bears
-routine fly bys
-some aggressor training maybe. (F-22s and F-35s don't make good target practice)

Point is, You don't need all your soldiers to be Navy Seals, you still need some good old fashioned Infantry men from time to time.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 14:58
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
That would make sense if they were buying 24-36 copies per year until they had around 200+ for those missions. But the buy looks limited to a dozen here and there and Boeing isn't capable or producing much more than 1.25 airframes per month. PCA will be flying while they are trying to stock up on new F-15s.

Seems like a jobs program for Boeing.


Well the plan could be, buy 12 for evaluation
Buy another 36 in 2025+ if you like it
buy 48 in 2030 when F-15Cs start being retired.

by 2035+ you'll have 96 F-15Xs making up your low end air superiority squadrons.
They'll do all the mundane task "unworthy" of the F-22/35's time.

-No fly zones
-intercepting the bears
-routine fly bys
-some aggressor training maybe. (F-22s and F-35s don't make good target practice)

Point is, You don't need all your soldiers to be Navy Seals, you still need some good old fashioned Infantry men from time to time.


Yeah, that point isn't lost on me that you don't require 5th gen stealth fighters for every mission, especially homeland defense. However, we don't live in a society with unlimited defense budgets and the USAF could just as easily ramp up production of the 35A and outpace the theoretical buys of the 15X. And the costs of the 35 are coming down.

Furthermore, the USAF doesn't require the purchase of 11 or 12 15X to evaluate them. We build the bloody things. Don't need to by a half squadron to evaluate for a year or two. Our pilots already have flown the Saudi spec F-15 and the Korean Slam Eagle.

You may not need a seal team 6 member for every infantry fighter, but that is exactly what the F-15X is. If you want a low cost option to the F-35, then look to the F-16 if you want to fly a jet with an american flag in low intensity hot spots. We have (what is it) about 900 F-16s? We have about 175 F-15C? Its probably time to let the majestic lady finally go.

I will admit I am not up to speed on F-16 costs, but the new ones coming off the line must surely be cheaper than the F-15X. Someone please tell me if I am incorrect - I am just assuming a single to be cheaper than a twin.

And back to the buys. That's a pathetic buy rate to buy a whopping 95 copies 16 years from now. You do the math; that's an average of 6/yr. The USAF can ramp up production of the 35A to about 20 more a year over the 60 or so it is buying.

Then there is the cost of training pilots to fly an additional type. Maintaining a training wing. Simulators. Depot. Ect. The entire logistics costs of maintaining another type. All the adds up and would be cheaper than simply buying more F-35A.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 15:19
by zero-one
I'm telling ya its the RAM coatings.
F-35s are cheap to buy but those RAM coatings are added, unnecessary cost for a lot of missions.

Maybe theres a lot of reasons.
5th gens work best when they work with 4th gens. There was a report where the F-22/F-15 combo achieved a lot more kills than a pure F-22 flight

So the USAF may want to keep flying F-15s alongside F-22s for the duration of the F-22's life. Heck if the Stealth/Non Stealth combo remains relevant in 2050+ We might even see F-15s being produced to fly along side PCA. By 2072 it'll be flying it's "100 years of service demo"
The F-15 could be the B-52 of the fighter world. It's not the best at anything, but when you need a low end, its perfect.

Think about it, If the Stealth + Non Stealth Combo works so well, give me another option where we can keep non stealth assets in the air 2030 onwards

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 15:30
by crosshairs
I will tell you what works better than a Stealth + Non Stealth combo, is a Stealth + Stealth combo.

There is no reason to continue buy aluminum/titanium radar reflectors just because they have AESA and can carry 20 amraam. The only thing is the F-15 has a center station that can carry some pretty big and heavy items that the 35 *probably* can't carry. Perhaps hypersonic missiles. That's the only logical reason to buy a few dozen of the F-15X.

The F-35 is capable of carrying an impressive load of AAMs and when the day is done, the crews can take off the pylons and you have a stealth AC again.

If RAM is expensive and not needed in low intensity areas like middle east where no one has got stealthy anything, then don't maintain the RAM in the field while deployed.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 18:05
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:I will tell you what works better than a Stealth + Non Stealth combo, is a Stealth + Stealth combo.


I just spent the last few hrs looking in vein for the report that has an airmen's testimony where F-22s working with F-15s achieved greater success than just F-22s.

A lot of speculation was discussed about that statement, but the consensus was, F-15s were used to lure bandits to F-22 kill zones.

If you think about it, Operation Bolo was the same way. Migs didn't want F-4s, so they had to be fooled into thinking the F-4s were F-105s. In today's case, why would bandits even fly CAP if they can't see the 5th gens.

You'll need something to lure them out to play. You cant always bomb all the airfields.
sure you can put externals on an F-35 to do that job, but you're still paying for the RAM coating's maintenance later.

crosshairs wrote:The only thing is the F-15 has a center station that can carry some pretty big and heavy items that the 35 *probably* can't carry. Perhaps hypersonic missiles. That's the only logical reason to buy a few dozen of the F-15X.


The reason why you're struggling with this is because you're looking for an area where the F-15 is better than the F-35 to justify why they need it. You wont find it.

The reason why they need it is closer to the reason why they keep the B-52 around. The B-1 can do everything better but at higher operating cost.

crosshairs wrote:If RAM is expensive and not needed in low intensity areas like middle east where no one has got stealthy anything, then don't maintain the RAM in the field while deployed.

They'll still have to do periodic RAM maintenance.

What happens in 2030 beyond when the F-15C and F-16Cs have reached the end of their service lives
Are you suggesting that the USAF purposely maintain a squadron of poorly maintained F-35s to carry out these missions.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 23:26
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:The reason why they need it is closer to the reason why they keep the B-52 around. The B-1 can do everything better but at higher operating cost.


F-15X is more expensive to buy and operate compared to F-35A + F-22A combo.

There was a large existing B-52 fleet that could be upgraded (for many decades). Was there money to buy more B-1? B-52 could survivably do most of the same jobs with long-range standoff weapons plus sufficient withdraw and tail-chase speed, from far enough out to be viable, if it had good regional SA, updated in flight. The other guy will run out of fuel chasing, while the targets still get hit. So B-1 was for the stuff the B-52 couldn't get to, faster in (if needed) and faster out (if needed), and thus for other target sets.

F-15C is needed because they exist now and sufficient F-35A don't yet, which is a temporary situation. I'd say F-15X has Buckley's chance of being acquired in numbers. I see it as a 'competitive' option that keeps LM pushing F-35A price down, and speed of build up, and other program numbers improving for a rapidly growing fleet approaching FOC.

And if the F-35 production were somehow ... disrupted ... there's a bridging option.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 23:31
by SpudmanWP
zero-one wrote:I think the USAF is interested not because the F-15X is better than the F-35 in any way, shape or form but simply because its cheaper.

Not to buy because the F-35 already went below the $90M mark which I think the F-15X can't do. I'm talking about operation and life cycle cost.


There is no evidence to state that the F-15X is any cheaper for CPFH. In fact, the available info all points to the F-35A being cheaper.

Here is the latest RCPFH annual numbers. Note that the F-35A is on a trend getting cheaper while the F-15E is not. For FY2019, they are basically the same but as Depots come inline, the F-35A will be getting significantly cheaper but there is nothing that will drive the F-35E any cheaper.

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 00:05
by Corsair1963
Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 14:52
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....


In that case then, the F-15X would be ideal for Canada... :mrgreen:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 15:08
by crosshairs
The F-15X is a waste of money if it supposed to save money by simply having American
jets with an American flag on them. It's a waste because the F-35 is damn near the same cost and is better.

Please check the latest costs of the latest F-16s. Much, much more affordable than the F-15X per copy
and also less money per flight hour.

The last bact of 16s that I can find being ordered were 16 jets for $1.1B. That is HUGELY less expensive
than the F-15X and the new block 70 with AESA and conformal fuel tanks are awesome machines. Let's have
those intercept the Russians off the coast of Big Sur instead of $100M overkill F-15X.

The 16 is also less per hour to operate. The USAF and ANG are full of 16s so maintenance issues
will not be wha they are with a few hundred 15C/D/E.

If this is really about low cost for homeland defense and missions where there are no 5th gen LO
enemy aircraft or S400 systems to contend with, then the latest spec 16 is the cheap and effective way
to do it.

It also won't take 16 years to build 96 like the F-15X.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 23:01
by popcorn
crosshairs wrote:The F-15X is a waste of money if it supposed to save money by simply having American
jets with an American flag on them. It's a waste because the F-35 is damn near the same cost and is better.

Please check the latest costs of the latest F-16s. Much, much more affordable than the F-15X per copy
and also less money per flight hour.

The last bact of 16s that I can find being ordered were 16 jets for $1.1B. That is HUGELY less expensive
than the F-15X and the new block 70 with AESA and conformal fuel tanks are awesome machines. Let's have
those intercept the Russians off the coast of Big Sur instead of $100M overkill F-15X.

The 16 is also less per hour to operate. The USAF and ANG are full of 16s so maintenance issues
will not be wha they are with a few hundred 15C/D/E.

If this is really about low cost for homeland defense and missions where there are no 5th gen LO
enemy aircraft or S400 systems to contend with, then the latest spec 16 is the cheap and effective way
to do it.

It also won't take 16 years to build 96 like the F-15X.


If only the F-16 was.built by Boeing it would be a done deal. :devil:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 02:27
by Corsair1963
Honestly, Boeing doesn't even need F-15 production anymore. After winning the contract for the USAF T-X and the USN MQ-25A. So, this story that the US Government is ordering more Eagles to keep the line going is also "BS".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 02:28
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....


In that case then, the F-15X would be ideal for Canada... :mrgreen:



LOL :lmao:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 02:49
by Corsair1963
New Pentagon chief under scrutiny over perceived Boeing bias

Concerns about Patrick Shanahan’s Boeing ties have re-emerged since President Donald Trump said he may be running the Pentagon ‘for a long time.’

Shanahan's ties to Boeing came under renewed scrutiny in December, when Bloomberg reported that Shanahan had urged the Air Force to add $1.2 billion to its fiscal 2020 budget to purchase 12 Boeing F-15X fighters.

Military experts seemed baffled by the F-15X decision, arguing that the jet, because it lacks the F-35’s stealth capability, is ineffective against enemies like Russia and China, which have sophisticated air defense technologies.

“They simply lack the survivability to fly into harm’s way and make it home against the military equipment that’s built by China and Russia — identified as the two pre-eminent threats in our national security strategy,” retired Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told POLITICO.

Air Force leaders have said publicly they are not interested in purchasing more F-15s, raising questions about the Pentagon's request to purchase the planes now.

In September, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told Defense News that the service needs to spend its money on stealthy, fifth-generation F-35s — and that buying even an advanced fourth-generation fighter such as the F-15X, which isn’t as stealthy, was not in the cards.

“This is a real head-scratcher for me,” retired Air Force Col. J.V. Venable, a senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation, told POLITICO.”


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... on-1064203

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 05:06
by popcorn
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, Boeing doesn't even need F-15 production anymore. After winning the contract for the USAF T-X and the USN MQ-25A. So, this story that the US Government is ordering more Eagles to keep the line going is also "BS".


The primary driver in any business is to maximize profits. There can never be enough profit.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 05:53
by element1loop
What they really need though is to invest in another product, I'd be having a close look at in-house VLO tactical probe tanker design, as that one's a no-brainier force-multiplier, if you can make it work, and it will sell like hot cakes.

And if it came to a need for extra missiles loitering in the area, even the LO MQ-25 has a weapon bay, and the pod can be removed, plus it has the wings for high-altitude loiter.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 06:17
by weasel1962
Edited.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 17:01
by mixelflick
element1loop wrote:What they really need though is to invest in another product, I'd be having a close look at in-house VLO tactical probe tanker design, as that one's a no-brainier force-multiplier, if you can make it work, and it will sell like hot cakes.

And if it came to a need for extra missiles loitering in the area, even the LO MQ-25 has a weapon bay, and the pod can be removed, plus it has the wings for high-altitude loiter.


I would agree. Boeing building new F-15's is like Mig building new Mig-29's.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 17:19
by quicksilver
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....


In that case then, the F-15X would be ideal for Canada... :mrgreen:



LOL :lmao:


+1 :applause:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2019, 04:54
by weasel1962
Interesting factoid that Korean Airlines has been maintaining the F-15s based out of Kadena for the past decade (see below). Understand a contract award in 2018 to continue that maintenance for another 9 years but haven't seen a press release on this...would be useful to know the details.

https://www.robins.af.mil/News/Article- ... -ceremony/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 16:54
by mixelflick
Any fantasy that the USAF would be ordering new F-15X airframes is just that - a fantasy. The latest leaked Luke 2019 demo clip should put an end to that, assuming the results of Red Flag already hadn't.

The aircraft's performance truly is "eye watering": A tight as hell power loop, followed by a pedal turn WHILE MAINTAINING ALTITUDE was quite frankly, jaw dropping. And this is the least impressive of its attributes. I was once a big time F-35 doubter, but have to admit - LM has accomplished something extraordinary.

When an F-16 pilot told me, "You can't see it" I asked for an example. He said during a recent exercise he had no idea where the F-35 was, until it hit him. At one point, ground control told him you have 2 F-35's at you 1 o'clock, 12 miles. He said he pointed the radar in that direction and.... whole lotta' nothin'. At 12 miles!

Seeing these Raptor like maneuvers is just the icing on the cake, and no F-15 can even come close. So I say retire the F-15C's and let their 104-0 air to air combat record rest. It can go down undefeated, and properly enjoy a wonderful retirement. The F-35 is the future, and no F-15 derivative can come close (either in capability or price). And I am a HUGE F-15 fan...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 17:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:The aircraft's performance truly is "eye watering": A tight as hell power loop, followed by a pedal turn WHILE MAINTAINING ALTITUDE was quite frankly, jaw dropping.

It was losing altitude the entire maneuver. It temporarily seems to hang in place for a period when the velocity vector was pointed at the camera. Only a Mode 4 F-35B or a Harrier could do a "helicopter turn" while maintaining altitude, only one of which can do a power loop, neither of which can do both back to back.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 18:41
by SpudmanWP
mixelflick wrote:The latest leaked Luke 2019 demo clip should put an end to that

The problem is that this has never been about performance but has been a mixture of bean-counting and Corporate Welfare.

On the bean-counting side, that argument failed as soon as the F-35A dropped under $90 mil and it's CPFH dropped below the F-15E's.

The only thing left is Corporate Welfare.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 00:31
by vilters
When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?
It will outclass all other competition.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 00:42
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?
It will outclass all other competition.

That's right now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 01:01
by vilters
wrightwing wrote:
vilters wrote:When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?
It will outclass all other competition.

That's right now.


Not yet, servicability is still on the low side.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 02:16
by madrat
Actually that is at its peak. Serviceability is normally an inverse relationship to time.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 09:13
by zero-one
This quote was mentioned here:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21808&start=2910

But I think it fits more appropriately here.

ricnunes wrote:With all of this combined with all that was mentioned before, I fail to realize in how or in where the F-15C can be any better than the F-15E against enemy aircraft, apart from having a potentially slightly better agility (if any that is).


So we can agree that the E model has superior avionics and EMC to the C variant.

But what if we can get the best of both worlds? The C variant's kinematics with the E's electronics. That could very well put the Eagle back on the top of the 4th gen food chain. Cause lets face it the Eagle as it is, is at the bottom, among high end air superiority 4th gens (i.e. Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35). Remember Col. Fornlof said that the Su-30 is a bit better than the Eagle (using his hands to illustrate the capability gap).

Will the F-15X be an air superiority focused Eagle or a multi role Strike Eagle? I think its the former because once the C retires in the 2040 timeline, the US will be left with just the F-22 as its sole air dominance focused platform. (we don't know if PCA will be ready in relevant numbers by then)

Yes I know the F-35 and F-16 can do it too but hear me out.
Theres a difference between a squadron that trains almost exclusively for air-air and a squadron that simply includes air to air in their training syllabus.

The F-35 is too good of a strike platform to assign it to a squadron that will simply train and perform air to air missions like the F-15C does now. It's literally using just 40% of the F-35's intended capabilities.

So if the F-15X turns out to be an F-15C with F-15QA avionics and sensors and engines but has the weight of an F-15C, then you got urself a plane that will give even the Typhoon and Su-35 (what I consider the 2 best 4th gen air superiority platforms) a run for their money both BVR and WVR

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 13:21
by madrat
In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

Seems silly to play yesterdays game in tomorrow's reality.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 14:18
by zero-one
madrat wrote:In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

Seems silly to play yesterdays game in tomorrow's reality.


thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible. I mean, do ground troops always get all the air support they requested for?
Theres a massive number of CAS and CAS capable platforms available. If ground troops can't get all the CAS they want in relatively small conflicts like the ones in the middle east. What more in a non-nuclear conflict with a Peer adversary like China.

Anyway, heres my point. Do you agree that the F-15C still has a niche to fill post 2040.
Why:
-You don't need Stealth for every mission (i.e. Air national guard duties)
-The F-35 still needs periodic RAM maintenance even if you never use it's stealth capabilities

However the F-15Cs, built in the 80s will be way past their service lives post 2040. So the USAF simply wants to keep a small fleet of F-15s for post 2040 ANG squadrons, but they can't buy brand new F-15Cs with 80 tech, so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs that are currently being produced and call it F-15X. Thats what this is.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 14:53
by botsing
zero-one wrote:thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible.

It's silly to train for that once in a lifetime situation while you can put that same training-time into preparing for actual real life combat.


zero-one wrote:so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs

Cost alone would be a reason:
SpudmanWP wrote:On the bean-counting side, that argument failed as soon as the F-35A dropped under $90 mil and it's CPFH dropped below the F-15E's.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:02
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
madrat wrote:In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

Seems silly to play yesterdays game in tomorrow's reality.


thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible. I mean, do ground troops always get all the air support they requested for?
Theres a massive number of CAS and CAS capable platforms available. If ground troops can't get all the CAS they want in relatively small conflicts like the ones in the middle east. What more in a non-nuclear conflict with a Peer adversary like China.

Anyway, heres my point. Do you agree that the F-15C still has a niche to fill post 2040.
Why:
-You don't need Stealth for every mission (i.e. Air national guard duties)
-The F-35 still needs periodic RAM maintenance even if you never use it's stealth capabilities

However the F-15Cs, built in the 80s will be way past their service lives post 2040. So the USAF simply wants to keep a small fleet of F-15s for post 2040 ANG squadrons, but they can't buy brand new F-15Cs with 80 tech, so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs that are currently being produced and call it F-15X. Thats what this is.


Just because you don't need stealth for ANG duties, if the cost of the LO platform is the same as or cheaper than the non-LO aircraft, then why not fill the ANG units with stealth?

F-4 Phantoms could easily fill ANG duties for homeland defense. Should the US have kept the Phantom in production just for to catch the occasional Cessna that flies off course? Or to intercept Russians on the West Coast? Why do we have F-22s doing that? You don't need a stealthy supercruiser to catch a bomber.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:07
by mixelflick
It may also be that the F-35 has such dramatic advantages air to air that training exclusively on the air to air mission isn't warranted. I mean, if they can't see you, but you can see them and possess the means to reach out and touch them... there's not a lot of dogfighting that'll be going on.

On the other hand, I like the idea of a unit training JUST for air to air. I'm not certain why we couldn't devote some F-35 squadrons to that mission? They're going to be cheaper, check. They're going to be more capable, check. They're going to retain their air to ground capability if needed, check. Should just be a matter of switching out the pilot given an air to air or air to ground mission.

Am I missing something, or is it not just that simple?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:21
by zero-one
botsing wrote:It's silly to train for that once in a lifetime situation while you can put that same training-time into preparing for actual real life combat.

training for that once in a lifetime situation is what every Nuclear armed unit does all the time.
But I think you may have misunderstood the statement. so lets recap:
madrat wrote:
In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

zero-one wrote:
thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible.

botsing wrote:
It's silly to train for that once in a lifetime situation while you can put that same training-time into preparing for actual real life combat.


so I wasn't talking about training. I was simply trying to justify why the USAF may be interested in the F-15X. Not everything can be solved by buying more F-35s

Anyway I should have been more confident with my answer, because it actually happens often:
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/08/ ... 17-Belarus

The United States has dispatched warplanes to patrol the skies over the Baltic region in an attempt to reinforce its allies from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against what Washington regards as an alleged “Russian threat,” as Moscow is gearing up for major military drills.

Lithuania's Defense Ministry announced in a statement that seven US Air Force F-15 Eagle fighter jets had already landed in the country’s northern Siauliai military airbase, adding that the newly arrived fleet would begin to conduct the mission of air police over the Baltic States from September 1.


No mention of F-22s or F-35As or Bs ready to swoop in if the Flanker-E/S shows up.

zero-one wrote:so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs
Cost alone would be a reason:


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter
Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:23
by zero-one
Some new insights on the cost of the F-15X

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

Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 17:33
by SpudmanWP
vilters wrote:When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?

RCPFH (which is fuel & maintenance) has been coming down since day one. For FY2019 they seemed to have called a mulligan and just increased virtually everything across the board for inflation only instead of recalculating real-world costs. For FY2019 the RCPFH of an F-35A is just above the F-15E.

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:31
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Some new insights on the cost of the F-15X

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

Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

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.


If the price is indeed going to be lower, then it can mean only 1 of 2 things..

1.) It's going to be devoid of any new motors, significant enhancements in radar/EW etc (Not much more capable than an F-15C) OR..

2.) It's going to cost Boeing $, not make them $.

It may well be that Boeing is shooting for #2, in an effort to keep the production line open to sell F-15SA like aircraft to other nations. It may also be their attempt to keep a foot in the fighter game, because if F-15 orders dry up - then their only project of note is the SH, and the sunset on that airframe is within view now too.

I rather agree that if the price for an F-35 is similar or lower than any F-15, we're better off buying the F-35 - even for less demanding missions. It might not need stealth in that environment, but what about combat deployments? The F-15's here in MA are responsible for the air defense of the entire Northeast. Yet, I've seen them deployed in air superiority missions to hotspots around the globe.

If that's going on, why wouldn't you want an F-35? It integrates better into an increasingly F-35 centric world, has worlds better performance and is going to be relevant for a hell of a lot longer.

If they do the F-15X, I hope it's the penultimate Eagle. But with better options, not for the USAF. Give them to say South Korea if they're looking for something to beef up their air superiority fleet. There's nothing North Korea is going to counter them with that can compare, and if the Chinese get involved then US F-35's will be right there.

My 2cc's...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:45
by mixelflick
Plus, let's not be like Canada..

"Flying, fighting and investing in today's aircraft, tomorrow... " :mrgreen:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:59
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:
1.) It's going to be devoid of any new motors, significant enhancements in radar/EW etc (Not much more capable than an F-15C) OR..


Well hold on, they already said their baseline for the F-15X is the F-15QA and SA. Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

But if thats the case then it will be:
5th gen SA
4th gen Observability
4th gen kinematics
4th gen price

I wonder if it can compete with an AESA equipped Typhoon both BVR and WVR?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:39
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
5th gen SA



Only thing seen so far on the F-15X is a hodgepodge of different pods and a lot of cost cutting which to me would say 4 Gen Sensor Fusion and also nothing like EODAS which is massive.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:43
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?


The figures supposedly leaked to said bloggers that (they say) are going to appearing the budget request was for 12 x F-15X at $1.2Billion. Don't know what that entails but it looks about right doesn't it. :D

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
basher54321 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?


The figures supposedly leaked to said bloggers that (they say) are going to appearing the budget request was for 12 x F-15X at $1.2Billion. Don't know what that entails but it looks about right doesn't it. :D

Which was explained above that Boeing would eat the losses. They cannot make them at ~$80M, but they will sell them at ~$80M.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 19:32
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?


Well I'm not sure how the politics work but exports seem to be more expensive than local purchases all the time.

Australia bought their 24 SHornets for...what was it $6 billion. The USN got theirs for $75M each.

Now I know economies of scale made each unit cost more because they are buying so few. And the Aussie deal had upgrade and weapons support and all that.

But perhaps Boeing knows what their doing. You don't become the largest aviation company ever if you're not a business genius. So if they say they can sell it bellow F-35 prices and are confident enough to offer fixed price contracts. Then hey maybe they know something we don't.

I'm just worried at what Qatar, SArabia and Singapore would say if they found out that Boeing can make advanced F-15 variants for $75M each instead of the $250M they were buying from. Cause if you think about it the US will buy around the same number of birds as those countries.
So the whole economies of scale excuse won't work anymore.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 21:37
by SpudmanWP
While FMS sales are at the same price that the US Gov pays for these items, FMS packages contain much more than the plane itself and will often contain parts, multi-year support & training, transport services, weapons, spares, etc.

These items are also in the US budgets, but will be spread across multiple services, line items, and budget years.

This is why it's nice to have FMS sales bids that cover multiple platforms for the same bid as it gives us a chance to get a hit of the "actual" cost of platforms in an apples-to-apples comparison.

Btw, there is a big difference between "knowing what you are doing" and "knowing who to payoff... er I mean lobby".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 23:44
by vanshilar
zero-one wrote:Some new insights on the cost of the F-15X

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

Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.


Uh it's not a new insight, it was published (and discussed) half a year ago. Not only that, but Boeing (or the author) was unwilling to give an actual number, or even a range of possible numbers, for the price. The way Tyler wrote it, it seems like Boeing was saying it'll be cheaper than the F-35, with Tyler inserting that the F-35 is $95 million. Not that Boeing said it would be under $95 million. Big difference.

Sounds like salesman "whatever price they're offering, we'll do it for less!" talk until they give a firm number.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 01:29
by vanshilar
weasel1962 wrote:Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...


I'm a bit late to the party but this comes up every now and then. Like many misleading statements, it carries with it a grain of truth, but what the truth reveals when you look into it is actually in the opposite direction of what the statement implies.

(As an aside, another example is when DOT&E Gilmore said the F-35's loiter time was very short compared with the A-10, but he used the Marines F-35B in his comparison. When you use the Air Force F-35A instead with its extra 5000 lb of fuel, to make a proper comparison with the Air Force A-10, using Gilmore's own numbers and with some very simple calculations, you get that...the F-35A's loiter time should be similar to the A-10's. But it gets there in half the time.)

In this case, as already mentioned above, for transatlantic crossings the guys are concerned about protecting the aircraft as a valuable asset, not to set any endurance records. So fuel levels are kept high enough such that at any point in the trip, with whatever fuel the aircraft has onboard and with no further refuelings, it can make it to the nearest airbase along with an additional reserve of fuel. From out in the middle of the ocean.

The plane is also accompanied by a tanker and rescue aircraft (such as a C-130). So the group does not fly at the F-35's most efficient (cruising) speed; it flies at a speed that saves the most fuel for the group as a whole, barring any other restrictions. So the F-35 is flying heavy (since frequently topped off with fuel in case of a divert) and also flying slow (for the sake of the other aircraft in the formation), compared to its most efficient speed. Hardly the parameters that one uses to compare for ferry range.

You're probably referring to the USAF's first transatlantic flight. Perhaps you noticed that articles discussing it said it took close to 8 hours. Do you really think the F-35 really needs to be refueled nearly once per hour in combat use? With a stated fuel burn of roughly 80-100 pounds per minute and a 18,000-lb tank, it can last roughly three hours in the air. That should've clued you in that these refuelings were strictly for safety and were precautionary, not because of necessity.

In fact, perhaps you should look at the first transatlantic flight, which was done by Italy. An article for it:

https://sldinfo.com/2016/02/ninja-discu ... ian-style/

In it, the pilot says that if he flies high, he can make it from Azores to Canada, presumably without refueling -- because he then says if he goes low he'll need one refueling. It's 2600 miles from the Azores to St John's (the closest part of Canada to the Azores). He does say "after 30 minutes after takeoff" so if you want to infer that he means if they refuel right after takeoff (and no more refueling after that), that's fine, knocking say ~200 miles off that distance. So you're looking at a ferry range of somewhere over 2000 miles right there.

As already mentioned above, when unspecified, the meaning of "range" is unclear; it could refer to a one-way ferry range assuming straight line travel at optimum altitude/speed the whole way, all the way down to combat radius meaning travel both to and from (cutting the range in half), with weapons, combat maneuvering, and oftentimes with altitude restrictions which are going to be less than optimum for range. Thus, combat radius is roughly one-third of ferry range as a rule of thumb. People have already brought up several quotes from pilots directly comparing the F-35's range favorably to the F-15, and its official combat radius is 669 nm for an air-to-ground mission (so that includes to and from, carrying bombs which are heavier than missiles, combat maneuvering, and usually involves a non-optimal altitude restriction in its flight profile). Why do you hang on to ">600 nm" when it clearly means it's more than that and there are multiple statements that it's significantly greater?

Although a 3000-nm ferry range is often stated for the F-15, the F-15C manual I have says that the ferry range with 3 EFT's is 1933/2144 nm without CFT's or 2294/2582 nm with CFT's, depending on if the EFT's are dropped as they get used up or not. Guess maybe they later came out with bigger EFT's or something.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 14:55
by mixelflick
I thought the F-15 could complete an Atlantic crossing with no air to air refueling? Seem to recall it being a requirement, given getting more to Europe would have been a priority if trouble kicked off. Obviously not optimal and probably takes 3 bags plus CFT's, but I'm positive that's what I read. Whether they achieved that or not I'm not sure. I bet if push came to shove though, they could pull it off.

As for the F-35, great legs all around. The fact people are even comparing it to a Strike Eagle speaks volumes. Much, much bigger jet and probably the air force's longest range tactical aircraft. The F-35 flies clean, so I don't think there's any question it out ranges an Eagle in that configuration. In fact, I'm positive I heard an F-35 pilot (Chip Burke?) say it out-ranges an Eagle with 2 bags.

Strong statement IMO, and it's just getting better when more fuel efficient engines get here...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 02:44
by zerion
If the money is there, new and improved F-15s could be coming soon to the Air Force
By: Jeff Martin


IN THE AIR OVER KENTUCKY — The U.S. Air Force could buy a new version of the F-15, known as the F-15X, as long as there is enough money in future defense budgets, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Defense News Saturday.

And regardless of whether the service does buy the new jets this year, Goldfein said the new aircraft won’t be taking money from the Lockheed Martin F-35.

“I’m not backing an inch off of the F-35” Goldfein said. “The F-35 buy that we’re on continues to remain on track. And I’m not interested in taking a nickel out of it when it comes to buying anything else in the fighter portfolio.”...

https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters ... air-force/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 08:51
by marauder2048
zerion wrote:
If the money is there, new and improved F-15s could be coming soon to the Air Force
By: Jeff Martin


https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters ... air-force/


The deeply suspect reasoning there sounds like talking points from OSD.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 11:57
by mixelflick
The figures supposedly leaked to said bloggers that (they say) are going to appearing the budget request was for 12 x F-15X at $1.2Billion. Don't know what that entails but it looks about right doesn't it. :D[/quote]
Which was explained above that Boeing would eat the losses. They cannot make them at ~$80M, but they will sell them at ~$80M.[/quote]

That's just crazy. Unless Boeing plans on becoming a not for profit company, this is ridiculous. Whoever at Boeing is OK with producing fighters to lose money.. ought to be fired. This is America/capitalism. Boeing has a long history with the SH of delivering aircraft on time and on or under budget. To make these F-15X's one off for a loss isn't just crazy, it's irresponsible.

If you're a Boeing shareholder, you should be irate. And shareholders drive business decisions, not pie in the sky not for profit managers. I'd go so far as to call it un-American to be involved in this. Upgraded Eagles for our allies, sure. F-35's for the USAF. Cheaper, more capable, can and will be committed to the fight much more effectively..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2019, 21:24
by marsavian
Maybe it's a ploy to keep the production line ticking over so to be able to bid Strike Eagle profitably for future foreign contracts after the current orders are fulfilled in which case an extended low annual non-profit F-15X buy is not a bad thing, a bit like the Su-57 purchase strategy ;).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 04:27
by southernphantom
marsavian wrote:Maybe it's a ploy to keep the production line ticking over so to be able to bid Strike Eagle profitably for future foreign contracts after the current orders are fulfilled in which case an extended low annual non-profit F-15X buy is not a bad thing, a bit like the Su-57 purchase strategy ;).


Yeah, this is a thing in my industry (mining) as well. It sometimes makes sense to operate at a loss for a short period in anticipation of market conditions improving, so as not to lose skilled labor and site-specific institutional knowledge by firing your entire workforce and shutting down until the market improves.

Whether or not this is Boeing's strategy with the F-15X remains to be seen.

Shareholders need to realize that quarterly profit is not the only indicator of a company's health. Plenty of companies have been run into the ground by private equity firms focused only on short-term value while neglecting the long-term health of the company. This is why I jumped from a publicly-traded to a privately-owned employer - planning is long-term and looks beyond the next quarter!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 05:22
by Corsair1963
Again no way is this going to happen. First, you can't buy a F-15X for less than a F-35A. Second, "12" Eagles wouldn't be enough for a single squadron. Which, means they would need many many more. So, where would that funding come from???

Clearly, the F-15X Supporters are trying to sell it as a replacement for at least the F-15C operated by the ANG. So, we aren't talking 12 F-15X's but 150+.

:doh:


Also, let's no forget the US will soon have a large surplus of F-16's. Which, are already paid for and more than adequate for the task. (short-term)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 10:59
by marsavian
150/12 equals 12+ years of low rate production, enough time for more sales of F-15E to appear. As for F-16 about 300 will be kept going with AESA with the rest going to the boneyard/spares. Not saying F-15X is a great idea but as a pure big rangey interceptor truck it's not a bad idea plus some of the value of the aircraft will be in the long 20,000hr life and not just the initial price.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 11:49
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:150/12 equals 12+ years of low rate production, enough time for more sales of F-15E to appear. As for F-16 about 300 will be kept going with AESA with the rest going to the boneyard/spares. Not saying F-15X is a great idea but as a pure big rangey interceptor truck it's not a bad idea plus some of the value of the aircraft will be in the long 20,000hr life and not just the initial price.



The USAF is not going to buy New F-15's for the next decade. While, the market for 4th Generation Fighters is on the decline with few prospects.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 12:59
by quicksilver
“...the long 20,000hr life...”

Where did this number come from?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 14:05
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:150/12 equals 12+ years of low rate production, enough time for more sales of F-15E to appear. As for F-16 about 300 will be kept going with AESA with the rest going to the boneyard/spares. Not saying F-15X is a great idea but as a pure big rangey interceptor truck it's not a bad idea plus some of the value of the aircraft will be in the long 20,000hr life and not just the initial price.



The USAF is not going to buy New F-15's for the next decade. While, the market for 4th Generation Fighters is on the decline with few prospects.


Agree wholeheartedly.

This isn't Canada. We're not buying 4th gen aircraft when new 5th gen's that do it better are available for less...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 14:20
by marsavian
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 17:38
by quicksilver
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...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 19:01
by basher54321
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).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 19:39
by quicksilver
20K hrs? Really? When did that happen? Seriously, when did Eagles become 20k hour airframes?

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

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 19:57
by SpudmanWP
They are basically taking every lesson learned for the F-15E and beefing up the weak spots.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 20:14
by quicksilver
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?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 20:45
by SpudmanWP
While it can't be built for 25% less, it can be "sold" for 25% less.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 21:46
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Which is something done with every single airliner.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 23:34
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Which is something done with every single airliner.


Completely untrue since that would be predatory pricing and illegal.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 01:25
by Fox1
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 01:46
by popcorn
How does a F-16V's acquisition price compare to a F-15X? Operating and sustainment costs would surely favour the former.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 01:57
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 02:42
by johnwill
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 02:55
by marauder2048
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 05:30
by quicksilver
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 06:16
by 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...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 13:01
by marsavian
popcorn wrote: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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 13:35
by madrat
Twice the range? Be serious.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 17:08
by SpudmanWP
madrat wrote:Twice the range? Be serious.

Especially when you start loading it up with missiles.

Drag is a B.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 19:23
by 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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 01:18
by element1loop
crosshairs wrote: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).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 01:56
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
crosshairs wrote: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.... :D

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 02:00
by 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!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 06:16
by 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?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 07:51
by Corsair1963
Fox1 wrote: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? :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 08:07
by 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

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 08:36
by Fox1
Corsair1963 wrote:
Fox1 wrote: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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 09:11
by Corsair1963
Fox1 wrote:
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.... :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 09:39
by element1loop
Fox1 wrote: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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 10:44
by 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. :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 11:28
by quicksilver
Corsair1963 wrote: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. :wink:


The F-35 will be close to $80M next year but that will not stop the train on F-15x unless the CSAF chooses to fight the Guard lobby on the Hill. And, it will not be about 12 aircraft; it will be about something over 100 across the next fydp at -18/yr.

Fight? This CSAF (or SECAF...)? Not likely. We have “the Space Force”, the light attack nut roll, tankers that don’t tank, and now a jaw-dropping ‘decision’ ( :roll: ) on Eagles.

Aim (a little) high(er) guys.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 14:46
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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. :wink:


The F-35 will be close to $80M next year but that will not stop the train on F-15x unless the CSAF chooses to fight the Guard lobby on the Hill. And, it will not be about 12 aircraft; it will be about something over 100 across the next fydp at -18/yr.

Fight? This CSAF (or SECAF...)? Not likely. We have “the Space Force”, the light attack nut roll, tankers that don’t tank, and now a jaw-dropping ‘decision’ ( :roll: ) on Eagles.

Aim (a little) high(er) guys.


100?! You really think so???

It just blows my mind that in the year 2019, we are buying... more Eagles? As it stands, we are at parity with many of the Chinese/Russian birds (late model Flanker derivatives). The J-20's of the world only serve to magnify that, and the ONLY aircraft that'll reverse that trend is...the F-35.

Will the F-15X be better at homeland defense? No, not on any score that I can see. Will they be more expensive?? Yep, unless Boeing sells them at a loss. And selling them at a loss hurts Boeing a lot more at 100 airframes vs. one or two dozen.

I absolutely love the Eagle BTW, and have no ill will for Boeing. Part of me would love to see the penultimate Eagle flying in the USAF. But it's the wrong decision, especially when considering 1.) Capability and 2.) Cost. More F-35's produced means the unit cost only coming down further, and the overall capabilities of the USAF increasing. I'd also concur with the statement that WRT cruise missile defense, the F-35 is infinitely more capable.

I dunno, this is a real head scratcher. Unless the USAF knows something we don't,the decision to procure the F-15X isn't the right one for the country...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 17:05
by SpudmanWP
Fox1 wrote:Save the F-35 for use overseas


All USAF units (Active, ANG, Reserve) are subject to overseas rotations, especially in wartime. They all need to be relevant.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 17:33
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:
Fox1 wrote:Save the F-35 for use overseas


All USAF units (Active, ANG, Reserve) are subject to overseas rotations, especially in wartime. They all need to be relevant.


Yes. Conceptually, it revolved around the idea of ‘one force’ or some such wording, no?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 17:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
It revolved around the NG getting federal funding at the cost of being over seas deployable, instead of the National Guard being used only to, you know, guard to nation.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 04:11
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
100?! You really think so???

It just blows my mind that in the year 2019, we are buying... more Eagles? As it stands, we are at parity with many of the Chinese/Russian birds (late model Flanker derivatives). The J-20's of the world only serve to magnify that, and the ONLY aircraft that'll reverse that trend is...the F-35.

Will the F-15X be better at homeland defense? No, not on any score that I can see. Will they be more expensive?? Yep, unless Boeing sells them at a loss. And selling them at a loss hurts Boeing a lot more at 100 airframes vs. one or two dozen.

I absolutely love the Eagle BTW, and have no ill will for Boeing. Part of me would love to see the penultimate Eagle flying in the USAF. But it's the wrong decision, especially when considering 1.) Capability and 2.) Cost. More F-35's produced means the unit cost only coming down further, and the overall capabilities of the USAF increasing. I'd also concur with the statement that WRT cruise missile defense, the F-35 is infinitely more capable.

I dunno, this is a real head scratcher. Unless the USAF knows something we don't, the decision to procure the F-15X isn't the right one for the country...



This is nothing more than "talk" at this stage and the USAF has not officially requested any funding to buy the "12" F-15X's. Plus, even if it did it would have to get past the US Congress. Which, on the house side is controlled by the "Democrats". I honestly doubt they would support such "wasteful" spending. Especially, with the next US Presidential Election less than 2 years away!

Also, while the US Defense Budget is currently up. Everyone knows it will likely start to decline in the coming years. Especially, with the Democrats in control. That have a history of being much softer on Defense Spending.

Lastly, Lockheed Martin is by far the Biggest US Defense Contractor. So, who do you think has the "Biggest Lobby" in Washington? :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 04:17
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:
The F-35 will be close to $80M next year but that will not stop the train on F-15x unless the CSAF chooses to fight the Guard lobby on the Hill. And, it will not be about 12 aircraft; it will be about something over 100 across the next fydp at -18/yr.

Fight? This CSAF (or SECAF...)? Not likely. We have “the Space Force”, the light attack nut roll, tankers that don’t tank, and now a jaw-dropping ‘decision’ ( :roll: ) on Eagles.

Aim (a little) high(er) guys.


Sorry, the Republicans don't have a blank check anymore. Since the Democrats won control of the US House last November. As a matter of fact the majority of control over US Defense Spending is with the House Armed Services Committee. Which, is again controlled by Democrats.


Though the Chairman is from Washington State. Yet, I doubt it will change anything.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 04:31
by quicksilver
Believe what you want; but, this is not about a one year procurement for a small number of jets.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 04:35
by madrat
Why F-15X and not the Super Hornet for considerably less (everything)? Is this just a political ploy to keep the F-15 line open? If you're throwing a bone to Boeing then ease their downsizing by a token SH buy you can later pawn off on the Marines or Navy.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 04:40
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:Believe what you want; but, this is not about a one year procurement for a small number of jets.



I never said it was. I just pointed out that the USAF hadn't requested the 1.2 Billion for the 12 F-15X's that has been widely reported in the Media. Which, would be just for a single year.....


Nonetheless, does anybody believe the US Congress would order hundreds of F-15X's in the coming decade. That cost ~ $10-20 Million more than the existing F-35A. Which, is vastly more capable....

Personally, I am sure the "Republicans" would love to see the Democrats make such a "blunder". Yet, I doubt they're that dumb! :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 04:46
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:Why F-15X and not the Super Hornet for considerably less (everything)? Is this just a political ploy to keep the F-15 line open? If you're throwing a bone to Boeing then ease their downsizing by a token SH buy you can later pawn off on the Marines or Navy.



The USN will start retiring Super Hornets post 2030. So, forget the Navy having any interest in them down the road. Plus, the F-15X is still an Eagle. So, it would share much of the existing infrastructure with the current F-15C/D/E Fleet.


Yet, like I said the existing F-16 Fleet is more than adequate and far cheaper. Hell, F-16's have been flying in the same Air Defense Role as the F-15C's for decades now. :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 05:55
by marauder2048
And Boeing reported today that they delivered all of ten F-15s in 2018.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 07:35
by Corsair1963
Boeing has enough work without the F-15. As it will still build the Super Hornet for a few more years. Which, will be followed by the T-X Trainer and the MQ-25 Stealth Tanker.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 10:00
by quicksilver

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 10:05
by quicksilver
“Boeing has enough work without the F-15.“

Not if you’re Dennis Muilenberg or Leanne Caret.

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investi ... k-14850588

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 10:15
by quicksilver
marauder2048 wrote:And Boeing reported today that they delivered all of ten F-15s in 2018.


They limped along like that w SH/Growler for several years w Congressional adds.

The force structure that Growler replaced (Prowler) was all of about 90-100 jets; the Navy now has ~160ish Growlers.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 15:20
by sferrin
quicksilver wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:And Boeing reported today that they delivered all of ten F-15s in 2018.


They limped along like that w SH/Growler for several years w Congressional adds.

The force structure that Growler replaced (Prowler) was all of about 90-100 jets; the Navy now has ~160ish Growlers.


Given the Growler's short legs (whoever came up with that name needs a medal for sliding it under the radar), I wonder if they can even cover the area of the aircraft they're replacing. Is it a net loss to the fleet or net gain?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 16:03
by quicksilver
Good question (and one that is usually overlooked), but probably one that doesn’t get answered until the balloon goes up. A lot hinges on how NGJ turns out. EW is increasingly ‘less specialized’ w arrival of F-35 — i.e. not just something that ECMOs and WSOs know/do. My sense is more platforms equals more better.

MQ-25 will help.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 16:11
by quicksilver
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:It revolved around the NG getting federal funding at the cost of being over seas deployable, instead of the National Guard being used only to, you know, guard to nation.


:D

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 19:53
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:And Boeing reported today that they delivered all of ten F-15s in 2018.


They limped along like that w SH/Growler for several years w Congressional adds.


Until 2018, the Super Hornet line hadn't dipped below 23 deliveries a year since 1999. That's not limping.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 20:16
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote: A lot hinges on how NGJ turns out.


It's heavy and draggy to the point that they won't hit the original mission radius specs.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 21:11
by quicksilver
marauder2048 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:And Boeing reported today that they delivered all of ten F-15s in 2018.


They limped along like that w SH/Growler for several years w Congressional adds.


Until 2018, the Super Hornet line hadn't dipped below 23 deliveries a year since 1999. That's not limping.


I rest my case.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 21:14
by quicksilver
marauder2048 wrote:...the original mission radius specs.


Agree, and they were unimpressive to begin with.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 01:21
by 131stfwfan
So much false information, why do so many people take things contractors (Or military brass for that matter) as truth?

An Eagle 'delivery' is marked by a new build making at least one flight from St. Louis. They actually delivered over 22 in 2018 to Saudi Arabia and will beat that number this year. Qatar gets 36 and Israel gets 25 which keeps the line going beyond 2024, regardless of USAF.

2018 was the lowest rate for F/A-18 production, yes, but the pace has already picked back up and it will rise this year. Kuwait and Navy commitments keep the line stocked until 2024. Not to mention two rebuild lines that will churn out over 40 modified hornets a year by 2021. Production peaked at 50 airframes a year in 2010. The Navy does not have all of their Growlers yet. Block III is being funded by Kuwait which is why the Navy is piggybacking- The test campaign is already paid for which is the case for the F-15X.

TX and MQ-25 lines will be established in the coming years. That marks 5 active production lines.

The F-15X is not a 'bone' to Boeing because Boeing does not need one.

Also funny to read posts back in 2012 where everyone on here then continued to insist the Eagle and Hornet would be dead by 2017.

The Rafael, Typhoon, Gripen, etc. all produce less than 20 airframes a year, in some cases less than 10. When you compare Boeing's output to the F-35, of course, it will seem insignificant, but Lockheed is the only contractor in the world building at their rate.

Will the USAF really only buy 12 F-15X's and then just forget the rest of the budget years? Probably not. Will the F-15X cost more than an F-35? Probably so. Does the F-35 need the F-15X- Yes. Does the F-15X need the F-35- 200% yes. They complement each other, not compete.

I just don't see arguments based on production capacity, price, or capability valid. Comparing an F-35 to an F-15 makes no sense in the first place. As for the Hornet mafia, well that's another story.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 03:03
by marauder2048
131stfwfan wrote:
An Eagle 'delivery' is marked by a new build making at least one flight from St. Louis. They actually delivered over 22 in 2018 to Saudi Arabia and will beat that number this year.


What Boeing reports as delivered is when the DD-250 is signed i.e. when Boeing is no longer financially
responsible for an aircraft. For reference, the entire F-15SA new build fleet was to have finished delivery
3rd quarter CY2018....which means they are at least a year and a half behind.



131stfwfan wrote:I just don't see arguments based on production capacity, price, or capability valid.


Those have been the main arguments advanced for buying the F-15X...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 03:31
by crosshairs
131stfwfan wrote:




Will the USAF really only buy 12 F-15X's and then just forget the rest of the budget years? Probably not. Will the F-15X cost more than an F-35? Probably so. Does the F-35 need the F-15X- Yes. Does the F-15X need the F-35- 200% yes. They complement each other, not compete.



For how many decades do you want the US to buy the F-15X in a quantity that would actually matter?

Yes, I remember the JSF program's beginnings in the 90s and it was a requirement that the JSF be supported by eagles. :roll: What in the bloody hell are you even talking about? Did the eagle need the phantom to hang around?

Replace 15X with 22A and your statement becomes more rational.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 22:49
by 131stfwfan
marauder2048 wrote:
131stfwfan wrote:
An Eagle 'delivery' is marked by a new build making at least one flight from St. Louis. They actually delivered over 22 in 2018 to Saudi Arabia and will beat that number this year.


What Boeing reports as delivered is when the DD-250 is signed i.e. when Boeing is no longer financially
responsible for an aircraft. For reference, the entire F-15SA new build fleet was to have finished delivery
3rd quarter CY2018....which means they are at least a year and a half behind.



Yes, the SA program is behind and that's been well documented. My reference was nearly in regards to the comment about "All of ten Eagles", because the numbers do not reflect the build or delivery rates.


crosshairs wrote:
For how many decades do you want the US to buy the F-15X in a quantity that would actually matter?

Yes, I remember the JSF program's beginnings in the 90s and it was a requirement that the JSF be supported by eagles. :roll: What in the bloody hell are you even talking about? Did the eagle need the phantom to hang around?

Replace 15X with 22A and your statement becomes more rational.




Who said anything about decades? All that's being proposed (And far from certain) is to replace the oldest C/D models in the fleet. We are talking less than 175 airframes. The price of the Eagle is never going to go lower than the F-35, that's just impossible. You are paying more money to have options. The whole issue is you don't need the F-35 for every single mission.

Why would you use an F-35 beyond first day of war operations, or in a theater where it's capabilities are not needed? The entire purpose of the 4th and 5th gen mix is for the F-22/F-35 break into the airspace, and have the Eagles pull in the heavy metal after them. This is not about competing F-35 versus F-15 for the same mission. Your Phantom analogy would work great if the F-22 actually had any shot at being built again. Now we are stuck with a small fleet that is years behind on upgrades mixed with rapidly increasing sustainability costs.

The F-15 is therefore a solution to the problem. Not to mention a new Eagle will be much more capable than a 30+ year old upgraded ASEA airframe- That goes for both Eagle and Viper. You pay more up front for a new build but it saves you years in life cycle costs. New Eagle's have a life of 20,000 flight hours, the latest avionics/safety measures- And 90% of it's paid for by export customers.

I"m sure some will just argue buy more F-35's and use external stores on them for day 2+, but sorry not so simple.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 23:36
by SpudmanWP
Why use an F-15X where a cheaper F-35 can be used? In this age of PGMs the need to haul large amount of bombs is lower than in the past. Even looking at GW F-15E loadouts shows that an F-35 can do most of them with ease. For everything else you have B-52s, 1Bs, 2s and 21s.

The increased Situational Awareness that the F-35 enjoys is also another reason to use it well past the "first week" of the war. It's that time that you are trying to hunt down leakers, etc. Remember the problems we had hunting down Scuds in the first Gulf War? That would be a piece of cake for the F-35.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 09:04
by marsavian
Why use an F-15X where a cheaper F-35 can be used?


More thrust, fuel, acceleration, top speed, altitude, radar range, missile capacity. You are actually getting more hardware with that extra cost and if most of what is required for it to do is identify and shoot down incoming missiles from long range bombers or the bombers themselves it is not a bad solution.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 12:50
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:
Why use an F-15X where a cheaper F-35 can be used?


More thrust, fuel, acceleration, top speed, altitude, radar range, missile capacity. You are actually getting more hardware with that extra cost and if most of what is required for it to do is identify and shoot down incoming missiles from long range bombers or the bombers themselves it is not a bad solution.


I could quibble about your list of “more...” and/or the relevance of those differences where you are not incorrect; I won’t. What I will point out is that the biggest difference between the two jets is that of cost. That delta is on the order of $20M per jet.

$20M more per jet.. :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 13:28
by marsavian
How much is saved though by using existing F-15 support infrastructure in the ANG ? If stealth is not a priority for the main mission it might be a close run thing on capabilities and overall costs especially if the airframe life is really 20k hours now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 14:03
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:How much is saved though by using existing F-15 support infrastructure in the ANG ? If stealth is not a priority for the main mission it might be a close run thing on capabilities and overall costs especially if the airframe life is really 20k hours now.


Hello? With Eagle you’re gonna pay more, for less capability. That’s kinda like ‘buy high...sell low.’ Even heard the Chief say something close to that recently...

:wtf:

You are getting F-35 signature control and all the good stuff that F-35 does for battlespace integration (high end, low end, any end) for LESS cost, and in the process it also gives you a seemless force integration when it comes to employment (and to a lesser degree, deployment as well).

So, why again would the USAF do this? So the ANG Flying Hot Dog Association can make themselves less relevant? For airframe life that, at this point, is contractor vapor ware, and you’ll never use anyway? Let’s ask johnwill about how realistic that 20k number is...

F-15x is an incredibly bad idea for the USAF that will lock in decreasing relevance for a significant portion of the force for decades.

And ya get to pay a premium for the privilege of doing so. :doh:

And left out of all the contractor spin is the matter of what the potential opposition is doing. THEY are not nostalgic about upgrading old stuff nor going backward with fighter and weapons development. Why are we (rhetorical...)?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 15:25
by marsavian
THEY are not nostalgic about upgrading old stuff nor going backward with fighter and weapons development


Well the Russians are actually, new build Su-30/Su-35 and soon Mig-35 will dwarf Su-57 sales for the foreseeable future. Even new build Tu-160 numbers might rival Su-57 numbers going forward. Existing Mig-29/Su-27 are also constantly being updated, the RuAF is a good example of slow incremental evolution. The Chinese are only a little better with only about a squadron of 20 J-20s.

The F-35 will radically change the inventory of the US with about 2500 aircraft, an extra 150 F-15 replacement high speed interceptors are not going to change that fundamental revolution in capability.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 15:39
by basher54321
Going by Johns reply the 20K usage figure could well be based on a mission spectrum of 90% airliner interceptor @ 3G. :lmao:


The F-15 Boeing advertise only has 4 wing hardpoints - can they not just make those 4 way AMRAAM adapters for the F-35 if it needs to carry 20+ AMRAAMs to satisfy the Ace Combat alumni ?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 16:04
by quicksilver
“RuAF is a good example of slow incremental evolution.”

Down right glacial is more like it...and ‘enabled’ by a failed economic system.

Are you arguing that the US and a good portion of western air forces should aspire to the Russian model?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 16:05
by quicksilver
basher54321 wrote:Going by Johns reply the 20K usage figure could well be based on a mission spectrum of 90% airliner interceptor @ 3G. :lmao:


Indeed. :thumb:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 16:36
by sferrin

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 17:56
by madrat
If only they had created a Super Hornet with a pair of F110 and an increase of fuel fraction to match, then Advanced Super Hornet has a niche scale relationship that F-35 wouldn't be able to compete. But growing a light airframe to middleweight meant they pretty much shoehorned into the low end. Growler certainly could have used the extra power.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 18:01
by madrat
marsavian wrote:How much is saved though by using existing F-15 support infrastructure in the ANG ? If stealth is not a priority for the main mission it might be a close run thing on capabilities and overall costs especially if the airframe life is really 20k hours now.


Maintenance would run at best 40% higher than F-16 and running costs about be at least 80% higher.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2019, 18:11
by sferrin
madrat wrote:If only they had created a Super Hornet with a pair of F110 and an increase of fuel fraction to match, then Advanced Super Hornet has a niche scale relationship that F-35 wouldn't be able to compete. But growing a light airframe to middleweight meant they pretty much shoehorned into the low end. Growler certainly could have used the extra power.


https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ ... 0/all.html

vah1_zps6a8e0a22.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 02:41
by marsavian
sferrin wrote:


Mentions halfway through that the new FBW has given it eye watering AOA capability. One aspect of this particular F-15X model not commented on so far is that it would give prospective export buyers a modern single-seat version of the Eagle to buy again.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 17:09
by element1loop
“RuAF is a good example of slow incremental evolution.”


They left their MiG29s parked on hardstands for 15 years with no flying or maintenance and got slow incremental corrosion. Which binned the lot. Would you let that happen? That's an airforce with issues which are not only financial. Su24 with a handheld GPS fixed to a lump of wood (via elastic bands) comes to mind. Would you do that either?

Too many people want to make an enlightened intellectual pros vs cons argument about new F-15s, which frankly is irrational on many levels. As far as ideas go, even for a first-pass, it's a real stinker.

A better idea, put that money into F-35s with significantly better specific consumption figures, plus a weapon for killing cruise weapons and aircraft, and more of those weapons carried.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 19:36
by madrat


Sweet Jesus that would have been a good looking evolution. If they maybe figured out how to use a common box for the rear half of the fuselage you could have had commonality between F-15 and Super Hornet. Much too hindsight in that idea. I always liked Hornet, but the Super Hornet just was meh from day one for me.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 21:47
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:
sferrin wrote:


Mentions halfway through that the new FBW has given it eye watering AOA capability. One aspect of this particular F-15X model not commented on so far is that it would give prospective export buyers a modern single-seat version of the Eagle to buy again.


The original, non-FBW, F-15 flew up to 120 degrees AOA in original flight testing back in the early 70s.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 21:55
by marsavian
I know, would be interesting to see what the new combat AoA limit is if this model is ever made and bought.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 05:06
by Fox1
That is interesting info regarding the FBW control system improving high alpha performance of these advanced Eagles. That would seemingly make them that much more competitive against the Flanker series, which could make them an appealing choice to someone wanting a high end fighter aircraft that isn't built by Russia. Another potential benefit is that these aircraft would be pretty nice advanced Flanker simulators for use by adversary squadrons. Western air forces need a serious upgrade to present adversary aircraft if they wish to realistically simulate the capabilities of late model Flankers.

So, outside handling the air defense mission, these could also serve as advanced adversaries for use in dissimilar air combat training (provided Uncle Sugar would fund them for this purpose). Plus, I am sure there would still be considerable interest from a number of foreign countries outside Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 16:26
by crosshairs
Fox1 wrote:That is interesting info regarding the FBW control system improving high alpha performance of these advanced Eagles. That would seemingly make them that much more competitive against the Flanker series, which could make them an appealing choice to someone wanting a high end fighter aircraft that isn't built by Russia. Another potential benefit is that these aircraft would be pretty nice advanced Flanker simulators for use by adversary squadrons. Western air forces need a serious upgrade to present adversary aircraft if they wish to realistically simulate the capabilities of late model Flankers.

So, outside handling the air defense mission, these could also serve as advanced adversaries for use in dissimilar air combat training (provided Uncle Sugar would fund them for this purpose). Plus, I am sure there would still be considerable interest from a number of foreign countries outside Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.


$100 million for each agressor is a little steep, don't you think?

What doesn't anyone understand about Boeing only capable of building 12-14 F-15X each year? For how many decades do people want to keep the F-15 line open to have any quantity of aircraft fiscally worth keeping around? The costs of keeping a fighter in low quantities is hugely high.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 16:35
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote: The costs of keeping a fighter in low quantities is hugely high.


Compared to tooling up, and staffing up, to kick out 50 a year for three years? Not even close. (If it could even be done.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 00:58
by marsavian
F-15X Will Come In Two Variants, And No, It Won't Cost $100M Per Copy

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war ... source=dam

The money being set aside in 2020, possibly around $1.1B, will include an initial order for F-15Xs—likely eight aircraft—with the rest of the money being spent on non-recurring costs, including setting up and managing the program and to pay for a relatively tiny amount of development work needed to bring the aircraft's systems and software in line with the USAF's exact specifications.

The big question then is how much will these jets cost? Our sources familiar with the discussions say they will cost "less than an F-35 is ever forecast to cost, best case," let alone what it is priced at now. This indicates that Boeing is going to cut the USAF one hell of a deal on these jets, which will help keep the F-15 production line open and Boeing's historic St. Louis plant building fighters well into the latter half of the next decade. This assessment is based on the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's (CAPE) numbers, not just some blue sky pitch from Boeing.

In addition, the F-15X was offered by Boeing to the USAF under a firm, fixed-price contract terms. In other words, if the USAF executes the offer, and the aircraft cost more than what is estimated, Boeing eats that cost directly.

As for how many jets would be procured under an F-15X initiative, our sources close to the discussions say between 150 to 250 aircraft depending on what the USAF wants to do with its overall force structure. The most likely number is roughly 230 airframes to replace the F-15C/D force one a one-for-one basis. Procurement would likely start with eight aircraft, which could be delivered very soon, with roughly 18 to 24 procured each year after that. Oh, and there are two variants of the F-15X that are being offered by Boeing and will likely be procured. One is dubbed the F-15CX and the other is known as the F-15EX.

The F-15CX will be a single-seat configuration, while the F-15EX will be a two-seater with a fully missionized rear cockpit complete with a wide-area flat panel display, helmet-mounted display, and full flight controls. The F-15EX will cost a couple million dollars more than its single seat stablemate, but they will roll of the St. Louis production line right alongside one another.


Image

Image

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 02:38
by Corsair1963
They can print this story a thousand times and the USAF still isn't going to buy the F-15X! :?


As for "cost" the current version of the F-15 go for over $100 Million today. So, we are to believe the USAF could buy just "12" of a totally new version for less....

:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 06:51
by SpudmanWP
World's fasted mission computer

LOL

I wonder what metric they are using, Mhz or capability?

I doubt they compared it to the F-35's TR3 Mission Computer.

They probability claim that the F-35's ICP is not a "mission computer" since it does everything and not just "mission" stuff ;)

Not only that, but where did they get the specs for the F-35?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 07:03
by Corsair1963
The F-16V is more than adequate short-term. While, being available sooner and at a far lower price. Honestly, the Eagle Supporters can spin anyway they like. Yet, they just don't have a case....

:roll:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 07:11
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:F-15X Will Come In Two Variants, And No, It Won't Cost $100M Per Copy


F-15.jpg



The Boeing slides are very misleading..... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 08:44
by marsavian
Getting away from the technical and economic issues it's amazing that some one is thinking of buying 200+ new F-15 without Congress not being involved in terms of prior authorization. This is a direct result of the previous President cutting in half the F-22 buy without serious long term thought, aided by a stubborn Senator, and a new President who is very friendly to Boeing. If they really do buy that many F-15X it's hard not to envisage that they will not only be used to intercept bombers and cruise missiles for which they are ideal but also backing up F-22 in air superiority missions where they would be less ideal in this stealthier age.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 08:53
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:Getting away from the technical and economic issues it's amazing that some one is thinking of buying 200+ new F-15 without Congress not being involved in terms of prior authorization. This is a direct result of the previous President cutting in half the F-22 buy without serious long term thought, aided by a stubborn Senator, and a new President who is very friendly to Boeing. If they really do buy that many F-15X it's hard not to envisage that they will not only be used to intercept bombers and cruise missiles for which they are ideal but also backing up F-22 in air superiority missions where they would be less ideal.



Who is thinking??? Clearly, not the senior leadership of the USAF. Nor, have I seen any political support for the F-15X. Which, doesn't even touch on the fact it has no "merit". Costing more while offering less than the F-35A.


BTW The F-15 Eagle (whatever model) doesn't perform better than the F-35A in the "Air Superiority Role".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 08:59
by marsavian
If offers more in terms of range, altitude, top speed and radar performance. For a straight up interceptor of incoming, especially now that Russia is rebuilding Tu-160, it's probably better suited than F-35 in dealing with it.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 09:03
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:If offers more in terms of range, altitude, top speed and radar performance. For a straight up interceptor of incoming, especially now that Russia is rebuilding Tu-160, it's probably better suited than F-35 in dealing with it.



Sorry, not under combat conditions.......Which, was my point about the slides being very misleading. Good example of that is the F-15 doesn't fly at Mach 2.5 in the real world. Nor, will it "ever" carry a payload remotely close to 29,000 lbs.
:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 09:28
by popcorn
Having an extended, comprehensive SA coverage of the airspace extending hundreds or even thousands of miles over what was available in the past will be the key to successful iterceptions IMO. The sensor network bestows the luxury of reaction time in responding to an approaching threat.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 10:28
by Corsair1963
Let's not forget the USAF is currently retiring newer F-16C's. Which, could be upgraded faster and far more cheaply than buying new F-15X's. Yet, I see no such need for either....


Final_AirToAirLoadout_SteveOtte_LowResWithChute_jpg_pc-adaptive_full_medium.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 11:38
by marauder2048
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/February%202019/F-15X-in-Light-Attack-Out-in-FY20-Budget.aspx

Air Force officials said privately the NDS demands certain levels of force structure
that can’t be achieved on the timelines it requires by buying more F-35s,
which would take some time to deliver. Boeing is building F-15s for foreign
customers, however, and could potentially deliver the aircraft faster, especially if
foreign customers agree to let USAF buy earlier aircraft off the line.


Which of course begs the question: would foreign customers of the F-35A be
similarly accommodating?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 11:53
by element1loop
marsavian wrote:If offers more in terms of range, altitude, top speed and radar performance. For a straight up interceptor of incoming, especially now that Russia is rebuilding Tu-160, it's probably better suited than F-35 in dealing with it.


A Tu160 will be observed from the moment it comes out of a shelter. EO satellites, OTHR, ATC-comms, ESM ... It will be tracked. It's 'pop-up' is not going to be a surprise, there's plenty of time to launch a tanker and F-35A with AIM-120D or Meteor etal. (if that were needed), or the F-22A.

And the F-15E could already do that. The E will not be essential (or very desirable) for deep strike missions as Bk4 rolls-out (after 2023, say) as numbers of F-35s built have reached ~1,200 plus the then MLU F-22A. USAF should have ~500 combat-coded 5th gens by then, or very soon after.

So the F-15E could be 're-purposed' and upgraded for perceived stop-gap needs until more F-35's are delivered.

And then there's this:
Regional Active Defenses

The United States continues to make significant progress in the development, deployment, and modernization of regional active missile defense capabilities. DoD currently fields a number of regional active defense systems to intercept potential adversary regional offensive missiles, including mobile sensors and interceptors that can be surged to zones of crisis or conflict and, if they are interoperable with allied and partner assets, can support combined defensive operations. The regional missile defense posture is increasingly flexible and adaptable to meet evolving threats and new classes of offensive missiles as they emerge, including advanced, extended-range cruise missiles and HGVs.


...//...

[and the regional passive defenses?]

DoD is also investing in and deploying improved capabilities to confirm that a U.S. missile defense interceptor has destroyed the attacking warhead, a process called “kill assessment.” With the Space-based Kill Assessment (SKA) program, DoD is deploying a network of spacebased infrared sensors that will provide an improved kill assessment capability to the missile defense system. Adding a reliable post-intercept assessment capability will enable USNORTHCOM to examine alternate engagement strategies, such as “shoot-assess-shoot,” and will assist in consequence management efforts if needed. A network of SKA sensors will be placed on orbit by the end of 2018.


USA - 2019 Missile Defense Review
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/17/2 ... REVIEW.PDF


So the chances of successful intercepts are very good with F-15E or F-35A, but the combo of regional active systems, and passive-satellites, plus F-35 sensors, means the missile defense from weapons already launched, will also go to another level, which I doubt the F-15E/X will 'fit' with all that well, compared to the F-35A.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 14:01
by quicksilver

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 14:12
by element1loop
:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 16:22
by mixelflick
The USAF and Boeing narrative for the F-15X is starting to get scary. As in, it might actually happen.

Now we're talking about TWO versions, an F-15XC and and F-15XE? And buying north of 200 airframes? This madness has to stop. Completely at odds with the USAF argument that the F-15 and like airframes cannot operate in a 21st century, IADS saturated battlefield. They talk about not using them there... but we're not going to need 200 plus F-15's on steroids for homeland defense. So where exactly are these Super F-15's going to fit in?

Near me, the 104th TFW flies F-15C's and is tasked with air defense in the Northeast corridor. Yet, they periodically deploy in support of NATO exercises/overseas. That puts them right in harms way, so we're back to that IADS heavy environment USAF has been saying it can't survive.

It makes no sense, but neither did cutting short the F-22 buy. And precisely because they've done dumb things like that in the past, it makes me think this might come to pass too. Plus, Trump is all about job creation and competition. Procuring the F-15X gives him both, the realities of modern air combat be damned...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 16:31
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:The USAF and Boeing narrative for the F-15X is starting to get scary. As in, it might actually happen.

Now we're talking about TWO versions, an F-15XC and and F-15XE? And buying north of 200 airframes? This madness has to stop. Completely at odds with the USAF argument that the F-15 and like airframes cannot operate in a 21st century, IADS saturated battlefield. They talk about not using them there... but we're not going to need 200 plus F-15's on steroids for homeland defense. So where exactly are these Super F-15's going to fit in?

Near me, the 104th TFW flies F-15C's and is tasked with air defense in the Northeast corridor. Yet, they periodically deploy in support of NATO exercises/overseas. That puts them right in harms way, so we're back to that IADS heavy environment USAF has been saying it can't survive.

It makes no sense, but neither did cutting short the F-22 buy. And precisely because they've done dumb things like that in the past, it makes me think this might come to pass too. Plus, Trump is all about job creation and competition. Procuring the F-15X gives him both, the realities of modern air combat be damned...



Jesus, we really don't need TDS here. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the situation is such that the USAF feels they need aircraft NOW. If they could throw a switch and tomorrow F-35s would start rolling off the line at 200/yr they'd do it. They can't. The F-15 line is running NOW and advanced F-15s are more useful than NOTHING.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 17:05
by crosshairs
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The USAF and Boeing narrative for the F-15X is starting to get scary. As in, it might actually happen.

Now we're talking about TWO versions, an F-15XC and and F-15XE? And buying north of 200 airframes? This madness has to stop. Completely at odds with the USAF argument that the F-15 and like airframes cannot operate in a 21st century, IADS saturated battlefield. They talk about not using them there... but we're not going to need 200 plus F-15's on steroids for homeland defense. So where exactly are these Super F-15's going to fit in?

Near me, the 104th TFW flies F-15C's and is tasked with air defense in the Northeast corridor. Yet, they periodically deploy in support of NATO exercises/overseas. That puts them right in harms way, so we're back to that IADS heavy environment USAF has been saying it can't survive.

It makes no sense, but neither did cutting short the F-22 buy. And precisely because they've done dumb things like that in the past, it makes me think this might come to pass too. Plus, Trump is all about job creation and competition. Procuring the F-15X gives him both, the realities of modern air combat be damned...



Jesus, we really don't need TDS here. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the situation is such that the USAF feels they need aircraft NOW. If they could throw a switch and tomorrow F-35s would start rolling off the line at 200/yr they'd do it. They can't. The F-15 line is running NOW and advanced F-15s are more useful than NOTHING.


But how does one address line speed? In the articles, one of them I read today, the USAF is saying Boeing will deliver 1 F-15 per month. How is that going to help matters? It lets the USAF retire the oldest of the oldest C/D jets, I imagine. Is there any place where its stated that Boeing or its suppliers can build more, or the USAF will buy at a faster rate?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 17:18
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The USAF and Boeing narrative for the F-15X is starting to get scary. As in, it might actually happen.

Now we're talking about TWO versions, an F-15XC and and F-15XE? And buying north of 200 airframes? This madness has to stop. Completely at odds with the USAF argument that the F-15 and like airframes cannot operate in a 21st century, IADS saturated battlefield. They talk about not using them there... but we're not going to need 200 plus F-15's on steroids for homeland defense. So where exactly are these Super F-15's going to fit in?

Near me, the 104th TFW flies F-15C's and is tasked with air defense in the Northeast corridor. Yet, they periodically deploy in support of NATO exercises/overseas. That puts them right in harms way, so we're back to that IADS heavy environment USAF has been saying it can't survive.

It makes no sense, but neither did cutting short the F-22 buy. And precisely because they've done dumb things like that in the past, it makes me think this might come to pass too. Plus, Trump is all about job creation and competition. Procuring the F-15X gives him both, the realities of modern air combat be damned...



Jesus, we really don't need TDS here. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the situation is such that the USAF feels they need aircraft NOW. If they could throw a switch and tomorrow F-35s would start rolling off the line at 200/yr they'd do it. They can't. The F-15 line is running NOW and advanced F-15s are more useful than NOTHING.


But how does one address line speed? In the articles, one of them I read today, the USAF is saying Boeing will deliver 1 F-15 per month. How is that going to help matters? It lets the USAF retire the oldest of the oldest C/D jets, I imagine. Is there any place where its stated that Boeing or its suppliers can build more, or the USAF will buy at a faster rate?


No idea. 1/mo seems low considering they still have F-15s to deliver to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar though.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 18:13
by SpudmanWP
Production Capability is not a valid reason to go with the F-15"X".

The JPO designed the F-35 production line to go well over 225+ per year. Hell, the initial USAF plan was to buy 110 F-35As PER YEAR!

There is plenty of room in the production schedule for buying more F-35As instead of an F-15X and it would have the side benefit of making all F-35s cheaper, win-win. :mrgreen:

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 18:28
by sferrin
Just trying to come up with a logical reason for buying more F-15s. They can carry weapons the F-35 is unlikely too. GBU-28s come to mind as well as future ALBMs/hypersonic weapons. It would be a better bomb truck for those than the F-35.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 19:57
by quicksilver
Someone should ask when the first ‘x’ will be delivered to the usaf. Unless they have made an arrangement w ME customers, there has been no long lead spent on USAF numbers yet.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 01:17
by Fox1
In the article posted above, they seem to be suggesting that the USAF may buy some of the Eagles that are just coming off the line, then letting Middle East customers buy later builds at a now reduced price thanks to the additional orders. In the end, everyone gets what they want and everyone is happy. I'm sure the Saudis and Qataris will be okay with a slight delay in getting some of their aircraft if that means they end up getting them at a reduced price.

Also, I don't think the USAF is going to be limited to just 12 aircraft per year. I saw another article that suggested they might take 8 this fiscal year, then get something on the order of 18-24 per year afterward. It isn't like 2 aircraft per month is considered a high rate of production.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 01:59
by Corsair1963
Fox1 wrote:In the article posted above, they seem to be suggesting that the USAF may buy some of the Eagles that are just coming off the line, then letting Middle East customers buy later builds at a now reduced price thanks to the additional orders. In the end, everyone gets what they want and everyone is happy. I'm sure the Saudis and Qataris will be okay with a slight delay in getting some of their aircraft if that means they end up getting them at a reduced price.

Also, I don't think the USAF is going to be limited to just 12 aircraft per year. I saw another article that suggested they might take 8 this fiscal year, then get something on the order of 18-24 per year afterward. It isn't like 2 aircraft per month is considered a high rate of production.


First, the proposed F-15X is very different than current examples from Qatar or Saudi Arabia. Second, the USAF would need ~ 150 just to replace the current F-15C Fleet. Third, even such large order it would still cost "$100 Million" per F-15X. Forth, Lockheed Martin has enough capacity to replace the F-15C's. While, still meeting it's current commitments. Fifth, the F-35A is still vastly more capable than the F-15X. While, still being cheaper. Sixth, I've seen no large political support for the F-15X. As a matter of fact the Democratic controlled US House has no interest in it. Which, they would have to fund....


These reasons and many more is why I "highly doubt" the USAF will acquire the F-15X.....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 02:41
by quicksilver
It is (apparently) now in their budget submission. That means the Congress has to raise a s-storm about it beginning in testimony season which is about to kick off. Committee marks not for another couple months, and absent regular order, no end game til the end of the year. W/ regular order, October end-game.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:04
by Fox1
How many congressional districts might see some increased work as a part of a new F-15 buy? That more than anything else will dictate what they will most likely do. If there is enough pork there, they'll think it is the greatest idea ever. :lol:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:05
by madrat
The F-15X wouldn't outperform any F-35A scenario in an ANG role. I'd much prefer they convert early model F-35A to ANG service as F-35A Block 4 become available. Plenty of capability in those early blocks.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:06
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:It is (apparently) now in their budget submission. That means the Congress has to raise a s-storm about it beginning in testimony season which is about to kick off. Committee marks not for another couple months, and absent regular order, no end game til the end of the year. W/ regular order, October end-game.



The F-15X is not in the current USAF Budget.... :?


Honestly, you know what they say......."The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." ......(i.e. Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle, F-15 2040C, and now F-15X.) :roll:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:27
by quicksilver
So, you’re saying Tirpak got it wrong, to wit —

“The Air Force will propose buying new F-15X aircraft in the fiscal 2020 budget, but won’t seek Light Attack aircraft yet, making those choices to accommodate the National Defense Strategy, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official said Friday at an AFA breakfast on Capitol Hill...(lotsa snips)...[LtGen]Bunch said “we are getting to the point where we have to make a decision of how we are either going to upgrade it, and pay for the upgrades, or do a Service Life Extension” Program....Assuming the budget “stays the way we anticipate, we’ll buy some F-15s to replace” the oldest Eagles in the fleet.”

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:33
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:So, you’re saying Tirpak got it wrong, to wit —

“The Air Force will propose buying new F-15X aircraft in the fiscal 2020 budget, but won’t seek Light Attack aircraft yet, making those choices to accommodate the National Defense Strategy, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official said Friday at an AFA breakfast on Capitol Hill...(lotsa snips)...[LtGen]Bunch said “we are getting to the point where we have to make a decision of how we are either going to upgrade it, and pay for the upgrades, or do a Service Life Extension” Program....Assuming the budget “stays the way we anticipate, we’ll buy some F-15s to replace” the oldest Eagles in the fleet.”



Let's look at your quotes....



The Air Force will propose buying new F-15X aircraft in the fiscal 2020 budget,


“we are getting to the point where we have to make a decision of how we are either going to upgrade it, and pay for the upgrades, or do a Service Life Extension” Program.

This part sounds like upgrading existing F-15C's not buying new F-15X's???


...Assuming the budget “stays the way we anticipate, we’ll buy some F-15s to replace” the oldest Eagles in the fleet.”

Yet, who says Congress will fund new F-15X's??? I've seen nothing to suggest it will??? Do you have a source to the contrary??

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:43
by quicksilver
You’re a few hours behind. It’s from Air Force magazine. John Tirpak (the editor iirc) is the author. I posted the link (much) earlier today. It’s on the previous page in this thread...

:whistle:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:50
by quicksilver
Congress? That’s the post I made/discussed above. That whole process is just starting w them; it’s about to be testimony season...this time every year...great theater sometimes. I highly recommend it if you’re bored.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:54
by quicksilver
Fox1 wrote:How many congressional districts might see some increased work as a part of a new F-15 buy? That more than anything else will dictate what they will most likely do. If there is enough pork there, they'll think it is the greatest idea ever. :lol:


I don’t know. The number of direct and indirect job calculation may not be favorable in comparison to an F-35 number. I don’t the numbers for either company/jet.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:58
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:Congress? That’s the post I made/discussed above. That whole process is just starting w them; it’s about to be testimony season...this time every year...great theater sometimes. I ighly recommend it if you’re bored.



Yes, Congress as they would approve any funding to acquire new F-15X's. In addition it's worth noting that the Democratic Controlled U.S House Armed Services Committee. Will see any proposal to buy F-15's are welfare to Boeing from acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. Who was a former Boeing Executive....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 04:01
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:
Fox1 wrote:How many congressional districts might see some increased work as a part of a new F-15 buy? That more than anything else will dictate what they will most likely do. If there is enough pork there, they'll think it is the greatest idea ever. :lol:


I don’t know. The number of direct and indirect job calculation may not be favorable in comparison to an F-35 number. I don’t the numbers for either company/jet.



Odds are the F-35 has a far larger impact.....


https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 04:02
by popcorn
quicksilver wrote:
Fox1 wrote:How many congressional districts might see some increased work as a part of a new F-15 buy? That more than anything else will dictate what they will most likely do. If there is enough pork there, they'll think it is the greatest idea ever. :lol:


I don’t know. The number of direct and indirect job calculation may not be favorable in comparison to an F-35 number. I don’t the numbers for either company/jet.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 04:14
by quicksilver
So...

Ya get it now?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 04:20
by quicksilver
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." ......(i.e. Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle, F-15 2040C, and now F-15X.) :roll:” — Corsair

Someone I worked for once described “the (Washington) Beltway” as “a place where bad ideas never die.”

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 04:21
by Corsair1963
Yes, that even if the USAF proposed buying F-15X's. It's very doubtful the US House would fund it....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 04:45
by quicksilver
Two chambers, four committees (authorizers and appropriators for each) plus conference to sort out the differences in end game.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 04:53
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:Two chambers, four committees (authorizers and appropriators for each) plus conference to sort out the differences in end game.


Depends on many factors on the power of the chairmens in the committees and how the districts are split. Much comes down to politics. (and all politics is local)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 05:46
by Fox1
Another thing to consider as to why the Air Force isn't simply requesting F-35 production to be increased....just how many extra aircraft could they reasonably build considering they are already building 3 different versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, as well as for a host of partner nations? We have to remember that it isn't just the USAF that are buying these things. I would imagine Lockheed Martin has a pretty full plate at the moment building fighters that are on order for all the different services and global partners. On the other hand, Boeing doesn't have many orders to fill for new F-15s. If the desire is to field more fighters as quickly as possible, this may explain why the Air Force is looking at something other than the F-35.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 06:51
by Corsair1963
Fox1 wrote:Another thing to consider as to why the Air Force isn't simply requesting F-35 production to be increased....just how many extra aircraft could they reasonably build considering they are already building 3 different versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, as well as for a host of partner nations? We have to remember that it isn't just the USAF that are buying these things. I would imagine Lockheed Martin has a pretty full plate at the moment building fighters that are on order for all the different services and global partners. On the other hand, Boeing doesn't have many orders to fill for new F-15s. If the desire is to field more fighters as quickly as possible, this may explain why the Air Force is looking at something other than the F-35.



They would only need a modest number of additional F-35A's yearly to replace the current fleet of F-15C's. Also, let's not forget with have additional capacity at the plant in Italy too! Honestly, capacity is not the issue....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 06:53
by Corsair1963
Let's not forget what Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said back in Sept of 2018.(just four months ago) :wink:



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.


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 08:58
by marauder2048
Fox1 wrote:Another thing to consider as to why the Air Force isn't simply requesting F-35 production to be increased....just how many extra aircraft could they reasonably build


Lockheed said in their quarterly earnings last week that max capacity is 180/year.



Air Force officials said privately the NDS demands certain levels of force structure that
can’t be achieved on the timelines it requires by buying more F-35s, which would take
some time to deliver. Boeing is building F-15s for foreign customers, however, and could
potentially deliver the aircraft faster, especially if foreign customers agree to let USAF buy
earlier aircraft off the line.



Nothing preventing the Air Force from making the same arrangements with foreign customers on the F-35 line.

And the NDS requires seven additional fighter squadrons for the 2025 period which
doesn't seem hard to hit; just a few months ago the Air Force was confident it could do it without
new build teen series.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 10:59
by zero-one
General David Goldfein wrote:“If we had the money, those would be 72 F-35s. But we’ve gotta look at this from a cost/business case.” he explained. “An F-15 will never be an F-35. Never. But I need capacity.”

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... m-per-copy

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

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 14:48
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
General David Goldfein wrote:“If we had the money, those would be 72 F-35s. But we’ve gotta look at this from a cost/business case.” he explained. “An F-15 will never be an F-35. Never. But I need capacity.”

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... m-per-copy

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


This is disturbing to me. The USAF is buying the F-35A @ 60/year. Why does the USAF think buying 12 F-15 annually, to get to 72, is a good idea? Just buy 12 more F-35. They are roughly equal in price.

There was another article I read yesterday quoting someone in the USAF that they would be buying 1 F-15 per month. What's the use in that? The USAF can't buy 1 more F-35?

As much I am/was a F-15 fan, this doesn't make sense. It would be cool to see a super eagle in the hundreds on the flight lines; but that's just it. It would be "cool". It would not make good sense.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 15:22
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
General David Goldfein wrote:“If we had the money, those would be 72 F-35s. But we’ve gotta look at this from a cost/business case.” he explained. “An F-15 will never be an F-35. Never. But I need capacity.”

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... m-per-copy

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

ANG aircraft are used in overseas missions regularly. They deploy alongside USAF units.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 15:33
by vilters
These treads are similar to this question: I buy a 4" knife. Then I am going to search what to do with a 4" knife.

FIRST STUDY : Who is going to be our next enemy? Or where is going to be the next battlefield?
Then buy aircraft to do the missions at hand.

=> => => Some of our best bets are the oil fields under the North Pole.
=> => => Another option is Erdoclown in Turkystan getting out of control with the Kurds.
=> => => What criminal organisation is gonna try something stupid and where?

First is gonna be a sea war, the second a land war, while the third is a war against wildly dipersed and out of control rusty Toyota trucks with no real command and control infrastructure.

For the first you need submarines, for the second a sniper (one is enough) , and for the third CAS.

I see no fighter requirement ANYWHERE.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 15:38
by zero-one
sferrin wrote:
marsavian wrote:
sferrin wrote:


Mentions halfway through that the new FBW has given it eye watering AOA capability. One aspect of this particular F-15X model not commented on so far is that it would give prospective export buyers a modern single-seat version of the Eagle to buy again.


The original, non-FBW, F-15 flew up to 120 degrees AOA in original flight testing back in the early 70s.


Yea thats a good find. I think the original Eagle can do it in test only. kinda like how the Rafale, F-16 and even the F-35 are capable of much higher AoA under test conditions but were hard limited due to various reasons sometimes safety related sometimes for better energy management.

But looks like the F-15X will be able to utilize this high AoA capability for combat purposes.

I also noticed that the engine nozzles now have the Turkey feathers on them. Are they 129 or 229 motors.
If so, this could be the best performance F-15 yet.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 15:39
by zero-one
ANG aircraft are used in overseas missions regularly. They deploy alongside USAF units.


I know that. But I don't know how to make sense of this decision anymore. So I'm trying to look at it from their glasses. And this is what I can see.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 15:54
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:Yea thats a good find. I think the original Eagle can do it in test only. kinda like how the Rafale, F-16 and even the F-35 are capable of much higher AoA under test conditions but were hard limited due to various reasons sometimes safety related sometimes for better energy management.

But looks like the F-15X will be able to utilize this high AoA capability for combat purposes.

I also noticed that the engine nozzles now have the Turkey feathers on them. Are they 129 or 229 motors.
If so, this could be the best performance F-15 yet.


-129 (Turkey feathers on the F110 are different than those on the F100.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 15:59
by marsavian
This is disturbing to me. The USAF is buying the F-35A @ 60/year. Why does the USAF think buying 12 F-15 annually, to get to 72, is a good idea? Just buy 12 more F-35. They are roughly equal in price.

There was another article I read yesterday quoting someone in the USAF that they would be buying 1 F-15 per month. What's the use in that? The USAF can't buy 1 more F-35?


and this maybe the political battle that may unfold between the Congress and the President/Defense Secretary. Although I consider the F-15X a more specialized interceptor still very valid in this day and age there is no doubt an F-35 would have more general purpose utility in the USAF even in the ANG. This may come down to the political lobbying power of Boeing vs Lockheed in the Congress as ultimately the Congress decides what's bought. This is just the opening gambit now the Defense Secretary has the USAF singing from the same Boeing hymnsheet. Politics in defence not only happens in Europe ;).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 16:40
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:This may come down to the political lobbying power of Boeing vs Lockheed in the Congress as ultimately the Congress decides what's bought. This is just the opening gambit now the Defense Secretary has the USAF singing from the same Boeing hymnsheet. Politics in defence not only happens in Europe ;).


Not "lobbying". More and more this is looking like a former Boeing plant finding himself in a position to divert money to his cronies. :-x :bang:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 17:08
by crosshairs
If this is really about affordably breathing new life in the fleet, what is wrong with the F-16V? Cheaper. I understand the line builds more than the Boeing line build F-15s. Its certainly not a slouch or Gum's old F-16. Maybe it's because the F-16 isn't built by Boeing?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 17:30
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:If this is really about affordably breathing new life in the fleet, what is wrong with the F-16V? Cheaper. I understand the line builds more than the Boeing line build F-15s. Its certainly not a slouch or Gum's old F-16. Maybe it's because the F-16 isn't built by Boeing?


Well you see with that theres a compelling argument. Lets buy the statement that they want a non Stealthy 4.5 gen to replenish ANG squadrons for the 2030+ timeline.

So it should be non stealthy and it should be an upgrade of a legacy platform.

You're left with 3 choices. F-15X, F-16V and SHornet.
The F-15X has the biggest radar, has the highest payload.
The F-16V is the cheapest and has the best EM characteristics
(I can't think of another advantage the F-16V has over the F-15X)
The Shornet is a navy plane get that thing otta here they said.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 17:41
by marsavian
The other thing that might make you think that this is a bit of an undercover stitch-up is that the USAF is now in such a hurry that they are now prepared to take off the production line two seater Eagles meant for export which are clearly better suited to replace the F-15E than the F-15C in the USAF. If it's meant to replace the single seater F-15C and its two seater trainer F-15D why the seconding of ground attack F-15SA from the production line which would need a WSO in the back ? At least keep the narrative logically consistent.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 18:22
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
crosshairs wrote:If this is really about affordably breathing new life in the fleet, what is wrong with the F-16V? Cheaper. I understand the line builds more than the Boeing line build F-15s. Its certainly not a slouch or Gum's old F-16. Maybe it's because the F-16 isn't built by Boeing?


Well you see with that theres a compelling argument. Lets buy the statement that they want a non Stealthy 4.5 gen to replenish ANG squadrons for the 2030+ timeline.

So it should be non stealthy and it should be an upgrade of a legacy platform.

You're left with 3 choices. F-15X, F-16V and SHornet.
The F-15X has the biggest radar, has the highest payload.
The F-16V is the cheapest and has the best EM characteristics
(I can't think of another advantage the F-16V has over the F-15X)
The Shornet is a navy plane get that thing otta here they said.


Is the F-15X supposed to be a mud mover? Isn't that better left to the F-35? Infinitely lower RCS and infinitely better SA. Before sending the X, wouldn't one want to pummel the bad guys for weeks with LO platforms to ensure that all ground threats were eliminated?

I thought the battle cry of the F-15 mafia was air defense and air supremacy where it wasn't likely to encounter stealthy bad guys,

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 20:18
by mixelflick
In my mind, the F-15X is a single seater. If what they're saying is that the F-15C fleet needs to be refreshed, you don't need a mud mover. You need a purpose built air superiority platform. FAST packs/CFT's really aren't conducive to an air superiority platform, unless it's a strictly BVR machine. I suppose you could make an argument the 9x makes any maneuvering penalty that the CFT's impose is moot.

This is getting... real interesting. Shouldn't be happening given the F-35 is cheaper, stealthier, gobs more SA but... it's a distinct possibility IMO. When you hear higher ups in the USAF saying they want/need it.. And now talk of much better high AOA capability?

It just blows my mind that in 2019, we're talking about procuring a 4th gen aircraft in a 5th gen world. If it comes to pass, it'll be the ultimate admission by USAF that an all 5th gen force isn't possible. The Navy is already there. The Marines are already there. Sounds like the Russians and Chinese are too.

Oh well. If that's the case, there is no better platform IMO than a Super Eagle...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 21:02
by sferrin
If you're going to do that though go whole hog with a pair of F100-PW-232 (37,000lb+ each) or F110-GE-132 (36,500lb each) and 3D TVC. Blow the dust off the old software that allowed ASM-135 launch (ASAT), put a "Block 2" of that thing into production with the old KKV swapped for one from SM-3. . .

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 21:13
by marsavian
The only way this will be broadly accepted in a 5th generation world is for the F-15X to be ultimately based on the F-15SE Silent Eagle which has been partially developed already.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... le-323962/
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2010-07-09 ... 1st-Flight
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2010-07-20 ... pon-Launch

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=12009
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=12010




Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 22:48
by Fox1
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 23:00
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:If you're going to do that though go whole hog with a pair of F100-PW-232 (37,000lb+ each) or F110-GE-132 (36,500lb each) and 3D TVC. Blow the dust off the old software that allowed ASM-135 launch (ASAT), put a "Block 2" of that thing into production with the old KKV swapped for one from SM-3. . .


I wholeheartedly agree (especially on the engines). When it comes to thrust vectoring/ASAT stuff though, that's going to add significantly to the cost and timeline. I also think the same can be said of the Silent Eagle's internal weapons and signature reduction. If we're really going to do this, I'd love to see a single seat F-15X with either 232 or 132 motors, a killer EW/radar suite and enhanced air to air loadout.

The SU-35, J-16 etc. would be in for a very, very long day...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 23:12
by Fox1
mixelflick wrote:
sferrin wrote:If you're going to do that though go whole hog with a pair of F100-PW-232 (37,000lb+ each) or F110-GE-132 (36,500lb each) and 3D TVC. Blow the dust off the old software that allowed ASM-135 launch (ASAT), put a "Block 2" of that thing into production with the old KKV swapped for one from SM-3. . .


I wholeheartedly agree (especially on the engines). When it comes to thrust vectoring/ASAT stuff though, that's going to add significantly to the cost and timeline. I also think the same can be said of the Silent Eagle's internal weapons and signature reduction. If we're really going to do this, I'd love to see a single seat F-15X with either 232 or 132 motors, a killer EW/radar suite and enhanced air to air loadout.

The SU-35, J-16 etc. would be in for a very, very long day...


And throw in a an air to air missile with capabilities on par with the Meteor. Or maybe even get in on that Meteor/AAM-4 hybrid missile being developed by Japan and the UK. 8)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 23:22
by marsavian
The only cost effective quick relevant parts of the Silent Eagle development would be an engine blocker and RAM as these could be retrofitted to the F-15E too and would get the F-15's frontal RCS at least down to F-16/Su-35 levels with conformal AAMs. Somebody in Congress has got to get a hold of this and define the specification properly or work out if it is needed at all because the USAF directed by the Defense Secretary has gone off at a tangent and manufactured a F-15C requirement from overall fleet aircraft number strength where as many suggest the F-35 build number could be slightly increased to allow for early F-15 retirement.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 01:57
by Corsair1963
Honestly, this whole debate over ordering more F-15's in ludicrous! :shock:


A good analogy would be for the USAF to buy additional F-4's back in 1980. At a cost more than a price of the F-15 coming off the production line then....

:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 02:26
by Fox1
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, this whole debate over ordering more F-15's in ludicrous! :shock:


A good analogy would be for the USAF to buy additional F-4's back in 1980. At a cost more than a price of the F-15 coming off the production line then....

:doh:


In 1980, the F-15 and F-16 were in full rate production and between the two of them, they were rolling off the line by the hundreds every year. So I'm not so sure that is such a great analogy.

Imagine that if it were 1980 and only one of the F-15 or F-16 was in production and being built at the rate the F-35 is today. In that scenario, we likely would have needed some extra F-4s. That is one of the problems with only having one type of fighter in production. Until now, that has never happened before.

From WWII, through the Cold War and up until just very recently, we've always had at least a couple of fighter types in production at the same time. Outside of the benefit of being able to have MORE aircraft using that method, you get the side benefit of having some variety in the active fleet. That can be a good thing when you experience some sort of problem with one of the types and they all end up grounded until the problem is sorted out. If we had an all F-35 fleet like some of you guys want, what would we have to send up when an inevitable grounding occurs? It is never wise to have all your eggs in a single basket.

I wish we were talking about re-opening the F-22 production line, as I'd greatly prefer having more Raptors as opposed to more Eagles. But with the enormous cost of restarting the line, I just don't ever see that happening. So what is the 2nd most capable fighter aircraft currently in production in this country? There is the solution. It may not be ideal, but it is damn sure better than nothing.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 04:01
by marauder2048
Fox1 wrote:From WWII, through the Cold War and up until just very recently, we've always had at least a couple of fighter types in production at the same time.


Which has resulted in a maintainers crisis and a massive modernization/sustainment bill due to disparate
types/configurations many of which lack the economies of scale to facilitate real cost-saving competition.

It's a vicious circle that the F-15X (aside from being obsolescent in the National Defense Strategy timeframe)
merely perpetuates.

Fox1 wrote:Outside of the benefit of being able to have MORE aircraft using that method,


Given that all of the manufacturers are tied into the same defense industrial base why is
that necessarily the case?

Fox1 wrote:you get the side benefit of having some variety in the active fleet.


The argument is that upgraded F-15s or the upgraded F-16s from units that have
converted to the F-35 are the best use of funds even with some of the non-competitive
economics described above.

Unless the F-15X funds are strictly ring-fenced congressional adds for the ANG that money
is better used for the upgrades/SLEPs, more F-35s and the remainder used for things
like persistent Over-the-Horizon air defense sensors without which the air defense
fighters are of limited utility.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 04:06
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:Is the F-15X supposed to be a mud mover? Isn't that better left to the F-35? Infinitely lower RCS and infinitely better SA. Before sending the X, wouldn't one want to pummel the bad guys for weeks with LO platforms to ensure that all ground threats were eliminated?

I thought the battle cry of the F-15 mafia was air defense and air supremacy where it wasn't likely to encounter stealthy bad guys,


The official premise of the USAF is not to buy whats better than the F-35. They want to buy whats cheaper and what can be produced faster.

By the way I wouldn't say the F-35 has infinitely better SA than the F-15X.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 05:46
by quicksilver
Fox1 wrote:Another thing to consider as to why the Air Force isn't simply requesting F-35 production to be increased....just how many extra aircraft could they reasonably build considering they are already building 3 different versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, as well as for a host of partner nations? We have to remember that it isn't just the USAF that are buying these things. I would imagine Lockheed Martin has a pretty full plate at the moment building fighters that are on order for all the different services and global partners. On the other hand, Boeing doesn't have many orders to fill for new F-15s. If the desire is to field more fighters as quickly as possible, this may explain why the Air Force is looking at something other than the F-35.


That’s what the production capacity slide addresses on the previous page.

C’mon guys; keep up...

Additionally, they (BA) have to get LL funding or at least a UCA and contract/order the long lead items. That takes time; they can’t just walk down to the Walmart and buy the stuff. We’re talking years for some LL components, particularly large structures.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 05:51
by quicksilver
zero-one wrote:
General David Goldfein wrote:“If we had the money, those would be 72 F-35s. But we’ve gotta look at this from a cost/business case.” he explained. “An F-15 will never be an F-35. Never. But I need capacity.”

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... m-per-copy

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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 06:22
by firebase99
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?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 07:36
by zero-one
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 08:23
by Corsair1963
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???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 08:30
by Corsair1963
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.”

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 08:39
by Corsair1963
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 08:51
by hkultala
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...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 08:52
by Corsair1963
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???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 09:36
by zero-one
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 09:59
by element1loop
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 10:06
by marauder2048
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."

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 11:04
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 14:59
by marsavian
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 15:18
by mixelflick
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...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 15:38
by zero-one
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 15:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 15:55
by mixelflick
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..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 16:35
by marsavian
They could upgrade F-15C's for less


A full SLEP will cost $30m not including AESA/ECM/computer/display etc upgrades. If Boeing are offering a brand new F-15X for just around twice that then the latter is more cost-effective as you will be getting a brand new airframe with FBW and outer wing pylon use.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-437587/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 17:27
by SpudmanWP
zero-one wrote:The official premise of the USAF is not to buy whats better than the F-35. They want to buy whats cheaper and what can be produced faster.

The F-15X fails on both of those accounts.

Less flyaway cost than the F-35 and with a $27,000 CPFH

While they can take a loss on the production (unlawfull?), they can't control CPFH very well unless they do the work (and take another loss).

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

Yup, over 225 per year and they are nowhere near that now.

The F-15X is a single seat F-15SA. Done. Easy. The F-15SA is an E on steroids.

So it's a mashup of two existing designs (the F-15C and SA). How well did Boeing do when they tried that on the KC-46? :doh:

A full SLEP will cost $30m not including AESA/ECM/computer/display etc upgrades.

That was for a FULL SLEP that pushed the service life into the 2040's. If they only wanted the 2030's then it was only $1 mil per.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 18:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote: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..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 21:26
by quicksilver
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.


So the contractor claims; and you choose to believe it. I’ll give you a pass since you’ve never been in that arena.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 21:30
by quicksilver

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 02:16
by crosshairs
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: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..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).


Sometime in the early 80s I saw a chart comparing the drop tank drag to CFT drag, and CFTs were superior.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 12:49
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: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..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).


Sometime in the early 80s I saw a chart comparing the drop tank drag to CFT drag, and CFTs were superior.


Same here. Better maneuverability with CFTs instead of tanks as well.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 14:34
by sprstdlyscottsmn
From the F-15A-1

Two CFTs with missile launchers
Weight Empty : 2487
Weight Full : 12,001
DI : 4

610 Gallon Fuel Tank
Weight Empty : 320 lb
Weight Full: 4,285 lb
DI: Centerline 12.2
Wing (no CFT) 5.5
Wing (CFT) 6.0

So I was a bit off on wing tank drag vs CFT drag. I must have been thinking of the -E CFT with a DI of 20. So the CFT itself weighs 2,487lb, more than three empty tanks plus the centerline pylon (W 399 DI 3.3) but has roughly the same Drag as a centerline pylon alone.

It also carries ~9,500lb fuel, similar to two and a half 610s.

Thanks for making me double check.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 14:50
by southernphantom
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:From the F-15A-1

Two CFTs with missile launchers
Weight Empty : 2487
Weight Full : 12,001
DI : 4

610 Gallon Fuel Tank
Weight Empty : 320 lb
Weight Full: 4,285 lb
DI: Centerline 12.2
Wing (no CFT) 5.5
Wing (CFT) 6.0

So I was a bit off on wing tank drag vs CFT drag. I must have been thinking of the -E CFT with a DI of 20. So the CFT itself weighs 2,487lb, more than three empty tanks plus the centerline pylon (W 399 DI 3.3) but has roughly the same Drag as a centerline pylon alone.

It also carries ~9,500lb fuel, similar to two and a half 610s.

Thanks for making me double check.

:cheers:

Good data, thanks for posting it up! That is a very convincing argument in favor of C- CFTs

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 14:55
by mixelflick
crosshairs wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: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..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).


Sometime in the early 80s I saw a chart comparing the drop tank drag to CFT drag, and CFTs were superior.


Thanks.

So we know the LA ANG was using CFT's as an experiment. Was there any verdict there? I'd think carrying around all that extra gas would dramatically improve persistence in the OCA mission, plus allow for up to 12 AMRAAM's or 10 plus 2 9x's. Given the new BVR doctrine and the 9x's HOBS capability, will ANG Eagles adopt the CFT's?

As much internal fuel as a Flanker with up to twice the air to air loadout would go a long way toward bringing back the F-15's advantages IMO. The engines are presumably less thirsty than their Russian counterparts too. I'd just like to know what current Eagle drivers think? They all seem to favor flying with two wing tanks...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 15:53
by sferrin
Just for reference 8) :

754a1b6216e61f6dd55dcd5961dfefca.jpg


10391003176_6b9be614a7_b.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 20:05
by quicksilver
John Venable at Heritage, on the F-15X idea. You may recall his survey a couple years ago of F-35 pilots who came from other aircraft types.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 23:04
by southernphantom
quicksilver wrote:John Venable at Heritage, on the F-15X idea. You may recall his survey a couple years ago of F-35 pilots who came from other aircraft types.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake


That article is a pathetic joke for a variety of reasons.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 23:36
by quicksilver
southernphantom wrote:
quicksilver wrote:John Venable at Heritage, on the F-15X idea. You may recall his survey a couple years ago of F-35 pilots who came from other aircraft types.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake


That article is a pathetic joke for a variety of reasons.


Well, enlighten us...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 23:50
by f-16adf
The achilles heel of the F-15
F-15 intake.JPG

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 01:42
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
quicksilver wrote:John Venable at Heritage, on the F-15X idea. You may recall his survey a couple years ago of F-35 pilots who came from other aircraft types.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake


That article is a pathetic joke for a variety of reasons.


Well, enlighten us...


I thought the article was well written/reasoned, but fell apart towards the end..

Not survivable in the current IADS environment? OK. First few days of war maybe. But when those IADS are brought down by F-35's and other aircraft? Once that airspace is secured and IADS laid to waste, somebody's going to have to fly CAPs. Is it going to be cheaper to buy and operate vs. F-35's? Logic tells us the F-35 will be cheaper and more capable. But this will largely be in Congress's hands, and they're anything but logical.

The air force needs 72 airframes a year to modernize the force? Then why not give them the $ to buy them? Otherwise, make due with 60 (or whatever) you're funded for. The fact is we're in this current pickle because of a number of USAF leadership mistakes, and nobody's been held accountable. That's the underlying reason for everything from obsolete airframes to the current pilot shortage...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 03:03
by marauder2048
mixelflick wrote:
Not survivable in the current IADS environment? OK. First few days of war maybe. But when those IADS are brought down by F-35's and other aircraft?


Depends on how the enemy employs their IADS; they could elect to be highly selective in
choosing engagements, minimize their exposure and feign incapacity in order to draw out
your less survivable fighters.

The air defense vignettes that RAND did for Taiwan were really instructive in how a
well led, well equipped IADS force could stymie a PRC air campaign.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 03:14
by element1loop
f-16adf wrote:The achilles heel of the F-15
F-15 intake.JPG


They need to buy some Sukhoi magic blockers.

(and invisible to the naked-eye too)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 04:18
by crosshairs
element1loop wrote:
f-16adf wrote:The achilles heel of the F-15
F-15 intake.JPG


They need to buy some Sukhoi magic blockers.

(and invisible to the naked-eye too)


I guess you are all unfamiliar with plasma stealth? Remember the effort to reduce Oxcart's signature with plasma? Plenty of room in the cfts for a plasma generator to hide the fan blades. :wink:

I thought e1l was talking about horsepower. ATF class thrust would ensure the X was faster than the F-35A even with cfts and external missiles.

I can't believe this is the reality. Buying 12 eagles in place of 12 lightning? To save a few tens of millions?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 17:55
by vilters
Who cares?????
Let us assume a modern war between 2 Countries.

"Game starts" the day BEFORE the conflict.


With a satellite you follow all their aircraft and where they land and park.

Game day : (can be the middle of the night, who cares.)

B2 bombers, F-22, F-35, and you bomb each and every aircraft shelter than contains an enemy plane.
Tomahawks can take out all their fixed radars and command and comms.

You send in some "visible aircraft" to trigger their AAA and SAM's, and let the B-1 take care of those.

By noon on the FIRST day one of the conflict, you can fly around in your bathing suit with whatever pink or orange colored airframe you prefer.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 21:43
by botsing
vilters wrote:Game day : (can be the middle of the night, who cares.)

So what happens when USA/NATO isn't the one who's starting that first game day thingy?

It can be handy to use simplifications when possible, but make sure they will not become absurd when you compare them to reality.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 22:04
by vilters
botsing wrote:
vilters wrote:Game day : (can be the middle of the night, who cares.)

So what happens when USA/NATO isn't the one who's starting that first game day thingy?

It can be handy to use simplifications when possible, but make sure they will not become absurd when you compare them to reality.


a) Fire the Intel officer. => he should have seen it coming.
b) A bomb (or Tomahawk) should fall on their A/C shelters within 15 minutes of their aircraft landing/parking.

The USAF and NAVY combined have enough "knock-over" power to basically destroy ANY enemy's Air Force within the first 4 hrs of conflict but don't do it like Desert storm and go in like waterdrops on a hot plate but basically flood the airspace with all you'v got the first 4 hrs, and get them while on the ground re-arming re-fuel.

None of them should be able to restart, even less get airborne for a second try.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 00:59
by marauder2048
vilters wrote:b) A bomb (or Tomahawk) should fall on their A/C shelters within 15 minutes of their aircraft landing/parking.


The angle of obliquity requirements for a penetrator result in fairly predictable terminal trajectories
which makes these weapons vulnerable to terminal defenses.

And ultra high performance concrete while relatively expensive is still cheap enough to allow
for the proliferation of hardened aircraft shelters.

So the prevailing view is that air bases featuring modern construction, repair capabilities and defenses
are going to be a really tough nut to crack.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 02:15
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:And ultra high performance concrete while relatively expensive is still cheap enough to allow
for the proliferation of hardened aircraft shelters. So the prevailing view is that air bases featuring modern construction, repair capabilities and defenses are going to be a really tough nut to crack.


I can't see that being a stumbling block with the right weapon mix, even heavy air defenses won't last against a flight of 4 x F-35 with EA and JSM. Then a flight of 4 x F-35 with SDB next to go after hard surfaces and fuel. With the area suppressed 8 x F-35 enter with 4 x BLU109-JDAM each for the shelters and bunkers.

One squadron level raid and a sub-squadron level raid the next day, to scrap the rest of the critical infrastructure.

Otherwise two F-35 squadron-level attacks inside the first hour to get the lot immediately.

Re the external BLU delivery, ESM + fusion and reference to MDF data will provide the capacity to skirt and fly outside engagement envelopes of anything still up, plus RAAF developed a JDAM-ER kit for BLU109 standoff delivery, if that were desired to make it harder for air defenses that were playing possum.

http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/2 ... 800027.jpg
http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/2 ... 800026.jpg

(those are not Australian uniforms in the background in the second image)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 02:35
by crosshairs
marauder2048 wrote:
vilters wrote:b) A bomb (or Tomahawk) should fall on their A/C shelters within 15 minutes of their aircraft landing/parking.


The angle of obliquity requirements for a penetrator result in fairly predictable terminal trajectories
which makes these weapons vulnerable to terminal defenses.

And ultra high performance concrete while relatively expensive is still cheap enough to allow
for the proliferation of hardened aircraft shelters.

So the prevailing view is that air bases featuring modern construction, repair capabilities and defenses
are going to be a really tough nut to crack.


Agree. Runways can be repaired quickly. The Russians build tough equipment for austere deployment. You gotta kill the people and the equipment. You gotta keep them too afraid to take to the air. The way the latter is done is with 5th gen LO aircraft they can't see pounding the bandits with amraam before they know they are in a fight. Highly visible F-15X will not accomplish this. They will be busy trying not to get tagged with a SAM. They will need jammers for protection or 5th gen providing SEAD. Love the eagles, but inadequate and obsolete by modern standards. We tried to go to an all stealth force so we didn't need such big strike packages - one reason at least - and so we could do more with less. Or at least I read that in a brochure :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 13:55
by mixelflick
botsing wrote:
vilters wrote:Game day : (can be the middle of the night, who cares.)

So what happens when USA/NATO isn't the one who's starting that first game day thingy?

It can be handy to use simplifications when possible, but make sure they will not become absurd when you compare them to reality.


Great point...

I often wondered if I was Saddam (prior to GWII), why sit back and wait for it? He and the rest of the world should have known what was coming. The best defense is a good offense, and he would have been wise to get as many SU-24, 25 and Fitters into the air covered by Mig-23, 25's and 29's as possible to strike coalition targets. I'm not saying they wouldn't take losses (probably massive ones), but it beats hiding in shelters that are going to get pulverized or burying your most capable aircraft in the sand. I know Russian birds are built rugged, but geez...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 15:33
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:I often wondered if I was Saddam (prior to GWII), why sit back and wait for it? He and the rest of the world should have known what was coming. The best defense is a good offense, and he would have been wise to get as many SU-24, 25 and Fitters into the air covered by Mig-23, 25's and 29's as possible to strike coalition targets. I'm not saying they wouldn't take losses (probably massive ones), but it beats hiding in shelters that are going to get pulverized or burying your most capable aircraft in the sand. I know Russian birds are built rugged, but geez...


During Desert Storm they thought they were safe. They had a LOT of HASs. The US was taking them out left and right, then for a period of time ran out of BLU-109s. Some of the shelters were VERY hard, and the available LGBs couldn't do much more than clear the weeds off them. "Disturb the rose bushes", as one officer at the time put it at the time. Iraq quickly stuffed as many aircraft as possible into them. Then we got more BLU-109s in theater.

a-hardened-aircraft-shelter-at-ali-al-salem-air-base-damaged-during-operation-2313ce-1600.jpg


2112701640_6d60bdca56_b.jpg


Al-Jaber-DF-SD-03-16337-1S.jpg



That's why Iraq started flying it's aircraft to Iran. It thought they'd be safe and they'd be able to get them back after the war. When Iran said, "thanks!", Iraq started burying them in the sand. Probably my favorite shot from that time:

fa75-1.jpg



IIRC SDB was designed to have as much penetration capability as BLU-109 albeit with less *BOOM* once it got where it was going. (Though once you're inside the shelter it doesn't take much to screw up an airplane.

GBU-39-B-SDB-I-Drop-2.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 01:54
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
I thought the article was well written/reasoned, but fell apart towards the end..

Not survivable in the current IADS environment? OK. First few days of war maybe. But when those IADS are brought down by F-35's and other aircraft? Once that airspace is secured and IADS laid to waste, somebody's going to have to fly CAPs. Is it going to be cheaper to buy and operate vs. F-35's? Logic tells us the F-35 will be cheaper and more capable. But this will largely be in Congress's hands, and they're anything but logical.

The air force needs 72 airframes a year to modernize the force? Then why not give them the $ to buy them? Otherwise, make due with 60 (or whatever) you're funded for. The fact is we're in this current pickle because of a number of USAF leadership mistakes, and nobody's been held accountable. That's the underlying reason for everything from obsolete airframes to the current pilot shortage...


The article is spot on in my opinion. As you just "can't" make a good case for buying the F-15X. :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 03:18
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
Al-Jaber-DF-SD-03-16337-1S.jpg


IIRC SDB was designed to have as much penetration capability as BLU-109 albeit with less *BOOM* once it got where it was going. (Though once you're inside the shelter it doesn't take much to screw up an airplane.

GBU-39-B-SDB-I-Drop-2.jpg


That image of the F-117A in front of the wrecked shelter is downright cheeky!

Good point regarding the SDB. RAAF recently ordered 2,950 x GBU-39/B SDB (plus 3,900 x GBU-53B SDBII), so a BLU109 JDAM-ER can be conserved for other targets (frankly, not sure if RAAF ordered JDAM-ER kits for 109s yet).

:thumb:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 04:47
by popcorn
Too bad MOAB is too bulky. Maybe the US should consider investing in a new generation of thermobaric weapons, should do. good job messing up anything not in a HAS.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 09:30
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:Too bad MOAB is too bulky. Maybe the US should consider investing in a new generation of thermobaric weapons, should do. good job messing up anything not in a HAS.


BLU-118 has a thermobaric explosive in a BLU-109 penetrator case. This would make for a few nice “big-ass holes” in the pavement that no one will be filling-in, in a hurry. A 4,500 lb version may be the business for a multipurpose F-35 airburst and deep penetration thermobaric weapon.

BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon

The BLU-118/B nomenclature was first reported on 21 December 2001, and this weapon is clearly unrelated to the BLU-118 500 lb. napalm canister used during the Vietnam war.

The BLU-118/B is a penetrating warhead filled with an advanced thermobaric explosive that, when detonated, generates higher sustained blast pressures in confined spaces such as tunnels and underground facilities. The BLU-118/B uses the same penetrator body as the standard BLU-109 weapon. The significant difference is the replacement of the high explosive fill with a new thermobaric explosive that provides increased lethality in confined spaces.

The BLU-118/B warhead uses a Fuze Munition Unit (FMU)-143J/B to initiate the explosive. The FMU-143 fuze has been modified with a new booster and a 120-millisecond delay. All weapon guidance systems and employment options currently used with the BLU-109 warhead are compatible with the new BLU-118/B warhead. …

… The BLU-118B was successfully tested at the Nevada Test Site on 14 December 2001. During that test, a Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-24 laser-guided weapon using the BLU-118B warhead was dropped from an F-15E attack aircraft. The laser-guided bomb was "skipped" into a tunnel and exploded with a delayed fuze, which produced a significant growth in overpressure and temperature in the tunnel. When compared to the standard BLU-109 explosive, results showed the new thermobaric weapon generated a significant improvement in overpressure and pressure-impulse in the tunnel complex.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... lu-118.htm


25 to 30% more impulse.

Responding to the need for improved capabilities to defeat enemies seeking refuge in tunnels in the early-days of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, ARA helped deliver a 25%-30% improvement over the existing BLU-109 bomb. …
https://www.ara.com/projects/blu-118-bomb-development

… The BLU-118/B bomb body can be attached to a variety of laser guidance system packages, including the GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, and GBU-28 laser guided bombs, as well as the AGM-130 missiles.

BLU-118B weapon operational concepts include vertical delivery with the bomb detonated at or just outside portal, skip bomb with short fuse (1st or second contact), skip bomb with long fuse (penetrate door, max distance down adit), and vertical delivery to penetrate overburden and detonate inside the tunnel adit.
https://www.ara.com/projects/blu-118-bomb-development


In the same way you could employ 7 equidistant pure fission bombs to replicate or exceed the shock destruction effects of a single 1 Mt device, 2xF-35 with 2x4,500 lb thermobaric weapons each, using MADL to coordinate precise targeting and timing of releases, could scale in the same way, to largely recreate the effects of a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (minus the C-130 special-delivery).

If you want more bang add one more F-35 ... or two ... or three ... etc.

The MOAB drop in Afghanistan could potentially be replicated by just two stealthy F-35, with little or no warning indication.

https://youtu.be/-K1myT-mIt4

Wery nice for cleawing away weef top ... or air base buildings ... or any base for that matter ... or any tunnel/bunker complex.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 22:45
by marauder2048
BLU-109 and GBU-39 were designed for concrete strengths in the 5,000 - 10,000 psi range.

That's considered low-to-medium strength these days.

The High Speed Penetrating Weapon is designed for strengths up to 15,000 psi.

Beyond that, you need the bomber carried weapons or delivery by (medium-range or greater) ballistic missile.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 23:30
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:BLU-109 and GBU-39 were designed for concrete strengths in the 5,000 - 10,000 psi range.

That's considered low-to-medium strength these days.

The High Speed Penetrating Weapon is designed for strengths up to 15,000 psi.

Beyond that, you need the bomber carried weapons or delivery by (medium-range or greater) ballistic missile.


"Back in the day" (80s) the USAF tested superhard silos of 50ksi. Saw a picture of one test where the end of the silo was sticking up out of the bottom of the crater, hardly scratched. :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 00:08
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
"Back in the day" (80s) the USAF tested superhard silos of 50ksi. Saw a picture of one test where the end of the silo was sticking up out of the bottom of the crater, hardly scratched. :shock:



Yeah. It's even somewhat analogous to the multiple protective shelter scheme for MX where
each shelter could also support a terminal defense system.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 01:36
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
"Back in the day" (80s) the USAF tested superhard silos of 50ksi. Saw a picture of one test where the end of the silo was sticking up out of the bottom of the crater, hardly scratched. :shock:



Yeah. It's even somewhat analogous to the multiple protective shelter scheme for MX where
each shelter could also support a terminal defense system.


My favorite.

Capture22.PNG

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 01:49
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:The High Speed Penetrating Weapon is designed for strengths up to 15,000 psi.


Besides cost of doing that, going through a hardened top can be replaced with punching through doors. Are doors going to stop JASSM? Or JSOW-C's broach warhead? Or even a BLU-109/JDAM-ER in a fast gliding mode of attack? Will they even stop an SDB doing the same thing? Anything long, thin, dense and fast is going to penetrate the doors easier (or even damage them so badly that they don't work).

You could even detonate a larger BLU-118 derivative inserted deep under the shelter, or under the pavement adjacent to the doors, with a new "big a$$ hole" where the door-opening was, that no longer opens.

So is an expensive extra hardened shelter the solution if an evolved weapon quickly defeats it? Or just a change in delivery mode of an existing one? If F-35s are dropping bombs on your airbase you already lost as nothing's going to be working too well, and the pavement is going to be a bunch of "big-ass holes".

The other option is to disperse but then space-based sensors and F-35 IR DAS, EOTS and SAR are going to locate those dispersal operating points fast unless the aim is to disperse them, hide them, and don't fly again.

Either way the OCA effort is still going to work.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 02:02
by madrat
Rods from God concept was the great way to deal with fortifications.

In that same article about USAF testing hardened silos they also recognized Soviet hardening could be substantially higher.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 02:50
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:
Besides cost of doing that, going through a hardened top can be replaced with punching through doors. Are doors going to stop JASSM? Or JSOW-C's broach warhead? Or even a BLU-109/JDAM-ER in a fast gliding mode of attack? Will they even stop an SDB doing the same thing? Anything long, thin, dense and fast is going to penetrate the doors easier (or even damage them so badly that they don't work).


The doors are typically protected by very large, very high and very thick berms.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 02:59
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Besides cost of doing that, going through a hardened top can be replaced with punching through doors. Are doors going to stop JASSM? Or JSOW-C's broach warhead? Or even a BLU-109/JDAM-ER in a fast gliding mode of attack? Will they even stop an SDB doing the same thing? Anything long, thin, dense and fast is going to penetrate the doors easier (or even damage them so badly that they don't work).


The doors are typically protected by very large, very high and very thick berms.


So insert a penetrator at 45 degrees and either blow a hole at the door or under the shelter. Even a glide weapon approach at 45 degrees with a broach warhead is going through the door, or wrecking them. Same for a BLU JDAM-ER.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 03:25
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Besides cost of doing that, going through a hardened top can be replaced with punching through doors. Are doors going to stop JASSM? Or JSOW-C's broach warhead? Or even a BLU-109/JDAM-ER in a fast gliding mode of attack? Will they even stop an SDB doing the same thing? Anything long, thin, dense and fast is going to penetrate the doors easier (or even damage them so badly that they don't work).


The doors are typically protected by very large, very high and very thick berms.


So insert a penetrator at 45 degrees and either blow a hole at the door or under the shelter. Even a glide weapon approach at 45 degrees with a broach warhead is going through the door, or wrecking them. Same for a BLU JDAM-ER.



There is a gap between the berm and the door but that's typically, by design, far too small for a
PGM to reliably traverse while missing the berm and hitting the door.

And of course it's a predictable trajectory that's vulnerable to the terminal defenses.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 04:20
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:
element1loop wrote:So insert a penetrator at 45 degrees and either blow a hole at the door or under the shelter. Even a glide weapon approach at 45 degrees with a broach warhead is going through the door, or wrecking them. Same for a BLU JDAM-ER.



There is a gap between the berm and the door but that's typically, by design, far too small for a
PGM to reliably traverse while missing the berm and hitting the door.

And of course it's a predictable trajectory that's vulnerable to the terminal defenses.


Oh come on, the 'gap' is not even close to small, you're exaggerating, strike fighters are not small aircraft. A JASSM can fly into a mine shaft, or even through a window, and it's specifically designed to defeat terminal defenses. JSOW-C does the same thing, just a bit slower. Both are very agile and precise. And we have just seen IDF defeat a modern GBAD (several times), and a JSM plus EA (MALD-J supporting) would do that much easier again. And many of the shelters will have different axis of attack directions.

A 4,500 lb version of a BLU-118, either through the top, or through a door, or inserted underneath the whole shebang, and lifting its floor, is going to wreck anything inside it. For some reason you seem resistant to admitting that affordable shelters aren't achievable against current and near future strike weapons.

At best you can place the aircraft underground, but again it's very expensive, but some countries do it, and that's why you'd want something like a multipurpose 4,500 lb thermobaric penetrator (with airburst option) on F-35s to hit with little or no warning. And there's no reason a LO version of a BLU can not be produced.

If the door is open (due to no warning) the bombs can go inside. If the doors are closed the jets can't fly anyway. Either way, you can still destroy the doors, or dig big-ass holes in front of them, as required, to make sure they can't get out and fly.

OCA attacks will work.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 08:35
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:Oh come on, the 'gap' is not even close to small, you're exaggerating, strike fighters are not small aircraft. A JASSM can fly into a mine shaft, or even through a window, and it's specifically designed to defeat terminal defenses. JSOW-C does the same thing, just a bit slower. Both are very agile and precise.


JASSM and JSOW cave attack profiles require a fair amount of unobstructed approach.
Nothing like the trajectories needed here.

And these shelter systems are deliberately designed to permit one axis of attack against the doors
unless your PGM can do Death Star trench runs with 90 degree turns.

This is why the US is focused on penetrators but they are challenged by new materials and terminal
defenses. For the latter, think of something that operates from behind cover like a VL-launched
MHTK directed by a retractable KuRFS FCR.

element1loop wrote:For some reason you seem resistant to admitting that affordable shelters aren't achievable against current and near future strike weapons.


Because none of the current and near future strike weapons have much utility against current and near future
HAS defended by current and near future defenses.

OTOH, with no INF treaty, a combined F-35 and MRBM attack could be effective since the F-35s could
just focus on SEADing the ABM defenses (if any) that unmask to defend the base.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 10:38
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:
element1loop wrote:Oh come on, the 'gap' is not even close to small, you're exaggerating, strike fighters are not small aircraft. A JASSM can fly into a mine shaft, or even through a window, and it's specifically designed to defeat terminal defenses. JSOW-C does the same thing, just a bit slower. Both are very agile and precise.


JASSM and JSOW cave attack profiles require a fair amount of unobstructed approach.
Nothing like the trajectories needed here.

And these shelter systems are deliberately designed to permit one axis of attack against the doors
unless your PGM can do Death Star trench runs with 90 degree turns.

This is why the US is focused on penetrators but they are challenged by new materials and terminal
defenses. For the latter, think of something that operates from behind cover like a VL-launched
MHTK directed by a retractable KuRFS FCR.

element1loop wrote:For some reason you seem resistant to admitting that affordable shelters aren't achievable against current and near future strike weapons.


Because none of the current and near future strike weapons have much utility against current and near future
HAS defended by current and near future defenses.

OTOH, with no INF treaty, a combined F-35 and MRBM attack could be effective since the F-35s could
just focus on SEADing the ABM defenses (if any) that unmask to defend the base.


I can't take this seriously, you're greatly exaggerating the obstruction from berms and the relative difficulty of getting a clear angle of approach to doors and pavement. The JASSM image you provided even illustrates enough oblique angle with which to clear a berm and strike a door. That weapon can use any vertical angle of approach it needs. Berms are tens of meters back from doors, >30 meters is not unusual at all. Plus the angle of a berm will not exceed the angle of repose of the sediments used, and that is quite unlikely to exceed a slope of about 33 degrees, 25 degrees seems to be a typical angle. This offers effectively no significant obstruction to access via a powered or else gliding agile terminal weapon’s approach, to an impact directly on a door.

A 1,000 lb class broach warhead will breach with little difficulty. A penetrator like a BLU-118 is likely do the same. The doors will either be penetrated (likely), severely distorted, blown off, or at the least, rendered inoperable. If a penetrator weapon entered the sub pavement in front of the door, angling to go under the threshold before detonation the foundation will be undermined and the door likely blown off, plus it will create a massive hole where the pavement and soil was in front of the door opening. Unlikely anything in that shelter survives such an impact. I see no practical problem with attacking doors effectively with existing weapons, or of creating a specialized weapon with enough mass, speed and energy to smash through doors and impart a ruinous shock to the foundation and surrounding pavements.

I see no problem with creating a precision-guided 4,500 lb scaled-up version of a BLU-118 which will either penetrate through the top, penetrate the door by impact energy alone, or overpressure the door via a proximity airburst, or else insert itself under the foundation with explosion energy release around 25% of the shock energy of a MOP detonation, in relatively close proximity to the foundation, going predominantly upwards into a shelter cavity, and thoroughly undermining the foundation of the shelter, and blowing out the surrounding pavements.

Who’s building a shelter that can survive that? What shelter has doors that can deflect it? Who is building a berm closer than 30 m to such doors? And what berm has an angle of repose >35 degrees? And who has the funds to do this? The Saudi’s maybe.

And what’s so valuable that it needs this much money spent on a shelter that’s still very unlikely to survive a hit? Su35? H6K? J-10?

Not buying it.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 13:36
by madrat
It is a big plus for the attacker to have a narrow corridor for high explosives. Much more power can be garnered when the radius of the blast is confined. You get about 80% more effect in this circumstance. Aircraft shelters are much better at keeping mother nature out than bombs. Berms in front of doors may be good for near miss nukes, but they certainly are not the answer to modern guided weapons.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 14:06
by southernphantom
element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
element1loop wrote:Oh come on, the 'gap' is not even close to small, you're exaggerating, strike fighters are not small aircraft. A JASSM can fly into a mine shaft, or even through a window, and it's specifically designed to defeat terminal defenses. JSOW-C does the same thing, just a bit slower. Both are very agile and precise.


JASSM and JSOW cave attack profiles require a fair amount of unobstructed approach.
Nothing like the trajectories needed here.

And these shelter systems are deliberately designed to permit one axis of attack against the doors
unless your PGM can do Death Star trench runs with 90 degree turns.

This is why the US is focused on penetrators but they are challenged by new materials and terminal
defenses. For the latter, think of something that operates from behind cover like a VL-launched
MHTK directed by a retractable KuRFS FCR.

element1loop wrote:For some reason you seem resistant to admitting that affordable shelters aren't achievable against current and near future strike weapons.


Because none of the current and near future strike weapons have much utility against current and near future
HAS defended by current and near future defenses.

OTOH, with no INF treaty, a combined F-35 and MRBM attack could be effective since the F-35s could
just focus on SEADing the ABM defenses (if any) that unmask to defend the base.


I can't take this seriously, you're greatly exaggerating the obstruction from berms and the relative difficulty of getting a clear angle of approach to doors and pavement. The JASSM image you provided even illustrates enough oblique angle with which to clear a berm and strike a door. That weapon can use any vertical angle of approach it needs. Berms are tens of meters back from doors, >30 meters is not unusual at all. Plus the angle of a berm will not exceed the angle of repose of the sediments used, and that is quite unlikely to exceed a slope of about 33 degrees, 25 degrees seems to be a typical angle. This offers effectively no significant obstruction to access via a powered or else gliding agile terminal weapon’s approach, to an impact directly on a door.

A 1,000 lb class broach warhead will breach with little difficulty. A penetrator like a BLU-118 is likely do the same. The doors will either be penetrated (likely), severely distorted, blown off, or at the least, rendered inoperable. If a penetrator weapon entered the sub pavement in front of the door, angling to go under the threshold before detonation the foundation will be undermined and the door likely blown off, plus it will create a massive hole where the pavement and soil was in front of the door opening. Unlikely anything in that shelter survives such an impact. I see no practical problem with attacking doors effectively with existing weapons, or of creating a specialized weapon with enough mass, speed and energy to smash through doors and impart a ruinous shock to the foundation and surrounding pavements.

I see no problem with creating a precision-guided 4,500 lb scaled-up version of a BLU-118 which will either penetrate through the top, penetrate the door by impact energy alone, or overpressure the door via a proximity airburst, or else insert itself under the foundation with explosion energy release around 25% of the shock energy of a MOP detonation, in relatively close proximity to the foundation, going predominantly upwards into a shelter cavity, and thoroughly undermining the foundation of the shelter, and blowing out the surrounding pavements.

Who’s building a shelter that can survive that? What shelter has doors that can deflect it? Who is building a berm closer than 30 m to such doors? And what berm has an angle of repose >35 degrees? And who has the funds to do this? The Saudi’s maybe.

And what’s so valuable that it needs this much money spent on a shelter that’s still very unlikely to survive a hit? Su35? H6K? J-10?

Not buying it.


Crushed stone offers a far higher angle of repose than sediment alone. I'm looking at a surge stockpile of ~4" minus rock with an angle of repose of about 45 degrees right now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 14:11
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:There is a gap between the berm and the door but that's typically, by design, far too small for a
PGM to reliably traverse while missing the berm and hitting the door.

And of course it's a predictable trajectory that's vulnerable to the terminal defenses.


Do you have any pictures? All of them I've seen are flat as a pool table and could be taken out by a Maverick missile punching a hole in the silo lid.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 14:24
by sferrin
Seems like a good place to post this (did not know SK had GBU-28s):


Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 14:36
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
I thought the article was well written/reasoned, but fell apart towards the end..

Not survivable in the current IADS environment? OK. First few days of war maybe. But when those IADS are brought down by F-35's and other aircraft? Once that airspace is secured and IADS laid to waste, somebody's going to have to fly CAPs. Is it going to be cheaper to buy and operate vs. F-35's? Logic tells us the F-35 will be cheaper and more capable. But this will largely be in Congress's hands, and they're anything but logical.

The air force needs 72 airframes a year to modernize the force? Then why not give them the $ to buy them? Otherwise, make due with 60 (or whatever) you're funded for. The fact is we're in this current pickle because of a number of USAF leadership mistakes, and nobody's been held accountable. That's the underlying reason for everything from obsolete airframes to the current pilot shortage...


The article is spot on in my opinion. As you just "can't" make a good case for buying the F-15X. :doh:


WRT those hardened aircraft shelters... Wasn't the other part of the back-story they were built by the French, and the French told us where all of the weak points were? Could have sworn I read something about that..

Other nations like China, N. Korea etc undoubtedly took note, so I wonder what defensive measures they took? Even thicker/beefier HASs?

WRT the F-15X and this article.. yeah, you'd be hard pressed to make an argument for buying them. Cost per flight hour? OK Maybe. But they're not going to be flying much after an S-400 slams into them. Cheaper than the F-35? Only if Boeing decides to sell them at a loss. Favored by various members of Congress? Perhaps in MO, but it's hard to imagine it going the F-15X's way, especially considering how "dispersed" F-35 work is across 48 states.

And capability wise, it's not even close. The only metric where the F-15X wins is in total AMRAAM loadout, and even then we haven't seen how robust the F-35's external AMRAAM carriage is. Maneuverability? F-35 has it all over it. Range? With an internal 6 AMRAAM loadout, I bet it''s more. A LOT more on internal fuel only. And quite possibly the F-35 has better legs than even an F-15X with CFT's. If memory serves, that'll bring the F-15X's total gas to around 25,000lbs vs. the F-35's 18,000. But throw in drag, especially with those quad pack underwing AMRAAM stations and... gonna be whole lotta' drag bringing the F-15X's range down. Ability to ID, prosecute and destroy targets? Please. I love the F-15, and would love to see the penultimate version, if nothing else to compare it to the penultimate Flanker (SU-35). But that would be shortchanging our boys, and no amount of nostalgia is worth putting them at a disadvantage.

Let's build more F-35's..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 14:48
by gc
sferrin wrote:Seems like a good place to post this (did not know SK had GBU-28s):



This video shows us clearly why RoKAF and RSAF made the right choice to acquire the Strike Eagle instead of some Eurocanards. Decades after introduction into service, Eurocanards are still highly limited in terms of the types of munitions they can carry. No SDB, heavy bunker buster and limited stand off weapons. The Storm Shadow is already greatly outranged by the JASSM-ER.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 14:59
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:
WRT the F-15X and this article.. yeah, you'd be hard pressed to make an argument for buying them. Cost per flight hour? OK Maybe. But they're not going to be flying much after an S-400 slams into them. Cheaper than the F-35? Only if Boeing decides to sell them at a loss.


The F-15X is not better than the F-35 and not even Boeing is branding it as such. The selling point of the F-15X is:

1. it will do the the missions where 5th gen F-22s and F-35s are overkill. (i.e. escorting the Bear outside of Alaskan airspace once a month, flying circles around no flyzones announcing to everyone that "Hey we're up here so don't even think about it")

2. It will be cheaper, we always believed Lockheed when they said they can make the F-35 cost $80M in 2019, so why is it hard for us to believe Boeing can offer the F-15X at fixed prices which they promise will be below F-35A prices. This is the same company takes pride in developing the Super Hornet on schedule and within budget if I remember correctly. Yes they also have their share of mismanaged money pits (C-17) but with the upcoming PCA. F-X and NGAD programs ramping up, Boeing cannot afford to look like the bad guy right now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 15:10
by element1loop
southernphantom wrote:Crushed stone offers a far higher angle of repose than sediment alone. I'm looking at a surge stockpile of ~4" minus rock with an angle of repose of about 45 degrees right now.


Yeah, thanks, I knew talus was a lot steeper but I've never seen a talus berm, that seems to be something avoided for reasons of rock frags I expect.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 19:29
by southernphantom
element1loop wrote:
southernphantom wrote:Crushed stone offers a far higher angle of repose than sediment alone. I'm looking at a surge stockpile of ~4" minus rock with an angle of repose of about 45 degrees right now.


Yeah, thanks, I knew talus was a lot steeper but I've never seen a talus berm, that seems to be something avoided for reasons of rock frags I expect.


Yeah, that is not a pretty mental image.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 02:11
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
The F-15X is not better than the F-35 and not even Boeing is branding it as such. The selling point of the F-15X is:

1. it will do the the missions where 5th gen F-22s and F-35s are overkill. (i.e. escorting the Bear outside of Alaskan airspace once a month, flying circles around no flyzones announcing to everyone that "Hey we're up here so don't even think about it")

2. It will be cheaper, we always believed Lockheed when they said they can make the F-35 cost $80M in 2019, so why is it hard for us to believe Boeing can offer the F-15X at fixed prices which they promise will be below F-35A prices. This is the same company takes pride in developing the Super Hornet on schedule and within budget if I remember correctly. Yes they also have their share of mismanaged money pits (C-17) but with the upcoming PCA. F-X and NGAD programs ramping up, Boeing cannot afford to look like the bad guy right now.


Yet, point here is no way in "hell" can Boeing produce the F-15X for anything close to the $80 Million for a F-35A in 2021. Which, means considering the Eagle is far less capable. The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 02:16
by f4u7_corsair
gc wrote:This video shows us clearly why RoKAF and RSAF made the right choice to acquire the Strike Eagle instead of some Eurocanards. Decades after introduction into service, Eurocanards are still highly limited in terms of the types of munitions they can carry. No SDB, heavy bunker buster and limited stand off weapons. The Storm Shadow is already greatly outranged by the JASSM-ER.

That's a shame SK was denied the JASSM then. ;)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 02:26
by crosshairs
Corsair1963 wrote:
zero-one wrote:
The F-15X is not better than the F-35 and not even Boeing is branding it as such. The selling point of the F-15X is:

1. it will do the the missions where 5th gen F-22s and F-35s are overkill. (i.e. escorting the Bear outside of Alaskan airspace once a month, flying circles around no flyzones announcing to everyone that "Hey we're up here so don't even think about it")

2. It will be cheaper, we always believed Lockheed when they said they can make the F-35 cost $80M in 2019, so why is it hard for us to believe Boeing can offer the F-15X at fixed prices which they promise will be below F-35A prices. This is the same company takes pride in developing the Super Hornet on schedule and within budget if I remember correctly. Yes they also have their share of mismanaged money pits (C-17) but with the upcoming PCA. F-X and NGAD programs ramping up, Boeing cannot afford to look like the bad guy right now.


Yet, point here is no way in "hell" can Boeing produce the F-15X for anything close to the $80 Million for a F-35A in 2021. Which, means considering the Eagle is far less capable. The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.....


They are only buying 12 a year. They will still be building them by the time NGAD starts rolling off the line if they want to replace all the C/D fleet. So obviously they are not buying the X for 20 years to get to roughly 230. Seems like a corporate handout. F-16 would be cheaper and they could probably afford more than 1 a month. The USAF has a problem with the age of the fleet, but 12 shiny new F-15X isn't the solution. It does keep another production line open and suppliers in business, so that could be a strategic decision.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 02:27
by marsavian
The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.


Fine but only Congress can directly stop it now because it's in the budget request and I have not heard a single congressional voice raised against it. Congress are ultimately bean counters which is why F-22/F-14 were such visible targets and F-35 less so now it's got cheaper. F-18 is getting a pass too in this stealth age because of its low price and I suspect F-15X will too if it's priced under $80m i.e. sold at non-profit cost price. You just may have to deal with some new F-15X until maybe the President changes.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 03:03
by weasel1962
I think not every F-15C sqn will convert e.g. 110 sqn converted to B2.

Filling the 2 squadrons at Kadena makes sense. Can avoid continuous F-35 exposure to PLAAF ELINT.

One major F-15 improvement is in anti-ship. Besides the newer AESA radar being able to operate more effectively over water, newer F-15s can fire harps. Imagine if they carry LRASM. PLAN CVs can be targeted within the 1st hour of conflict, even if they are based in Hainan. No air refuel required.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 04:53
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:
The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.


Fine but only Congress can directly stop it now because it's in the budget request and I have not heard a single congressional voice raised against it. Congress are ultimately bean counters which is why F-22/F-14 were such visible targets and F-35 less so now it's got cheaper. F-18 is getting a pass too in this stealth age because of its low price and I suspect F-15X will too if it's priced under $80m i.e. sold at non-profit cost price. You just may have to deal with some new F-15X until maybe the President changes.



No, only Congress could approve it and they haven't. Plus, future Defense Budgets are very likely to decline. With or without Trump being in office. So, I would expect the F-15X would be an "extremely" hard sell. As for the Super Hornet the USN is just about done buying new jets. Instead they will upgrade existing Block II to Block III. Even then early Block II Super Hornets will start to retire in the early 2030's. So, odds are very good. That the USN will replace them with additional F-35C's. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. As the USN did the same with the Hornet/Super Hornet.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 05:13
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
They are only buying 12 a year. They will still be building them by the time NGAD starts rolling off the line if they want to replace all the C/D fleet. So obviously they are not buying the X for 20 years to get to roughly 230. Seems like a corporate handout. F-16 would be cheaper and they could probably afford more than 1 a month. The USAF has a problem with the age of the fleet, but 12 shiny new F-15X isn't the solution. It does keep another production line open and suppliers in business, so that could be a strategic decision.


The USAF current budget has been delayed due to the recent US Government shutdown. So, we don't even know for sure if the F-15X is in it. In addition even if it is. That hardly means the US House Armed Services Committee would approved it. Which, is controlled by the Democrats.


One thing the members should know. Is the next Election for US President is less than two years away. So, the Democrats are on their best behavior. As a matter of fact they have had no problem. Throwing even their own members under the bus. Which, have behaved badly....As they want to show the country that they have high moral ground.

So, you really think they are going to fund a 40 year old fighter. That cost more than todays State of the Art F-35???

Nonetheless, we will have to wait and see. Yet, I personally doubt it.



QUOTE:
Shanahan is a former Boeing executive who was confirmed as deputy secretary of defense in early 2017. He spent much of the last year focused on reforming internal processes at the Pentagon. Since his ascension to the top role, questions have surfaced about how his previous business ties could influence military decisions.


Inhofe downplayed those concerns, though he did note that those business conflicts have the potential “to become very partisan” when Shanahan testifies before the committee in coming weeks

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... -shanahan/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 05:31
by Corsair1963
Again as I have said before. The most likely solution to replace the F-15C's. Would be to acquire three additional Squadrons of F-35A's. These would replace one F-15C Squadron at RAF Lakenheath (UK) and two at Kadena (Okinawa Japan).

This while the remaining F-15C Squadrons operated by the ANG. Would be replaced by upgraded F-16's. The latter are available in large numbers and are already going through Service Life Extension Program! (SLEP)

The added bonus of the F-16V. Is it shares some components with the F-35A's.


Quote: The current version, also known as the F-16V, brings together a host of recent developments, including conformal fuel tanks, revised cockpit with two 10- by 10-cm (4- by 4-inch) side displays and a 15- by 20-cm (6- by 8-inch) center pedestal display, auto ground collision avoidance system, advanced helmet-mounted cueing sight, Sniper ATP targeting pod, and Link 16 datalink.

Most importantly, it is the first F-16 with an AESA “E-scan” radar in the form of the Northrop Grumman APG-83. This radar has greater than 90 percent software commonality and more than 70 percent hardware commonality with the APG-81 radar of the F-35. Indeed, much of the Block 70 technology has been drawn from the F-35 program and can continue to benefit from similar updates in the future. It’s not all a one-way street either: F-16V technology such as the Auto-GCAS is finding its way into the F-35.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -left-f-16

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 07:26
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote: ... Plus, future Defense Budgets are very likely to decline. With or without Trump being in office. ...


I have doubts, there is lip-service desire to do it, but it's also over-shadowed by events such as open calls by boneheaded Chinese military academic officers for Chinese forces to sink 2 carriers and inflict 10,000 casualties to convince the USN to vacate the Western Pacific. And parallel push for a bigger, better-equipped fleet, and to re-weaponing a lot of platforms. And a new layer of active space sensors has beem called a critical need. Seems likely to be another big budget, presented as a responsible budget, via being marginally smaller, with 'tough decisions' made ... nudge-nudge wink-wink ... cancel some non-essential minor programs.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 07:40
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:Yet, point here is no way in "hell" can Boeing produce the F-15X for anything close to the $80 Million for a F-35A in 2021. Which, means considering the Eagle is far less capable. The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.....


It could be a sales pitch , by 2035 Boeing can talk big about their "track record" in the fighter business where their F/A-18 and F-15 lines are ALWAYS delivered on time and within budget. Meanwhile, Lockheed, yeah sure they make great planes, but on time and on budget???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 12:44
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:It could be a sales pitch , by 2035 Boeing can talk big about their "track record" in the fighter business where their F/A-18 and F-15 lines are ALWAYS delivered on time and within budget. Meanwhile, Lockheed, yeah sure they make great planes, but on time and on budget???


You don't understand the difference between a 4th gen that's been in production for nearly half a century and a fighter that's still in LRIP? Really?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 13:35
by madrat
When talking about corporate cultures, he is.

But F-15X is a no go regardless of the circular arguments in this thread.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 13:48
by sferrin
madrat wrote:When talking about corporate cultures, he is.


He is what?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 14:04
by zero-one
The JSF program was originally supposed to be $200B back in the early 2000s, Today its $375B

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf
US$55.1B for RDT&E, $319.1B for procurement,


Even the most hardcore JSF supporter like myself has acknowledged this. Our defense is that all major programs end up like this. The ATF program, the EF Typhoon, the C-17 everyone has this problem.

So if Boeing can offer the F-15X program for a fixed price, even if they loose a billion $ in the process, they can walk up to the DoD and say they have a track record of making fighters within budget. So if the program ends up like the YF-22 vs YF-23 which was neck and neck and you can't really go wrong with either one, who do you think they would select, the one who managed the F-35 or the one who managed the F-15X?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 14:25
by quicksilver

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 15:40
by element1loop
quicksilver wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2019/02/11/building-the-air-force-we-need/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%202-13&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief#5993bf9f2b97


There are some in the Department of Defense who are advocating that the Air Force purchase new versions of legacy fighters as a means of achieving cost-efficiency—aircraft that were designed in the 1960’s and first started rolling off production lines in the 1970’s. Trying to adopt aircraft that belong in museums to warfare in the 21st century is a mistake.

- Dave Deptula

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 16:44
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2019/02/11/building-the-air-force-we-need/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%202-13&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief#5993bf9f2b97


Read the article, he's 100% spot on. Gates' lack of leadership, foresight and understanding as to our own capabilities and threats badly missed the mark. He is directly responsible for jeopardizing US air to air capabilities, something we used to be able to always count on. You may argue we can still wrest control of the air. Perhaps, but at what cost? A LOT of F-15's and 16's are going to fall to the hand of ever more capable IADS, and the J-20/J-31 are going to be more than a match for them. Hell, their J-16 and J-10C are comparable and in fact excel in parts of the envelope vs. our prior hi/low mix.

The only thing that's going to restore our edge is pumping out more F-35's every year. Not F-15X's. Not up-rated F-16's. And certainly not Super Duper Hornets. Gates should have had his pension revoked, as his decisions will directly impact the lives of our pilots - and not for the better.

I'm sure he retired to some sunny climate, and plays golf every day with his buddies. His legacy is all but destroyed though, and his lack of leadership will hurt us for years to come...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 17:40
by quicksilver
I did read it. That’s why I posted it. :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 18:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
a case of "read" (red) and "read" (reed) being unfortunately spelled the same?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 20:00
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:The only thing that's going to restore our edge is pumping out more F-35's every year. Not F-15X's. Not up-rated F-16's. And certainly not Super Duper Hornets.


The USAF is fighting tooth and nail to stick to their 1,760 F-35 requirements. They won't let anything happen to get less than that. But they sure aren't getting more than that. They can barely keep congress to fund that exact number as it is.

So to get volume support, you need low tier assets for low tier missions

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 20:34
by quicksilver
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:a case of "read" (red) and "read" (reed) being unfortunately spelled the same?


Good point.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 02:13
by weasel1962
If the Navy had waited like the air force for the F-35C instead of SH buys, the carrier fleet would be in serious trouble today no matter how much better the F-35C is compared to SH.

The impact of a long F-35 development cycle should be recognized. Congress was spending roughly the same amount of funds in prior years, each year on the F-35 program. The issue is that a large chunk in the early years went into R&D and high priced LRIP F-35s. If congress had pumped more funds to procure more early lots, the fleet today would comprise non or less combat capable F-35s that would have required a lot more concurrency funds, exacerbated the funding crunch (i.e. less new buys with same annual budget) and contribute to lower availability (as planes are taken out for upgrades). Blk 4 is really the version that kicks the door down and its only FY 19 that starts the induction. Its still going to take many years more to complete the block 4 development and implementation. The good news is that most of the annual funds going forward goes into new air-frames.

From a budget perspective, I can’t see a long term F-15X buy program. But patch buys to keep the line going and employment is what Congress does. That’s politics. I’d think the air force would welcome funds going into recapitalisation than other less visible programs like construction (even though one might argue hurricane destruction). If there is no F-15X buy, there won't be an increase in F-35 buy either so why wouldn't the air force take it?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 03:14
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: ... Plus, future Defense Budgets are very likely to decline. With or without Trump being in office. ...


I have doubts, there is lip-service desire to do it, but it's also over-shadowed by events such as open calls by boneheaded Chinese military academic officers for Chinese forces to sink 2 carriers and inflict 10,000 casualties to convince the USN to vacate the Western Pacific. And parallel push for a bigger, better-equipped fleet, and to re-weaponing a lot of platforms. And a new layer of active space sensors has beem called a critical need. Seems likely to be another big budget, presented as a responsible budget, via being marginally smaller, with 'tough decisions' made ... nudge-nudge wink-wink ... cancel some non-essential minor programs.



US just can't continue with such massive deficits much longer! Also, as I have said in a number of recent posts. The "Democrats" are now in control of the US House and have considerable say over US Defense Spending. In addition they're far more interested in spending on "Social Programs" than Defense.... :?

In short anybody that thinks US Defense Spending is going to continue to climb. Doesn't understand the current political climate in the US.....

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/13/69419925 ... ed-to-fall

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 03:21
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So to get volume support, you need low tier assets for low tier missions


So to get volume support, you need more expensive low tier assets for low tier missions


FIFY

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 04:23
by SpudmanWP
weasel1962 wrote:If the Navy had waited like the air force for the F-35C instead of SH buys, the carrier fleet would be in serious trouble today no matter how much better the F-35C is compared to SH.


Bravo Sierra, to put it politely.

The F-35C was to replace the Classic F-18 and not the SH. The USN chose to not ramp up F-35C buys after the final hardware config was tested (ie Block 3i) and instead decided to wait till IOT&E to make that call. The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands. In the meantime, they decided to retire the Classic Hornets early as an excuse to buy more SH. The wartime support costs of the SH as compared to the F-35C in addition to the increased costs due to a lowering of the F-35C buy easily erases any cost benefit to buying the SH.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 04:38
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:When talking about corporate cultures, he is.

But F-15X is a no go regardless of the circular arguments in this thread.



Honestly, forget about the lack of merit in the case of buying the F-15X. You just can't make a political one........... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:41
by weasel1962
SpudmanWP wrote:Bravo Sierra, to put it politely.

The F-35C was to replace the Classic F-18 and not the SH. The USN chose to not ramp up F-35C buys after the final hardware config was tested (ie Block 3i) and instead decided to wait till IOT&E to make that call. The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands. In the meantime, they decided to retire the Classic Hornets early as an excuse to buy more SH. The wartime support costs of the SH as compared to the F-35C in addition to the increased costs due to a lowering of the F-35C buy easily erases any cost benefit to buying the SH.


So explain to us then what role do 500+ SHs have and what did they replace?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:38
by SpudmanWP
The SH's that they have been buying over the past few years (and for the next few) are replacing Classic Hornets that they are retiring early, Early Lot SHs (Block1) that they do not want to update, and later Lot SHs that are wearing out too quickly (buddy tanking does not help).

Increased buy of SH and "forced" F-15X buy all from a DoD lead by an ex-Boeing Exec of 30 years.. total coincidence I am "so" sure.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:41
by weasel1962
Thanks, so if the USN had not bought the SH, they would either have to continue flying legacy hornets today or have bought early lot F-35Cs.

On concurrency costs, its $1.41billion (with navy taking up 40% of the buys) for lots 1-12 of which less than 25% of lot 1-12 occuring before lot 7. The early lot buys were small.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54390

If the USN had gone full in at early lots, rather than buying SH, it would not be $1.41 billion concurrency cost.

Just to be clear, not justifying continued buys for SH today which I think makes more sense just to buy F-35Cs today but go back a few years, not so clear cut.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:44
by SpudmanWP
The Classic Hornets still had life on them and they should have ramped up the buy at Block 3i after the Hardware TR2 passed dev). Block 3i IS NOT in the Early lots where all the cost is. If they would have started ramping up at Lot8 (2014), 9 (2015), or 10 (2016) then they would already have F-35C coming off the line in large numbers.

btw, the USMC is still flying Classic Hornets and I am sure theirs are in worse shape than the USN.

If they could not deal with a 5-year delay in IOC then they have a bigger problem in their TACAIR plans than just the F-35.

Cost per Lot:
Lot 8 = $2.5mil
Lot 9 = $1.5mil
Lot 10 and later = Less than $1 mil

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:51
by weasel1962
If the USN had not replaced the classic hornets with SH, their classic hornet today will not be in better condition than the USMC ones since they would have had to fly those. If it made sense to buy early lot F-35Cs, the navy would have done it. Clearly the long development cycle had an impact.

This is more to address the issue that Gates is solely at fault for the states of the fleet today. Personally, I think the right time to consider F-15 gen series replacement should have been 2005, not 2019 but it is what it is.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:11
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:One major F-15 improvement is in anti-ship. Besides the newer AESA radar being able to operate more effectively over water, newer F-15s can fire harps. Imagine if they carry LRASM.


It would take a great deal of imagination given that the Air Force's POR is like 50 LRASM
mainly as war reserve.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:24
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:It would take a great deal of imagination given that the Air Force's POR is like 50 LRASM
mainly as war reserve.


Better than the number of exocets the Argentinians had in 1982. Anyone has a better ship target for those 50 than PLAN CVs?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:27
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:So explain to us then what role do 500+ SHs have and what did they replace?


Mission and recovery tanking. A role previously performed by the S-3.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:45
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:It would take a great deal of imagination given that the Air Force's POR is like 50 LRASM
mainly as war reserve.


Better than the number of exocets the Argentinians had in 1982.


Of course. The PLAN and PLAAF are sure to follow the British lead and treat the F-15 bases as sanctuaries.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 12:06
by marsavian
The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands.


Didn't the F-35C need specific hardware modifications, e.g. folding wing tip, in between those two specifications ? The F-35C was quite late in coming to its final hardware specification for IOC.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 13:47
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:The Classic Hornets still had life on them and they should have ramped up the buy at Block 3i after the Hardware TR2 passed dev). Block 3i IS NOT in the Early lots where all the cost is. If they would have started ramping up at Lot8 (2014), 9 (2015), or 10 (2016) then they would already have F-35C coming off the line in large numbers.

btw, the USMC is still flying Classic Hornets and I am sure theirs are in worse shape than the USN.

If they could not deal with a 5-year delay in IOC then they have a bigger problem in their TACAIR plans than just the F-35.

Cost per Lot:
Lot 8 = $2.5mil
Lot 9 = $1.5mil
Lot 10 and later = Less than $1 mil

Image


Where did you get this chart? From the most recent ccy report? Reason I ask is because at one point the report showed columns w the deltas between projected and actual costs. Not saying this is wrong, just noting that the big outlier at the top was from the USG’s first ccy report and was a projection (not an actual) that was used to declare all the doom and gloom about ccy. You can see that the 2012 projection was off by ~30% in the early lots. IIRC, LM argued the point at the time, to little effect.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 17:42
by SpudmanWP
marsavian wrote:
The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands.


Didn't the F-35C need specific hardware modifications, e.g. folding wing tip, in between those two specifications ? The F-35C was quite late in coming to its final hardware specification for IOC.

If the issue was discovered prior to 2017 then it's cost is already calculated in the chart I provided.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 18:02
by SpudmanWP
quicksilver wrote:Where did you get this chart? From the most recent ccy report? Reason I ask is because at one point the report showed columns w the deltas between projected and actual costs. Not saying this is wrong, just noting that the big outlier at the top was from the USG’s first ccy report and was a projection (not an actual) that was used to declare all the doom and gloom about ccy. You can see that the 2012 projection was off by ~30% in the early lots. IIRC, LM argued the point at the time, to little effect.


The chart is from the latest annual Concurrency Cost report that I had to file a FOIA request to get.
viewtopic.php?p=411609#p411609

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 19:44
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:
Didn't the F-35C need specific hardware modifications, e.g. folding wing tip, .


Need? No. It was quite possible to avoid the AIM-9X + flight regime combination for
the wing tips. It's similar to many of the other non-safety of flight workarounds that
the Navy had previously accepted for practically every other fighter.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 20:10
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Where did you get this chart? From the most recent ccy report? Reason I ask is because at one point the report showed columns w the deltas between projected and actual costs. Not saying this is wrong, just noting that the big outlier at the top was from the USG’s first ccy report and was a projection (not an actual) that was used to declare all the doom and gloom about ccy. You can see that the 2012 projection was off by ~30% in the early lots. IIRC, LM argued the point at the time, to little effect.


The chart is from the latest annual Concurrency Cost report that I had to file a FOIA request to get.
viewtopic.php?p=411609#p411609


Thanks.

Notable that the first USG projections in September ‘12 were — just six months later in the spring of ‘13 — adjusted in some cases by close to 50%, and then were later proven (probably by actuals) to be off by even greater percentages (as actuals developed). I also note that their forecasts/projections were informed by historicals from previous programs. Hard to be wrong when alternative views have to argue against history, but in this case the historicals and whatever analytical ‘adjustments’ were used proved to be excessively conservative.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 20:40
by SpudmanWP
A lot of projections that came out right after the "reset" were overblown.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 21:20
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:A lot of projections that came out right after the "reset" were overblown.


Too bad the correction wasn’t as loud as the initial pronouncement, as its effects have echoed around the (mis)information environment for years. Kinda like CPFH...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 08:26
by popcorn
https://taskandpurpose-com.cdn.ampproje ... kheed-f-35

Somebody should remind him the Monica lost.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 08:59
by zero-one
zero-one wrote:So to get volume support, you need low tier assets for low tier missions


element1loop wrote:
So to get volume support, you need more expensive low tier assets for low tier missions

FIFY[/quote]

Why can't you believe Boeing when they say they will offer the F-15X in a FIXED PRICE CONTRACT which will be lower than the F-35's. I'm curious? I like the F-35 more than the F-15 so when LM said they can offer the F-35A at $80M per plane, I believed it, however I won't let my F-35 bias cloud my judgement on the F-15X.
Its a more primitive plane relying on some very old technology such as it's aerodynamic design, it will be cheaper to build and maintain because Boeing says so, just like how we all believed the F-35's price will go down because Lockheed says so.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 13:36
by mixelflick
For the record, I believe both Boeing and LM given their (future) price estimates.

Whether or not it's really true (i.e. Boeing can build a fighter for well under 80 million) is another matter. With their most recent statements, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner. If the air force pulls the trigger, they have to deliver. Why? Because they're going to be players on PCA, and broken promises/paying more vs. what Boeing promised is going to leave a bad, bad taste in USAF's mouth.

If you think about it, the only competitive advantage Boeing has with the Pentagon is... delivering aircraft on time and under budget. The F-35 program office has righted the ship and she's coming into her own now, but up until Bogdan took the reigns the F-35 was a mess. Cost over-runs, concurrency issues etc. can still be highlighted by Boeing, or at least used to put doubt in USAF's mind.

They can't produce a bird to match the F-35, they can only make less capable airframes cheaper. And the bigger the budget cuts (Democrats in the House), the more appealing "cheap" is going to be. One thing's for sure: I wouldn't want to be a Boeing shareholder, at least when it comes to pumping out jets at a loss....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 13:43
by marsavian
The other thing about the F-35 buy is that the number seems pretty set for the next lot buys out until the mid 2020s so any F-15X ordered now could be additional aircraft even if the medium to long term F-35 buy is moved upwards, for instance it could work out that F-15X just replaces ANG squadrons while the three F-15C squadrons in England and Japan get replaced with F-35A which would make more sense as they are more in the front line. That might be a compromise acceptable to most on the political fronts.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 20:52
by marauder2048
Which again, begs the question: was Lockheed asked to match (come close) to Boeing on
price and delivery dates?

Boeing is only able to offer the latter if its other F-15 customers are willing to accept
later deliveries. There's nothing preventing Lockheed from doing the same thing.

But I gather from Hewson's remarks on Lockheed's quarterly earnings that they were not
asked.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 03:09
by geforcerfx
mixelflick wrote:
If you think about it, the only competitive advantage Boeing has with the Pentagon is... delivering aircraft on time and under budget.

cough...KC-46...cough

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 05:37
by SpudmanWP
geforcerfx wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
If you think about it, the only competitive advantage Boeing has with the Pentagon is... delivering aircraft on time and under budget.

cough...KC-46...cough

They can't even claim that on the F-18 from the MD side.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 08:15
by tjh8402
marauder2048 wrote:Which again, begs the question: was Lockheed asked to match (come close) to Boeing on
price and delivery dates?

Boeing is only able to offer the latter if its other F-15 customers are willing to accept
later deliveries. There's nothing preventing Lockheed from doing the same thing.

But I gather from Hewson's remarks on Lockheed's quarterly earnings that they were not
asked.


The only explanation I can pull out of my a** for that is that the Pentagon feels the F-35 is a more valuable/useful asset in the hands of Asian and European partners who are closer to hot spots and crises than it would be mostly being here doing QRA and homeland defense. If someone is gonna have to be stuck with 4th gens, better it be the ANG instead of the Japanese, South Koreans, Dutch, Italians, Belgians, etc on Russia and China’s doorstep. Perhaps also they are eyeing keeping surge capacity in the line for further export sales, whether it’s new orders like Singapore, the Finnish and Canadian fighter competitions, or top ups on orders from existing partners like what happened with Japan and what we are expecting/hoping to come from Israel and the UK. Either way, same idea as above: the plane will make a bigger difference by gettting more of them into the hands of allies sooner.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 08:40
by popcorn
Why should any of the F-35 customers accede to any US request to Divert their orders.to.the USAF? Those coulntries have been waiting for years for the arrival of their jets and no way will they want their plans and schedules blown up .That's why they sign contracts.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 09:17
by SpudmanWP
Nobody needs to divert anything. There is plenty of growth room in the production schedule for ramping up orders for ANY customer.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 09:33
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:Nobody needs to divert anything. There is plenty of growth room in the production schedule for ramping up orders for ANY customer.

Agreed.. just addressing the preceding post.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 14:49
by mixelflick
geforcerfx wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
If you think about it, the only competitive advantage Boeing has with the Pentagon is... delivering aircraft on time and under budget.

cough...KC-46...cough


OK OK.. But I was thinking about fighters aka the SH and Super Duper. And if it comes to pass, the F-15X. Boeing could role into PCA with two fighters that have been delivered on time and within or under budget.

LM on the other hand would have the F-35's history. That history can be looked at one of two ways..

1.) The massive cost over runs, behind schedule/adversarial relationship with the USAF early on... OR;
2.) The F-35 that's rapidly approaching $80 million/copy, taking names and kicking a$$ at Red Flag, Green Flag etc

If you're the USAF, who'd you rather do business with??

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 15:57
by popcorn
mixelflick wrote:
If you're the USAF, who'd you rather do business with??

The only company on the planet to actually have built 2 outstanding 5gen jet's?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 22:01
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
If you think about it, the only competitive advantage Boeing has with the Pentagon is... delivering aircraft on time and under budget.

cough...KC-46...cough


OK OK.. But I was thinking about fighters aka the SH and Super Duper. And if it comes to pass, the F-15X. Boeing could role into PCA with two fighters that have been delivered on time and within or under budget.

LM on the other hand would have the F-35's history. That history can be looked at one of two ways..

1.) The massive cost over runs, behind schedule/adversarial relationship with the USAF early on... OR;
2.) The F-35 that's rapidly approaching $80 million/copy, taking names and kicking a$$ at Red Flag, Green Flag etc

If you're the USAF, who'd you rather do business with??

Here's a key difference. The PCA isn't going to come in CTOL, STOVL, and CATOBAR variants. Had there only been a single F-35 variant, we likely wouldn't have seen the massive cost overruns/schedule shifts.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 23:19
by quicksilver

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 02:27
by weasel1962
One of the biggest reasons for F-35 schedule delays was software coding, particularly on sensor fusion. 24 million lines of codes. This delayed flight tests and resulted in re-tests. Would apply regardless of version.

There's only 1 F-15C sqn in England (493), the other 2 are F-15Es. Noted 2 F-35A squadrons are already confirmed for Lakenheath. I suspect one or both E sqns may rotate back to CONUS to replace C sqn(s).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 04:52
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:One of the biggest reasons for F-35 schedule delays was software coding, particularly on sensor fusion. 24 million lines of codes. This delayed flight tests and resulted in re-tests. Would apply regardless of version.

There's only 1 F-15C sqn in England (493), the other 2 are F-15Es. Noted 2 F-35A squadrons are already confirmed for Lakenheath. I suspect one or both E sqns may rotate back to CONUS to replace C sqn(s).



To be replaced by former F-16C Squadrons that converted to the F-35A???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 15:42
by mixelflick
popcorn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
If you're the USAF, who'd you rather do business with??

The only company on the planet to actually have built 2 outstanding 5gen jet's?


OK... then why this USAF interest in the F-15X?

Remember, this wasn't some internal project pitched by Boeing. Or it might have been at one time but... the USAF is specifically requesting it in their budget. That's significant, as is the language surrounding this buy (will not, over anyone's dead body eat into F-35 orders). Plus, it's pretty clear stealth isn't part of any requirement given the F-15X's role.

So are we looking at two fighter manufacturers going forward? One for stealth aircraft, and the other for non-stealth aircraft? Boeing has the SH, ASH, they're building advanced F-15's now along with the KC-46.

Lockheed is going great guns with the F-35, involved with F-22 upgrades and likely the lead contender for PCA (and F/A-XX, assuming the Navy can afford it).

Sounds like USAF (and USN) is coming to terms with a mixed 4th/5th gen force, and will field such a fleet for a long, long time. Lockheed is unlikely to go back to building non-stealth birds, so they're status in the all stealth club is pretty much a lock. How much longer can Boeing keep selling non stealth fighters though?

Wouldn't want to be on the defense side of the shop as the decades pass...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 17:20
by crosshairs
mixelflick wrote:
popcorn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
If you're the USAF, who'd you rather do business with??

The only company on the planet to actually have built 2 outstanding 5gen jet's?


OK... then why this USAF interest in the F-15X?

Remember, this wasn't some internal project pitched by Boeing. Or it might have been at one time but... the USAF is specifically requesting it in their budget. That's significant, as is the language surrounding this buy (will not, over anyone's dead body eat into F-35 orders). Plus, it's pretty clear stealth isn't part of any requirement given the F-15X's role.

So are we looking at two fighter manufacturers going forward? One for stealth aircraft, and the other for non-stealth aircraft? Boeing has the SH, ASH, they're building advanced F-15's now along with the KC-46.

Lockheed is going great guns with the F-35, involved with F-22 upgrades and likely the lead contender for PCA (and F/A-XX, assuming the Navy can afford it).

Sounds like USAF (and USN) is coming to terms with a mixed 4th/5th gen force, and will field such a fleet for a long, long time. Lockheed is unlikely to go back to building non-stealth birds, so they're status in the all stealth club is pretty much a lock. How much longer can Boeing keep selling non stealth fighters though?

Wouldn't want to be on the defense side of the shop as the decades pass...


I think you are wrong to leave Northrop-Grumman out of the fighter business.

It was Northrop that designed the YF-17 that is now the F/A-18. Northrop designed a stealthier and faster ATF than Lockheed. Northrop designed a stealthier bomber than Lockheed in the ATB competition. Northrop had a better proposal for the B-21 than anyone else. If there were a running bet, I would bet on Northrop for PCA or F/A-XX.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 17:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:OK... then why this USAF interest in the F-15X?

Remember, this wasn't some internal project pitched by Boeing. Or it might have been at one time but... the USAF is specifically requesting it in their budget.

That the acting SecDef is a Boeing exec speaks volumes.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 18:18
by crosshairs
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:OK... then why this USAF interest in the F-15X?

Remember, this wasn't some internal project pitched by Boeing. Or it might have been at one time but... the USAF is specifically requesting it in their budget.

That the acting SecDef is a Boeing exec speaks volumes.


Mattis was also in favor of the F-15X. A lot of people were in on the decision. Honestly I think this is a strategic decision to keep more the Lockheed as the sole producer of fighters.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 19:12
by SpudmanWP
Honestly I think this is a strategic decision to keep more the Lockheed as the sole producer of fighters.

Then Boeing might want to think about actually wining a competition instead of paying lobbyists.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 00:40
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:OK... then why this USAF interest in the F-15X?

Remember, this wasn't some internal project pitched by Boeing. Or it might have been at one time but... the USAF is specifically requesting it in their budget.

That the acting SecDef is a Boeing exec speaks volumes.


Mattis was also in favor of the F-15X. A lot of people were in on the decision. Honestly I think this is a strategic decision to keep more the Lockheed as the sole producer of fighters.



I have a very hard time believing Mattis was in favor of the F-15X! Do you have a source???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 00:42
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
popcorn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
If you're the USAF, who'd you rather do business with??

The only company on the planet to actually have built 2 outstanding 5gen jet's?


OK... then why this USAF interest in the F-15X?

Remember, this wasn't some internal project pitched by Boeing. Or it might have been at one time but... the USAF is specifically requesting it in their budget. That's significant, as is the language surrounding this buy (will not, over anyone's dead body eat into F-35 orders). Plus, it's pretty clear stealth isn't part of any requirement given the F-15X's role.

So are we looking at two fighter manufacturers going forward? One for stealth aircraft, and the other for non-stealth aircraft? Boeing has the SH, ASH, they're building advanced F-15's now along with the KC-46.

Lockheed is going great guns with the F-35, involved with F-22 upgrades and likely the lead contender for PCA (and F/A-XX, assuming the Navy can afford it).

Sounds like USAF (and USN) is coming to terms with a mixed 4th/5th gen force, and will field such a fleet for a long, long time. Lockheed is unlikely to go back to building non-stealth birds, so they're status in the all stealth club is pretty much a lock. How much longer can Boeing keep selling non stealth fighters though?

Wouldn't want to be on the defense side of the shop as the decades pass...



They haven't released the USAF Budget yet..... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 00:43
by Corsair1963
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:OK... then why this USAF interest in the F-15X?

Remember, this wasn't some internal project pitched by Boeing. Or it might have been at one time but... the USAF is specifically requesting it in their budget.

That the acting SecDef is a Boeing exec speaks volumes.



Something the Democratic Leadership will watch very closely!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 00:57
by SpudmanWP
Corsair1963 wrote:They haven't released the USAF Budget yet..... :?

It's late due to the Gov being in partial shutdown mode for most of the last month or so.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:07
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:They haven't released the USAF Budget yet..... :?

It's late due to the Gov being in partial shutdown mode for most of the last month or so.




Yes, and now with Trump's wall coming. They will have even less to spend.... :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:15
by SpudmanWP
I doubt that any action from the National Emergency declaration for the wall will make it into the budget.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 02:11
by quicksilver
I think the point is that they will have less to spend because the wall money apparently (some portion of) the wall money comes out of the milcon account.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019 ... -says-hel/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 02:30
by crosshairs
[quote
I have a very hard time believing Mattis was in favor of the F-15X! Do you have a source???[/quote]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... -15x-44207