F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 13 Feb 2019, 07:26

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.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 13 Feb 2019, 07:40

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???

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 13 Feb 2019, 12:44

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?

madrat · by **madrat** » 13 Feb 2019, 13:35

When talking about corporate cultures, he is.

But F-15X is a no go regardless of the circular arguments in this thread.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 13 Feb 2019, 13:48

madrat wrote:When talking about corporate cultures, he is.

He is what?

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 13 Feb 2019, 14:04

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?

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 13 Feb 2019, 14:25

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptul ... 93bf9f2b97

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 13 Feb 2019, 15:40

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

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 13 Feb 2019, 16:44

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...

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 13 Feb 2019, 17:40

I did read it. That’s why I posted it. :doh:

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 13 Feb 2019, 18:18

a case of "read" (red) and "read" (reed) being unfortunately spelled the same?

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 13 Feb 2019, 20:00

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

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 13 Feb 2019, 20:34

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:a case of "read" (red) and "read" (reed) being unfortunately spelled the same?

Good point.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 14 Feb 2019, 02:13

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?

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 14 Feb 2019, 03:14

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