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
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5381
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 23:53

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:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 00:15

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 03:09

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/
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8389
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 03:19

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

wolfpak

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 03:29

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.”
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 03:36

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"........... :?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 04:50

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
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1656
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 07:48

In non-political news... getting 6 more IRST Blk IIs for the F-15C.

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 08:02

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.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1085
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 15:15

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.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2629
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 16:14

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.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2629
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 16:19

“Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.”

These are not ‘coat hangers’ anymore.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3361
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 16:24

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..
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8389
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 18:08

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.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 06 Mar 2019, 19:49, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 19:42

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.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], swiss and 8 guests