F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5870
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 01:17

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???
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5870
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 01:21

Oh, before anybody get's excited. The F-15X could be in the forthcoming USAF Budget? Yet, it will never be funded....


"IMHO"
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 01:35

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 ....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5870
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 01:41

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....
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 01:48

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5870
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 01:54

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.....
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 02:25

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5870
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 02:35

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
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 14:09

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.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 23:37

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 00:30

They botched the KC-46 too
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1794
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 01:55

It would be difficult to "botch" if its off the shelf and in production for umpteen years
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5870
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 02:18

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..... :?
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 09:43

This F-15X is a waste of money. 80 fighters over 5 years? Flyaway cost barely any different from F-35?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 13:42

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...
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dat_boi, linkomart, madrat and 15 guests