F-15X: USAF Seems Interested
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
Corsair1963 wrote:Most of the ANG Bases have been pushing hard to get the F-35A instead of the new F-15EX. With Jacksonville finally succeeding....
Yet, I am more interested is see what happens with the two remaining F-15C's Squadrons operated by the USAF. Which, are based at Lakenheath (UK) and Kadena (Okinawa, Japan)....
Is there a MILCON angle here? I mean the MILCON requirements for the F-35 are, on a per aircraft basis
small dollar amounts but maybe for a community that matters a lot.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9838
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
marauder2048 wrote:Corsair1963 wrote:Most of the ANG Bases have been pushing hard to get the F-35A instead of the new F-15EX. With Jacksonville finally succeeding....
Yet, I am more interested is see what happens with the two remaining F-15C's Squadrons operated by the USAF. Which, are based at Lakenheath (UK) and Kadena (Okinawa, Japan)....
Is there a MILCON angle here? I mean the MILCON requirements for the F-35 are, on a per aircraft basis
small dollar amounts but maybe for a community that matters a lot.
Future US Defense Budgets are going to get much tighter. So, likely MILCON is trying to get ahead of them....
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3905
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
“Is there a MILCON angle here?“
Yep; we‘ve talked about it before. Base stand-up costs for F-35 are significant.
Yep; we‘ve talked about it before. Base stand-up costs for F-35 are significant.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
quicksilver wrote:“Is there a MILCON angle here?“
Yep; we‘ve talked about it before. Base stand-up costs for F-35 are significant.
I meant in a desirable-for-a-community angle. As in they'd welcome more local spending and
the F-35 by virtue of requiring MILCON makes it a more attractive proposition.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9838
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
marauder2048 wrote:quicksilver wrote:“Is there a MILCON angle here?“
Yep; we‘ve talked about it before. Base stand-up costs for F-35 are significant.
I meant in a desirable-for-a-community angle. As in they'd welcome more local spending and
the F-35 by virtue of requiring MILCON makes it a more attractive proposition.
Clearly, the F-35 would offer more money, jobs, and long term prospects.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5332
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
marauder2048 wrote:mixelflick wrote:I'll say...
As for the F-15EX, I'd rather see them either go all in and buy 200+, or not do it at all. A small handful of F-15EX's isn't going to help anyone. A large fleet, complete with enough to replace the Strike Eagle inventory? Possible, especially if hypersonics mature as expected..
Given that the Air Force has just elected to replace an F-15C unit with F-35s it's clear that the
cost/timeline tradeoffs for F-15C units converting are unclear..
"Unclear" is pretty darn diplomatic, wouldn't you say?
F-15EX was bought supposely on the grounds current F-15C units could convert much faster and cheaper vs. had they converted to F-35's. By replacing an F-15C unit with F-35's, USAF's actions don't match the PR its been spouting. Looks and sounds to me like F-35's will be ready earlier, have a lower unit cost and much greater capability vs. F-15EX.
I thought F-35's were slated to replace A-10 and F-16 units, not F-15C's ? Maybe the windfall of jets originally earmarked for Turkey has been re-directed?? I'd be torn about which jet my local ANG unit gets. On the one hand, I want to see a penultimate Eagle. OTOH, I know the F-35 is by far the more capable aircraft, the future etc..
Decisions, decisions..
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
or...simply there are more F-15C units than will be F-15EX units. With 200+ F-15Cs still in service and under 145 EX, clearly some won't get replaced by EXs.
Prejudices are showing...
Prejudices are showing...
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
weasel1962 wrote:or...simply there are more F-15C units than will be F-15EX units. With 200+ F-15Cs still in service and under 145 EX, clearly some won't get replaced by EXs.
Prejudices are showing...
Per the IDIQ contract, it's a squishy upper-bound for the F-15EX.
Either the economics are compelling for F-15C -> F-15EX conversion or they aren't.
It's not like MILCON costs are that different across the states.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9838
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
mixelflick wrote:
"Unclear" is pretty darn diplomatic, wouldn't you say?
F-15EX was bought supposely on the grounds current F-15C units could convert much faster and cheaper vs. had they converted to F-35's. By replacing an F-15C unit with F-35's, USAF's actions don't match the PR its been spouting. Looks and sounds to me like F-35's will be ready earlier, have a lower unit cost and much greater capability vs. F-15EX.
I thought F-35's were slated to replace A-10 and F-16 units, not F-15C's ? Maybe the windfall of jets originally earmarked for Turkey has been re-directed?? I'd be torn about which jet my local ANG unit gets. On the one hand, I want to see a penultimate Eagle. OTOH, I know the F-35 is by far the more capable aircraft, the future etc..
Decisions, decisions..
It will be interesting to see how many F-15C Squadrons are actually replaced by F-35A's not F-15EX's???
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
Yeah..Goldfein's legacy as CSAF is OSD/CAPE hijacking the AF budget and force structure.
He should have threatened to resign but he was coveting the CJCS position that he thought
was likely his by virtue of the rotation.
He should have threatened to resign but he was coveting the CJCS position that he thought
was likely his by virtue of the rotation.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5332
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
Corsair1963 wrote:mixelflick wrote:
"Unclear" is pretty darn diplomatic, wouldn't you say?
F-15EX was bought supposely on the grounds current F-15C units could convert much faster and cheaper vs. had they converted to F-35's. By replacing an F-15C unit with F-35's, USAF's actions don't match the PR its been spouting. Looks and sounds to me like F-35's will be ready earlier, have a lower unit cost and much greater capability vs. F-15EX.
I thought F-35's were slated to replace A-10 and F-16 units, not F-15C's ? Maybe the windfall of jets originally earmarked for Turkey has been re-directed?? I'd be torn about which jet my local ANG unit gets. On the one hand, I want to see a penultimate Eagle. OTOH, I know the F-35 is by far the more capable aircraft, the future etc..
Decisions, decisions..
It will be interesting to see how many F-15C Squadrons are actually replaced by F-35A's not F-15EX's???
Right!?
And where. Certainly politics plays into this - probably a LOT. However, also interesting will be to see where units slated to get F-35's go. For example, Barnes (currently flying F-15C's) is responsible for the protection of the entire Northeast cooridor. To my knowledge, there isn't a base north, east or west of here with jets capable of doing that. It's a BIG chunk of very busy airspace. Which jet can cover as much of that as possible, and defend best against hijacked airliners, Russian bombers and cruise missiles?
Right now, I'd say that jet is the F-35. But we still don't know everything about the F-15EX's capabilities. How capable is that bigger, newer radar? How long can it remain on station? How much more fuel efficient are the engines? Will a magazine of up to 12 or more air to air weapons matter vs. say, 6?
I'd love to be the guy deciding, but he's going to get flak whichever jet he chooses (or doesn't, as the case may be)...
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9838
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
Could this spell the end of the F-15EX Program before it really begins???
QUOTE:
New and old aircraft programs could get axed as top US Air Force general seeks ‘ruthless prioritization’ of capabilities
WASHINGTON — With stagnant budgets on the horizon, the U.S. Air Force is hurtling toward “the most difficult force structure decisions in generations” and must cancel programs and sacrifice some of its existing aircraft inventory to prepare for a potential fight against Russia or China, the service’s top general said Monday.
A future war with either country could entail combat losses on par with those of a major conflict like World War II, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown wrote in a paper titled “Accelerate Change or Lose,” which outlines his vision as the service’s new top uniformed leader. Brown became chief of staff of the Air Force on Aug. 6.
Although the Defense Department has focused on war with an advanced, near-peer nation since 2016, Brown raised concerns that the Air Force’s sense of urgency is not strong enough and warned of potential mission failure unless the service accelerates the pace of change.
A “ruthless prioritization” of the service’s requirements is in order, he said.
“We must reframe platform-centric debates to focus instead on capabilities to execute the mission relative to our adversaries,” he wrote. “Programs that once held promise, but are no longer affordable or will not deliver needed capabilities on competition-relevant timelines, must be divested or terminated. Cost, schedule, and performance metrics alone are no longer sufficient metrics of acquisition success.”
The Air Force must be responsive to the actions of its adversaries, pivoting when necessary to stay ahead and creating technologies that can be cost-effectively operated and maintained, Brown added.
“Capabilities must be conceived, developed, and fielded inside competitors’ fielding timelines — knowing we will need to adapt and adjust over time. Innovative ideas from our Airmen need viable sustainment pathways. If we are to beat our competitors in conflict, we must also beat them in development and fielding of capability,” he said.
It’s unclear what existing capabilities could be on the chopping block, but more details on the Air Force’s path forward are expected. During a Aug. 31 roundtable, Brown told reporters that the service is working on action orders associated with his strategic vision that will be unveiled at the Air Force Association’s conference during the week of Sept. 14.
Brown’s call for rapid change could pave the way for another bloody budget rollout when the Air Force’s plan for fiscal 2022 is revealed next year.
During its FY21 budget deliberations, service leaders alluded to “controversial changes” such as fleetwide divestments, but ultimately the Air Force proposed retiring handfuls of older platforms rather than entire aircraft types.
Congress has attempted to curtail some of those changes, putting strict limits on the amount of tankers and bombers permitted to be retired each year.
Brown acknowledged that if he’s to make radical changes to force structure, he will need to have tough conversations with other Air Force and Pentagon leaders, Congress, and industry to determine where risk can be taken.
“When we work in various silos, we’re all trying to make our particular program or platform as capable as we can be. But we can’t afford all of those,” he said. The difficulty is getting “the right set of full programs” and not “a number of broken programs” that “balance the checkbook at the expense of our capability.”
Brown’s priorities for the Air Force extend beyond changes to existing force structure and modernization plans. Like his predecessor, Gen. Dave Goldfein, Brown stressed the importance of the military’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept, as well as increased interoperability and data sharing with allies.
Brown also hinted that a restructure of the Air Force could be forthcoming, and that the creation of the Space Force provides an opportunity to review the roles and missions of his service.
“Sometimes the model we use in the deployed environment is different than the model we use at home,” he said. “You want to train like you’re going to fight. From that aspect, we’ve got to take a look at ourselves.”
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/08 ... abilities/
QUOTE:
New and old aircraft programs could get axed as top US Air Force general seeks ‘ruthless prioritization’ of capabilities
WASHINGTON — With stagnant budgets on the horizon, the U.S. Air Force is hurtling toward “the most difficult force structure decisions in generations” and must cancel programs and sacrifice some of its existing aircraft inventory to prepare for a potential fight against Russia or China, the service’s top general said Monday.
A future war with either country could entail combat losses on par with those of a major conflict like World War II, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown wrote in a paper titled “Accelerate Change or Lose,” which outlines his vision as the service’s new top uniformed leader. Brown became chief of staff of the Air Force on Aug. 6.
Although the Defense Department has focused on war with an advanced, near-peer nation since 2016, Brown raised concerns that the Air Force’s sense of urgency is not strong enough and warned of potential mission failure unless the service accelerates the pace of change.
A “ruthless prioritization” of the service’s requirements is in order, he said.
“We must reframe platform-centric debates to focus instead on capabilities to execute the mission relative to our adversaries,” he wrote. “Programs that once held promise, but are no longer affordable or will not deliver needed capabilities on competition-relevant timelines, must be divested or terminated. Cost, schedule, and performance metrics alone are no longer sufficient metrics of acquisition success.”
The Air Force must be responsive to the actions of its adversaries, pivoting when necessary to stay ahead and creating technologies that can be cost-effectively operated and maintained, Brown added.
“Capabilities must be conceived, developed, and fielded inside competitors’ fielding timelines — knowing we will need to adapt and adjust over time. Innovative ideas from our Airmen need viable sustainment pathways. If we are to beat our competitors in conflict, we must also beat them in development and fielding of capability,” he said.
It’s unclear what existing capabilities could be on the chopping block, but more details on the Air Force’s path forward are expected. During a Aug. 31 roundtable, Brown told reporters that the service is working on action orders associated with his strategic vision that will be unveiled at the Air Force Association’s conference during the week of Sept. 14.
Brown’s call for rapid change could pave the way for another bloody budget rollout when the Air Force’s plan for fiscal 2022 is revealed next year.
During its FY21 budget deliberations, service leaders alluded to “controversial changes” such as fleetwide divestments, but ultimately the Air Force proposed retiring handfuls of older platforms rather than entire aircraft types.
Congress has attempted to curtail some of those changes, putting strict limits on the amount of tankers and bombers permitted to be retired each year.
Brown acknowledged that if he’s to make radical changes to force structure, he will need to have tough conversations with other Air Force and Pentagon leaders, Congress, and industry to determine where risk can be taken.
“When we work in various silos, we’re all trying to make our particular program or platform as capable as we can be. But we can’t afford all of those,” he said. The difficulty is getting “the right set of full programs” and not “a number of broken programs” that “balance the checkbook at the expense of our capability.”
Brown’s priorities for the Air Force extend beyond changes to existing force structure and modernization plans. Like his predecessor, Gen. Dave Goldfein, Brown stressed the importance of the military’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept, as well as increased interoperability and data sharing with allies.
Brown also hinted that a restructure of the Air Force could be forthcoming, and that the creation of the Space Force provides an opportunity to review the roles and missions of his service.
“Sometimes the model we use in the deployed environment is different than the model we use at home,” he said. “You want to train like you’re going to fight. From that aspect, we’ve got to take a look at ourselves.”
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/08 ... abilities/
-
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
- Location: Australia
Looks like a practical rationalization of quite a few programs on the cards, I like the guy's focus on what's really needed and what will actually work.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
Looks good but never underestimate the power of the dark side. The Imperial Senate will not stand for this. Implementation easy it is not.
https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads ... g-2020.pdf
https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads ... g-2020.pdf
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests