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

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 02:41
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:[quote
I have a very hard time believing Mattis was in favor of the F-15X! Do you have a source???


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... -15x-44207[/quote]


No direct quote from Mattis just unnamed sources from Bloomberg.

Do I need to remind the members that Mattis was a Career US Marine Corp General. Clearly, buying F-15X's instead of additional F-35's. Wouldn't be in the interest of the USMC.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 19:04
by marauder2048
popcorn wrote: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.



Indeed. Why should Boeing's customers accede to any US request to divert their orders?
This isn't my premise: it was the premise in the AFA article on Boeing's supposed capacity advantage.
Which when looked at, doesn't exist.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 20:33
by quicksilver

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 20:44
by marauder2048
The planned F-15X purchase originated from an assessment of the Air Force's needs by career analysts
in the Pentagon's independent cost assessment office. It's won favor from White House budget
officials who agreed it would fill a niche for an aircraft capable of carrying a heavy load of ordnance,
according to one of the people.


Which is what we have been saying: an OSD diktat. Nothing more.
CAPE largely being a creature of the Deputy SecDef and all.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 00:23
by FlightDreamz
Best to read the original article at the source but USAF still appears interested?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26413900/air-force-buying-new-f-15/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowTWPOP&src=socialflowTW
By Kyle Mizokami
Feb 19, 2019
An article at Bloomberg has revealed the USAF will request eight F-15X fighters in its budget. The service plans to buy 80 fighters over five years. That's enough to fit out a wing of 72 aircraft, divided into three squadrons of 24 planes each, with eight spares. The F-15X will come in two versions, a single seat F-15CX and a twin seat F-15EX. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, other than crew size the two jets will be identical.
Supporters say the F-15X is meant to complement, not replace the F-35. The lack of stealth makes it pretty clear the F-15X can never replace a stealthy fighter, but it can make stealth fighters better by acting as a flying magazine ...At $80 million the F-15X is a relatively inexpensive way to triple or even quadruple the firepower of a pair of USAF fighter jets.
The F-15X looks to be a “go,” but a lot can happen in five years. If the defense budget remains flat or begins to contract over the next two years buying a new fighter could go out the window, especially if only 80 aircraft are planned.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 00:49
by SpudmanWP
Don't let that fool you, the USAF is not "interested", they are being forced to buy them.

Think about why they say that they need them over the F-35. They say that it can carry far more than the F-35 yet will only be stateside since it's not stealthy. When will a US based fighter ever need to carry that many missiles and how could the F-35 not perform that same mission?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:00
by vipermaestro
What does 80 aircraft really accomplish, 3 ANG squadrons?

I hope this is all a ploy to increase the F-35 build rate.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:07
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't let that fool you, the USAF is not "interested", they are being forced to buy them.

Think about why they say that they need them over the F-35. They say that it can carry far more than the F-35 yet will only be stateside since it's not stealthy. When will a US based fighter ever need to carry that many missiles and how could the F-35 not perform that same mission?



I will never happen anyways..... :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:10
by Corsair1963
FlightDreamz wrote:Best to read the original article at the source but USAF still appears interested?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26413900/air-force-buying-new-f-15/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowTWPOP&src=socialflowTW
By Kyle Mizokami
Feb 19, 2019
An article at Bloomberg has revealed the USAF will request eight F-15X fighters in its budget. The service plans to buy 80 fighters over five years. That's enough to fit out a wing of 72 aircraft, divided into three squadrons of 24 planes each, with eight spares. The F-15X will come in two versions, a single seat F-15CX and a twin seat F-15EX. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, other than crew size the two jets will be identical.
Supporters say the F-15X is meant to complement, not replace the F-35. The lack of stealth makes it pretty clear the F-15X can never replace a stealthy fighter, but it can make stealth fighters better by acting as a flying magazine ...At $80 million the F-15X is a relatively inexpensive way to triple or even quadruple the firepower of a pair of USAF fighter jets.
The F-15X looks to be a “go,” but a lot can happen in five years. If the defense budget remains flat or begins to contract over the next two years buying a new fighter could go out the window, especially if only 80 aircraft are planned.


They can post all of the articles that they want. Yet, this will never happen. Mark my "words" the USAF will never "receive" a single F-15X.....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:13
by weasel1962
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't let that fool you, the USAF is not "interested", they are being forced to buy them.

Think about why they say that they need them over the F-35. They say that it can carry far more than the F-35 yet will only be stateside since it's not stealthy. When will a US based fighter ever need to carry that many missiles and how could the F-35 not perform that same mission?


In peacetime CAP, one may need to be seen, perform a fast intercept and a longer endurance reduces any need for air refuel.

I think this can ultimately be pitched as a lead in to the PCA. With 44 F-35 sqns and a target state of 63 fighter sqns (from 56 current), this does build a case for and suggest an eventual (and decent) 19 PCA sqn offering a useful hi-lo mix of 19-44.

The risk is that if one pushes too hard that the F-35 is a replacement for the F-15, then a PCA program might never happen if its just to replace 5-6 F-22 sqns. May be too few. That may be something LM wants because they have a lock on the fighter program and eliminates the competition. Don't think the USAF wants a F-35 only fleet. That could end with just 44, not 63.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:17
by Corsair1963
A fleet of mostly F-35's is far cheaper than a mix fleet. In addition the F-35 is vastly more capable and would share far more with the F-22 than the F-15X. So, again what is the point of buying the latter???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:21
by Corsair1963
Oh, before anybody get's excited. The F-15X could be in the forthcoming USAF Budget? Yet, it will never be funded....


"IMHO"

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:35
by marsavian
How many times can you post a variation of the same post ? We get it, we heard you the very first time dozens of posts ago, you don't think it will be purchased and delivered ....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:41
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:How many times can you post a variation of the same post ? We get it, we heard you the very first time dozens of posts ago, you don't think it will be purchased and delivered ....



As many times and some keep posting that it's a given the US is buying the F-15X. Which, we have no evidence that they're....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:48
by marsavian
Yes but those posts normally have a link to a new article showing the proponents pushing for it. Your strongly held views on this subject are well known now but it does not matter either way until Congress actively blocks it in the budget process. If they don't then they will go through, that's the law however unpleasant that maybe to you.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:54
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:Yes but those posts normally have a link to a new article showing the proponents pushing for it. Your strongly held views on this subject are well known now but it does not matter either way until Congress actively blocks it in the budget process. If they don't then they will go through, that's the law however unpleasant that maybe to you.



The USAF has not summited a Budget yet. Nor, do we even know if the "F-15X" is in it. Even if it "is" there is little support for the Eagle in Congress. Which, is my point.....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 02:25
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:In peacetime CAP, one may need to be seen, perform a fast intercept and a longer endurance reduces any need for air refuel.


Even at the maximum endurance fuel flow with max fuel, it's still inadequate to meet the average
"Operation Noble Eagle" mission duration.

weasel1962 wrote:I think this can ultimately be pitched as a lead in to the PCA..


Unless these are ring fenced funds, it would be better added to PCA directly.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 02:35
by Corsair1963
Politics

Air Force Wants Eight Upgraded Boeing Fighters Along With F-35s

By Anthony Capaccio

‎February‎ ‎19‎, ‎2019‎ ‎4‎:‎00‎ ‎AM

QUOTE:

Even though the request has White House support, it’s likely to raise questions from skeptical lawmakers about why the Air Force, which has spent years saying it needs the “fifth-generation” F-35, now wants more F-15s as well.



Lockheed has been quietly reminding lawmakers and congressional staff of its arguments for the F-35 as the better choice, including through a “fact sheet” distributed in December. That was followed by an attack on the F-15X by five senators who wrote President Donald Trump last week calling the Boeing plane “outdated.”


“The U.S. Air Force fighter budget is unlikely to grow by much, so the fear is that replacing the F-15 fleet, rather than upgrading the old F-15s, would take cash away from F-35 procurement,” Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group of Fairfax, Virginia, said in an email.

Chicago-based Boeing has offered the aircraft, including engines, for about $80 million per plane under a fixed-price contract with the first deliveries to come in 2022. By comparison, the F-35 from Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed is estimated to cost $89 million each in the latest contract with a goal of $80 million by 2020.

Lockheed’s December “fact sheet” said the F-15X would cost $90 million each and have less range, acceleration and time to remain over a target than the F-35.


Still, two of Lockheed’s strongest congressional supporters, Republican Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz of Texas, drew up the letter to Trump warning against underfunding the F-35 that’s built in their state in order to buy the F-15X.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... with-f-35s

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 14:09
by mixelflick
Shrewd moves by LM.

It's questionable whether Trump understands the capabilities of either aircraft. He'll probably play one vs the other and whatever's bought will be spun as bringing the cost down for taxpayers. Hopefully, he doesn't still think of Cruz as "Lyin' Ted", LOL.

In all seriousness, let's just buy more F-35's and leave the penultimate Eagle to allies who can't. That way, Boeing's line stays open and the USAF moves closer to a 50/50 4th/5th gen fleet. Everybody wins.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 23:37
by vanshilar
mixelflick wrote:If you think about it, the only competitive advantage Boeing has with the Pentagon is... delivering aircraft on time and under budget.


It's also worth noting several things:

1. It wasn't Boeing that made the F-15 and F-18 Super, it was McDonnell Douglas. By the time McD folded into Boeing, the F-15 was already a very mature production line, and the F-18 Super was a fairly low-risk, incremental development of an existing plane.
2. McDonnell Douglas was also the prime contractor on the A-12 program whose cancellation led to the F-18 Super. You can't really credit Boeing/McD with the F-15 if you also ignore the A-12.
3. The F-15 also had its share of teething troubles. (The F-18 Super did too, but by and large it was relatively smooth.)
4. The F-35 program has largely been on time and on budget since it was re-baselined in 2011. Now, you can argue that re-baselining a program is unfair, but you should also consider that it was re-baselined to be in line with the pace of contemporary fighter programs instead of the unrealistic schedule and budget that it had previously. It wasn't re-baselined to a loose schedule or anything.
5. Boeing hasn't been particularly on-time nor on-budget with their commercial ventures, namely the Dreamliner.

So it's a mixed bag for Boeing on this front.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 00:30
by SpudmanWP
They botched the KC-46 too

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 01:55
by weasel1962
It would be difficult to "botch" if its off the shelf and in production for umpteen years

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 02:18
by Corsair1963
This all comes down to the end of production for the F-15 Eagle and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Yet, Boeing is hardly in a position to cry about the loss of work at St Louis. When it just recently won both the T-X Trainer and MQ-25A Stealth Tanker Contest. Plus, production of both the P-8A and KC-46 are at the early stages and will run for a very long time to come! In short Boeing is hardly hurting..... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 09:43
by disconnectedradical
This F-15X is a waste of money. 80 fighters over 5 years? Flyaway cost barely any different from F-35?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 13:42
by mixelflick
disconnectedradical wrote:This F-15X is a waste of money. 80 fighters over 5 years? Flyaway cost barely any different from F-35?


You're thinking logically though. Congress sometimes, doesn't.

Speaking solely about the USAF though, consider the following...

1.) They truncated the F-22 buy to just 187 airframes
2.) They want to buy the F-15X, instead of just buying more F-35's (which would equal a lower per unit cost)
3.) They're talking about retiring the B-1 and B-2. While the B-21 might be able to perform the roles these two fill today, what about B-1's as flying arsenal planes loaded with AMRAAM's? Or converting B-2's to perform tanking duties? Or B-1's as dedicated anti-ship aircraft? Would seem to be a lot cheaper vs. starting out with a clean sheet design for either.
4.) They never pulled the trigger on re-engine the B-52. Something that could have been done years ago and would have paid for itself many times over by now.
5.) Gates predicts no Chinese stealth fighter until 2020. J-20 flies on January 11, 2011 during his visit to China.

At what point are people like Gates going to be held accountable?? If the F-35 doesn't drop below $80 million/copy, I guess we'll all know why...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 18:02
by SpudmanWP
Again, let's stop saying "they want to buy" as it's not the USAF that is pushing this but "other" personnel in the DoD.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 01:29
by Corsair1963
I've said all along the USAF would never get the F-15X......... :doh:



WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin and U.S. Air Force officials may be downplaying the prospect of an upcoming budget battle surrounding the F-15X and the F-35 fighter jets, but influential F-35 supporters in Congress and around the Capital Beltway are mounting an offensive against Boeing’s new F-15 variant.


All signs point to the Air Force unveiling its plan to buy a new version of the F-15 in its fiscal 2020 budget proposal, tentatively scheduled for release in mid-March. Though numbers have fluctuated, a Feb. 19 report from Bloomberg says the service plans to purchase eight F-15X planes in FY20, with an expected total buy of about 80 jets.



That number is a far cry from the rate of 80 F-35As per year that the Air Force originally believed it could start procuring in 2014. Even the goal of 60 "A" models per year seems increasingly out of reach in the near term.


The result is that the Air Force’s F-15X procurement is starting to face pushback, particularly from F-35 supporters in the think tank world and stakeholders in Congress............


Meanwhile, F-35 purchases will remain stagnant, with 84 jets set to be requested in FY20, and 48 of that sum for the Air Force’s F-35A conventional variant, Bloomberg said.


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... t-threats/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 01:42
by weasel1962
Best explanation I've seen on the subject. Provides a clear analysis and indication from the USAF perspective on the F-15C that they are not prepared to extend C life into 2030s. A-10s will.

https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/ ... ht-attack/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 02:23
by Corsair1963
Confusing to say the least.....So, is he saying the F-15X will be cheaper than the F-16??? Which, we can sell to Allies that can't afford or have access to the F-35???


We learned in the past that if it’s good enough for us to buy, it tends to be good enough for our allies and partners. And many of the international air chiefs, tell me: “Hey, Dave, I got this going on in my country, I’ve got to deal with it; I want to join you in a fight, but I can’t afford F-16s, I’m never going to get F-35 and I need something else because my weapon systems I’ve got right now are getting older. What do you have to offer me?”



Nonetheless, this is hardly a good case for buying F-15X's. Plus, I don't see how they could possibly get the F-15X below $100 Million let alone $80 Million. Plus, according to the above quote the countries in question can't even afford F-16's! Honestly, this doesn't make sense at all.....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 02:24
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Best explanation I've seen on the subject. Provides a clear analysis and indication from the USAF perspective on the F-15C that they are not prepared to extend C life into 2030s. A-10s will.

https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/ ... ht-attack/


It's devoid of any real analysis.

No one suggested the F-15C was going to make it into the 2030s without something happening.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 02:58
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Best explanation I've seen on the subject. Provides a clear analysis and indication from the USAF perspective on the F-15C that they are not prepared to extend C life into 2030s. A-10s will.

https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/ ... ht-attack/


It's devoid of any real analysis.

No one suggested the F-15C was going to make it into the 2030s without something happening.



Yes, I found the case for more F-15X's near nonexistent???

Honestly, you could make a better case for upgrading existing F-15C's. Than buying new F-15X's. As both will be obsolete in the coming decade....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 03:38
by marauder2048
Here's a decent argument that they could be making but are not:

Our experiments have shown that fast jets are the most survivable gateway we've
found to enable communication across the joint force but gateway pods are prohibitively
expensive, limited in capability and degrade the performance of the host aircraft.

Consequently, TTNT/MADL/SADL/WDL/IFDL antennas must be directly integrated into a fast jet
platform and the only suitable platform we have that can meet the
power generation and other requirements in the near term is the F-15.

This integration cannot be done as a retrofit so new builds are required and
Boeing is able to deliver them within the year under a firm fixed-price contract.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 03:39
by SpudmanWP
There was already a study that said that current F-15Cs can make it into the 2030s with just a < $1Mil SLEP.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 03:43
by marauder2048
SpudmanWP wrote:There was already a study that said that current F-15Cs can make it into the 2030s with just a < $1Mil SLEP.


Right. That and all of the detailed analysis on various SLEPs and other mods (like the industry day for E-winging
the F-15C/Ds because the USG actually owns the data rights to the F-15E wing) has gone all F-15 Silent Eagle.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 03:54
by Corsair1963
Problem is you can't make a case for buying New F-15X's over F-35A's by the numbers. In addition we need to order as many F-35's as production allows. As this drives down the unit price of the F-35. While, making it even more attractive for export. Lastly, this put's China and Russia in a poor position. As they have to spend more and more tax dollars just trying to keep up....


Honestly, you can slice it a hundred different ways. Yet, it never comes in favor of the F-15X..... :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 07:29
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:There was already a study that said that current F-15Cs can make it into the 2030s with just a < $1Mil SLEP.


Right. That and all of the detailed analysis on various SLEPs and other mods (like the industry day for E-winging
the F-15C/Ds because the USG actually owns the data rights to the F-15E wing) has gone all F-15 Silent Eagle.


You got to take it context. Clearly the USAF as highlighted has done service life studies which basically states the F-15C can't go past 2030. When the chief says I'm going to ignore what Boeing says about SLEP extension, what do you think he means?

He can't say the F-35 is a bloody lousy plane compared to the F-15 even if its true because that would really mean he shouldn't be "chief". What he's signalling is that he'd rather have new planes than an SLEP. He pitches more F-35, he may not get it. He pitches more F-15s, maybe he gets F-35. That to me is how he's pitching it.

If he can't get the budget, you can be sure the SLEP goes back on the table. If he pitches both new planes & SLEP, they'd do a comparison and guess what, SLEP wins because of the costs savings. Need to study game theory. You don't see the analysis, I see helluva thought going into how to pitch this.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 11:32
by Corsair1963
Sens. Cruz, Cornyn, Collins, Rubio, Murkowski Pen Letter Urging the President to Fully Support F-35 Funding

‘The F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, and survivable air dominance fighter, and now is the time to double down on the program’

February 15, 2019

202-228-7561


WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), along with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) today sent a letter to President Trump urging him to support the current funding schedule for the F-35 as opposed to investing in the outdated, fourth-generation F-15X.

“We are extremely concerned that, over the last few years, the DoD has underfunded the F-35 Program and relied on Congress to fund increases in production, sustainment, and modernization. In order to meet the overmatch and lethality goals laid out in the National Security Strategy, the DoD needs to make these investments in the F-35 to affordably deliver and operate this fifth-generation fighter fleet. The F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, and survivable air dominance fighter, and now is the time to double down on the program,” the senators wrote...............


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4327

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 14:07
by quicksilver

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 17:47
by mixelflick
Quite ironic that the biggest threat to the F-35 is not the SU-57, J-20 or other near peer adversary. It's the F-15X and politics!

I love the F-15, always have. It's served the nation and our allies exceedingly well. You couldn't ask for a more dominant air to air platform. But its best days have passed, and the competition is way, way too close. Double up the F-35 buy to replenish our air wings, including the F-15's (strictly) air to air mission.

It's cheaper. It's infinitely more capable. And our servicemen deserve the best...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 20:01
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
You got to take it context. Clearly the USAF as highlighted has done service life studies which basically states the F-15C can't go past 2030. When the chief says I'm going to ignore what Boeing says about SLEP extension, what do you think he means?


If he can't get the budget, you can be sure the SLEP goes back on the table. If he pitches both new planes & SLEP, they'd do a comparison and guess what, SLEP wins because of the costs savings. Need to study game theory. You don't see the analysis, I see helluva thought going into how to pitch this.


The Chief means the F-15X was imposed on them from without and that he's doing his best to present
the flimsy arguments given to him by OSD as he is ethically and legally bound to do. There's no
real analysis because there really wasn't any.

He is signaling that they don't have control over this current FYDP. Actual game theory gets reserved
for formal, sworn testimony to Congress when you present AFCAA's analysis which implies that the
request is unsound. Then CAPE gets subpoenaed.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 20:22
by quicksilver
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
You got to take it context. Clearly the USAF as highlighted has done service life studies which basically states the F-15C can't go past 2030. When the chief says I'm going to ignore what Boeing says about SLEP extension, what do you think he means?


If he can't get the budget, you can be sure the SLEP goes back on the table. If he pitches both new planes & SLEP, they'd do a comparison and guess what, SLEP wins because of the costs savings. Need to study game theory. You don't see the analysis, I see helluva thought going into how to pitch this.


The Chief means the F-15X was imposed on them from without and that he's doing his best to present
the flimsy arguments given to him by OSD as he is ethically and legally bound to do. There's no
real analysis because there really wasn't any.

He is signaling that they don't have control over this current FYDP. Actual game theory gets reserved
for formal, sworn testimony to Congress when you present AFCAA's analysis which implies that the
request is unsound. Then CAPE gets subpoenaed.


Kaboom. This^ :thumb: (Although the Congress probably wouldn't have to resort to a subpoena).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 21:21
by marauder2048
It was an OSD diktat and nothing more.


“Our budget proposal that we initially submitted did not include additional fourth-generation aircraft,”
Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told reporters during a Feb. 28 roundtable at the Air Force
Association’s Air Warfare Symposium.

Wilson’s comments confirm reporting by Defense News and other outlets who have reported
that the decision to buy new F-15X aircraft was essentially forced upon the Air Force.





https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2019/02/28/the-air-force-doesnt-want-f-15x-but-it-needs-more-fighter-jets/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 22:08
by marsavian
So it's shenanigans of Shanahan aided and abetted by The Drive ;). So more F-35s then once Congress rewrites the request, I suspect Turkey's order will be available soon for redeployment ;).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 06:27
by mkellytx
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

It looks like force structure is the driver for putting the F-15X into the budget.

Air Force Didn’t Ask for New F-15s, But Needs to Bolster Fighter Buy
Date: 2/28/2019

​There are new F-15s in the Air Force’s fiscal year 2020 budget, but the service didn’t ask for them, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson revealed Thursday.

[...]

​There are new F-15s in the Air Force’s fiscal year 2020 budget, but the service didn’t ask for them, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson revealed Thursday.

The add was made by other entities to meet force structure capacity demanded by the National Defense Strategy, she and other top service leaders said, and buying more F-35s is seen as not affordable just now, chiefly because of the sustainment cost.

[...]

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... r-Buy.aspx

The article is a really good read, lots of nuance. Once upon a time I was an acquisition officer and involved with budgeting... All that to say, this was in motion before Mattis resigned. I suspect he laid down the law about the budget and then applied some persuasion to the secretary and chief. Probably along the lines of something like this:

"Let me be very clear, the Air Force will abide by the constraints of the budget. Am I clear? You can meet your force structure targets or you can have 72 F-35's a year. My expectation is that you make the choice that supports the National Defense Strategy."

Marines tend to be masters of making do with good enough. Also, there's enough institutional memory here that the current chief won't be insubordinate because he doesn't want to be replaced by a C-130 pilot.

Given that it looks like they're in the budget, the Air Force leadership chose not be insubordinate and repeat the F-22 saga. Any lukewarm public statements are likely face saving gestures allowed by DOD so the leadership doesn't have to walk back 20 years of congressional testimony, so long as they don't say anything insubordinate.

My take, the leadership wants a larger force preserving the hi/lo mix more than they want an all 5G force when they're constrained by a budget.

Cheers

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 00:38
by marsavian
Asked if he would prefer to buy all F-35s, Holmes said, “I think that’s the Air Force’s position. The fifth gen airplane gets us breadth and depth across everything that we do, but to afford 72 a year, fifth gen is going to cost more, for a variety of reasons.”

Those include not just sustainment costs but beddown and military construction costs, he said, because modernizing an airbase to accept F-35s and build a low observables maintenance shop costs more than simply substituting new versions of older aircraft in the same locations. Training of maintainers and pilots would be lower, too, Holmes noted.

And the F-15 plan is certainly not a done deal. Holmes pointed out: “The Air Force has a view and the Department of Defense has a view, and Congress is the ultimate arbiter of what ends up in our budget, according to the Constitution.”


Sounds like the battle has just begun and the Air Force , DoD maybe asked to quantify all these assumptions. Also does it really matter if the average age is 30 if the aircraft are modernized and well maintained ? Obviously sticking new F-15s into an existing F-15 base does sound relatively easy but it all still has to be quantified.Congress in the end may just meet the USAF halfway and say increase the F-35 buy to 60 or so and forget the F-15X. Many permutations possible.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 01:54
by weasel1962
Apparently Janes is reporting that the USAF is open to any other 4th gen aircraft (i.e. F-16s), not necessarily F-15s. So long as it grows capacity. The idea is that USAF save on milcon costs, not having to modernise (yet) a base for F-35 basing so that's the savings.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 03:46
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Apparently Janes is reporting that the USAF is open to any other 4th gen aircraft (i.e. F-16s), not necessarily F-15s. So long as it grows capacity. The idea is that USAF save on milcon costs, not having to modernise (yet) a base for F-35 basing so that's the savings.



That's just Jane's inference. And the Air Force is post peak-MILCON for the F-35 anyway.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 05:22
by Corsair1963
Let's see the USAF doesn't want the F-15X. Nor, the Republicans or Democrats..... :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 19:57
by SpudmanWP
So much for the F-15X not affecting the F-35 Buy...

The Pentagon will request 78 F-35 jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp., six fewer than previously planned, in the budget expected to be sent to Congress next week, according to defense officials.

The cutback from the 84 fighters projected a year ago for fiscal 2020 is a setback for Lockheed, the No. 1 defense contractor, even as interest in the plane from foreign buyers increases. The officials asked not to be identified in advance of the budget release.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... an-planned

Since we know that the F-15X was NOT in the budget when it was submitted to OSD, I wonder what the total number of F-35s was at that time. Also, what service lost the 6 or was is a little off the top of each.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 20:24
by marsavian
The congressional F-35 supporters will not like that one bit !

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 22:14
by SpudmanWP
Another option is: Were the services told that they only had $X to spend in the FY2020 budget, they then submitted the request for 78 (begrudgingly less than last year's plan), and now they are being told "hey, we have some extra money over here so... F-15X"?

This would "technically" meant that the F-15X did not affect the F-35, but it definitely violates the spirit of the whole thing.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 02:03
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:So much for the F-15X not affecting the F-35 Buy...

The Pentagon will request 78 F-35 jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp., six fewer than previously planned, in the budget expected to be sent to Congress next week, according to defense officials.

The cutback from the 84 fighters projected a year ago for fiscal 2020 is a setback for Lockheed, the No. 1 defense contractor, even as interest in the plane from foreign buyers increases. The officials asked not to be identified in advance of the budget release.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... an-planned

Since we know that the F-15X was NOT in the budget when it was submitted to OSD, I wonder what the total number of F-35s was at that time. Also, what service lost the 6 or was is a little off the top of each.



Well, what the USAF request and what they get are often to very different things! Yet, what I don't get is why the Secretary of Defense (Patrick Shanahan) would make such a blatant move to acquire new F-15's in the first place??? As he would have to realize the major push back he would get. As a matter of fact the list is both long and powerful. Right at a time when Trump has more problems than he can count. This would offend Republicans that he needs to push his agenda. While, giving Democrats more ammunition to attack his administration. (perplexing)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 02:18
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:Another option is: Were the services told that they only had $X to spend in the FY2020 budget, they then submitted the request for 78 (begrudgingly less than last year's plan), and now they are being told "hey, we have some extra money over here so... F-15X"?

This would "technically" meant that the F-15X did not affect the F-35, but it definitely violates the spirit of the whole thing.



Regardless, I just don't seeing this happening. As it doesn't have support of either party. Yet, maybe they will throw Boeing a bone somewhere else? Like additional work with the B-52, T-X, MQ-25, etc. etc.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 03:29
by Corsair1963
MUST READ


Mitchell Weighs In: More F-35s or New, Old F-15s?

Fifth gen or fourth gen? F-35A or F-15X. Stealth, sensors and fusion or lots of missiles? Lockheed or Boeing? See what the Mitchell Institute says.

By David Deptula and Doug Birkey
March 04, 2019


The Air Force needs to buy more new fighter planes. The constricted size and increasing age of the Air Force’s fighter inventory is the product of long-standing deferred investment; the 2009 decision to prematurely curtail the F-22 buy at less than half its required inventory; failure to boost F-35 production to originally planned rates; and the fact that 234 of 1970’s era F-15Cs will be hitting the end of their service lives in the next decade. Maintaining the current fighter inventory size demands that the Air Force buy at least 72 fighters per year into the 2020s. Failure to meet this requirement is not an option given the burgeoning global threat environment. With the fiscal year 2020 defense budget set for release next month, Congress will prove critical in charting a prudent path forward..................




https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/afa ... old-f-15s/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 03:55
by madrat
I think it would make more sense to stand down F-15E from the attack roles and incorporate them into a secondary A2A role, with F-35A tasked to supplement F-22A in Air Dominance. F-15X lacks situational awareness to truly fill capability gaps. Once F-35A numbers ramp up the F-15E role diminishes.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 04:02
by marauder2048
SpudmanWP wrote:Another option is: Were the services told that they only had $X to spend in the FY2020 budget, they then submitted the request for 78 (begrudgingly less than last year's plan), and now they are being told "hey, we have some extra money over here so... F-15X"?

This would "technically" meant that the F-15X did not affect the F-35, but it definitely violates the spirit of the whole thing.


Weren't the services preparing two budget proposals for FY20 that were associated with two different top lines?

Followed by the mid-December bump. So who knows to which submission Wilson was referring.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 04:08
by weasel1962
Budget posturing? The next lot after lot 14 (FY 2020) will be block buys.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 04:21
by marauder2048
Slow Tony updated his article:

The Air Force still plans to buy all 48 jets in fiscal 2020 that it had originally sought, according to a person
familiar with the budget who asked not to be identified. That means the quantity sought by
the Navy or Marine Corps was cut.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 05:29
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:Slow Tony updated his article:

The Air Force still plans to buy all 48 jets in fiscal 2020 that it had originally sought, according to a person
familiar with the budget who asked not to be identified. That means the quantity sought by
the Navy or Marine Corps was cut.


USN can't afford to cut a single F-35C. If, it is replace two squadrons per CVW in the coming decade. So, that must mean the USMC will loose the "6" F-35's (B)?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 13:27
by madrat
Not cut, just delayed purchases.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 15:10
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:I think it would make more sense to stand down F-15E from the attack roles and incorporate them into a secondary A2A role, with F-35A tasked to supplement F-22A in Air Dominance. F-15X lacks situational awareness to truly fill capability gaps. Once F-35A numbers ramp up the F-15E role diminishes.


THIS!!!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 15:17
by vilters
mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:I think it would make more sense to stand down F-15E from the attack roles and incorporate them into a secondary A2A role, with F-35A tasked to supplement F-22A in Air Dominance. F-15X lacks situational awareness to truly fill capability gaps. Once F-35A numbers ramp up the F-15E role diminishes.


THIS!!!


So sorry, but allow me to not agree here.

Durng the first days of war, you need F-22 and F-35 for the "air clean up".

Secondary; an F-15E is primary an attack aircraft and far less an A2A aircraft. (We are talking "E" model here, right?)

In the first days of a conlict, I see cruise missiles and F-15E going in, heavy, fast and low for A2G, with F-22 and F-35 as top cover.

You need a "fighter style heavy bomb truck" the first days.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 15:34
by crosshairs
vilters wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:I think it would make more sense to stand down F-15E from the attack roles and incorporate them into a secondary A2A role, with F-35A tasked to supplement F-22A in Air Dominance. F-15X lacks situational awareness to truly fill capability gaps. Once F-35A numbers ramp up the F-15E role diminishes.


THIS!!!


So sorry, but allow me to not agree here.

Durng the first days of war, you need F-22 and F-35 for the "air clean up".

Secondary; an F-15E is primary an attack aircraft and far less an A2A aircraft. (We are talking "E" model here, right?)

In the first days of a conlict, I see cruise missiles and F-15E going in, heavy, fast and low for A2G, with F-22 and F-35 as top cover.

You need a "fighter style heavy bomb truck" the first days.


Definitely not.

First days of war, what is needed is LO platforms for SEAD/DEAD and destruction of command and control. After air defenses are neutralized it would be safer to bring in nonstealthy assets for mass indiscriminate bombing of troops and armor and artillery.

Mud hens repurposed as A2A makes all the sense in the world. They have lots of life left in them and could take over for the old creaky C/D fleet.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 15:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The whole point of the F-15X is the arsenal aspect. Extra pylons, better CONNECTIVITY with F-35s, things the E will never have

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 17:58
by crosshairs
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The whole point of the F-15X is the arsenal aspect. Extra pylons, better CONNECTIVITY with F-35s, things the E will never have


All the connectivity in the planet still won't reduce its radar cross section or make it more survivable than any other 4th gen. the X just isn't a first day of war aircraft. Maybe it will get some data from the F-35 s that are in theater to minimize the risks posed by air defenses, but air defenses these days covers huge swaths of area, so that's not viable to make the X a survivable first days of war aircraft.

After the F-35 destroys air defenses, then you can send in the X, but by then all that whiz bang connectivity isn't much use as the X is going after things that require large amounts and or heavy ordinance, ie bunkers and fixed fortifications and armor. the E is capable of that job today.

The case for the X just isn't there. It's a less survivable platform than aircraft we build today. It's less capable. It may or may not be less expensive, and that is another discussion, but how expensive is it to lose an aircraft? Dare I say it is cheaper to buy the more expensive (if it's true the F-35 costs more) aircraft because our side will not lose as many.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 18:18
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The whole point of the F-15X is the arsenal aspect. Extra pylons, better CONNECTIVITY with F-35s, things the E will never have


What's the basis for claim of the connectivity advantage over the E model?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 18:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marauder2048 wrote:What's the basis for claim of the connectivity advantage over the E model?

effectively the only thing the X will have in common with the E is the OML. All the electronics (Radar, ECM, etc) are new. The cockpit displays are new. Everything is new.

I 110% agree that the purchase of the X is foolish and the money should be spent on F-35s, but I disagree that the E can do anything the X can.

The X is the 18 AMRAAM plane, it can get targeting data from forward F-35s. It will have a big RCS, but it will be protected by F-35s and itself. Remember the "generate a wormhole" statements?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 19:05
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:What's the basis for claim of the connectivity advantage over the E model?

effectively the only thing the X will have in common with the E is the OML. All the electronics (Radar, ECM, etc) are new. The cockpit displays are new. Everything is new.

I 110% agree that the purchase of the X is foolish and the money should be spent on F-35s, but I disagree that the E can do anything the X can.

The X is the 18 AMRAAM plane, it can get targeting data from forward F-35s. It will have a big RCS, but it will be protected by F-35s and itself. Remember the "generate a wormhole" statements?


What's the basis of the claim for improved connectivity? The radar has no advantage over the existing F-15 AESAs (which the US bought for the entire F-15C and F-15E fleet). And It won't have EPAWSS (since it doesn't yet exist) and the AFA claims that the AF was looking for existing F-15 customers to get out of the way so the AF could take early delivery.

The F-35s will need to reveal their position to communicate and Link-16 will be the first casualty against a high-end opponent. And there's no evidence that the AF has acquired the numberof the gateway pods to make the above CONOPS feasible.

The F-15X has the worst thermal and radar signature of practically any fighter currently being produced.
Detailing high-end assets to protect it is a burden that was part of the rationale for the decision to retire JSTARS.
(which was a not so subtle shot by Deptula & co at the current ACC chief).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 19:29
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:What's the basis for claim of the connectivity advantage over the E model?

effectively the only thing the X will have in common with the E is the OML. All the electronics (Radar, ECM, etc) are new. The cockpit displays are new. Everything is new.

I 110% agree that the purchase of the X is foolish and the money should be spent on F-35s, but I disagree that the E can do anything the X can.

The X is the 18 AMRAAM plane, it can get targeting data from forward F-35s. It will have a big RCS, but it will be protected by F-35s and itself. Remember the "generate a wormhole" statements?



The Es are getting APG-82, EPAWWS, new computers, new displays, etc.... too. The main difference is that the X has fly by wire, and the outer wing stations.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 19:55
by marauder2048
wrightwing wrote:The Es are getting APG-82, EPAWWS, new computers, new displays, etc.... too.


And I'm equally dubious about the E's survivability. Some of these upgrades
are also motivated by diminishing manufacturing sources and readiness
metrics.

wrightwing wrote:The main difference is that the X has fly by wire, and the outer wing stations.


Which is hilarious given the E-wing'ing of the F-15C/D RFI/Q&A stated explicitly that the Air Force was not
interested in FBW or the activation of the outer wing stations.

But If the F-15X shows up festooned with IFDL and MADL antennae I'll owe you an adult beverage of your choice.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2019, 23:53
by sferrin
Funny how the F-15X wasn't even a talking point until a former Boeing executive took over at the DoD.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/23/bo ... -shanahan/

Can you say "corruption"?

:bang:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 00:15
by bumtish
sferrin wrote:Funny how the F-15X wasn't even a talking point until a former Boeing executive took over at the DoD.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/23/bo ... -shanahan/

Can you say "corruption"?

:bang:


This is so spot on!

Experts said buying F-15Xs does not make financial sense for the Air Force. The F-15X is an “entirely new airplane given systems and structural updates” that would likely stand alone as its own fleet, much like how the C-model and E-model F-15s are treated as different types. This would drive require a separate infrastructure, injecting “massive significant programmatic and sustainment costs” over the life of the fleet, said Doug Birkey of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Air Force Association.

[snip]

“It’s a troubling path,” Birkey continued. “Our concern is you are going to get this very small fleet, it is going to be a stepchild that is going to suck up finite resources, and it is not going to be usable in the missions in which you need to help the most.”


The F-15X is more expensive to buy and operate than a F-35A. It will require its own upgrade spiral separate from that of the F-35, F-15C and E - more money. It will also largely have logistics separate from that of existing Cs and Es, and when the C and E are retired it will also have pilot and ground crew training separate from the rest of the USAF fleet.

The F-15X checks all the boxes on the list of how not to avoid costs.

Being able to hypothetically carry 2-4 a2a missiles more than the F-35A (and on top being very restricted in the taskings it can undertake), can in no way make up for this.

Buying F-15X is so obviously not in the American taxpayer's nor the USAF's interest.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 03:09
by Corsair1963
Actually, the more I think about it. The USAF maybe taking a similar strategy as the USN recently did with talk of retiring the USS Harry S Truman early. Knowing full well the US Congress would never allow it!



QUOTE: The Washington Monument Strategy is a game that was described by then-Washington Post writer Jonathan Bernstein at the height of the 2013 sequester debacle.

Excerpt: A Washington Monument strategy involves fighting against budget cuts by focusing, and if possible shifting cuts, to the most popular and visible services an agency provides — thus the Park Service would react to a budget cut by threatening to close the Washington Monument, figuring that disappointed tourists would flood their Member of Congress’s office complaining about it.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/the-d ... ft-vol-xx/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 03:19
by SpudmanWP
Here in California (and other places I am sure) they fund all their pet projects first and then cry for more bonds/taxes to pay for the teachers, 1st responders, etc.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 03:29
by wolfpak
Think they should spend the money on the PCA. Here's AF Assist Sec Roper's take on the future of fighter procurement.

From Todays Featured Content from AvLeak:

“Think back to the original Air Force, during the ‘century series’ of fighters,” Roper says. This reference to the string of second-generation, supersonic jet fighters introduced during the 1950s—the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104 and F-105—recalls an age of continuous experimentation and innovation, albeit with a generation of combat aircraft boasting far less sophistication than, for example, a modern Lockheed Martin F-22 or F-35. Despite those differences in complexity, Roper considers the famed century series as a model for the NGAD program to emulate.
“Can you imagine how disruptive it would be if we could create a new airplane or a new satellite every 3-4 years? Every two years?” Roper asks. “And you might do that not because you need it. It might be because you want to impose cost. You want to knock your opponent off their game plan.”

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 03:36
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:Here in California (and other places I am sure) they fund all their pet projects first and then cry for more bonds/taxes to pay for the teachers, 1st responders, etc.



Oh, the game of "politics"........... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 04:50
by Corsair1963
Today, Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) and Congressman Marc Veasey (D-TX) introduced a House Resolution recognizing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program as a critical component of America’s national security that Congress must continue to support. With 40 original cosponsors, this bipartisan resolution reaffirms the F-35’s vital role for maintaining air superiority to preserve global security and stability. The Joint Strike Fighter Caucus has also endorsed this bill..........

https://lesko.house.gov/news/documentsi ... mentID=154

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 07:48
by weasel1962
In non-political news... getting 6 more IRST Blk IIs for the F-15C.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... enied.html

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 08:02
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:In non-political news... getting 6 more IRST Blk IIs for the F-15C.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... enied.html


It will be sometime before all of the F-15C's could be replaced. Regardless, if they're replaced by New F-35A's or F-15X's. So, buying a modest number of subsystems like the IRST doesn't change anything.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 15:15
by vilters
Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.

Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.

A good 4 ship F-35 combat flight uses all is systems and information and fights at 100nm and beyond.

They don't need, and don't care for 1v1 or WVR yanking and banking.
If they end up there they made some crucial mistakes beyond 100nm.

And please don't even try complaining about rewiring old airframes.
It was done before when they took "older" systems like F-16 and F-15 from analog to digital.
From F-16A/B to MLU is +/- the same step. => New sensors, new wiring, and let's go.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 16:14
by quicksilver
wolfpak wrote:Think they should spend the money on the PCA. Here's AF Assist Sec Roper's take on the future of fighter procurement.

From Todays Featured Content from AvLeak:

“Think back to the original Air Force, during the ‘century series’ of fighters,” Roper says. This reference to the string of second-generation, supersonic jet fighters introduced during the 1950s—the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104 and F-105—recalls an age of continuous experimentation and innovation, albeit with a generation of combat aircraft boasting far less sophistication than, for example, a modern Lockheed Martin F-22 or F-35. Despite those differences in complexity, Roper considers the famed century series as a model for the NGAD program to emulate.
“Can you imagine how disruptive it would be if we could create a new airplane or a new satellite every 3-4 years? Every two years?” Roper asks. “And you might do that not because you need it. It might be because you want to impose cost. You want to knock your opponent off their game plan.”


Technically feasible; not economically viable in terms of production and sustainment, and the game plan you disrupt may be your own. You have to field things in operationally viable numbers.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 16:19
by quicksilver
“Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.”

These are not ‘coat hangers’ anymore.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 16:24
by mixelflick
My understanding was that despite their longstanding air to ground role, the F-15E is equally adept at the air to air function. I've seen some eye watering performances where F-15E's lose the CFT's, and look every bit as sprightly as the F-15C. It's BVR capabilities should be as robust too, probably more an issue of aircrew training.

It's not the best solution (more F-35's), but may become enticing - if for no other reason than USAF wouldn't be paying for new planes. Just converting older ones..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 18:08
by SpudmanWP
vilters wrote:Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.


Except that when you have no VLO airframe that means that you need more supporting assets to get the job done and spend more time, money, and blood fighting your way into and out of the target area.

With all other things being equal, a VLO pilot will spend more time planning and managing the battle while a non-VLO pilot will spend more time just trying to stay alive.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 19:42
by marauder2048
vilters wrote:Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.

Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.

A good 4 ship F-35 combat flight uses all is systems and information and fights at 100nm and beyond.

They don't need, and don't care for 1v1 or WVR yanking and banking.
If they end up there they made some crucial mistakes beyond 100nm.

And please don't even try complaining about rewiring old airframes.
It was done before when they took "older" systems like F-16 and F-15 from analog to digital.
From F-16A/B to MLU is +/- the same step. => New sensors, new wiring, and let's go.


Provided you ignore all of the SWAP-C limitations of older designs. It's why the APG-83
is a smaller, less powerful aperture than the APG-80: to fit within the ECS limits of the older block F-16s.
The Block I Super Hornets have no upgradeability and will be retired because the redesign to
accommodate the AESA was so extensive.

The redesign required to accommodate modern avionics is extensive and costly which is why
efforts like the Advanced Super Hornet failed. And even there, they had to essentially glue things
on to the outside because there's no growth potential.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2019, 22:58
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.

Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.

And please don't even try complaining about rewiring old airframes.
It was done before when they took "older" systems like F-16 and F-15 from analog to digital.
From F-16A/B to MLU is +/- the same step. => New sensors, new wiring, and let's go.


sure Vilters. Where do I stick the F-35's IPP? Where am I Placing the multiple sensors for 360 coverage?? How about Barracuda? what about all the power to drive everything? how about multiple sensor and antennae arrays? How about for the AV-8B Harriers? Or how about a Helicopter? where am I sticking all this additional gear and weight? just hang em on there right ol' boy?

Image

I'll just start cutting holes in these older airframes willy nilly right?

Image

And Wheres my EOTS? my DAS? This might come as a shock, but it was a helluva feat to pack as much stuff into the F-35 nose ahead of the Canopy Hinge as they did. Theres a lot going on there


If you're going to claim to have worn a uniform for your nations air force, it would be nice if you displayed more knowledge of aircraft and systems than an Xbox teenager.

These aren't legos and you should know better :roll: A coat hanger? really?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 01:31
by firebase99
mixelflick wrote:My understanding was that despite their longstanding air to ground role, the F-15E is equally adept at the air to air function. I've seen some eye watering performances where F-15E's lose the CFT's, and look every bit as sprightly as the F-15C. It's BVR capabilities should be as robust too, probably more an issue of aircrew training.

It's not the best solution (more F-35's), but may become enticing - if for no other reason than USAF wouldn't be paying for new planes. Just converting older ones..


Agreed, and with all due respect, who cares? The F35 does it better, safer, and cheaper. Buying "Super" Eagles makes no sense at all. Who exactly are advocating for F-15's anyway? Why is this is even being discussed? Its just SOOOOOO STUPID!!!!!!!!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 03:35
by Corsair1963
vilters wrote:Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.

Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.


Sorry, they can't even do that with the F-22 Raptor. So, forget about any 4th Generation Fighter...... :shock:


Honestly, this has been discussed countless times over the years......... :roll:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 03:39
by Corsair1963
firebase99 wrote:
Agreed, and with all due respect, who cares? The F35 does it better, safer, and cheaper. Buying "Super" Eagles makes no sense at all. Who exactly are advocating for F-15's anyway? Why is this is even being discussed? Its just SOOOOOO STUPID!!!!!!!!



Which, is why so many are up-set at even the suggestion. :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 14:22
by sferrin
Watchdog Group Sues Pentagon for Records Relating to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan's Ties to Boeing

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/watchdo ... d=61509218

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 15:16
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
firebase99 wrote:
Agreed, and with all due respect, who cares? The F35 does it better, safer, and cheaper. Buying "Super" Eagles makes no sense at all. Who exactly are advocating for F-15's anyway? Why is this is even being discussed? Its just SOOOOOO STUPID!!!!!!!!



Which, is why so many are up-set at even the suggestion. :?


Well, now that Turkey has insisted on the S-400... PRESTO!

The USAF now has plenty of them to replace F-15C's :D

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 16:45
by gideonic
vilters wrote:Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.

No you don't. In addition to all the stuff already mentioned, I must add another big factor:
Signature Management.

This means, that due to the:
1) highly-exponential nature of the Radar Equation: https://youtu.be/Qwh-1jRGuDc?t=447
2) and the fact that F-35 knows it's RCS in every direction with high precision ...

The F-35 can use its sensors with much higher confidence.

Remember, you need 16x more power to double a radar's range against a target and 256x the power to quadruple it.
So, even if the F-35 EW suite doesn't know the adversary radar's exact parameters (noise tolerance, etc), it can still calculate how close it can get before being detected with a very high confidence margin, by simply adding a small safety margin in distance.

You cannot do that on a 4th gen. aircraft, even the exact same EW system.

Why? A 4th gen. aircraft can never be sure about its RCS with that level of confidence. It might very well happen to have a huge RCS spike in that particular sector the enemy is coming from, therefore the RWR must be a lot more conservative.

The only way to get to that level of confidence, is to take RCS into account from the beginning of the design. You need to consider RCS when designing everything on the airframe (even the minutest details), you just can't do that retroactively.

People always rage about Signature Reduction barely mentioning Signature Management. IMO The latter is at least as essential as the first for a full-fledged 5th gen. airframe.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 15:35
by mixelflick
Wow, great point about Signature Management.

I never looked at it like that. Would you say the F-117 knew exactly its signature from every angle too? I would think so, but would also think it depends on what type of radar is looking at it?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 16:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:Wow, great point about Signature Management.

I never looked at it like that. Would you say the F-117 knew exactly its signature from every angle too? I would think so, but would also think it depends on what type of radar is looking at it?

No, from what MD has said, the F-117 was very "dumb." It did not even have a RWR. It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan. Plus the computing power for the F-117 to know what the F-35 knows simply wasn't there.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 17:11
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan.


The lack of which was a key factor (probably the biggest factor) in the one shoot down.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 18:46
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan.


The lack of which was a key factor (probably the biggest factor) in the one shoot down.

That and some brilliant planning by Col Dani. Credit where credit is due.

The "Use the same route everyday" plan was working. Col Dani took advantage of that and "changed the plan". The lack of , well, anything in the cockpit of the F-117 meant Lt Col Zelko never had a clue that Col Dani had changed the plan.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 18:50
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan.


The lack of which was a key factor (probably the biggest factor) in the one shoot down.

That and some brilliant planning by Col Dani. Credit where credit is due.

The "Use the same route everyday" plan was working. Col Dani took advantage of that and "changed the plan". The lack of , well, anything in the cockpit of the F-117 meant Lt Col Zelko never had a clue that Col Dani had changed the plan.


But really, how much genius does it take to tackle 5 o'clock Charlie?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 14:39
by mixelflick
Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

I LOVE the Eagle, but this was the wrong decision for the country. Along with continuing to purchase Super Duper Hornets, this seems to be more about keeping 2 companies capable of pumping out fighters than anything else..

I'm sure the Chinese/Russians celebrated when they read this news.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 15:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

Source? Not that I doubt it, but I want to be able to confirm it.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 15:41
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

I LOVE the Eagle, but this was the wrong decision for the country. Along with continuing to purchase Super Duper Hornets, this seems to be more about keeping 2 companies capable of pumping out fighters than anything else..

I'm sure the Chinese/Russians celebrated when they read this news.


They need to climb up the current SecDef's backside with a microscope. This is corruption at it's worst.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:17
by vilters
NO corruption. Pure and sole politics and on how to keep your voters happy.


Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, give everybody something to do, no lay-offs, and all voters happy.

Hey, same thing here in Europe where each state sponsors its own industry.

There is never anything new in politics and keeping the voters happy for the next round of elections.


Euh, WHAt, , , you thought it was about aircraft and quality, and cost? Bwahhhhhhh ! ! ! !
Another one for the great book of Jokes.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:21
by sferrin
vilters wrote:NO corruption. Pure and sole politics and on how to keep your voters happy.


The SecDef isn't running for election. He is however a former Boeing executive. (You know, the maker of the F-15.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:26
by vilters
Military do what politicians tell them to do. Period.

And for ALL politicians, worldwide, their voters ALWAYS come first.

All they have to do properly among themselves is cut up the cake so that everybody stays happy.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:34
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

I LOVE the Eagle, but this was the wrong decision for the country. Along with continuing to purchase Super Duper Hornets, this seems to be more about keeping 2 companies capable of pumping out fighters than anything else..

I'm sure the Chinese/Russians celebrated when they read this news.


They need to climb up the current SecDef's backside with a microscope. This is corruption at it's worst.



Honestly, this brick (F-15X) is going to land squarely on the head of Patrick Shanahan. Which, the Democrats are going to enjoy every minute of it....

They are already talking about holding hearings on how this all took place??? :wink:

As the OSD just doesn't say we are going to buy this or that....You have to make a case and get approval from Congress.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:42
by SpudmanWP
lol.. what dreamworld do you live in?

And for ALL politicians, worldwide, their voters ALWAYS come first.


The people of Venezuela would like a word.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:50
by SpudmanWP
Amid 737 Woes, Complaint Filed Against Shanahan for Allegedly Promoting Boeing
13 Mar 2019
Military.com | By Oriana Pawlyk
A government ethics organization has filed a formal complaint asking the Defense Department Inspector General's Office to investigate Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan's ties to his former employer, Boeing Co. The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), claims Shanahan violated ethics rules by promoting the company's interests at the Pentagon.

More at the JUMP
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... oeing.html

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:54
by Corsair1963
We must remember the OSD (i.e. Patrick Shanahan) is pushing the F-15X. Not the USAF as they have said for years. That they want to focus on 5th Generation Fighters (F-35) and didn't want anymore new 4th Generation Fighters.


As a matter of fact the USAF Secretary (Heather Wilson) made that abundantly clear back in September.

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: 14 Mar 2019, 00:02
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:Amid 737 Woes, Complaint Filed Against Shanahan for Allegedly Promoting Boeing
13 Mar 2019
Military.com | By Oriana Pawlyk
A government ethics organization has filed a formal complaint asking the Defense Department Inspector General's Office to investigate Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan's ties to his former employer, Boeing Co. The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), claims Shanahan violated ethics rules by promoting the company's interests at the Pentagon.

More at the JUMP
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... oeing.html


Yes, makes you wonder.....First, Boeing won the T-X and MQ-25A. Then the OSD pushes the F-15X on the USAF. Which, has made clear for years. That it wasn't interested in.... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 00:07
by SpudmanWP
Don't forget early retirement of Hornet classic, retirement of early Block SH, shipping SH to the Blue Angels, and buying a lot more SH now that they have a (self-induced) airframe crisis .... most of which happened after Shanahan joined the DoD.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 00:20
by vilters
SpudmanWP wrote:lol.. what dreamworld do you live in?

And for ALL politicians, worldwide, their voters ALWAYS come first.


The people of Venezuela would like a word.



Ha, a good one. My statement does not apply to dictators (or dictator wannabe'ss)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 00:34
by SpudmanWP
tomayto, tomahto

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 00:45
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:NO corruption. Pure and sole politics and on how to keep your voters happy.


Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, give everybody something to do, no lay-offs, and all voters happy.

Hey, same thing here in Europe where each state sponsors its own industry.

There is never anything new in politics and keeping the voters happy for the next round of elections.


Euh, WHAt, , , you thought it was about aircraft and quality, and cost? Bwahhhhhhh ! ! ! !
Another one for the great book of Jokes.


We actually try to avoid the European model of jobs over actual military effectiveness here.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 01:30
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget early retirement of Hornet classic, retirement of early Block SH, shipping SH to the Blue Angels, and buying a lot more SH now that they have a (self-induced) airframe crisis .... most of which happened after Shanahan joined the DoD.



Honestly, the Trump Administration just handed the Democrats another bone..... :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 03:45
by madrat
Sounds like fake news..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 06:29
by Corsair1963
March 13, 2019
Glenn A. Fine
Acting Inspector General
U.S. Department of Defense
4800 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22350-1500
Re: Request for Investigation of Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan
Dear Acting Inspector General Fine:

According to news reports, during his tenure at the Department of Defense (“DoD”) Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has made numerous statements promoting his former employer Boeing and has disparaged the company’s competitors before subordinates at the agency. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) therefore respectfully requests that the Office of Inspector General investigate these allegations to determine whether Acting Secretary Shanahan violated ethics rules, including the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (“Standards of Conduct”) and the Ethics Pledge he signed as a condition of his appointment.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/press ... ng-at-dod/


QUOTE:

One prominent example raised in news reports is DoD’s apparent recent decision to request new fighter planes from Boeing.14 According to Bloomberg, DoD made plans to request $1.2 billion for 12 Boeing F-15X fighter aircraft in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, a decision that reportedly was made “with some prodding” by Mr. Shanahan.15 Bloomberg subsequently reported that DoD would request eight F-15Xs in the 2020 budget request as part of a potential purchase of 80 F-15Xs over the next five years.16 However, “the Air Force has said it does not want” the aircraft, and “military experts seemed baffled by the F-15X decision,” arguing that the jet, unlike the F-35 fighter produced by Boeing competitor Lockheed Martin, “is ineffective against enemies like Russia and China” who have “sophisticated air defense technologies.”17 DoD’s fiscal year 2020 budget proposal ultimately included a request for eight updated models of Boeing’s older F-15 fighter jet at a cost of $1.1 billion.18

In addition to allegations that Mr. Shanahan advocated for his former employer Boeing, his “private remarks” at DoD have raised concerns that he may “harbor[] an unfair bias against other big military contractors” competing with Boeing for lucrative government contracts.19 In particular,

Mr. Shanahan allegedly criticized Lockheed Martin’s handling of the production of the F-35 fighter jet in meetings with subordinates.
According to public reports, Mr. Shanahan “repeatedly ‘dumped’ on the F-35 in meetings,” stated that the plane was “f---ed up,” and argued that Lockheed, which won the contract to build the plane over Boeing, “doesn’t know how to run a program.”20 Mr. Shanahan also allegedly stated that if Lockheed’s contract “had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better,” and “slammed” Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson.21 As one former official described Shanahan’s comments: “He would complain about Lockheed’s timing and their inability to deliver, and from a Boeing point of view, say things like, ‘We would never do that.’”22
Acting Secretary Shanahan is the first person to lead DoD since the 1950’s to “come purely from the private sector” and with “virtually no government or policy experience.”23 At Boeing, Mr. Shanahan was integral in helping the company win defense contracts and oversaw military programs including Boeing Missile Defense Systems and Boeing Rotorcraft Systems.24 Since Mr. Shanahan’s arrival at DoD, Boeing has been very successful in winning government contracts. For example, in December 2018, public reporting suggested a Boeing “takeover” at DoD, noting that “in the last six months, Boeing has won three multibillion-dollar competitions for major Department of Defense aircraft programs, despite massive delays in delivering a new tanker fleet to the U.S. Air Force.”25 Those Boeing contracts with the government included a $2.4 billion agreement with DoD to build Huey helicopters with another company, and beating out Lockheed Martin to win a $9.2 billion contract building training jets for the Air Force.26 Boeing also secured an $805 million deal to build aerial-refueling drones for the Navy.27 In early 2019, Boeing shares increased in value by 6.2 percent after the company beat quarterly earnings expectations and posted annual revenue of more than $100 billion for the first time ever.28

https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citize ... -FINAL.pdf

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 13:09
by mixelflick
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

Source? Not that I doubt it, but I want to be able to confirm it.


Certainly...

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.co ... new-f-15s/

Shanahan's involvement certainly seems suspect, especially if those derogatory comments about LM/pro Boeing comments are true. The real question in my mind is, "is there a requirement for additional, upgraded F-15's"? Try as I might, I can't find one..

1.) The F-35 is cheaper
2.) The F-35 is more capable. MUCH more capable
3.) The F-35 is currently rolling off production lines (no, "setup" charge as detailed for the F-15X)
4.) Buying more F-35's is only going to bring the per unit cost down further (and faster)
5.) Prior to Shanahan getting involved, nobody wanted more F-15's

After multiple Red/Green flag exercises it should be obvious to everyone the F-35 is a game changer. In fact, I believe that exact term was used by USAF leadership when testifying before congress? Whatever trepidation there was about the F-35's air to air capabilities should have disappeared after Green Flag, multiple Red Flag's and to a lesser extent (although it's an important perception thing), the Paris and 2019 F-35 airshow demos.

I don't know what more LM could have done to make it obvious its built a better mouse trap. I just hope more rational heads prevail, and we give our men the very best our aerospace engineers have to offer.

And that ain't the F-15X...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 17:05
by SpudmanWP
Why does there need to be any setup charge for the F-15? They are basically the same as the Qatari F-15QAs that are on the line now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 17:55
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Why does there need to be any setup charge for the F-15? They are basically the same as the Qatari F-15QAs that are on the line now.


Because "X" means an opportunity to soak them for more $$$.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 21:25
by edpop
FROM DEFENSE INDUSTRY DAILY:

The US Air Force on Tuesday unveiled a nearly $166 billion budget request for fiscal 2020. The Pentagon plans to buy eight Boeing F-15EX fighters FY 2020 as part of a purchase of 144 total aircraft over an undisclosed number of years. According to the budget request, it will cost $80 million per airframe. However, that cost will rise to approximately $125 million for each of the eight jets to set up the line and account for non-recurring engineering costs in the first year of procurement. The total deal will be priced at more than $1.1 billion and covers production of eight brand-new F-15EX fourth-plus generation fighters. The F-15EX is the latest version of the F-15 Eagle fighter jet. The Eagle is a twin-engine, all-weather tactical fighter aircraft that has an all-metal semimonocoque fuselage with a large-cantilever, shoulder-mounted wing.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 23:33
by count_to_10
Please tell be is just another negotiation tactics to prod LM into even lower prices.
Otherwise this is one big @$$ waste of money.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 01:39
by marsavian
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ix-456480/

"We used the best cost estimate that we had at the time and looked at the various options. The most affordable options – as long as we keep the F-35 absolutely on track with our programme of record – was to look at an F-15 variant to replace the F-15C."

As part of the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2020 funding request, the USAF is initially requesting $1.1 billion for eight F-15EXs. The service plans to request 80 of the aircraft in total over the next five years, costing roughly $80 million each. The first F-15EXs are expected to be delivered in FY2022.

The F-15EX is a slightly modified version of the Advanced F-15, a newer variant not in the USAF inventory, which has been purchased by Qatar.

Part of the expected operating savings will come from easier transitions for pilots and maintenance personnel from the F-15C to the F-15EX.

"If you transition an F-15 to any other airplane it takes about 24 months if it’s an active duty squadron, or 36 months if it's a [National] Guard squadron, for it to be deployable again and be back to the top of its readiness," the source says. "You’ve got to send all those pilots to Luke [AFB] to train them and then the maintainers to Sheppard [AFB], or wherever your conversion schools are going to be."

The USAF estimates that the transition time from an F-15 squadron to an F-35 squadron takes roughly 18 months for an active duty squadron and 36 months for an Air National Guard squadron. It estimates that six months or less will be required to transition from the F-15C to the F-15EX.

The transition period takes aircraft out of the USAF inventory, hurting its average readiness rates, which would be contrary to former Secretary of Defense James Mattis's goal of increasing this metric to above 80%.

In addition, as with any aircraft, when the USAF introduces the F-35A to its squadrons it has to re-equip those units with support equipment and an inventory of spare parts. The F-15 was introduced in 1976 and the USAF has already built a support structure around it.

"About 70% of the existing spare inventory already works on the [F-15EX]," says the source. “From the support equipment standpoint – so we are talking power carts [and] ladders – more than 90% of those [the USAF] already has."

The air force says it is still evaluating its spare inventory and equipment needs.

Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."

The USAF says hypersonic weapons are still in early stages of development, and that it is too early to know which platforms will be able to carry them.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 08:42
by weasel1962
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1784315/

The Raytheon Co., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, has been awarded a $21,186,712 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and time-and-materials contract to retrofit the F-15 fleet. This contract provides for retrofitting the F-15 fleets current Identify Friend of Foe units, which provides Mode 5 capability for the APX-114 and APX-119 on the F-15 models C/D/E via a hardware retrofit and software upgrade. These units also provide National Security Agency approved cryptography and robust anti-jam interrogation and reply encryption capabilities. Work will be performed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland; and Largo, Florida, and is expected to be complete by August 2022. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 procurement funds in the full amount are being obligated at the time of award. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8634-19-C-2700).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 11:49
by sferrin
"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."

The USAF says hypersonic weapons are still in early stages of development, and that it is too early to know which platforms will be able to carry them. "


IMO that reason alone would be enough to justify it.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 13:20
by mixelflick
The whole F-15X thing went from laughable to plausible pretty fast. Scary..

Assuming Congress doesn't intervene, we're going to be building a 4++ (or whatever) gen and fielding it. My question is: Why the F-15EX vs. F-15CX?

I we believe The Drive, the EX will be a two seater. I thought for certain the USAF was buying these birds for air superiority/homeland defense duties. Now we hear it needs to carry a 7 to 8,000lb air to ground weapon?

It sounds like the USAF was to procure a Super Strike Eagle, with a secondary air to air mission. This makes even less sense than buying F-15CX's (presumably the single seat version), because F-35's are already coming off the line and it's tailor made for air to ground. And it's no slouch in carrying big external loads so.... I just don't get it.

When I saw my first Eagle demo at age 17, it was state of the art. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined they'd still be rolling off the production lines at age 50+ LOL..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 13:24
by crosshairs
sferrin wrote:"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."

The USAF says hypersonic weapons are still in early stages of development, and that it is too early to know which platforms will be able to carry them. "


IMO that reason alone would be enough to justify it.


Other people have already brought up the F-15C/D/E/X is the only asset with a centerline to carry a single large hypersonic weapon. The F-16 has one, but is inadequate.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 13:28
by crosshairs
mixelflick wrote:The whole F-15X thing went from laughable to plausible pretty fast. Scary..

Assuming Congress doesn't intervene, we're going to be building a 4++ (or whatever) gen and fielding it. My question is: Why the F-15EX vs. F-15CX?

I we believe The Drive, the EX will be a two seater. I thought for certain the USAF was buying these birds for air superiority/homeland defense duties. Now we hear it needs to carry a 7 to 8,000lb air to ground weapon?

It sounds like the USAF was to procure a Super Strike Eagle, with a secondary air to air mission. This makes even less sense than buying F-15CX's (presumably the single seat version), because F-35's are already coming off the line and it's tailor made for air to ground. And it's no slouch in carrying big external loads so.... I just don't get it.

When I saw my first Eagle demo at age 17, it was state of the art. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined they'd still be rolling off the production lines at age 50+ LOL..


Short sighted politicians and one military loathing president saw to it that the F-22 would never replace the F-15; they even shut down the line and made it impossible without billions of dollars and 2-3 years of start up time to build more. If they had just kept the line open and building 20-22/year we wouldn't be hear building a nearly 50 year old fighter.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 13:41
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:The whole F-15X thing went from laughable to plausible pretty fast. Scary..

Assuming Congress doesn't intervene, we're going to be building a 4++ (or whatever) gen and fielding it. My question is: Why the F-15EX vs. F-15CX?

I we believe The Drive, the EX will be a two seater. I thought for certain the USAF was buying these birds for air superiority/homeland defense duties. Now we hear it needs to carry a 7 to 8,000lb air to ground weapon?

It sounds like the USAF was to procure a Super Strike Eagle, with a secondary air to air mission. This makes even less sense than buying F-15CX's (presumably the single seat version), because F-35's are already coming off the line and it's tailor made for air to ground. And it's no slouch in carrying big external loads so.... I just don't get it.

When I saw my first Eagle demo at age 17, it was state of the art. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined they'd still be rolling off the production lines at age 50+ LOL..


The F-35 cannot carry as large of weapons externally.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 13:43
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:
sferrin wrote:"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."

The USAF says hypersonic weapons are still in early stages of development, and that it is too early to know which platforms will be able to carry them. "


IMO that reason alone would be enough to justify it.


Other people have already brought up the F-15C/D/E/X is the only asset with a centerline to carry a single large hypersonic weapon. The F-16 has one, but is inadequate.


And?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 14:46
by marsavian
My question is: Why the F-15EX vs. F-15CX?


Because they can pinch them straight off the production line to make it a quick fait accompli deliverable tomorrow, remember the Boeing inclined Trump administration may only have another two years to get this project started and running. This new buy actually does make more sense as F-15E additional squadrons then anything else, long range strike standoff platforms like the Russians are doing with Mig-31 with fighters that can double as interceptors. Basically Shanahan is looking for any excuse to buy and deploy them. Only Congress can nip this at birth in the bud if they so desire as a collective to do so.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 17:47
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."

The USAF says hypersonic weapons are still in early stages of development, and that it is too early to know which platforms will be able to carry them. "


IMO that reason alone would be enough to justify it.


Except:

A. It's an additional training burden on the F-15C crews which contradicts the readiness claims
B. It's really superfluous now that the INF treaty is dead.
C. There's no evidence that the SLEP'ed F-15Cs couldn't do it
D. There's no evidence that the Air Force was concerned that the F-35 had to carry it externally (see the slide)
because in those threat laydowns even the B-2 couldn't penetrate

It's point C that seems to be completely lost because journalist are useless.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 19:35
by crosshairs
sferrin wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
sferrin wrote:"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."

The USAF says hypersonic weapons are still in early stages of development, and that it is too early to know which platforms will be able to carry them. "


IMO that reason alone would be enough to justify it.


Other people have already brought up the F-15C/D/E/X is the only asset with a centerline to carry a single large hypersonic weapon. The F-16 has one, but is inadequate.


And?


And...? And I've watched this forum for years, and all you do is parrot what you read in a book or what other people say in other forums. You got put in your place a while back on this forum. And? And I'd like to see something original or new from you at least one time. F-15X and hypersonic weapons has been mentioned here and on other forums many times.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 21:28
by XanderCrews
I don't know why a fighter class airplane is the go to for a large hypersonic weapon anyway...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 21:45
by SpudmanWP
Especially only 80 of them (eventually).

Buy more B-21s if you need them and use SLEP'd F-16s for CONUS

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 22:07
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:And...? And I've watched this forum for years, and all you do is parrot what you read in a book or what other people say in other forums. You got put in your place a while back on this forum. And? And I'd like to see something original or new from you at least one time. F-15X and hypersonic weapons has been mentioned here and on other forums many times.


Do you really need to have the difference between a bunch of forum posters talking about something (myself included), and an official expressing the sentiment, explained to you? As for "something original" it's not my job to entertain you. If you don't like my posts I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

edit: Oh wow. You've been here a whole three months. Shove off cupcake. :lol:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 23:43
by vilters
Managing an aircraft fleet is like managing your home finances.
You don't put all your eggs in a single basket.
Pure and simple economics and strategy.

Plus? With that A2A score? It is still a pretty respectable airframe for many years to come.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 00:23
by vanshilar
sferrin wrote:"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.


So there are multiple questions here:

1. As already mentioned, why is the F-15 seen as the go-to platform to carry a large (~7-8k lb) weapon, rather than a bomber or C-130 or whatever, enough to justify procuring it? It's not that it *can* do it, but that it's sufficiently better than another platform to justify starting a new line.
2. Adapt quickly...over the next 10, 12, or 15 years? What?
3. Here's a more technical question. The F-35's (inner external) hardpoints are rated for 5k lb. Is there some reason why they can't handle 7k or 8k lb? Since the weapons load also affects the plane's maximum G, I don't know if there's some way to avoid overstressing the hardpoint by lowering the max G allowed while carrying the weapon. For example, if the plane is limited to max 7 G while carrying a 5k lb weapon, then why not just limit the plane to 5 G while carrying a 7k lb weapon? The hardpoint is still "seeing" the same 35k lb load in either case.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 00:32
by marauder2048
vilters wrote:Managing an aircraft fleet is like managing your home finances.
You don't put all your eggs in a single basket.
Pure and simple economics and strategy.


Of course. Home Finances! That's why they've studiously avoided any real discussion of new build vs. SLEP.
I mean..who needs actual modeling when we have cliches.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 01:19
by sferrin
vanshilar wrote:For example, if the plane is limited to max 7 G while carrying a 5k lb weapon, then why not just limit the plane to 5 G while carrying a 7k lb weapon? The hardpoint is still "seeing" the same 35k lb load in either case.


It's probably a lot lower than that. And it would be an off-centerline load. And the F-35 isn't even qualified for any 5000lb loads on it's 5000lb pylons. And there's a WHOLE lot more room on the centerline pylon of an F-15 than an inboard pylon of an F-35.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 14:40
by mixelflick
I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.

Nothing else makes sense. The F-15X is going to cost just as much as an F-35, probably more. It's going to be a whole lot less capable, in any air to air or air to ground mission. And for CON US air defense? These Super Eagles are way, way overkill.

They made a big deal about one of the F-15EX's selling points being it would carry the world's fastest mission computer, or some such verbage. You'd need that for a hypersonic weapon, as you would a platform big enough to carry one or two and carry it to altitude/long distances. Fighting and winning in the SCS with Eagles firing hypersonics could be what they're angling for.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 22:00
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.

Nothing else makes sense. The F-15X is going to cost just as much as an F-35, probably more. It's going to be a whole lot less capable, in any air to air or air to ground mission. And for CON US air defense? These Super Eagles are way, way overkill.

They made a big deal about one of the F-15EX's selling points being it would carry the world's fastest mission computer, or some such verbage. You'd need that for a hypersonic weapon, as you would a platform big enough to carry one or two and carry it to altitude/long distances. Fighting and winning in the SCS with Eagles firing hypersonics could be what they're angling for.


Or a pair of 5000lb weapons with room remaining for lots of gas.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 23:40
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Managing an aircraft fleet is like managing your home finances.
You don't put all your eggs in a single basket.
Pure and simple economics and strategy.


You really dont know anything about aircraft then, or budgets for that matter.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 00:47
by vilters
Unfortunately for you I have some experience with both.

Retired now.
Hey? ? I even managed to get old, and grey, LOL. :drool:

If I always bought the best of the best?
It would be rather impractical and silly to take the kids to school in an aircraft carrier, would it not? :devil:
Tja, a joke deserves a return. LOL.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 02:42
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Unfortunately for you I have some experience with both.

Retired now.




It never shows Vilters. You post some of the most absurd things I've ever read. I never see any of this experience shown in any of your posts. Comparing an annual military fiscal budget and aircraft fleet management to house finances is fairly ridiculous and anyone who's been in the business would know its not the same. like, at all. in fact its so not the same it really shouldn't even rate a mention.

As a fun aside I always get a kick out of the countries who operate just one type of fixed wing fighter telling Americans not to "put all their eggs in one basket" while simultaneously not paying for anymore more eggs, let alone any more baskets themselves. "funny" how that works.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 05:58
by marauder2048
mixelflick wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.


Except they started TBG and HAWC 5 years ago; they would not have been intended for a type that did not yet exist.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 08:04
by vilters
[/quote]

As a fun aside I always get a kick out of the countries who operate just one type of fixed wing fighter telling Americans not to "put all their eggs in one basket" while simultaneously not paying for anymore more eggs, let alone any more baskets themselves. "funny" how that works.[/quote]

I am from Belgium, a small country that like most European countries is financially below ground level.

It took a national political miracle to buy "at least" some F-35 to replace our aging F-16 fleet.

So sorry, but we are a rather relatively poor country compared to Germany, France, even the Netherlands.


This is Belgium at its best :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwHotpl9DA

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 13:27
by mixelflick
marauder2048 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.


Except they started TBG and HAWC 5 years ago; they would not have been intended for a type that did not yet exist.


I can see your point..

So what type do you think it was designed for, the B-52?

That launch platform has fantastic range, but has a monster RCS. More worrisome is that it's a lumbering giant, unable to dodge incoming missiles and comparatively slow vs. fighters.. The Russians saw fit to attach their hypersonic strike weapon to a Mig-31. I have to believe it was selected because it could impart extra launch energy, thereby improving 1.) Speed and 2.) Range.

Given the F-15 is the fastest fighter the US fields, might this also be a good idea? I understand the added drag of a 5,000lb weapon will be substantial, but surely it could launch it at super-sonic speeds?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 14:10
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.


Except they started TBG and HAWC 5 years ago; they would not have been intended for a type that did not yet exist.


F-15Es have been around for decades. Strengthening pylons for heavy loads has been looked at before:

DARPA's ALASA

(Let's see somebody put that on an F-35 inboard pylon. :wink: )

Silver Sparrow is about 6,500lbs.
p1481687.jpg


SALVO
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/salvo.htm

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 18:24
by madrat
The BU-28 Bunker Buster manufactured from spent 203mm howitzer barrels weighed 4,400 pounds according to this article. $146K well 'spent'.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles ... er-barrels

We really don't have much stuff in that size range. ASAT, in contrast, was only about 2,600 pounds. The next size up - MOAB - is five times the weight. However, its size means it needs a larger airframe than the F-15X for parcel delivery. GBU-43 is the ultimate 'Bunker Buster' and the B-2A is it's delivery method.

https://youtu.be/UESxpNrC0wU

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 00:09
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.

Nothing else makes sense. The F-15X is going to cost just as much as an F-35, probably more. It's going to be a whole lot less capable, in any air to air or air to ground mission. And for CON US air defense? These Super Eagles are way, way overkill.

They made a big deal about one of the F-15EX's selling points being it would carry the world's fastest mission computer, or some such verbage. You'd need that for a hypersonic weapon, as you would a platform big enough to carry one or two and carry it to altitude/long distances. Fighting and winning in the SCS with Eagles firing hypersonics could be what they're angling for.


No, only thing driving this is "Corporate Welfare" for Boeing. In order to keep the F-15 Production Line (St Louis) going. As they have no more orders or even good prospects on the horizon.

As for large external weapons. The F-35 can easily carry "5,000 lbs class weapons" and personally I doubt the F-15 would ever carry anything larger in the real world. Besides such heavy weapons would be carried by US Bombers. (B-1B, B-2, and most likely B-21) Which, would be vastly more "survivable"....

Regardless, Congress has not approved any funding to acquire the F-15X or at least not yet. As a matter of fact the debate is already heating up within the hall of congress among Republicans. Let alone "Democrats". :shock:

To add to that I was on CSPAN (TV) Thursday Morning and brought up the subject with US Representative Jim Banks from Indiana. Which, he made clear that the FY 20 Budget was nothing but a baseline to start the debate. Further, that he expected a very "vigorous" debate over the F-15X within Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Banks

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 01:09
by sferrin
madrat wrote:The BU-28 Bunker Buster manufactured from spent 203mm howitzer barrels weighed 4,400 pounds according to this article. $146K well 'spent'.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles ... er-barrels

We really don't have much stuff in that size range. ASAT, in contrast, was only about 2,600 pounds. The next size up - MOAB - is five times the weight. However, its size means it needs a larger airframe than the F-15X for parcel delivery. GBU-43 is the ultimate 'Bunker Buster' and the B-2A is it's delivery method.

https://youtu.be/UESxpNrC0wU


Yep, the original ones used the gun barrels (to avoid lead time for the forgings). New production uses custom casings. The barrels weren't so much "spent" as replaced. At one point the M110 had barrels like this:

M110_Howitzer.JPEG


They swapped those out for barrels like this:

m-110a2-dvic497.jpg


They kept the old barrels because they still had life in them and who knew if they might be useful someday. One of the guys around the brain-storming table happened to know of their existence and the rest is history.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 01:17
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:As for large external weapons. The F-35 can easily carry "5,000 lbs class weapons" and personally I doubt the F-15 would ever carry anything larger in the real world.

The F-35 isn't cleared for any 5,000lb class weapons on it's inboard pylons. Nor is it planned to bw anytime soon. The only reason an F-15 wouldn't carry anything larger "in the real world" is because such weapons don't exist yet. If they did, they could.


Corsair1963 wrote:Besides such heavy weapons would be carried by US Bombers. (B-1B, B-2, and most likely B-21) Which, would be vastly more "survivable"....


There are only 20 B-2s. The B-1B cannot currently carry weapons even in the 5,000lb class and there are no plans to change that. And how precisely would a B-52 be "vastly more survivable" than an F-15?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 01:49
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
There are only 20 B-2s. The B-1B cannot currently carry weapons even in the 5,000lb class and there are no plans to change that. And how precisely would a B-52 be "vastly more survivable" than an F-15?



The F-15EX is nothing but a paper airplane at the moment. Nonetheless, the B-21 would be the most likely platform for any such weapons. As the Eagle won't be survivable against as serious near peer threat....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 02:37
by wolfpak
We don't have much info yet on the hypersonic programs. Far to little to determine range and even warhead size. Nothing to amount to anything has been published. The near-term boost-glide vehicle shaped like the conical Swerve vehicle (and Pershing II reentry vehicle) depending on booster size I would imagine would have appreciable range. The Pershing II with a first stage booster plus a second stage had a range of over 1100 miles and that's without the hypersonic glide to extend range.. Using a B-52 for the first stage and bulking up the second might yield a range that is greater than that. If you're standing off 1,500 or 2,000 miles won't that aid the survivability of the launch platform? A B-52 carries 12 cruise missiles externally. Conservatively 12 X 2,000 lbs. = 24,000 lbs. So it can carry 2 extremely large Hypersonic weapons or 4 with a weight of 6,000 lbs. Won't F-15X will be limited to just two of the smaller boost glide vehicles?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 03:24
by Corsair1963
wolfpak wrote:We don't have much info yet on the hypersonic programs. Far to little to determine range and even warhead size. Nothing to amount to anything has been published. The near-term boost-glide vehicle shaped like the conical Swerve vehicle (and Pershing II reentry vehicle) depending on booster size I would imagine would have appreciable range. The Pershing II with a first stage booster plus a second stage had a range of over 1100 miles and that's without the hypersonic glide to extend range.. Using a B-52 for the first stage and bulking up the second might yield a range that is greater than that. If you're standing off 1,500 or 2,000 miles won't that aid the survivability of the launch platform? A B-52 carries 12 cruise missiles externally. Conservatively 12 X 2,000 lbs. = 24,000 lbs. So it can carry 2 extremely large Hypersonic weapons or 4 with a weight of 6,000 lbs. Won't F-15X will be limited to just two of the smaller boost glide vehicles?


No such weapon even exists today. Honestly, this is just the Boeing/Eagle Supporters. Trying to make a case for the F-15X. Yet, it isn't convincing anybody.............

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 04:36
by marsavian
The F-15EX is nothing but a paper airplane at the moment.


No it exists for it is only a rebadged/reacquired F-15QA. What is paper at the moment is additional external fuel for the F-35.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 04:49
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:
The F-15EX is nothing but a paper airplane at the moment.


No it exists for it is only a rebadged/reacquired F-15QA. What is paper at the moment is additional external fuel for the F-35.



While, the F-15EX would be similar to the F-15QA/SA. It still has a number of "improvements" and doesn't physically exist. (FACT)


Nonetheless, you can't make a good case for the F-15EX over the F-35A based on merit. This is supported by senior USAF Leadership. Which, are already on the record. Stating they didn't want anymore 4th Generation Fighters. Including the New F-15X Eagle....(by name)

Hell, we have a number of former F-15C/E Pilots now flying the F-35A and love it. Go ask them if they would rather have the F-15X over the F-35.......... :lmao:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 05:14
by charlielima223
If they're going to blow their wad of money on an older design they might as well just restart the F-22 production. 20 additional Raptors would be far more capable in the air-to-air than 40 F-15X

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 06:24
by Corsair1963
charlielima223 wrote:If they're going to blow their wad of money on an older design they might as well just restart the F-22 production. 20 additional Raptors would be far more capable in the air-to-air than 40 F-15X



Would cost a lot more than that....

Yet, the F-15X is likely to cost over $100 Million each. With the first batch reportedly ~ $125 Million each! This is what has gotten so many up-set. As you could get far more F-35A's for the money than F-15X's. Which, are vast less capable.... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 13:40
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:As the Eagle won't be survivable against as serious near peer threat....


You do realize the whole point of a hypersonic missile is so it doesn't have to be, right?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 13:41
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:
The F-15EX is nothing but a paper airplane at the moment.


No it exists for it is only a rebadged/reacquired F-15QA. What is paper at the moment is additional external fuel for the F-35.


Or any large weapons on the F-35s external pylons.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 13:44
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:
The F-15EX is nothing but a paper airplane at the moment.


No it exists for it is only a rebadged/reacquired F-15QA. What is paper at the moment is additional external fuel for the F-35.



While, the F-15EX would be similar to the F-15QA/SA. It still has a number of "improvements" and doesn't physically exist. (FACT)


Such as?

Coarsiar1963 wrote: Nonetheless, you can't make a good case for the F-15EX over the F-35A based on merit. This is supported by senior USAF Leadership. Which, are already on the record. Stating they didn't want anymore 4th Generation Fighters. Including the New F-15X Eagle....(by name)

Hell, we have a number of former F-15C/E Pilots now flying the F-35A and love it. Go ask them if they would rather have the F-15X over the F-35.......... :lmao:


You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 19:38
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
F-15Es have been around for decades. Strengthening pylons for heavy loads has been looked at before:



None of those launch velocities are supersonic though (ALASA was 800 ft/s)
and the F-15E does very little supersonic launch which is the claimed advantage for the F-15EX.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 19:56
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.


My problem is:

The only payload hauling advantage in the high-end fight is standoff; the end of the INF treaty pretty
much ends the need to do standoff from fast jets.

1. TELs are cheaper to own and operate,
2. TELs have better pre-launch survivability
3. TELs an reload faster
4. the SRMs for the weapons themselves don't incur the cost and other penalties needed to
handle the under-wing/high-speed/high-altitude release environment from fast-jets.
5. TELs are a weapons system previously operated by the Air Force

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 20:06
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
F-15Es have been around for decades. Strengthening pylons for heavy loads has been looked at before:



None of those launch velocities are supersonic though (ALASA was 800 ft/s)
and the F-15E does very little supersonic launch which is the claimed advantage for the F-15EX.


But are they claiming supersonic launch with the large hypersonic weapons or just with AAMs?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 20:11
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.


My problem is:

The only payload hauling advantage in the high-end fight is standoff; the end of the INF treaty pretty
much ends the need to do standoff from fast jets.

1. TELs are cheaper to own and operate,
2. TELs have better pre-launch survivability
3. TELs an reload faster
4. the SRMs for the weapons themselves don't incur the cost and other penalties needed to
handle the under-wing/high-speed/high-altitude release environment from fast-jets.
5. TELs are a weapons system previously operated by the Air Force


I don't disagree with those points. (And they'll probably have TELs for them as well.) Aircraft bring versatility and uncertainty to the mix though. With TELs you either need to first fly them (or ship them) in theater before you can use them, or have much larger missiles ($$$). With TELs missile range is what it can fly from the TEL. Carried by an F-15 you get to add the aircraft's range to the missile.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 21:31
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
F-15Es have been around for decades. Strengthening pylons for heavy loads has been looked at before:



None of those launch velocities are supersonic though (ALASA was 800 ft/s)
and the F-15E does very little supersonic launch which is the claimed advantage for the F-15EX.


But are they claiming supersonic launch with the large hypersonic weapons or just with AAMs?


They were claiming that the F-15EX's supersonic launch capability would permit a reduction in booster size for
the hypersonic weapons. Which is silly because HAWC/TBG began with several aircraft (B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-35)
which don't typically perform supersonic launches.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 21:59
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
I don't disagree with those points. (And they'll probably have TELs for them as well.) Aircraft bring versatility and uncertainty to the mix though. With TELs you either need to first fly them (or ship them) in theater before you can use them, or have much larger missiles ($$$). With TELs missile range is what it can fly from the TEL. Carried by an F-15 you get to add the aircraft's range to the missile.



The F-15 is going to need the same heavy lift aircraft for sustainment that would ferry in the TELs.
I don't see the F-15s self deploying with big, heavy and very expensive weapons either.

The question is: is the much large missile cost offset by aircraft compatibility cost for the booster stack/bgv?

I suppose I could see instances where you wouldn't get permission to base a TEL in a host nation but could
get permission to base an F-15.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 00:10
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:The F-15 is going to need the same heavy lift aircraft for sustainment that would ferry in the TELs.
I don't see the F-15s self deploying with big, heavy and very expensive weapons either.

The question is: is the much large missile cost offset by aircraft compatibility cost for the booster stack/bgv?

I suppose I could see instances where you wouldn't get permission to base a TEL in a host nation but could
get permission to base an F-15.



Both have advantages and disadvantages. Consider that Russia has both TELs (Iskander) and air-launch (MiG-31 / Kinzhal) For variants of the same missile.

Capture.PNG


TEL.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 00:35
by marauder2048
The Russians also don't have the large combat coded bomber fleet or the transport fleet
that, as has been shown in MDA testing, can toss ASBMs.

It always strikes me that very long range standoff doesn't utilize the fighter's main strength
in excellent organic sensors and agility.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 01:12
by garrya
sferrin wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The F-15 is going to need the same heavy lift aircraft for sustainment that would ferry in the TELs.
I don't see the F-15s self deploying with big, heavy and very expensive weapons either.

The question is: is the much large missile cost offset by aircraft compatibility cost for the booster stack/bgv?

I suppose I could see instances where you wouldn't get permission to base a TEL in a host nation but could
get permission to base an F-15.



Both have advantages and disadvantages. Consider that Russia has both TELs (Iskander) and air-launch (MiG-31 / Kinzhal) For variants of the same missile.

Capture.PNG


TEL.jpg

What missile is that? It looks strange

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 01:22
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.



No, you're missing the point. As any weapon heavier than 5,000 lbs would be carried by Bombers. (B-1B, B-2A, and B-21) Which, like the F-35 are "vastly" more survivable than the F-15EX.


Plus, the recent news that the real price of the F-15EX is $131 Million each not $80. May have just put the issue to bed..... :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 01:44
by crosshairs
Corsair1963 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.



No, you're missing the point. As any weapon heavier than 5,000 lbs would be carried by Bombers. (B-1B, B-2A, and B-21) Which, like the F-35 are "vastly" more survivable than the F-15EX.


Plus, the recent news that the real price of the F-15EX is $131 Million each not $80. May have just put the issue to bed..... :wink:


I don't think some people understand what its like to pilot a small fighter that is laden with fuel bags and 10,000 pounds of external bombs (its going to carry other things on the wing stations) and several hundred pounds of AAMs. Then fly that pig dog inside space controlled by the other side not knowing where and when a pop-up threat emerges. The F-15 is an absolute pig in this configuration and that fuel gauge ticks down lower and lower mighty fast. Then toss in routing on top of that. Good grief its anything but ideal. A bone is more nimble and faster and less reliant and tankers. And if the threat level is so low that its feasible for an F-15 to survive, then its also safe for a 52 to do that mission. The 21 can't come soon enough.

There is no case for the X.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 02:38
by marsavian
Plus, the recent news that the real price of the F-15EX is $131 Million each not $80. May have just put the issue to bed.


No, it will still require active Congressional pushback to kill this DoD idea.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 02:44
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:The Russians also don't have the large combat coded bomber fleet or the transport fleet
that, as has been shown in MDA testing, can toss ASBMs.


Wut?

Tupolev-TU-22M31.jpg


Russia: New Kinzhal Aero-Ballistic Missile Has 3,000 km Range if Fired from Supersonic Bomber

"Russia is claiming that the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aero-ballistic missile will have a range of 3,000 km aboard the Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire supersonic bomber."


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... nic-bomber

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 02:49
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.



No, you're missing the point. As any weapon heavier than 5,000 lbs would be carried by Bombers. (B-1B, B-2A, and B-21) Which, like the F-35 are "vastly" more survivable than the F-15EX.


I'd be interested to hear how the B-1B would be "vastly more survivable" than an F-15X give the B-1B cannot even carry 5,000lb class weapons. Also, the B-2A and B-21 are "vastly more survivable" than the F-15E, F-16, etc. We still have those. Lastly, you still haven't explained how either the B-2A or B-21 are more survivable than an F-15X when it's carrying a hypersonic STAND-OFF weapon. :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 02:52
by sferrin
garrya wrote:
sferrin wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The F-15 is going to need the same heavy lift aircraft for sustainment that would ferry in the TELs.
I don't see the F-15s self deploying with big, heavy and very expensive weapons either.

The question is: is the much large missile cost offset by aircraft compatibility cost for the booster stack/bgv?

I suppose I could see instances where you wouldn't get permission to base a TEL in a host nation but could
get permission to base an F-15.



Both have advantages and disadvantages. Consider that Russia has both TELs (Iskander) and air-launch (MiG-31 / Kinzhal) For variants of the same missile.

Capture.PNG


TEL.jpg

What missile is that? It looks strange


It's a 2-stage ATACMs demonstrating the concept. (Threw it together before I knew of the existence of the Zombie missile defense target. When I do them over I'll base it on Zombie probably. Just looking at cheap, quick, possibilities.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 03:05
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:I don't think some people understand what its like to pilot a small fighter that is laden with fuel bags and 10,000 pounds of external bombs (its going to carry other things on the wing stations) and several hundred pounds of AAMs.


You mean like this?

120815-f-zz999-036_jpg~original.jpg


Or this?

GBU-28-B-Drop-F-15E-2.jpg



crosshairs wrote:Then fly that pig dog inside space controlled by the other side not knowing where and when a pop-up threat emerges.


What kind of f--king idiot would do that if they have a hypersonic stand-off weapon on tap?

crosshairs wrote:A bone is more nimble and faster and less reliant and tankers.


Which 5,000lb class weapon is the B-1B cleared for? Where would they put it even if they wanted to clear it for one?

crosshairs wrote: And if the threat level is so low that its feasible for an F-15 to survive, then its also safe for a 52 to do that mission.


That would explain why they've retired all the F-15Es and given their mission to B-52s.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 03:50
by weasel1962
Just for the record, the long range aviation - VKS arm (SAC-equivalent) actually comprises 3 bombers, TU-160s (~16) , TU-95MS (~40+) and TU-22M2/3 (~40-100) These are operated by two heavy bomber divisions - 6950 and 6952 Guards Air Base have individual bomber regiment each. Both carry the 5000+lb AS-15s (of which a TU-95MS can carry 6) ALCMs. TU-22M2/3s are used more as tactical bombers but they are the only ones operating ALBMs (e.g. AS-16s). Kinzhal can be considered AS-16 replacements.

Last year, russian new build production was 1 TU-160 and 4 TU-22M3s. This year should be approx the same.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 04:08
by marauder2048
I wasn't including the Tu-22 since it's not a heavy bomber per New START.

But with that treaty likely to fall apart, I would expect it to become one along
with the the B-1b being un-modified to accommodate larger payloads.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 04:34
by madrat
Completing Tu-160 airframes and rebuilding Tu-22M3 into modernized versions was what they had been doing in the past. Are these truly new builds? And if they are building new Tu-22M3, why not standardize around the same NK-321 engine for both?

The Tu-22M3 wasn't part of START due to removal of the refueling tube. I can only imagine it will be put back on now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 05:00
by weasel1962
@Madrat, you're right.

Any Tu-160 entering service before 2021 should be an upgrade. New build should enter service from 2021.
http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/ ... 144@egNews
http://tass.com/defense/1037133

Tu-22s should also be upgrade. Having produced 500+ Tu-22s, they have enough airframes to upgrade....
http://tass.com/defense/1038351

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 08:12
by loke
Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that Pentagon officials decided to buy the F-15X partly because it’s “slightly less expensive for procurement than the F-35, but it’s more than 50 percent cheaper to operate over time and it has twice as many hours in terms of how long it lasts.”


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/l ... rces-plan/

Sligthly less expensive than the F-35? Is he talking about the A?? I would have thought that by now the A would be cheaper than the F-15X?? Also surprised that the F-15X is "more than 50% cheaper to operate over time"? Unless the F-15 is significantly cheaper to operate than the SH, this does not fit with the results of the Danish eval.

Or is it the investment in new infrastructure that is the killer?

Not sure that the many hours in the F-15X is such a good thing -- do you really want to fly it into the 2050s...?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 08:26
by SpudmanWP
He is going off of info that Boeing gave him which is BS when you look at the costs for the F-15E.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 09:42
by weasel1962
Some of you guys are looking at the flyaway cost. USAF is looking at the total cost. The F-15EX does cost more than a F-35A at airframe + engine level but it doesn't need milcon costs like new hangers, ground and support equipment, toolings etc. Upfront cost, I think there could be some upfront cost savings esp when we're talking about small numbers e.g. 8 fighters.

Lifetime operational cost, I think less so. The F-35A is more fuel efficient, 1 pilot vs 2 etc, is unlikely to generate the kinds of annual costs savings envisaged. What I suspect is that the calculations are using lifetime based on airframe life (e.g. 16000 hrs) to divide the costs which makes it look a bit prettier than it really seems.

What the average joe doesn't realise but the USAF has to take into account is that if the production line stops, annual maintenance cost of the remaining F-15s are going to go up significantly. So that extra cost savings by continuing the line is the real justification for keeping production going at least for a while longer. If F-35A production rates was 200 a year and the entire USAF will be recapitalised in 10 years, then really get rid of all the F-15s by then.

However the reality, regardless of what some ignorant people think or if the F-15EX gets shot down, is that USAF F-15s are going to be around past 2040.

P.s. Danish eval would never have considered the above for a very simple reason. They don't currently operate F-15s.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 10:49
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Some of you guys are looking at the flyaway cost. USAF is looking at the total cost. The F-15EX does cost more than a F-35A at airframe + engine level but it doesn't need milcon costs like new hangers, ground and support equipment, toolings etc. Upfront cost, I think there could be some upfront cost savings esp when we're talking about small numbers e.g. 8 fighters.

Lifetime operational cost, I think less so. The F-35A is more fuel efficient, 1 pilot vs 2 etc, is unlikely to generate the kinds of annual costs savings envisaged. What I suspect is that the calculations are using lifetime based on airframe life (e.g. 16000 hrs) to divide the costs which makes it look a bit prettier than it really seems.

What the average joe doesn't realise but the USAF has to take into account is that if the production line stops, annual maintenance cost of the remaining F-15s are going to go up significantly. So that extra cost savings by continuing the line is the real justification for keeping production going at least for a while longer. If F-35A production rates was 200 a year and the entire USAF will be recapitalised in 10 years, then really get rid of all the F-15s by then.

However the reality, regardless of what some ignorant people think or if the F-15EX gets shot down, is that USAF F-15s are going to be around past 2040.

P.s. Danish eval would never have considered the above for a very simple reason. They don't currently operate F-15s.



Honestly, I doubt over the life time the F-15EX would ever be cheaper to operate than the F-35A. Short-term maybe but long term just don't see it. Plus, the extra equipment coming to support the new F-35's is already coming.

Plus, this doesn't touch on the vast capability difference between to the two. Really, in 2040-50 we are still going to be flying a 4th Generation Fighter?

Hell, a number of our partners are already planning just 5th Generation Fighter Fleets.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 12:27
by marsavian
Plus, this doesn't touch on the vast capability difference between to the two.


Because it doesn't exist. Their actual capability is pretty similar, the big difference is one can sneak in while the other will have to fight its way in and out. However the latest Eagles will have EPAWSS with self-protection jammers. It's a brute force traditional approach compared to sophisticated stealth but the capability difference will not be 'vast".

https://www.defensedaily.com/air-forces ... air-force/

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... m--epawss-


Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 13:08
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:I wasn't including the Tu-22 since it's not a heavy bomber per New START.

But with that treaty likely to fall apart, I would expect it to become one along
with the the B-1b being un-modified to accommodate larger payloads.


There's still the now back-in-production Blackjack that could carry Kunzhal. It's internal bays are easily large enough. As for the B-1B they'd have to remove the bulkhead between the forward two bays and/or reactivate the external hard points.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 13:16
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote: Kinzhal can be considered AS-16 replacements.


Not even close. AS-16 is basically a SRAM clone. Kinzhal is about 3 times the weight and much larger. 2600lbs x 15.7ft x 18in. vs 8400lbs x 24ft x 36in. for Iskander. A Tu-22M can carry 6 Kh-15s internally. It would need to carry Kinzhal on it's Kh-22 spots externally.

Kh-15.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 13:18
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:He is going off of info that Boeing gave him which is BS when you look at the costs for the F-15E.


What are your thoughts on the claim that F-35 costs are climbing?

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... nning.html

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 13:20
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:They were claiming that the F-15EX's supersonic launch capability would permit a reduction in booster size for
the hypersonic weapons. Which is silly because HAWC/TBG began with several aircraft (B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-35)
which don't typically perform supersonic launches.


Hah. Maybe if it just had CFTs and the weapon on the centerline. A B-58 or MiG-31 it ain't. (Or they could give it the 36k+ variants of the -132 or -232.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 13:39
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:
Plus, this doesn't touch on the vast capability difference between to the two.


Because it doesn't exist. Their actual capability is pretty similar, the big difference is one can sneak in while the other will have to fight its way in and out.


Why would an Eagle need to fight its way in when it's got a nice big stand-off weapon? The whole point of stand-off weapons is so you don't need to fight your way in.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 15:52
by marsavian
In the general purpose role compared to F-35.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 16:00
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:In the general purpose role compared to F-35.


Except this entire discussion for the last several pages has been about the specialist mission of employing hypersonic standoff weapons. I don't think anybody thinks an F-15 is better than an F-35 at dropping JDAMs in defended airspace.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 17:41
by crosshairs
Bones, Buffs, Spirits and Raiders will make hypersonic missile carriers. Longer ranged. Not as reliant on tanker support. In the case of the 2 and the 21, they are stealthy platforms requiring less supporting players in the strike group.

There is no need to build new F-15s to carry mach 6 missiles. We already have hundreds of Es with a lot of life left in the airframes even if it were true that's what the USAF wants to do with Eagles and turn them into hypersonic missile carries.

But it makes zero logic. Bones, Buffs, Spirits, and raiders can hit anywhere on the planet in hours. Oh how that isn't the case with F-15s.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 17:56
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Some of you guys are looking at the flyaway cost. USAF is looking at the total cost.


Which is why the F-15 C/D SLEP was in the budget last year but vanished this year.
It's impossible to argue for new builds over SLEPs when the known costs of the SLEP are one
quarter to one third of the new build cost. And given the delivery timeline for the F-15EX could actually be here sooner.

weasel1962 wrote:What the average joe doesn't realise but the USAF has to take into account is that if the production line stops, annual maintenance cost of the remaining F-15s are going to go up significantly.


What the average joe doesn't realize is that the government would then own all the tooling and
in some very important cases the government owns the data rights to the F-15 so it's open
for competitive bid a la the re-wining of the F-15C where the USG owns the data rights for the F-15E wing.

Plus Boeing had announced that it was repositioning itself as a aircraft upgrader/sustainer so there
was zero concern in the Air Force about maintenance cost due to the line shutting down.

weasel1962 wrote:However the reality, regardless of what some ignorant people think or if the F-15EX gets shot down, is that USAF F-15s are going to be around past 2040.


They aren't survivable either and I'm sure the Air Force would retire them too if it could.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 18:47
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:But it makes zero logic. Bones, Buffs, Spirits, and raiders can hit anywhere on the planet in hours. Oh how that isn't the case with F-15s.


The same could be said of any air-dropped mission. Yet we still have F-15s, F-16s and Super Hornets dropping bombs. Funny that. Also, Bones can't carry them. (It's limited to weapons under 15 feet or so. For reference the X-51/ATACMs stack was about 25 feet long.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 22:30
by vilters
Come on guys.

LM is building F-35 as fast as it can, but . . . .

When your day to day flight operations are consuming more available airframe flight hrs then the new F-35 can bring into the system, you need other manufactures with other airplanes to step in.

Currently the USA is consuming more flight hrs then new airframes are adding into the system.
Something has to be done. Be it with extra newly build F-16 or F-15.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 22:50
by sprstdlyscottsmn
vilters wrote:Come on guys.

LM is building F-35 as fast as it can, but . . . .

But it isn't. It is building them as fast as Congress is buying them.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 23:15
by vilters
And? it will take 18 months to replace Turkey in the F-35 supply chain if the time comes.

You need more baskets with different colored eggs if you want the Easter Bells to continue to fly. LOL.

Pretty simple actually, ever airframe hr flown needs to be replaced.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 23:47
by count_to_10
sferrin wrote:
crosshairs wrote:But it makes zero logic. Bones, Buffs, Spirits, and raiders can hit anywhere on the planet in hours. Oh how that isn't the case with F-15s.


The same could be said of any air-dropped mission. Yet we still have F-15s, F-16s and Super Hornets dropping bombs. Funny that. Also, Bones can't carry them. (It's limited to weapons under 15 feet or so. For reference the X-51/ATACMs stack was about 25 feet long.)

I’m going to have to be shocked that those huge bomb bays are only 15 ft long.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 00:51
by quicksilver
https://news.yahoo.com/boeings-f-15ex-a ... NlYwNzYw--

Now it’s 144?

See pages 69-70 and thereabouts. Initial spares not included in the total.

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... 152821-713

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 00:58
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
crosshairs wrote:But it makes zero logic. Bones, Buffs, Spirits, and raiders can hit anywhere on the planet in hours. Oh how that isn't the case with F-15s.


The same could be said of any air-dropped mission. Yet we still have F-15s, F-16s and Super Hornets dropping bombs. Funny that. Also, Bones can't carry them. (It's limited to weapons under 15 feet or so. For reference the X-51/ATACMs stack was about 25 feet long.)

I’m going to have to be shocked that those huge bomb bays are only 15 ft long.


There they be:
636617775158210323-0513AirShow018.jpg


Consider that the main weapons designed for it (not necessarily produced), or used were all 15 or less. AGM-86A, SRAM, SRAM 2, ASALM, JASSM. If it weren't constrained by Treaty, they could remove the bulkhead between bays 1 and 2 and have a single big bay up front. I don't know what that would cost though, or if the bulkhead was made permanent.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:31
by weasel1962
Interesting to consider. B-1 upgrade already planned out and B-21 identified as the replacement. Ironically, that may help if the B-21 bay is too small to carry such weapons, then B-1 can gain a life extension by being the principle hypersonic missile carrier, assuming such mods are technically feasible.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:43
by marsavian
Now it’s 144?


Long term apparently. So F-15EX will probably still be flying in 2050+. I don't believe this will seriously affect F35 long term buy but it will probably cut the future PCA numbers down if F-15E replacement is not so critical then. PCA will probably end up as limited edition as F-22 with only 1-2 a month being made.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:56
by marsavian
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Some of you guys are looking at the flyaway cost. USAF is looking at the total cost.


Which is why the F-15 C/D SLEP was in the budget last year but vanished this year.
It's impossible to argue for new builds over SLEPs when the known costs of the SLEP are one
quarter to one third of the new build cost. And given the delivery timeline for the F-15EX could actually be here sooner.


The cheap Longeron SLEP is still there though.

F-15: The FY20 funds are required to reimburse the Working Capital Fund (WCF) for initial spares procured in prior years with WCF funding. Initial Spares are required to support newly fielded F-15 modifications. The program office must procure sufficient quantity cover the demand period and fill the spares pipeline until transitioned to sustainment. The programs requiring funding in FY20 are F-15C/D IRST, F-15 C/E ADCP II, F-15 C/D SLEP Longerons, F-15 C/D/E Mode 5, F-15 C/D/E MIDS-JTRS, and F-15E APG-82(V)1.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:57
by weasel1962
USAF has 55 fighter sqn, 44 of which will be F-35 by 2045. That program number won't change even with the F-15EX. The remaining 11 will comprise F-22 and F-15Es that will need to be replaced. If F-15EX, maybe 15-17 sqns. USAF wants 62 sqns.

No reason why PCA program can't gun for 18 sqns and ~700 units.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 02:00
by crosshairs
count_to_10 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
crosshairs wrote:But it makes zero logic. Bones, Buffs, Spirits, and raiders can hit anywhere on the planet in hours. Oh how that isn't the case with F-15s.


The same could be said of any air-dropped mission. Yet we still have F-15s, F-16s and Super Hornets dropping bombs. Funny that. Also, Bones can't carry them. (It's limited to weapons under 15 feet or so. For reference the X-51/ATACMs stack was about 25 feet long.)

I’m going to have to be shocked that those huge bomb bays are only 15 ft long.


If SFERRIN is proposing that the X be procured just because its the only USAF fighter capable of carrying the gbu28, what an incredible flawed line of thinking that is. The US should spend billions on hundreds of useless fighters, which is what the X is, just so that it might drop a half dozen of the 28s.

Bones, buffs and spirits can fly out of central conus and strike any target just about anyplace in the world and be back on base the next day. Don't have to worry about basing rights. Minimal tanking compared to a fighter. They don't need to be propositioned with hundreds of support personal. The 21 will be on the flight line soon enough. And yet somehow some people think the X is invaluable because it can carry 1 gbu28. Never mind needing to be propositioned. Nevermind support persons, spare parts, tankers..... Ohhhh and yeah you are TELEGRAPHING to the world what targets are within reach of the X. With a bomber based in conus or our little island, the entire world is at risk.

And yes, I know the size of the 1s weapons bays. Quantity can make up for the capability of the gbu28.

There is always more than way to skin a cat or threaten a hardened bunker.

Remember the saying, not a pound for air to ground? I say not a Nancy Pelosi dollar for the X.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 02:04
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:
Now it’s 144?


Long term apparently. So F-15EX will probably still be flying in 2050+. I don't believe this will seriously affect F35 long term buy but it will probably cut the future PCA numbers down if F-15E replacement is not so critical then. PCA will probably end up as limited edition as F-22 with only 1-2 a month being made.


An order for F-15X's could easily effect the F-35 buy in many respects. First, a handful of F-15EX's are useless to the USAF. So, say in a couple of years the budget is cut and money is tight. Yet, hard to cancel future buys of the F-15X. As they can't use just say 20-30 aircraft. So, they cut some more F-35's to fund them. Which, they just did with the FY2020 budget. Which, had "6" less F-35's than planned.....

Also, what about a prospective F-35 customer that is on the fence like Canada. Well, hell the USAF can buy New 4th Generation F-15X's. So, good enough for them. Then they're surely good enough for us....

Honestly, you could come up with a number of scenarios. Where a buy of F-15X's could impact future F-35 buys.... :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 02:27
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:USAF has 55 fighter sqn, 44 of which will be F-35 by 2045. That program number won't change even with the F-15EX. The remaining 11 will comprise F-22 and F-15Es that will need to be replaced. If F-15EX, maybe 15-17 sqns. USAF wants 62 sqns.

No reason why PCA program can't gun for 18 sqns and ~700 units.


You seriously think the F-15EX will be a viable fighter much past 2030??? Plus, they won't even enter service before the mid 20's are the earliest. In addition don't they have a life span of 30+ years??? So, we are going to spend billions "more" for a type. That is nearly obsolete. Yet, with a life span that will reach 2055+

Hell, even if you could make a case for a "short-term" stop gap. (i.e. 4th Generation) The USAF would be far better off to just upgrade the existing fleet of F-15C's. As we wouldn't need them more than a decade anyways. This also wouldn't threaten sales of the F-35. As we wouldn't be buying New 4th Generation Fighters. We would be just upgrading a modest number of 4th Generation ones until enough F-35's come online....

This is nothing short of "Corporate Welfare" for BOEING.

Hell, only reason this came up. Was the USAF ran the numbers and said upgrading the F-15C wasn't really a good option. So, they just wanted to buy more F-35A's. Then Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan (Ex Boeing) came along and saw a window to make his ex company some money. By "forcing" the F-15X on the USAF.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 02:29
by marsavian
An order for F-15X's could easily effect the F-35 buy in many respects. First, a handful of F-15EX's are useless to the USAF. So, say in a couple of years the budget is cut and money is tight. Yet, hard to cancel future buys of the F-15X. As they can't use just say 20-30 aircraft. So, they cut some more F-35's to fund them. Which, they just did with the FY2020 budget. Which, had "6" less F-35's than planned.....


If it is being bought partly for unique load-bearing qualities then a handful maybe all that is needed for a particular task. It won't be a general purpose aircraft it will be for specific missions like the F-22. As for F-35 buy it is being held back on purpose until Block 4 comes online. However the total hasn't changed and considering Congress likes it probably won't. There are bigger ticket items like B-21/PCA that could take a hit first.

Also, what about a prospective F-35 customer that is on the fence like Canada. Well, hell the USAF can buy New 4th Generation F-15X's. So, good enough for them. Then they're surely good enough for us....


It's not really the job of the USAF to promote commercial F-35 buys :). I don't think the Canadians would need any encouragement to buy F-15 if they really liked the latest ones only the political problem with Boeing would hold it back. The fact that F-15 systems are still being updated in the future e.g. EPAWSS is clue enough that it is still good enough. The particular problem you might have is that it's not just Shanahan that is pushing F-15X but career Generals like Dunford and Mattis whose opinions hold a lot more sway with Congress than his.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 02:40
by SpudmanWP
sferrin wrote:What are your thoughts on the claim that F-35 costs are climbing?

I have not had a chance to do a deep dive yet, but he does tend to conflate procurement, development, and MX contracts.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 03:14
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:
If it is being bought partly for unique load-bearing qualities then a handful maybe all that is needed for a particular task. It won't be a general purpose aircraft it will be for specific missions like the F-22. As for F-35 buy it is being held back on purpose until Block 4 comes online. However the total hasn't changed and considering Congress likes it probably won't. There are bigger ticket items like B-21/PCA that could take a hit first.


LOL The F-15EX will not perform similar missions to the F-22. As it will be obsolete shortly and is already "vastly" inferior to existing F-35's. As for Block 4 it's coming online now.


It's not really the job of the USAF to promote commercial F-35 buys :). I don't think the Canadians would need any encouragement to buy F-15 if they really liked the latest ones only the political problem with Boeing would hold it back. The fact that F-15 systems are still being updated in the future e.g. EPAWSS is clue enough that it is still good enough. The particular problem you might have is that it's not just Shanahan that is pushing F-15X but career Generals like Dunford and Mattis whose opinions hold a lot more sway with Congress than his.


If, 4th Generation Fighters are still so adequate. Funny, that most of the recent orders are going to the 5th Generation F-35. (Singapore, Poland, Belgium, Japan, etc.) Also, odd that many nations are rushing to develop 5th and even 6th Generation Fighters.

As for General Dunford he is an Infantry Officer and works for Shanahan. This while the current USAF Secretary Heather Wilson and other serious leaders have opposed the F-15X. I think they would know better! :roll:

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: 20 Mar 2019, 03:23
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:
If it is being bought partly for unique load-bearing qualities


There's no actual hypersonic weapons program of record. Just prototypes.

marsavian wrote:As for F-35 buy it is being held back on purpose until Block 4 comes online.


A demonstrably stupid strategy since it put the Air Force at the mercy
of the Block 4 strategy approval process, DOT&E and other forces beyond their control.


marsavian wrote:The fact that F-15 systems are still being updated in the future e.g. EPAWSS is clue enough that it is still good enough.


The main point of EPAWSS is to improve mission capability rates since TEWS is practically impossible to sustain.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 03:27
by marsavian
'Like' is not the same as 'To' i.e. they don't have to be the same specialist missions. However as a pure interceptor the F-15 is still closer to F-22 than F-35 is. The Israelis also still see the utility in buying more F-15 even though they are buying F-35. Yes the USAF would like all F-35 ... if overall cost was not an issue. Mattis also was in power before Shanahan so what's his excuse for promoting F-15X ?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 03:51
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:'Like' is not the same as 'To' i.e. they don't have to be the same specialist missions. However as a pure interceptor the F-15 is still closer to F-22 than F-35 is. The Israelis also still see the utility in buying more F-15 even though they are buying F-35. Yes the USAF would like all F-35 ... if overall cost was not an issue. Mattis also was in power before Shanahan so what's his excuse for promoting F-15X ?



Sorry, the F-35A would run circles around the F-15C and F-15EX in the Air Superiority Role. If, you think otherwise you don't under the subject matter. Actually, the F-15EX is nothing but an upgraded F-15E Strike Eagle. It doesn't have a primary "Air Superiority Role" like the F-15C.

Also, Israel has not purchased any new F-15's. They have only purchase some secondhand F-15D's from the US and upgraded them....

Mattis was also a US Marine Infantry General. Nor, have I seen anything "official" stating he wanted the F-15X over additional F-35's.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 04:03
by marauder2048
As a pure interceptor the F-15 is at the first-look, first-shot mercy of practically any type
built in the last 30 years. And new builds divert funds from what you actually need for interception:
persistent OTH sensors.

marsavian wrote:'The Israelis also still see the utility in buying more F-15 even though they are buying F-35.


The IAF lost their internal battle to the Army and now have to use their fast jets at glorified TELs.

Yes the USAF would like all F-35 ... if overall cost was not an issue. Mattis also was in power before Sh
anahan so what's his excuse for promoting F-15X ?


What's the overall cost of maintaining disparate types in the midst of a maintainers crisis?

And of course this again misses the main point: the big SLEP of the F-15Cs which was to start this year.

That was a truly low cost approach to the problem.

a. The claim about Mattis comes from OSD (he's not there to defend himself) which is run Shanahan.
b. CAPE was and is a creature of the Deputy SecDef; all CAPE initiatives come from the DepSecDef
the F-15EX was a CAPE initiative. Ergo it was Shanahan.
c. In any event, Mattis understood little about airpower: he questioned the utility of ICBMs and LRSO.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 04:32
by chucky2
I wonder if this is some kind of strategery to get LM to reduce costs on F-35. We can always sell the X's to Israel...or Canada, when the world's stock of Hornets runs out.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 05:12
by Corsair1963
chucky2 wrote:I wonder if this is some kind of strategery to get LM to reduce costs on F-35. We can always sell the X's to Israel...or Canada, when the world's stock of Hornets runs out.



Honestly, buying the F-15X is clearly not in the interest of the US and her major allies. Yet, if they just want to keep F-15 production going. There some options....


Like why not push the F-15X on somebody like Taiwan??? Especially, if Boeing can really make it for just $80 Million! :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 05:14
by madrat
If Boeing truly wanted to sell airframes to Canada they would have brought something forward that Trudeau and his ship of fools could have digested. Why not entertain their notion for Hornets with a SLEP program to bring them up to modern capabilities on the cheap and then hammer them on the backend for support? That's Boeing in a nutshell.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 13:18
by mixelflick
chucky2 wrote:I wonder if this is some kind of strategery to get LM to reduce costs on F-35. We can always sell the X's to Israel...or Canada, when the world's stock of Hornets runs out.


I proposed the F-15X for Canada in the Politics section, and was summarily crucified for it. Too expensive on all fronts, which I can't disagree with. That's logical. But Canada's fighter acquisition process is anything but, so I say it's at least plausible. Two engines. BIG radar. Carries a LOT of missiles. Good range. Perfect for the homeland defense mission and if ordering the F-15EX, the swing role allows them to fulfill their NATO obligations. It's not like they'll be the only country flying 4 or 4.5 gens in the future.

With respect to the world's supply of Hornets running out.. It won't happen in my lifetime, perhaps not even in my son's! You really have to hand it to Boeing. They somehow convinced a number of foreign countries that a little naval strike fighter could be all things, to all people. When that ran its course, they fooled Congress into thinking the SH was a simple upgrade, vs. an almost entirely new aircraft. And when that started to wind down, they pitched the Super Duper Hornet to the Navy - and they bought it! Hook, line and sinker..

I see the Super Duper in the same light as the F-15X: It absolutely threatens the F-35 buy for all of the reasons mentioned prior (and then some, IMO). In fact, I'd say it's not just a possibility - it's extremely likely both airframes cut into the ultimate F-35 buy, causing not just an increase in unit cost but a massive decrease in capability.

I sure hope more rational minds prevail..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 13:30
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:If SFERRIN is proposing that the X be procured just because its the only USAF fighter capable of carrying the gbu28, .


Apparently reading is not your strong suit. Did I use too many big words, or do you not have the attention span to make it more than a sentence or two in?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 13:32
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:USAF has 55 fighter sqn, 44 of which will be F-35 by 2045. That program number won't change even with the F-15EX. The remaining 11 will comprise F-22 and F-15Es that will need to be replaced. If F-15EX, maybe 15-17 sqns. USAF wants 62 sqns.

No reason why PCA program can't gun for 18 sqns and ~700 units.


You seriously think the F-15EX will be a viable fighter much past 2030???


*cough* B-52, F-4. . .

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 13:37
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:
If it is being bought partly for unique load-bearing qualities


There's no actual hypersonic weapons program of record. Just prototypes.


I thought the AGM-183A was supposed to be a program of record.

https://aviationweek.com/air-dominance/ ... d-agm-183a

"Disclosure of the Starry Sky 2 test comes as the U.S. Air Force continues to step up work on fast-track hypersonic weapons development in response to the growing threat of a new generation of Chinese and Russian hypervelocity systems. The first of the Air Force systems is the newly designated AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW). A development and production contract for the weapon was awarded to Florida-based Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

The ARRW, like many of the emerging threats, is an air-launched, rocket-boosted unpowered hypersonic glider. To be developed under a $480 million initial contract, potentially worth $780 million including early production through 2023, the ARRW work is an extension to Lockheed’s pre-existing DARPA contract under which it is building the virtually identical Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) demonstrator."


https://aviationweek.com/defense/first- ... n-agm-183a

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 13:40
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
chucky2 wrote:I wonder if this is some kind of strategery to get LM to reduce costs on F-35. We can always sell the X's to Israel...or Canada, when the world's stock of Hornets runs out.


I proposed the F-15X for Canada in the Politics section, and was summarily crucified for it.


I've been saying the same for years. (Assuming they didn't go for the F-35.) You don't need stealth to patrol borders and turn away bombers.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 14:09
by marsavian
marauder2048 wrote:And of course this again misses the main point: the big SLEP of the F-15Cs which was to start this year.

That was a truly low cost approach to the problem.


Could you provide a past reference to that as I was not aware of anything but the F-15C/D Longeron SLEP being authorized which is still referenced as being funded in the FY2020 budget request as I quoted earlier.

viewtopic.php?p=414671#p414671

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 14:13
by vilters
Well, history again. LOL.

The F-16 started out as a pure A2A machine that turned out to become a great A2G platform also.
The F-35 started as a pure attack (A2G) machine, and is a great A2A fighter too.

What Canada chose many years ago was a twin (F-18) mostly for safety reasons.
What Canada needs is a good interceptor with safety, but mostly RANGE and endurance.

For continued logistical stability that would be new SH. (never forget the logistical footprint when selecting something new).

Or?
F-35 or F-15 if they can get a good deal on them.
Depends on the primary mission ; Offensive or defensive.

But, and this is always forgotten; The cost of changing the logistical system.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 17:19
by SpudmanWP
The F-35 was NEVER a "pure attack (A2G) machine". For everyone except the US, it is their primary A2A platform. Even the USAF said years ago that except for the F-22, it was the best A2A fighter of the time.

Given that the F-35 out-ranges the Classic Hornet that Canada currently uses, it will more than fill the role of it's replacement.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 18:54
by XanderCrews
The F-16 started out as a pure A2A machine that turned out to become a great A2G platform also.


Yes and no, the design changes from the YF-16 was already preping for A2G


The F-35 started as a pure attack (A2G) machine,


Utterly false, even before F-35, Even before the X-35 won, even before JSF program became JSF it was multirole from day 1

What Canada chose many years ago was a twin (F-18) mostly for safety reasons.


No. The F-18 was chosen as it could employ more varied types of ordnance from the start, namely the AIM-7 Sparrow. This was probably the biggest factor in the F-18s NFA win. The "twin engine for safety" reason was just an additional sales talking point to get the masses aboard. Its since grown to absurd disproportion as you demonstrate. People also seem to forget that the F-16 didnt get sparrow capability until block 25 in 1984, people often forget this, and attribute the win to number of engines. If F-16 had Sparrow capability from the outside a lot of early F-18 operators probably would have gone for it instead

What Canada needs is a good interceptor with safety, but mostly RANGE and endurance.


No

For continued logistical stability that would be new SH. (never forget the logistical footprint when selecting something new).


There is nearly nothing in common between SH and the legacy variant. The SHs size means canada needs new hangars and other infrastructure, but even more to the point, Canada's decades olds gear needs to be overhauled as it is now, even if they stuck with CF-18s for the next 5 decades.

At one point you have to actually replace gear. F-35s can operate out of the same Hangars the Marines built in the 60s for the A-4s, (other than the electrical) but at once point the idea is you have to build new stuff. We were building new hangars even when we weren't getting new aircraft.


Depends on the primary mission ; Offensive or defensive.


huh?

vilters wrote:But, and this is always forgotten; The cost of changing the logistical system.


But also:

vilters wrote:Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.


Image

No not at all. Everything from the SH, to the JSF, to the F-15X now has used commonality of logistics as a selling point. Canada has done study after study. The Gripen is sold almost entirely on logistics, the cost of changing or slightly altering the logistical system is constantly being talked about.



vilters wrote:Well, history again. LOL.


You know what I love about you Vilters, is you are incapable of embarrassment :mrgreen:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 20:10
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:
If it is being bought partly for unique load-bearing qualities


There's no actual hypersonic weapons program of record. Just prototypes.


I thought the AGM-183A was supposed to be a program of record.

https://aviationweek.com/air-dominance/ ... d-agm-183a

https://aviationweek.com/defense/first- ... n-agm-183a


It's strictly LRIP (really SDD). There's no commitment to proceed with actual fielding or full-rate production.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 20:32
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:And? it will take 18 months to replace Turkey in the F-35 supply chain if the time comes.

You need more baskets with different colored eggs if you want the Easter Bells to continue to fly. LOL.

Pretty simple actually, ever airframe hr flown needs to be replaced.


If F-15EX goes through the USAF won't see its first one until late 2023 or possibly even early 2024 as theyve already said its going to take 3 to 3 and a half years to deliver the first batch of 6 whole airframes. FY2021 is supposed to add 18 more F-15X, bringing the total up to 24 whole airplanes by 2024. or, you could just add 6 F-35As every year from FY2020 on out and get the same number of airplanes, without the additional cost of not only the F-15Xs themselves (which cost more) but without the additional expense of a 2 year test program as well...


This is an "emergency" that isn't, and its just as absurd as the Retarted Canadian PM's gambit of declaring a "capability gap" that needs to be solved "RIGHT NOW" but then suddenly is actually years away.




vilters wrote:Come on guys.

LM is building F-35 as fast as it can, but . . . .

When your day to day flight operations are consuming more available airframe flight hrs then the new F-35 can bring into the system, you need other manufactures with other airplanes to step in.

Currently the USA is consuming more flight hrs then new airframes are adding into the system.
Something has to be done. Be it with extra newly build F-16 or F-15.


How can you claim to be in fleet management but not understand the basics?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 21:02
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:USAF has 55 fighter sqn, 44 of which will be F-35 by 2045. That program number won't change even with the F-15EX. The remaining 11 will comprise F-22 and F-15Es that will need to be replaced. If F-15EX, maybe 15-17 sqns. USAF wants 62 sqns.

No reason why PCA program can't gun for 18 sqns and ~700 units.


You seriously think the F-15EX will be a viable fighter much past 2030???


*cough* B-52, F-4. . .



If we go by the USAF's own hype they will be getting new F-15Xs past the 2028 date they said F-15s would be obsolete...


The Air Force has said the F-15 won’t be survivable against modern air defenses after 2028, so is it worth it to the service to spend the money to keep a non-stealthy, 1970s design into the 2040s?

“I think what we know is that we’re going to be fighting with 4th-gen [aircraft] in 2028, and in 2035, we’re still going to have those,” including the A-10 and F-16, he told Air Force Magazine. “The way to use these things is to collaborate on a network, and it’s going to be, what can those things bring to the fight faster?”


Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 21:22
by botsing
XanderCrews wrote:
The Air Force has said the F-15 won’t be survivable against modern air defenses after 2028

What event will happen in 2028 that suddenly makes the F-15 not survivable compared to 2027?

Or is 2028 the envisioned end of a long accumulation of external threat buildups?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 23:30
by SpudmanWP
Investifation into Acting SecDef opens

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan is being investigated for allegedly showing favoritism to Boeing, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining the Pentagon.

"The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General has decided to investigate complaints we recently received that Acting Secretary Patrick Shanahan allegedly took actions to promote his former employer, Boeing, and disparage its competitors, allegedly in violation of ethics rules," a DoD IG spokesperson said on Wednesday.

The inspector general's office declined to specify which actions Shanahan allegedly took, but in January, Politico first reported that Shanahan had allegedly criticized how Lockheed Martin handled the F-35 program and argued Boeing would have done a better job.


More at the jump
https://taskandpurpose.com/shanahan-boe ... estigation

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 23:54
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Investifation into Acting SecDef opens

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan is being investigated for allegedly showing favoritism to Boeing, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining the Pentagon.

"The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General has decided to investigate complaints we recently received that Acting Secretary Patrick Shanahan allegedly took actions to promote his former employer, Boeing, and disparage its competitors, allegedly in violation of ethics rules," a DoD IG spokesperson said on Wednesday.

The inspector general's office declined to specify which actions Shanahan allegedly took, but in January, Politico first reported that Shanahan had allegedly criticized how Lockheed Martin handled the F-35 program and argued Boeing would have done a better job.


More at the jump
https://taskandpurpose.com/shanahan-boe ... estigation


Sounds good to me. I wonder if that's also why the DoD structured future launch services the way they did. They're favoring ULA and SpaceX over Blue Origin and NG (ATK).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03 ... la-spacex/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 00:37
by vilters
XanderCrews wrote:
How can you claim to be in fleet management but not understand the basics?


If I eat one bread a day, I have to buy one bread a day. :devil:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 00:52
by Corsair1963
The Pentagon's Watchdog Is Investigating Whether the Acting Defense Secretary Boosted Boeing

By W.J. Hennigan


Updated: March 20, 2019 3:49 PM ET

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General confirmed it has launched an investigation into whether Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan has violated any ethics rules by promoting his former employer Boeing while serving in the Trump Administration.


The investigation comes a week after a government watchdog group, called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), wrote a nine-page complaint to the Pentagon’s inspector general urging the agency to scrutinize the relationship. At issue is whether Shanahan pushed the Pentagon to buy more Boeing-made F-15X fighter jets, which the Air Force does not want, and whether he criticized Boeing-rival Lockheed Martin Corp. during government meetings.


http://time.com/5555186/patrick-shanaha ... ics-probe/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 00:53
by Corsair1963
You can count on the Democrats milking this for every mile too! :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 01:00
by firebase99
I say bring back the Aardvark!!! Stealth that sucker up...call it the SHardvark!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 01:41
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:And of course this again misses the main point: the big SLEP of the F-15Cs which was to start this year.

That was a truly low cost approach to the problem.


Could you provide a past reference to that as I was not aware of anything but the F-15C/D Longeron SLEP being authorized which is still referenced as being funded in the FY2020 budget request as I quoted earlier.

viewtopic.php?p=414671#p414671


From The FY19 Budget (Aircraft Mods)

8805 / F-15 C/D SLEP Wings (Service Life Extension) -> FY2020 $99 million

In the FY2020 budget it's zero'ed out.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 01:55
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
How can you claim to be in fleet management but not understand the basics?


If I eat one bread a day, I have to buy one bread a day. :devil:



How can you reasonably compare buying bread daily for yourself to management of whole fleets of airplanes over decades for an entire air force?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 02:38
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
8805 / F-15 C/D SLEP Wings (Service Life Extension) -> FY2020 $99 million

In the FY2020 budget it's zero'ed out.


They canceled the EPAWSS for the F-15C. So, hardly surprising they would canceled the SLEP for the Wings.


Honestly, the F-15C is going to be retired shortly one way or the other. Only real question is will it be replaced by more F-35A's or F-15EX's?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 04:12
by Corsair1963
What aircraft does the US Air Force need to beat China and Russia? This new study has an answer.

By: Valerie Insinna


QUOTE:

The fighter force

Should the Air Force buy the F-15X from Boeing?

The study gives an unambiguous answer of “no,” stating that spending its resources on new F-15s could take away precious funding away from the service’s next-generation fighter, which the Air Force needs to expedite and begin buying as soon as possible.


The F-15X, while a capable “fourth-generation-plus aircraft,” will not be able to survive the more contested battlespace of the future, the assessment stated, adding that “the Air Force should consider replacing some retiring F-15C/Ds with modified F-35As as a bridge to its future air superiority family of systems."


The study prioritizes the development of a new sixth-generation fighter, known as Penetrating Counter Air, or PCA, as well as hastening to a procurement rate of 70 F-35As per year.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... an-answer/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 06:12
by marauder2048
Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
8805 / F-15 C/D SLEP Wings (Service Life Extension) -> FY2020 $99 million

In the FY2020 budget it's zero'ed out.


They canceled the EPAWSS for the F-15C. So, hardly surprising they would canceled the SLEP for the Wings.


Honestly, the F-15C is going to be retired shortly one way or the other. Only real question is will it be replaced by more F-35A's or F-15EX's?


The DODIG said:

"The quantity decrease of the F-15C EPAWSS production units and the removal of funds occurred because the DCS AF/A5/8 decided to use F-15C EPAWSS procurement funds to develop a higher priority air superiority program"

but

"an ACC official stated that he has requested restoration of (F-15C) EPAWSS
procurement funds in the FY 2020 budget request; [therefore, these funds were
not in the FY 2019 budget request];"

That was in the FY19 budget but so was the wing SLEP.

In the RFI for the E-Wing re-winging of the F-15C/D the Air Force specified that the wing had to be compatible with EPAWSS.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 06:52
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
The DODIG said:

"The quantity decrease of the F-15C EPAWSS production units and the removal of funds occurred because the DCS AF/A5/8 decided to use F-15C EPAWSS procurement funds to develop a higher priority air superiority program"

but

"an ACC official stated that he has requested restoration of (F-15C) EPAWSS
procurement funds in the FY 2020 budget request; [therefore, these funds were
not in the FY 2019 budget request];"

That was in the FY19 budget but so was the wing SLEP.

In the RFI for the E-Wing re-winging of the F-15C/D the Air Force specified that the wing had to be compatible with EPAWSS.


Neither would be needed as the F-15C's are going to be retired. Either replaced by the F-15EX and/or F-35A....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 14:32
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
chucky2 wrote:I wonder if this is some kind of strategery to get LM to reduce costs on F-35. We can always sell the X's to Israel...or Canada, when the world's stock of Hornets runs out.


I proposed the F-15X for Canada in the Politics section, and was summarily crucified for it.


I've been saying the same for years. (Assuming they didn't go for the F-35.) You don't need stealth to patrol borders and turn away bombers.


Right. Yet as I said, I was crucified for it LOL.

Will it be expensive? Sure. But then again, anything worthwhile is going to be expensive - even Gripen. If expense were the sole criteria though, the F-35 would have already been selected. By the time they actually pull the trigger, it should be down to around 80 million/copy. Instead, we've seen a rash of illogical decisions. So IMO, anything's possible.

New build F-15EX's seem to fit Canadian requirement nicely. Big radar to cover their big country, massive air to air loadout. Can carry a lot of weapons to a very high altitude. Persistence, particularly with the F-15EX's CFT's. The fastest mission computer to date. Stealthy? No, but you don't need it to defend Canada. Two crew members to allow for "swing" role capability. Which means in a pinch they can fulfill their NATO obligations.

Yes, they'll have to convert to a new jet. Yes, it might cost more per flight hour than a legacy F-18. But it will cost less per flight hour than the F-35, and built to a 20,000hr lifespan. This fits well too, as Canada has a long history of flying the wings off their jets, much moreso than other countries do.

Personally, I hope they buy the F-35. But the F-15EX would also be a fine addition.Better than any other jet in the competition IMO (Rafale, Typhoon, SH, Gripen etc.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 20:01
by XanderCrews
chucky2 wrote:I wonder if this is some kind of strategery to get LM to reduce costs on F-35. We can always sell the X's to Israel...or Canada, when the world's stock of Hornets runs out.


The US is going to spend billions of more dollars and run a 2 year test program to cert the F-15EX all in order to pressure LM to save money, all while officially preaching that the F-15X has no bearing on the F-35?

:|


sferrin wrote:I've been saying the same for years. (Assuming they didn't go for the F-35.) You don't need stealth to patrol borders and turn away bombers.



Canada fights beyond its own borders. in fact it fights almost exclusively beyond its own borders moreover Russia sends fighters and fighter escorts for its bombers to test NORAD as well.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command says in a statement that two F-22 Raptor fighter jets identified and intercepted two Russian TU-95 Bear bombers at 6 p.m. Alaska time on Tuesday.

The bombers were accompanied by two Russian Su-35 Flanker fighter jets.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 20:41
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
Right. Yet as I said, I was crucified for it LOL.



And rightly so

Will it be expensive? Sure. But then again, anything worthwhile is going to be expensive - even Gripen. If expense were the sole criteria though, the F-35 would have already been selected. By the time they actually pull the trigger, it should be down to around 80 million/copy. Instead, we've seen a rash of illogical decisions. So IMO, anything's possible.



Again the sticker F-15E price is simply too much. Just saying "well they've been dumb before, so they might be dumb again" isn't an argument.

Besides isn't Canada in a bloodfeud with Boeing?

If cost didnt matter Canada would have bought Interim Super Hornets but they (somehow) got sticker shock. What planet do you think an F-15E or F-15EX will costs less than a Super Hornet?


New build F-15EX's seem to fit Canadian requirement nicely. Big radar to cover their big country, massive air to air loadout. Can carry a lot of weapons to a very high altitude.


Please note here, you're confusing what you THINK Canada's requirements are, vs what they actually officially are. The RCAF's requirements are basically 5th generation F-35. They couldn't outright say "F-35" because that wouldn't be "fair." The Requirements are classified, but with what we know, all the requirements are things only F-35 can do. For example we don't know what the exact LO requirements for Canada are, but we know there indeed LO requirements, and the threshold is at such a level that they exlcuded the Super Hornet. So I'm guess the F-15 with ZERO probably won't make the cut.

This is the same problem on every Canadian F-35/CF-18 replacement thread in every corner of the internet. Someone comes in and inserts WHAT THEY THINK Canada's requirements SHOULD be in their OPINION, and then confuse that opinion with the reality of what Canada's actual written and official requirements are based on all their SMEs, pilots, force structure, operational requirements, national strategy, etc etc. add that to the fact that they've been in the JSF program for over 20 F**king years. That might be what we call a "clue" For some reason the Internet thinks Canada just stumbled into a decades long fighter program with no inkling of what they needed.

Everyone thinks they know more than the RCAF about Canadian Air Force needs...

:drool:
Canada big! Need Gas!
Canada scared bomber! Need big Radar!
Canada never leave Canada!
Canada COLD! Canada need 2 engine!
:drool:

And its a helluva lot more complicated than that.

F-35 is as needed for Canadians as it is for Belgians, as it is for Israelis, or Italians, or Aussies or Norwegians and for all the same reasons, because guess what? Canada is going to deploy. Like they always do and fight in the same environments as everyone else ---Unless they buy something else in which case they'll ride the bench and be useless

Even Neutral Sweden deployed against Libya. SWEDEN. DEPLOYED.

Persistence, particularly with the F-15EX's CFT's. The fastest mission computer to date. Stealthy? No, but you don't need it to defend Canada.


And this is why you were crucified. Not only do you need LO in expeditionary warfare, you need it in Air confrontations over friendly territory too.


Why does the US deploy F-22s for NORAD? Why will we have F-35s doing NORAD in Alaska as well?


Two crew members to allow for "swing" role capability. Which means in a pinch they can fulfill their NATO obligations.


https://www.thestar.com/politics/federa ... ances.html

They're so desperate for personnel they can't even keep up with air shows.

Yes, they'll have to convert to a new jet. Yes, it might cost more per flight hour than a legacy F-18.


Ya think?

But it will cost less per flight hour than the F-35,


Not a F**kin chance in hell.

and built to a 20,000hr lifespan. This fits well too, as Canada has a long history of flying the wings off their jets, much moreso than other countries do.


The lifespan is utterly irrelevant if you're flying an obsolete airplane. If I offered you an F-4D with the potential for 25000 hours, would you buy a fleet of them? why not?

Canada will be retiring the CF-18 replacement in the 2060s (at a minimum.) The USAF is saying 4th generation is done in 2028.


Personally, I hope they buy the F-35. But the F-15EX would also be a fine addition.Better than any other jet in the competition IMO (Rafale, Typhoon, SH, Gripen etc.)


No it really wouldn't. and not to pile on excessively, but i'm utterly shocked at some of the people here who think an F-15 with more missiles, FBW, some new avionics and a new cockpit are somehow comparable to a 5th gen. Even the much maligned F-15 Silent Eagle, played with Low Observability-- it looked like it tried at least, creating little compartments for its AAMs. An SH actually has a solid Gen 4.5 background and has actual Radar Signature reduction to go along with everything else new on it. speaking very broadly F-15EX is an improved F-15E. You reserve the right to slay me if I'm wrong, but its an upgraded F-15E. Its still a 4th gen airplane.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because if someone came in here and suggested F-15E (Or F-15SE and some indeed did) as a solid F-35 substitute all these years they would have been roundly criticized and told there is no substitute for a 5th gen F-35, but add an "X" to the end of that "F-15E" and suddenly its "yeah I mean you don't really need 5th generation stuff, its just border patrol anyway" Really??

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 20:50
by vanshilar
mixelflick wrote:Yes, they'll have to convert to a new jet. Yes, it might cost more per flight hour than a legacy F-18. But it will cost less per flight hour than the F-35, and built to a 20,000hr lifespan.


Um unless there's been an update on this, the endlessly repeated 20,000 life figure is based on Tyler Rogoway saying Boeing said so. Not an official statement. (Maybe Boeing has officially stated that the F-15EX's will have 20,000 flight hours by now, I haven't really kept up.) He also said that the F-15EX will cost much less than what the F-35 is projected to ever cost, and then we find out later that they're selling it for $80 apiece when the F-35 is projected to reach that in a few years. Actually they're selling it for something like $1.1 billion for 8 planes so $137.5 million apiece, or, alternately, $80 million a plane but $460 million to upgrade/change a line that Tyler said was ready to go "because other countries already paid for the development".

So it's not as if this 20,000 flight hour figure is exactly set in stone.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 21:00
by XanderCrews
vanshilar wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Yes, they'll have to convert to a new jet. Yes, it might cost more per flight hour than a legacy F-18. But it will cost less per flight hour than the F-35, and built to a 20,000hr lifespan.


Um unless there's been an update on this, the endlessly repeated 20,000 life figure is based on Tyler Rogoway saying Boeing said so. Not an official statement. (Maybe Boeing has officially stated that the F-15EX's will have 20,000 flight hours by now, I haven't really kept up.) He also said that the F-15EX will cost much less than what the F-35 is projected to ever cost, and then we find out later that they're selling it for $80 apiece when the F-35 is projected to reach that in a few years. Actually they're selling it for something like $1.1 billion for 8 planes so $137.5 million apiece, or, alternately, $80 million a plane but $460 million to upgrade/change a line that Tyler said was ready to go "because other countries already paid for the development".

So it's not as if this 20,000 flight hour figure is exactly set in stone.


Image

Tyler wouldn't just do that would he? Say its "ready to go" but "forget that the USAF has to do 2 years of testing first to certify it? and wouldn't see their half dozen F-15EXs until 2023 at a minimum?? Would Tyler play fast and lose with the price? or whats included based on which options are looked at?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 21:04
by marsavian
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because if someone came in here and suggested F-15E (Or F-15SE and some indeed did) as a solid F-35 substitute all these years they would have been roundly criticized and told there is no substitute for a 5th gen F-35, but add an "X" to the end of that "F-15E" and suddenly its "yeah I mean you don't really need 5th generation stuff, its just border patrol anyway" Really??


F-15EX just takes a different approach to survivability, EW rather than stealth, like the Gripen-E. It's a crude way of doing it as you will announce your presence every time with your RCS. However F-15EX will able to jam not just from its AESA but from specific transmitters in EPAWSS giving it 360 jam capability so it's evolved beyond the legacy F-15E.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 21:28
by XanderCrews
marsavian wrote:
F-15EX just takes a different approach to survivability, EW rather than stealth, like the Gripen-E. It's a crude way of doing it as you will announce your presence every time with your RCS. However F-15EX will able to jam not just from its AESA but from specific transmitters in EPAWSS giving it 360 jam capability so it's evolved beyond the legacy F-15E.



People have spent years on this very forum telling everyone that simply won't cut it.

Hell, Bill Sweetman got Brutalized all over the internet for suggesting exactly what you just said.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 21:59
by botsing
XanderCrews wrote:
marsavian wrote:
F-15EX just takes a different approach to survivability, EW rather than stealth, like the Gripen-E. It's a crude way of doing it as you will announce your presence every time with your RCS. However F-15EX will able to jam not just from its AESA but from specific transmitters in EPAWSS giving it 360 jam capability so it's evolved beyond the legacy F-15E.



People have spent years on this very forum telling everyone that simply won't cut it.

Hell, Bill Sweetman got Brutalized all over the internet for suggesting exactly what you just said.

I think in psychology this is called radical acceptance, it's when you stop fighting reality and accept things just the way they are. Since accepting does not mean the same as agreeing it also makes you look for (bizar) ways to rationalize those things you see happening around you.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 22:10
by marsavian
So the F-35 uses its AESA to jam one F-16 from another and that's considered great yet the F-15EX is not given the same lattitude to be able to protect itself in a similar fashion ? Are Growlers are a waste of time too ? 5th generation is basically a marketing term that LMT uses to promote sales but it should not be adopted by others as a faith based religion not allowing any critical analysis of other airplanes qualities.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 22:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marsavian wrote:So the F-35 uses its AESA to jam one F-16 from another and that's considered great yet the F-15EX is not given the same lattitude to be able to protect itself in a similar fashion ? Are Growlers are a waste of time too ? 5th generation is basically a marketing term that LMT uses to promote sales but it should not be adopted by others as a faith based religion not allowing any critical analysis of other airplanes qualities.

The F-35 can jam an F-22, can an F-15EX? Not all AESA based jammers are equal.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 00:27
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:So the F-35 uses its AESA to jam one F-16 from another and that's considered great yet the F-15EX is not given the same lattitude to be able to protect itself in a similar fashion ? Are Growlers are a waste of time too ? 5th generation is basically a marketing term that LMT uses to promote sales but it should not be adopted by others as a faith based religion not allowing any critical analysis of other airplanes qualities.



Growlers are a fundamental waste of time since they can't get close enough to perform backlobe or
sidelobe jamming and HOJ + STAP will defeat mainlobe jamming. About their only utility is raising
the noise floor against passive systems or deception jamming against passive systems that use
things like WiMAX which any reusable drone could do.

And the weight and drag of the NGJ prevents the Growler from hitting its range minimum particularly
if carrying AARGM-ER.

There's an F-16I debris field in Northern Israel that suggests that the F-15EX approach to survivability isn't.

'5th generation' was a taxonomy invented by RAND in the mid-90's that DOD adopted; Lockheed uses
the terminology used by its customer.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 01:28
by marsavian
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marsavian wrote:So the F-35 uses its AESA to jam one F-16 from another and that's considered great yet the F-15EX is not given the same lattitude to be able to protect itself in a similar fashion ? Are Growlers are a waste of time too ? 5th generation is basically a marketing term that LMT uses to promote sales but it should not be adopted by others as a faith based religion not allowing any critical analysis of other airplanes qualities.

The F-35 can jam an F-22, can an F-15EX? Not all AESA based jammers are equal.


I would suspect so. EPAWSS is later technology than AN/ASQ-239 both made by BAE. The APG-82 is being upgraded for EW/EP*. The biggest problem though is efficacy when it comes to self-protection, jamming is a lot more effective when your RCS is tiny.

* https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 4F_190.pdf

These development efforts include F-15 Radar Enhancements Electronic Protection (EP) capabilities. The Radar Enhancements (EP) will upgrade the digital Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar capabilities to counter sophisticated electronic threats. Suite 7C introduced EP into the C/D-model fleet. Initial EP capability for APG-82(V)1 equipped E model aircraft took place in Suite 8E. Suite 9 and beyond will add additional EP capability to both the F-15E and F-15C.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 03:02
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:I would suspect so. EPAWSS is later technology than AN/ASQ-239 both made by BAE. The APG-82 is being upgraded for EW/EP*. The biggest problem though is efficacy when it comes to self-protection, jamming is a lot more effective when your RCS is tiny.



The biggest problem is that you can't realistically perform angle deception jamming with anything
onboard; there's a limited supply of towed and expendable decoys since a capable
opponent will happily bracket your escape zone with enough active missiles to secure
a kill against a very expensive fast jet carrying very expensive weapons.

And of course there's no thermal signature reductions possible on the F-15 and as events
over Yemen showed, flares are of little use against IIR seekers.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 04:19
by XanderCrews
marsavian wrote:So the F-35 uses its AESA to jam one F-16 from another and that's considered great yet the F-15EX is not given the same lattitude to be able to protect itself in a similar fashion?


I think its a little more than that...

Are Growlers are a waste of time too ?


No, especially as they are A. powerful Dedicated jammers. and B. Critical to the Super Hornets and other non LO platforms.



5th generation is basically a marketing term that LMT uses to promote sales


Bill Sweetman kept making this claim, and dared anyone to challenge him on it. He was obliged and promptly slapped on the peepee at secret projects forum.

Turns out its more than a marketing term and LM didn't invent it.

but it should not be adopted by others as a faith based religion not allowing any critical analysis of other airplanes qualities.


I don't think its "faith based" 5th generation is a real thing, and many people in uniform including the USN which has the highest number of 4.5 gen fighters and jammers in the US military has said when that 5th generation gets the go in A2AD environments. The Hornets will be kept back until later.


My issue is, people on this very forum, not occasionally but for YEARS said it was 5th generation or bust.

SH has "balanced survivability" and its cheaper= No go its not a 5th gen F-35

F-15 Silent Eagle and its cheaper= No go its not a 5th gen F-35

Gripen E uses electronics and jamming rather than LO for survivability and its cheaper = No go its not a 5th gen F-35

Rafale with SPECTRA electronics and jamming rather than LO for survivability and its cheaper = No go its not a 5th gen F-35

Typhoon uses electronics and maneuver rather than LO for survivability and its cheaper = No go its not a 5th gen F-35

F-15EX uses electronics and jamming rather than LO for survivability and its cheaper= Cool beans man this could really work and its cheaper than the F-35 too. damn we should get some of these for Canada too and probably Israel you don't really need 5th generation exclusively

Image

We told so many people on this board they were dead wrong and didn't give them the time of day. The US military has said many times on many occasions that 5th generation is not only critical but unparalleled.Do people have any idea how many posts all over the globe went to slapping down the even the suggestion of these 4 Gen retreads with new electronics??

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 13:07
by mixelflick
I have to agree 100% with everything you said..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 01:39
by marsavian
Industrial base considerations played role in F-15X decision

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... -decision/

WASHINGTON — When it came time for the U.S. Defense Department to make a decision on which fourth-generation fighter to buy for the Air Force, industrial base considerations — and not acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan — helped tip the scale in favor of Boeing’s F-15X, a senior defense official said Friday.

“There were other things on the table” besides the F-15X, said the official, who disclosed that the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office drove the department’s decision to procure new fourth-gen planes to replace the Air Force’s aging F-15C/Ds.

But when CAPE, the Air Force and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis finally agreed on the broad decision to more fourth-gen fighters, “the conversation then turned to: How are we going to maintain a robust industrial base?” the official said during a briefing with reporters.

The defense official speaking to reporters on Friday denied that Shanahan had any knowledge of when Boeing or any of its platforms was being considered during budget deliberations, though Shanahan was aware that discussions were happening broadly about the optimum mix of fifth-generation jets — like the F-35 — and fourth-gen platforms, which can include Boeing’s F-15 as well as Lockheed Martin’s F-16.

“CAPE ran the program budget review” that assessed whether to buy new fourth-gen jets, the official said.

“Working with the standard of conducts office, we put in place a pretty strict regime of keeping anything related to Boeing out of his purview during the program budget review process,” he added. “He was involved in broad capability discussions or broad force shaping discussions, [but] when it came to any specific platform that involved Boeing, those conversations were held strictly away from him.”

So why did CAPE push so strongly for buying additional fourth-generation jets?

The official pointed to two major factors. First was the need for additional capacity.

The average age of the F-15C/D fleet is 35 years, with some aircraft nearing the end of their service lives. FY20 budget documents note “SERIOUS structures risks, wire chafing issues, and obsolete parts” and add that “readiness goals are unachievable due to continuous structural inspections, time-consuming repairs, and on-going modernization efforts.”

CAPE considered accelerating procurement of the F-35, which in FY20 is limited to 48 units. However, its cost analysis — which pegs the cost of each F-15X at about $90 million for the aircraft and spares — found that F-35 operations and maintenance costs outweigh that of fourth-gen planes like the F-15, the official said.

The second argument in favor of buying new fourth-generation planes is that the national defense strategy establishes the need for both stealthy tactical aircraft that can penetrate into a contested zone, as well as planes with large payloads that can launch ordnance from standoff distances, the official said.

Out of the Air Force’s inventory, the F-15 in particular has that as a selling point. Of all the service’s fighters, it can carry the largest payload.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 02:13
by madrat
If you want to improve the industrial base then allow Boeing to build a trainer...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 03:31
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:Industrial base considerations played role in F-15X decision


The term "industrial base" was used because journalists don't know what that really means under the FAR.
There are very strict conditions under which you can invoke it and it all has to be in the process of
a formal solicitation.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 11:09
by marsavian
If Trump rather than Shanahan is the real invisible hand behind this it maybe more difficult to stop.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 12:05
by marsavian
Saudi Red Flag Involvement Gives USAF Glimpse of Advanced Eagle

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -eagle?amp

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 12:41
by mixelflick
marsavian wrote:Saudi Red Flag Involvement Gives USAF Glimpse of Advanced Eagle

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -eagle?amp


Thanks for the link, but I feel the headline was misleading. I was hoping to read about how the USAF was so impressed with its capabilities OR surprised how despite all the new bells and whistles, it still can't survive in a heavily contested environment. Nothing of the sort I could see..

Well, at least we know the real reason why the F-15X is being looked at: Keeping up the industrial base. But I'm still perplexed: Why is the USAF interested in 2 seat F-15EX's, if the immediate need is to replace F-15C's? The F-15E fleet is a lot younger than its gray brother, and supposedly the Super Eagle with all new glass cockpit etc. wouldn't require a 2nd crew member. Plus, adding another body = more expensive. A LOT more expensive.

What gives?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 12:52
by marsavian
I suspect the real reason is that the single-seater of the latest Eagle is just not ready so they will update the software so a single pilot will be able to use it effectively. However one can't help feel that eventually these EX will replace E and the E will replace the C in the ANG when the latter are retired. Boeing I suppose is now on life support, like Mikoyan, until they actually win a fighter competition again on merit.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 14:24
by mixelflick
That's an interesting scenario.

So you think if it comes to pass the F-15EX will replace the F-15E, and those F-15E's will in turn replace aging F-15C's?

I don't think that's likely, for a few reasons. One, the F-15E carries 300lbs less fuel*. There goes the persistence argument. 2nd, it won't be capable of carrying up to 22 AMRAAM's/AAM's, one of the F-15X's big selling points. Third, the E won't have the X's more robust sensor/EW suite, making it less survivable than the X. But who knows, we're a long way from that. Hopefully, more rationale heads prevail in Congress and we just buy more F-35's.

The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.

It is damn fortunate we haven't (yet) been involved in a conflict with a near peer adversary. They had to be cheering when Gates cancelled the F-22, and they're undoubtedly cheering now as we get set to build the fighter of yesteryear..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 14:34
by marsavian
With CFTs that 300lb is negligible and ALL F-15E will be retrofitted with EPAWSS. As for AAMs the standard F-15E can carry enough to do ANG duty. It's all bait and switch, the EX will become the new frontline E in time and then ultimately in twenty/thirty years time those Es can be retired for new F-35A for 'industrial' reasons ;) No-one should really worry because in the end the USAF/DoD is pushing to get more fighters, it's just the actual mix that's up for debate now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 20:44
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:That's an interesting scenario.

So you think if it comes to pass the F-15EX will replace the F-15E, and those F-15E's will in turn replace aging F-15C's?

I don't think that's likely, for a few reasons. One, the F-15E carries 300lbs less fuel*. There goes the persistence argument. 2nd, it won't be capable of carrying up to 22 AMRAAM's/AAM's, one of the F-15X's big selling points. Third, the E won't have the X's more robust sensor/EW suite, making it less survivable than the X. But who knows, we're a long way from that. Hopefully, more rationale heads prevail in Congress and we just buy more F-35's.

The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.

It is damn fortunate we haven't (yet) been involved in a conflict with a near peer adversary. They had to be cheering when Gates cancelled the F-22, and they're undoubtedly cheering now as we get set to build the fighter of yesteryear..


F-15Es are all getting APG-82, EPAWWS, ADCPII computers, new cockpit displays, etc..... so from a sensor standpoint there won't be any significant differences. The biggest differences are the hard points and FBW.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 23:25
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.


All of this falls on gates, not the USAF. In fact the air forces top dogs fought until gates fired their a$$. For all the smack talk the internet likes to level at people the USAF did about everything it could.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:24
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:Industrial base considerations played role in F-15X decision

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... -decision/

WASHINGTON — When it came time for the U.S. Defense Department to make a decision on which fourth-generation fighter to buy for the Air Force, industrial base considerations — and not acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan — helped tip the scale in favor of Boeing’s F-15X, a senior defense official said Friday.

“There were other things on the table” besides the F-15X, said the official, who disclosed that the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office drove the department’s decision to procure new fourth-gen planes to replace the Air Force’s aging F-15C/Ds.

But when CAPE, the Air Force and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis finally agreed on the broad decision to more fourth-gen fighters, “the conversation then turned to: How are we going to maintain a robust industrial base?” the official said during a briefing with reporters.

The defense official speaking to reporters on Friday denied that Shanahan had any knowledge of when Boeing or any of its platforms was being considered during budget deliberations, though Shanahan was aware that discussions were happening broadly about the optimum mix of fifth-generation jets — like the F-35 — and fourth-gen platforms, which can include Boeing’s F-15 as well as Lockheed Martin’s F-16.

“CAPE ran the program budget review” that assessed whether to buy new fourth-gen jets, the official said.

“Working with the standard of conducts office, we put in place a pretty strict regime of keeping anything related to Boeing out of his purview during the program budget review process,” he added. “He was involved in broad capability discussions or broad force shaping discussions, [but] when it came to any specific platform that involved Boeing, those conversations were held strictly away from him.”

So why did CAPE push so strongly for buying additional fourth-generation jets?

The official pointed to two major factors. First was the need for additional capacity.

The average age of the F-15C/D fleet is 35 years, with some aircraft nearing the end of their service lives. FY20 budget documents note “SERIOUS structures risks, wire chafing issues, and obsolete parts” and add that “readiness goals are unachievable due to continuous structural inspections, time-consuming repairs, and on-going modernization efforts.”

CAPE considered accelerating procurement of the F-35, which in FY20 is limited to 48 units. However, its cost analysis — which pegs the cost of each F-15X at about $90 million for the aircraft and spares — found that F-35 operations and maintenance costs outweigh that of fourth-gen planes like the F-15, the official said.

The second argument in favor of buying new fourth-generation planes is that the national defense strategy establishes the need for both stealthy tactical aircraft that can penetrate into a contested zone, as well as planes with large payloads that can launch ordnance from standoff distances, the official said.

Out of the Air Force’s inventory, the F-15 in particular has that as a selling point. Of all the service’s fighters, it can carry the largest payload.


Total spin in hopes of keeping Shanahan out of trouble and not supported by the facts.


As I said in another tread. Then just hold a "Fighter Competition" between the two. :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:28
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:Saudi Red Flag Involvement Gives USAF Glimpse of Advanced Eagle

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -eagle?amp



Yes, the Saudi F-15's would be very close to the proposed F-15EX's. So, let's compared it with the F-35A head to head and see the "FACTS". Not the spin we are getting now from Shanahan and the Boeing Supporters.

:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:39
by crosshairs
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.


All of this falls on gates, not the USAF. In fact the air forces top dogs fought until gates fired their a$$. For all the smack talk the internet likes to level at people the USAF did about everything it could.


The USAF and DoD did everything they could to secure the viability of the F-22's including building it in a prominent democrat senators state. Obama's hatred for the US military was the final nail in the coffin started by Bush/Gates. Doesn't anyone but Captain 0 know that a strong USA is a world destabilizing threat?

It will be a very long time before the USAF digs out of the hole the politicians put it in assuming the next pres after Trump cares about the military.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:57
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.


All of this falls on gates, not the USAF. In fact the air forces top dogs fought until gates fired their a$$. For all the smack talk the internet likes to level at people the USAF did about everything it could.


The USAF and DoD did everything they could to secure the viability of the F-22's including building it in a prominent democrat senators state. Obama's hatred for the US military was the final nail in the coffin started by Bush/Gates. Doesn't anyone but Captain 0 know that a strong USA is a world destabilizing threat?

It will be a very long time before the USAF digs out of the hole the politicians put it in assuming the next pres after Trump cares about the military.


The problem here is future Defense Budgets are "very" likely to decline. Yet, "8, 14, 40, or whatever" won't be enough. So, the USAF will be committed to buy 140+. Yet, if the Dept of Defense (i.e. USAF) ends up with much smaller budgets. Many within Congress. Would happily say just cut back a few more F-35's to pay for the F-15's.

In short buying even "8" today is committing to large numbers in the coming decade. Which, could easily be at the expense of the F-35 Program. Regardless, how some claim it won't.....Which, is honestly absurd.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 02:02
by Corsair1963
Also, what happens when any Allied Air Force. Announces that it is going to buy a 4.5 Generation Fighter over the F-35. As it will be "good enough"....


Canada already comes to mind.... :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 03:05
by Corsair1963
Considering a number of former F-15C/E Pilots now fly the F-35A. Maybe we should ask any of them. If, they would prefer to go into combat with the F-35A or F-15EX....
:wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 05:40
by Corsair1963
EDITORIAL: Fighter Math

April 2019
Tobias Naegele
Editor in Chief

An F-15 will never be an F-35.


Today’s Air Force has too few squadrons, people, and planes to meet the requirements demanded by our National Defense Strategy, and the Pentagon’s 2020 budget request doesn’t do enough to address the shortfall.


The Air Force we have has 312 operational squadrons. “The Air Force We Need,” as defined by Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson last fall, should have 386 squadrons, a force built to match the demands of a strategy that anticipates great power competition and, potentially, great power conflict in the future.


The Air Force has yet to share all the math behind that assertion, but it has laid out some details and more can be surmised. Consider, for example, the fighter force.


At the dawn of the current fiscal year, the Air Force possessed 2,073 fighters organized into 55 operational squadrons. Those planes average nearly 27 years of age—old and getting older. At the present pace of fighter acquisition—56 planes per year in the 2019 budget and the 2020 request—the fighter fleet will surpass 35 years of age, on average, in less than 10 years.


That’s not a force built to deter a peer competitor, let alone win a major war.

The Air Force We Need requires 62 operational fighter squadrons. At 24 jets per squadron, plus jets for test and development, training, and spares, that works out to a requirement for 2,232 fighters.



(62 squadrons x 24 fighters) x 1.5 = 2,232


To sustain that force, the Air Force must buy 72 fighters per year. Doing so would ensure the average age of the fleet declines to 15.5 years and that all jets are retired after 31 years of service—which is still too old, but better than the current path the Air Force is on. This is not rocket science:



2,232 fighters ÷ 72 jets = 31 years service life


Now look at the 2020 budget request. The Air Force is asking for 48 F-35As, down eight from the 56 approved by Congress for 2019. In their place, the budget request includes $1.1 billion to buy the first eight of a planned 144 F-15EX aircraft, which would be purchased over the next 12 years. Here’s what happens when you buy 56 planes a year and try to fulfill a requirement for 2,232 jets:



2,232 fighters ÷ 56 jets = 39.85 years service life


The reason this is a hot topic today is that current F-15Cs will be 44 years old in 2030. They can’t make it that long. But buying the F-15EX—a “new, old airplane”—is hardly the solution. That’s a 30-year fix to a 10-year problem.

The wiser course is to buy more F-35s more quickly. Instead of a short-term solution that presents a new long-term liability, accelerating the shift to 5th generation aircraft improves the long-term outlook for the fighter fleet.


The alternative is not viable. Do we really want to rush into an age of great power competition buying airframes conceived 50 years ago that will stay in our inventory for the next 40 years? That’s like fighting the air war over Bosnia with the Wright Flyer. That air war was hard enough on then-state-of-the-art F-16s. We even lost an F-117 stealth jet. Whose sons and daughters are we dooming to such a fate?


China and Russia continue to advance their anti-aircraft defenses. They are developing long-range, hypersonic missiles designed to threaten US aircraft carriers and push them father and farther away from China’s shores. In time, they will sell those capabilities to allies, undermining US air superiority around the world. To counter and deter Chinese aggression, the US needs the kind of deep penetrating capability that only comes with low-observable technology.


Critics will counter that stealth is expensive and the cost of operating low-observable aircraft remains too high. That’s only true if you look at airplanes as one-for-one replacements. In reality, stealth reduces the number of aircraft needed to accomplish the same mission.


1 F-35A ≠ 1 F-15EX


When one plane can do the job of six or eight or 12—depending on the mission—the cost per desired effect declines precipitously. That single plane, pilot, and maintainer crew will never be as costly as the dozen legacy aircraft and all the people needed to support them.


Air Force Chief of Staff David L. Goldfein knows too well the cost of flying into a sophisticated air defense system. His 4th gen F-16 was shot down over Serbia in 1999. He celebrates his rescue annually.


Would he want to fly similar technology into the teeth of a modern Chinese air defense system today? How about 20 years from now? How about 40?


Here’s his answer: “In a perfect world, where we’d have the resources available to us, the 72 fighters a year would be F-35s, because an F-15, or any variant, will never be an F-35.”


Indeed, buying more F-15s was not the Air Force’s idea. Secretary Wilson made that clear Feb. 28: “Our budget proposal that we initially submitted did not include additional 4th generation aircraft.”


Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made that call, having decided the Air Force needed an alternative source of fighters to counter Lockheed’s position as the sole supplier of 5th generation fighters.


Mattis was a fine Marine general, a great leader, and steward as Secretary, but this decision missed the mark. It doesn’t even make economic sense. The F-15EX will cost no less to acquire than the F-35A, which Lockheed says will cost $80 million a copy by 2020. With increasing production, it should grow less expensive. By contrast, F-15s are selling for closer to $100 million each and building just a dozen a year reflects far smaller economies of scale.


More importantly, if America has to go to war against China in the next 40 years, this plane must be left at home. Our Air Force needs planes it can take to the fight now, and for decades to come. It needs planes that adversaries find sufficiently threatening to deter them from provoking a US response.


The difference between the Air Force “we have” and the Air Force “we need” boils down to this: The Air Force needs 72 new fighters a year to sustain a lethal, fighting force. Until something better is developed, the F-35 is the best plane for the money. Expressed mathematically, we can say unequivocally:


F-35 > F-15EX


Fortunately, the Pentagon does not get the final word. Congress has a chance to do the right thing: Say, “no” to F-15EX. Say, “yes” to more F-35s.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... -Math.aspx

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 10:23
by charlielima223
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.


All of this falls on gates, not the USAF. In fact the air forces top dogs fought until gates fired their a$$. For all the smack talk the internet likes to level at people the USAF did about everything it could.


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
TOO TRUE!
This is all a symptom of not having enough F-22s.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 14:23
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:The Russians also don't have the large combat coded bomber fleet or the transport fleet
that, as has been shown in MDA testing, can toss ASBMs.

It always strikes me that very long range standoff doesn't utilize the fighter's main strength
in excellent organic sensors and agility.


Just in:

Russia Moves 20 Hypersonic Missiles to Testing Site, Signaling Another Milestone for the Weapons Program (excerpt)

"What’s more, in another U.S. intelligence report, according to a source, the hypersonic missile was mounted and launched 12 times from a Russian MiG-31 fighter jet. Additionally, work is underway to mount the weapon on a strategic bomber."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/russia- ... ter%7Cmain

We're years away from having a missile to mount on our bombers. Meanwhile, Russia is already working on outfitting theirs with one. :(

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 14:34
by sferrin
More confirmation that this seems shady:

"Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson has said publicly that the Air Force did not request the F-15EXs in its initial FY2020 budget submission. This proposal appears to have been added by the Office of the Secretary of Defense during the budget build process, without a request for proposals or explanation.

However, Air Force officials have subsequently offered several justifications for the F-15EX:"


Sounds like the former Boeing guy added them to the shopping list, whether the USAF wanted them or not, and now the USAF is being told to play ball. :bang: :bang: :bang:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... hters.html

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 15:11
by marsavian
So what if Boeing doesn't win the PCA contract, will USAF F-15s still be being produced in 20 years time for industrial base reasons ? Was such concern showed to Northrop-Grumman or others in the past ? Congress has to get to the bottom of all these saving cost assertions and go from there. At least the Super Hornet is currently cheaper than F-35C ...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 16:59
by weasel1962
Read Rand report mg1133. Industrial base has been a concern for at least 2 decades. I noted Rand already suggested t-x, kc-x and uclass to keep Boeing in the business and b-21 to keep Northrop Grumman in the business. That was 8 years ago.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 18:49
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Read Rand report mg1133. Industrial base has been a concern for at least 2 decades. I noted Rand already suggested t-x, kc-x and uclass to keep Boeing in the business and b-21 to keep Northrop Grumman in the business. That was 8 years ago.


They were *not* arguing to sole-sourcing KC-X, T-X and UCLASS programs to Boeing.
And only UCLASS before the *strike* component was eliminated)would have helped maintain
a base to build a 6th gen fighter.

Nowhere was the recommendation to procure a warmed over 60's era design.

If anything it argues against the F-15 because of the large amount of foreign content on it
whereas the F-22 is solely derived from the US industrial base. So restart the F-22 program
if you want to keep Boeing healthy (they were the main agitators behind it).

But the real argument there is for accelerating a 6th gen fighter program.

If you want to sustain a competitive industrial you do so with:

a. open competition on new programs
b. directed shares for competition on new programs

The Navy did a form of b. with Boeing on two of the three teams for MQ-25.
And arguably the Air Force did so on LRS-B but even with Lockheed helping
to produce a technically superior design, Boeing still managed to lose.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 19:54
by crosshairs
marsavian wrote:So what if Boeing doesn't win the PCA contract, will USAF F-15s still be being produced in 20 years time for industrial base reasons ? Was such concern showed to Northrop-Grumman or others in the past ? Congress has to get to the bottom of all these saving cost assertions and go from there. At least the Super Hornet is currently cheaper than F-35C ...


Exactly. If the USAF wants to procure the numbers published at the published rate, we will be building F-15, PCA, and F-35. God only knows what the Navy will be building in the same time frame? Super Hornets, F-35. FAXX?

If Lockheed and NG split the PCA/FAXX business, then Boeing is out of the fighter business unless Eagle and SH are still around. In all honesty, why Boeing is the darling of the industry - now - is beyond me. They did not design the F-15, the F-18, the B-1 or the Apache or the C-17. Until the merger/takeover of MD, what had they done that was of significance? The B-52? Boeing basically bought all of it's business when MD ceased to exist.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 21:43
by marauder2048
charlielima223 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.


All of this falls on gates, not the USAF. In fact the air forces top dogs fought until gates fired their a$$. For all the smack talk the internet likes to level at people the USAF did about everything it could.


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
TOO TRUE!
This is all a symptom of not having enough F-22s.


Except CAPE's "analysis" is premised on not needing/wanting stealth at all for homeland and expeditionary
base defense. Even if the F-22 had gone to say 300+ units, CAPE could still mount a tortured argument against it.

The counter-argument is that stealth birds on base/homeland defense could be those that weren't
MC for penetrating.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 00:58
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
marsavian wrote:So what if Boeing doesn't win the PCA contract, will USAF F-15s still be being produced in 20 years time for industrial base reasons ? Was such concern showed to Northrop-Grumman or others in the past ? Congress has to get to the bottom of all these saving cost assertions and go from there. At least the Super Hornet is currently cheaper than F-35C ...


Exactly. If the USAF wants to procure the numbers published at the published rate, we will be building F-15, PCA, and F-35. God only knows what the Navy will be building in the same time frame? Super Hornets, F-35. FAXX?

If Lockheed and NG split the PCA/FAXX business, then Boeing is out of the fighter business unless Eagle and SH are still around. In all honesty, why Boeing is the darling of the industry - now - is beyond me. They did not design the F-15, the F-18, the B-1 or the Apache or the C-17. Until the merger/takeover of MD, what had they done that was of significance? The B-52? Boeing basically bought all of it's business when MD ceased to exist.


Point here is this order for the F-15EX doesn't put Boeing back in the fighter business. It just continues production of a 45+ year old design. Nor, does Boeing need the contract to stay afloat or win a future fighter contracts.

Which, is why acquiring the F-15EX is just throwing Boeing a handout and one that is not needed at that.... :bang:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 01:28
by Corsair1963
What many are leaving out or just flat ignoring. Is the fact to really make the F-35 work. We need vast numbers to continue to push down the price and make it truly "affordable". This isn't just for the benefit of the USAF. Yet, for the other services (USN/USMC) and our Allies.

This potential order for F-15EX's cuts into that deeply and at a critical stage in the F-35 Program.


To put this into perspective. You can buy "13" F-35A's in the current FY2020 budget for just "8" F-15EX's. Now divide that by the planned "140" F-15EX's! This would equate something like 228 F-35A's! This all in the coming decade and when future Defense Budgets are most likely to decline..... :shock:

AND FOR WHAT??? :? To put more money in the pockets of Boeing. Which, has already won a number of recent Defense Contracts and booming Profits! :bang:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 15:17
by mixelflick
I'm not so certain all this corporate welfare for Boeing (F-15EX, Super Duper's) is necessary. I'm talking about the "industrial base" argument. Let's look at LM, for example...

Prior to winning the ATF competition, what was the last fighter they built of any note? The F-104? They absorbed General Dynamics, and presumably the minds that created/built the F-16. So when it came time to build and win the ATF/JSF contracts, they did so.

Boeing isn't known for building fighters, but they did absorb McDonnell Douglas and presumably the minds who worked on the F-15 and F-18. It isn't inconceivable they too could be building stealth fighters, or otherwise win the PCA contract. Particularly if partnering with Northrup.

So I don't understand this "industrial base" argument. It just doesn't jive with reality, or the history these respective companies share. Some companies grow through acquisition. Some thrive, some die, but that's capitalism.

The company best meeting requirements should win DoD contracts, not win an award out of concern that company may not have "capacity" to build fighters in the future.. My 2 CC's..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 01:14
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:I'm not so certain all this corporate welfare for Boeing (F-15EX, Super Duper's) is necessary. I'm talking about the "industrial base" argument. Let's look at LM, for example...

Prior to winning the ATF competition, what was the last fighter they built of any note? The F-104? They absorbed General Dynamics, and presumably the minds that created/built the F-16. So when it came time to build and win the ATF/JSF contracts, they did so.

Boeing isn't known for building fighters, but they did absorb McDonnell Douglas and presumably the minds who worked on the F-15 and F-18. It isn't inconceivable they too could be building stealth fighters, or otherwise win the PCA contract. Particularly if partnering with Northrup.

So I don't understand this "industrial base" argument. It just doesn't jive with reality, or the history these respective companies share. Some companies grow through acquisition. Some thrive, some die, but that's capitalism.

The company best meeting requirements should win DoD contracts, not win an award out of concern that company may not have "capacity" to build fighters in the future.. My 2 CC's..


Boeing doesn't need this order for F-15EX's to stay in the fighter business. As a matter of fact it's hardly uncommon to have large gaps between designs. For example before the F-22/F-35 what was the last Fighter Lockheed Martin designed??? Maybe the F-104 Starfighter? Which, dates back to the 1950's?

In addition Boeing will clearly develop a future 6th Generation Fighter for the PCA and/or NGAD. Which, it has a fair shot of winning. Which, means she will still gain from all of the research and technology from it's development.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 03:17
by marauder2048
lipovitand wrote:
Link please? im interested in reading it. Tried to search but got nothing :(


"The Next-Generation Attack Fighter - Affordability & Mission Needs"

LO was terrible on "fourth generation" too. As I very easily found, it was used and defined
by CBO in the 70's despite his claims to the contrary.

He's now presently arguing against rate adjusted cost-improvement curves despite 45 years
of use founded on overwhelming empirical findings; I'm staring to tune out because of his
level of innumeracy and lack of technical background. That only leaves his awful historical
understanding.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 03:54
by Corsair1963
To make the F-35 work and to produce enough for the US and her Allies. We must produce it in very large numbers. Even a slight cut back could take the program off track....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 04:24
by XanderCrews
lipovitand wrote:Link please? im interested in reading it. Tried to search but got nothing :(



https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ ... 53.15.html

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 04:27
by marauder2048
The only industrial base sustained by F-15 production is the Israeli, South Korean and Saudi industrial base
which is where most of the airframe is fabricated.

The mission systems aren't particularly novel, cutting edge or interesting and you could achieve
the same effect by competing say the radar on the F-35.

As with Advanced EODAS, Raytheon would have a very strong incentive to win.

That leaves propulsion for which AETP is a multi-billion $$$, fully funded effort at GE and P&W.

Boeing hasn't won any competitions for front line air breathers: F-35, LRSO, B-21 etc.
That doesn't speak much to their design ability and the F-15 isn't exactly built with cutting edge
materials or techniques. Certainly not of the type anyone is envisioning for future fighters.

If Boeing had done something like MANX, or F-15SE or even say an F-15 model with integrated
IFDL and MADL then there would be a stronger case. But they haven't.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 05:11
by marsavian
Corsair1963 wrote:To make the F-35 work and to produce enough for the US and her Allies. We must produce it in very large numbers. Even a slight cut back could take the program off track....


Are you a LMT salesman/consultant/lobbyist ?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 05:15
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:The only industrial base sustained by F-15 production is the Israeli, South Korean and Saudi industrial base which is where most of the airframe is fabricated.


What do the Saudi's produce for the F-15? The joke in industry is that there are no Saudis in a manufacturing facility located in Saudi Arabia, except on a payroll.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 05:57
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:What do the Saudi's produce for the F-15? The joke in industry is that there are no Saudis in a manufacturing facility located in Saudi Arabia, except on a payroll.


Yeah here's a hilarious airframe subcontractors list from one of the best known analysts in the industry.

My highlights.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 06:18
by XanderCrews
marsavian wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:To make the F-35 work and to produce enough for the US and her Allies. We must produce it in very large numbers. Even a slight cut back could take the program off track....


Are you a LMT salesman/consultant/lobbyist ?


You mean like compared to the Acting SecDef?


Even if Corsair is a LMT Lobbyist, he isn't wrong.

The future is fifth generation. The F-35 relies on production scale to drive down costs on not only production, but sustainment. For every F-15EX your buying, thats fewer F-35s. And spare me on the idea that these are somehow "non competitive" fighter contracts. In the coming years there is going to be "shrink" and someone is going to get the ax.
Its going to be rather dumb if the Air Force suddenly finds itself having to cut F-35s while still buying F-15s :doh:

Anyone want to guess where US Defense budgets are going to be in 3? 5? 8? years from now?

Image

Moreover and I already addressed it in this thread. Its a complete "narrative upheaval" The Air force for the last decade and a half, has been saying 5th generation or bust. whats to stop all the people with Super Hornets or other options champing at the F-35 narrative arleady to embrace the "see you don't need 5th generation" So Corsair is right again in the fact that other F-35 international customers might take another direction


This is very simple. What accomplishes the objective is good. What gets in the way is bad. The objective is retiring the Teen series (4th generation) ASAP, in favor of 5th Generation Fighters. You'll never guess where the F-15 and F-35 fall on the "accomplishing" vs "getting in the way" spectrum of the objective. We knoe teen fighters will still be in use by the 2030s, but the idea was they would be in ever declining numbers, not expanded at the 11th hour.

F-15EX is a sideshow, and yes it could be a painful one. The technical risks are small, but the force structure risks could be grim. Once testing and 1st deliveries are complete the USAF will be under pressure to fulfill and expand the fleet at the cost of other programs.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 07:08
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:Yeah here's a hilarious airframe subcontractors list from one of the best known analysts in the industry.

My highlights.


Thanks. So KAI is buildings wings and forward fuselages for F-15K. Alsalam are buildings wings and forward fuselages for F-15SA. Any reason why St Louis can't build wings and forward fuselages for F-15EX?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 08:06
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Yeah here's a hilarious airframe subcontractors list from one of the best known analysts in the industry.

My highlights.


Thanks. So KAI is buildings wings and forward fuselages for F-15K. Alsalam are buildings wings and forward fuselages for F-15SA. Any reason why St Louis can't build wings and forward fuselages for F-15EX?


You mean aside from not having built those components in 20 years while trying to execute a fixed-price
contract with a substantially higher cost structure than Korea, Israel or Saudi Arabia?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 09:30
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Yeah here's a hilarious airframe subcontractors list from one of the best known analysts in the industry.

My highlights.


Thanks. So KAI is buildings wings and forward fuselages for F-15K. Alsalam are buildings wings and forward fuselages for F-15SA. Any reason why St Louis can't build wings and forward fuselages for F-15EX?


You mean aside from not having built those components in 20 years while trying to execute a fixed-price
contract with a substantially higher cost structure than Korea, Israel or Saudi Arabia?


Well, what wings and fuselage were KAI or Alsalam building before they started? Doesn't Boeing have a nice $ billion wing center facility?

P.s. might be 15 years rather than 20 but that's really irrelevant.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 09:52
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
This is very simple. What accomplishes the objective is good. What gets in the way is bad. The objective is retiring the Teen series (4th generation) ASAP, in favor of 5th Generation Fighters. You'll never guess where the F-15 and F-35 fall on the "accomplishing" vs "getting in the way" spectrum of the objective. We knoe teen fighters will still be in use by the 2030s, but the idea was they would be in ever declining numbers, not expanded at the 11th hour.



We've spent a better part of a decade pushing 5th Generation Fighters (specifically F-35) as the only solution. Then when we are on the verge of winning it all. Patrick Shanahan comes along at throws a "Grenade into the Fire!"


I only have one question....can you impeach an Acting Secretary of Defense??? As this is nothing short of criminal!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 13:28
by crosshairs
Corsair1963 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
This is very simple. What accomplishes the objective is good. What gets in the way is bad. The objective is retiring the Teen series (4th generation) ASAP, in favor of 5th Generation Fighters. You'll never guess where the F-15 and F-35 fall on the "accomplishing" vs "getting in the way" spectrum of the objective. We knoe teen fighters will still be in use by the 2030s, but the idea was they would be in ever declining numbers, not expanded at the 11th hour.



We've spent a better part of a decade pushing 5th Generation Fighters (specifically F-35) as the only solution. Then when we are on the verge of winning it all. Patrick Shanahan comes along at throws a "Grenade into the Fire!"


I only have one question....can you impeach an Acting Secretary of Defense??? As this is nothing short of criminal!


Sorry, but you are incorrect about spending a decade on pushing 5th gen fighters!!! It has been 20+ years. Either Clinton's Sec Def or Sec Af said they were no longer procuring "aluminum" fighters. Meaning that the F-22 was coming along and they would not be buying advanced versions of the F-15, and JSF was underway and no more F-16s needed. This actually made sense as the Cold War was over and China at the time could have been defeated with a couple carrier battle groups. We didn't need to waste money when we had 2 new fighters coming soon to a base near you.

So fast forward 20+ years and we need 4th gen aluminum fighters. Hm. Everything since the F-117 has been curtailed. The B-2 and F-22 deemed not required. What changed? China's air force has grown in the years that the USAF has been cut to the bone and allowed to whither away. Hm. Something isn't right here. Bush and Obama are to blame. Obama is obviously anti military, but Bush?

The stealth revolution happened when Led Zeppelin was touring. We got a fleet of F-117s and then everything else cut or cancelled, and we're still fighting with stuff from the 1970s. Now we "need" to build new 1970s airframes? Huh?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 13:39
by mixelflick
If the F-15X comes to pass, Shanahan's decision will quite possibly exceed the stupid factor Gates set the benchmark for, when he canceled the F-22.

But one thing is certain: The combined stupidity of both could be the 1-2 punch that hands the advantage to Russia and China. Way to go guys. Collectively, your actions constitute the greatest threat to American airpower in a generation..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 16:50
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:If the F-15X comes to pass, Shanahan's decision will quite possibly exceed the stupid factor Gates set the benchmark for, when he canceled the F-22.


The Feds REALLY need to crawl up that guy's a$$ with a microscope. The USAF DOES NOT WANT MORE F-15S. So why is anybody talking about buying any? Can you say, "corruption"? Even worse is this a$$hole is willing to sell the US's national security down the river to reward his cronies. :bang:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 01:15
by vilters
Sometimes it is too easy to get carried away.
Not a soul cares about aircraft type : Unless you want to plant it inside large building. :devil:

Care about what type of Submarines are build.
Submarines are the real offensive weapons with all their ballistic missiles that have ten nukes each.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 04:18
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Sometimes it is too easy to get carried away.
Not a soul cares about aircraft type : Unless you want to plant it inside large building. :devil:

Care about what type of Submarines are build.
Submarines are the real offensive weapons with all their ballistic missiles that have ten nukes each.


Airplane forum Vilters

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 13:20
by mixelflick
vilters wrote:Sometimes it is too easy to get carried away.
Not a soul cares about aircraft type : Unless you want to plant it inside large building. :devil:

Care about what type of Submarines are build.
Submarines are the real offensive weapons with all their ballistic missiles that have ten nukes each.


More survivable perhaps, but a lot less flexible. The B-21 (or F-35 w/atom bomb) can be recalled, SLBM cannot. And those two aircraft will also penetrate silently, with no warning. SLBM launch is hard to hide, LOL. The more you understand about stealth aircraft with nukes (or even without them), the more you begin to see how un-nerving they are to the enemy.

As far as the F-15EX, I'm really hoping cooler heads prevail in Congress. The figures don't lie, and the F-15EX is clearly NOT what the USAF/nation needs right now..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 15:25
by madrat
SLBM can strike in six minutes. There is zero comparison.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 15:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
madrat wrote:SLBM can strike in six minutes. There is zero comparison.

After the sub spends weeks getting into position, sure. But again, this is an aviation forum. Specifically about the F-15X and USAF interest. So anything about USN subs is 200% off topic here.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 16:55
by madrat
I agree, but mixelflick drew a comparison. I severed it.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 17:44
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yes you did. I suppose it was unfair to have quoted you as the second part of my statement was more general and not directed at you. My apologies if it came across as directed at you.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 18:08
by madrat
No worries. I appreciate your insights here!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 00:44
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Well, what wings and fuselage were KAI or Alsalam building before they started?



KAI was building fuselages and wings for the KF-16, the T-50 and the A-10 (for Boeing).

The parent companies were doing wing and fuselage work long before that for McAir, Airbus and Boeing in the
commercial space and to lesser degree in the military space.

Alsalam was mainly doing assembly work on Tornado, Hawk and Typhoon was some aerostructure fabrication
on pods.

weasel1962 wrote: Doesn't Boeing have a nice $ billion wing center facility?



For what? The 777X? IIRC, Boeing "Classic" built F-22 wings at Seattle with some work done at Long Beach.
The F-15EX wing isn't like any of the above.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 21:28
by SpudmanWP
Btw, Adm Winter just gutted the main argument for the F-15EX, sustainment costs.

I've noticed that most comments I see put the Eagle CPFH at "half" that of the F-35 ($27k vs $45k) and I have always been dubious of that quote but could not do much about it without context.

Adm Winter just gave us context.

In CY2018 the full CPFH for the F-35A was $44k but that number is dropping every year. In 2025 it is on track to be in the $25k range. The CPFH for the F-35A will be less than that of the F-15EX when there are about 20 of them in existence.

Like so many times in the past, proponents of one program will damn near lie to us on the numbers to make their program look like a viable alternative to the F-35.


Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 09:57
by quicksilver
Spud, as you have posted here before on this topic, you know that there are 5 different CPFH aggregations in use by different USG entities. What is a “full” CPFH?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 09:59
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:Btw, Adm Winter just gutted the main argument for the F-15EX, sustainment costs.

I've noticed that most comments I see put the Eagle CPFH at "half" that of the F-35 ($27k vs $45k) and I have always been dubious of that quote but could not do much about it without context.

Adm Winter just gave us context.

In CY2018 the full CPFH for the F-35A was $44k but that number is dropping every year. In 2025 it is on track to be in the $25k range. The CPFH for the F-35A will be less than that of the F-15EX when there are about 20 of them in existence.

Like so many times in the past, proponents of one program will damn near lie to us on the numbers to make their program look like a viable alternative to the F-35.



Lo and behold, the video link doesn’t work...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 13:30
by quicksilver
Video works on my desk top.

Mat looks and sounds tired.

Interesting to note that every talking head from DoD these days now seems to use the CAPE fully burdened CPFH vice 'reimbursable CPFH' (which most operators are familiar with). It's virtually impossible to get an apples to apples comparison across different T/M/S because everyone uses something different. My recollection is that the USAF uses a different aggregation for almost every different aircraft, further complicating and obscuring objective reality. Use a bigger number...sounds more dramatic when one is trying to justify goofy decisions in front of the Congress.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 16:11
by SpudmanWP
I am not sure how the USN breaks it down, but here is how the USAF does it.

Image

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... RR1178.pdf

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 01:03
by quicksilver
Thx.

Within the context of the F-35 program, those aggregations are common to each of the US services (aiui). The problem, however, is that no program heretofore has used some of those aggregations and the historical data necessary to recreate such numbers for said legacy programs is all but impossible to summon. Hence, that is why (in part) even RAND threw their hands up in the air and told the department(s), 'yoyo', on a common CPFH usage across all DoD platforms.

Gives lotsa people room for clever sophistry wrt to how much their platform will actually cost to own.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 23:43
by mkellytx
The whole CPFH thing can get pretty confusing if you don't know DOD budging and acquisitions well. In two different jobs I used two different values, in a program office I used a bigger more inclusive number while in flight test I used a smaller number. Basically it comes down to a "colors of money" issue. When congress passes a budget they do it by account which are for different reasons and have different limitations. The link below explains it pretty well

http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisition ... categories

The Air Force accounts useful for this discussion are:

R&D (3600)
Procurement (3010 for aircraft and 3080 for other) there are others but for this discussion these will do
MILPERS (3500)
O&M (3400)
MILCON (3300)

Before launching into my argument, first a stipulation. I am not contesting the individual superiority of the F-35 to the F-15EX that is 'now well established and needs no contesting. As someone who spent 7 out of my 10 years in the Air Force what I am attempting to do is explain the thought process that might have led to the decision to buy new old Eagles and why it might actually be a good thing for the F-35 in the long run.

There's one other needed clarification around the definition of the word replace, because without proper definition what I say can be misconstrued. There are two types of replacing going on here. The first is in individual units by type and role and the second is the overall USAF inventory. A couple of examples, the 388th FW at Hill just replaced their Block 40 jets with F-35's, this is an example of the first definition. The Block 40 jets, however didn't leave USAF inventory, they went to another unit and replaced older Block 30 jets. This is an example of the second definition.

The other example is the 48th FW which is replacing its F-15E's and C's with F-35's starting next year. In this case F-35's are replacing F-15's, but those F-15's will transfer to other units and soldier on for a while, most likely CONUS based (Mountain Home is my guess for the Mud Hens). Given one of the 48th's taskings is ZULU alert, that's got to be nasty news for Vladimir to have stealth 5th gen jets on his doorstep loaded with B61's :D

The next part involves some speculation because nothing's been publicly said. Reading between the lines of a number of leadership's statements it's pretty apparent that in the inventory replacement they won't replace F-15's with F-35's, mostly statements like even if we recapitalize the yearly buys with all F-35's we have a problem with all those old F-15 that won't make it to being replaced. They weren't specific, but what I'm guessing is that in a Hi-Lo force structure decision they don't want to threaten the PCA with congress by allowing Lo F-35's to replace an inferior aircraft.

Why this might not be as bad as some are saying here goes back to that colors of money thing. Right now while the F-35's operating costs are high, it's not necessarily a bad thing to hold to the planned buys of 48 funded and 12 unfunded and purchase F-15 EX's in the short term, because this is all 3010 money just used for purchasing. Where this starts to pay dividends is in the out years around 2026 and 2027 where USAF doesn't have to spend all of that 3400 money re-winging and upgrading elderly F-15C's to make it till the PCA shows up. That free's up a lot of money to fly F-35's when their O&M costs are less than the Eagles. Pay now or pay later...

Now having said that, the best option IMHO is to replace the Eagles with new Raptors, but that isn't happening. So the F-15EX is something if I were still in uniform that I could live with given the budget constraints and I think this is why the USAF leadership acquiesced to Mattis's direction to buy the F-15EX