F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

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

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.

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.

A lot of projections that came out right after the "reset" were overblown.

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...

https://taskandpurpose-com.cdn.ampproje ... kheed-f-35

Somebody should remind him the Monica lost.

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[/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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Nobody needs to divert anything. There is plenty of growth room in the production schedule for ramping up orders for ANY customer.