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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 06:36

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....
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 07:30

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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 07:39

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.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 07:49

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

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 09:17

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 11:16

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.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 16:59

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 19:35

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.
"There I was. . ."
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 19:48

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Dec 2018, 22:54

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. :(
"There I was. . ."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 02:27

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.
Offline

Fox1

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 05:58

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.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 06:54

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.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 19:56

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.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 29 Dec 2018, 19:59, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3264
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 19:58

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.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests