F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8388
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 18:02

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
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 775
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 19:44

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.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2628
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 20:10

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8388
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 20:40

A lot of projections that came out right after the "reset" were overblown.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2628
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 21:20

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...
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 08:26

https://taskandpurpose-com.cdn.ampproje ... kheed-f-35

Somebody should remind him the Monica lost.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 08:59

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.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3358
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 13:36

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....
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1211
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 13:43

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.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 775
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 20:52

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.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 03:09

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
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8388
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 05:37

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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

tjh8402

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2017, 21:36

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 08:15

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 08:40

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.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8388
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 09:17

Nobody needs to divert anything. There is plenty of growth room in the production schedule for ramping up orders for ANY customer.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dhd and 17 guests