User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 3:07 pm

A price break offered by Boeing paid off, the Navy just ordered an additional 124 F-18s (66 F/A-18E/F fighters, 58 EA-18Gs Electronic attack).

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64D6LB20100514?type=politicsNews

I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard. The F-35s are going to take a while to get to the Guard, and only a handful of Guard squadrons are being considered for F-35 basing. This would be a more desirable solution for the Air Force than to continue to reallocate resources from the active duty Air Force to support the Air Guard, as is being currently being done;

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4075.html
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 4:16 pm

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard.

I think the Air Force should follow the Navy, negotiate a fixed price for a bulk buy of additional F-15's and F-16's, why introduce a new a/c into the mix when the existing a/c are still being produced, if the F-15 and F-16 line had been closed I would agree with you, but they are not, and in some quarters, the F-15 and F-16 are just as or even more capable than the F-18, upgrade the electronics and away you go.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 5:14 pm

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard. The F-35s are going to take a while to get to the Guard, and only a handful of Guard squadrons are being considered for F-35 basing. This would be a more desirable solution for the Air Force than to continue to reallocate resources from the active duty Air Force to support the Air Guard, as is being currently being done;

Good idea but the training and logistics ramp up is where you incur substantional costs.

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
I think the Air Force should follow the Navy, negotiate a fixed price for a bulk buy of additional F-15's and F-16's, why introduce a new a/c into the mix when the existing a/c are still being produced, if the F-15 and F-16 line had been closed I would agree with you, but they are not, and in some quarters, the F-15 and F-16 are just as or even more capable than the F-18, upgrade the electronics and away you go.

This the way to go, infrastructure already in place, just give them upgraded equipment. A KC-135 even though 50 years old does not have hardly systems left in it them when they came off the line thru 55 to 64.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 5:25 pm

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Glad it's happening but it's kind of a misleading headline.

Boeing "slashed" its prices by around 10% in return for the four-year contract.

In the business world, this is what's called a volume discount.

And the Navy really didn't order 124 more, the Navy is holding an offer to buy 124 planes but negotiations are still ongoing, and the 124 planes were already in DoD's plans so you really cant use the word "more".

In any case, I'm glad it's happening. I was wondering if the Growler fleet would get built out or not, and it looks like it will be. And the deal is a good one for the taxpayers, unlike the F22 and F35 with their >100% cost overruns.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 6:24 pm

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
I think the Air Force should consider what the Air National Guard has been asking for, an order for F/A-18s to replace the oldest F-16s and F-15s in the Air Guard.

Don't forgert the F/A-18E/F does not have the air superiority capability of the F-15, nor the manuverability or speed of the F-16 or F-15.

But if the USAF were to buy some EA-18G/Hs that would make sense to put them into ANG units.

It is a smart move by Boeing and sure to get the attention of Congress as they look at the LM cost overruns of the F-35.
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 9:23 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):

Don't forgert the F/A-18E/F does not have the air superiority capability of the F-15, nor the manuverability or speed of the F-16 or F-15.

Some of the ANG units can go with the F-35, and the rest FA/18E/Fs.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 9:45 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):

Some of the ANG units can go with the F-35, and the rest FA/18E/Fs.

Why would ANG units that already have F-16s be transitioned to F-18s?

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
This the way to go, infrastructure already in place, just give them upgraded equipment.

  
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 17, 2010 11:47 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Don't forgert the F/A-18E/F does not have the air superiority capability of the F-15, nor the manuverability or speed of the F-16 or F-15.

AESA powered Super Hornets with the latest AMRAAM's is every bit as potent for the ANG as any of their elder F-15's. I wouldn't mind seeing some new F-16's off of LM's line going to the USAF for a change, but that order would likely never go through simply because LM is trying to sell them F-35A's instead.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 18, 2010 5:08 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
It is a smart move by Boeing and sure to get the attention of Congress as they look at the LM cost overruns of the F-35.

Can't help but think that the Super Hornet MYP deal is a quid pro quo to stop Boeing from pestering the DoD with incessant offers of the Silent Eagle.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 18, 2010 8:49 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
And the Navy really didn't order 124 more, the Navy is holding an offer to buy 124 planes but negotiations are still ongoing, and the 124 planes were already in DoD's plans so you really cant use the word "more".

Thank you for some perspective.

At roughly $43 million per plane (and the Growlers probably are more expensive than run of the mill fighters anyway), this is a reminder of what sanity in acquisition looks like. Without these kinds of deals, the exotic stuff we can leverage as our own kind of asymmetric advantage (F-22) becomes unaffordable.

And inhibiting conflict by making adversaries think twice is still a lot cheaper in the long run than the cost of some more F-22s. I'm an unabashed admirer of the F-16, but the current strategy of pairing F-22s with F-15s is rather smart.

We do need *something* like the F-35 in the long run, but not at the wrong price.

Was it so unworkable to further pursue development of the Boeing entrant?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 18, 2010 9:39 am

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
Was it so unworkable to further pursue development of the Boeing entrant?

I believe the Boeing X-32 had a number of major design issues that made it inferior to the Lockheed X-35. Namely, a difficult to manufacture wing, very poor V/STOL performance (the major deal breaker), and poor transition abilities. The Pentagon decided that the X-35 represented a more mature platform that showed better capabilities.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 18, 2010 10:30 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
Can't help but think that the Super Hornet MYP deal is a quid pro quo to stop Boeing from pestering the DoD with incessant offers of the Silent Eagle.

So what are they going to do about the lack of F-15's and F-16's in the near future, you cannot believe that they will order the F-35 at whatever price LM decides to charge? The F-35 will go the way of the F-22, too expensive to afford, mathematics will become its best weapon as its smaller numbers will somehow force a re-invention of engagement and deployment methods.
The OEM's in the US are facing down the barrel of a gun, the DOD and Air Force want all the bells and whistles they can get, the OEM wants sustainment financial programs, and someone is finally looking at cost. If existing frames are not purchased to make up for the shortfall in a/c because of inflated prices, the US will have to turn to foreign designs when the F-15, F-16 and F-18 go out of production, is there anything else on the drawing board?

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
this is a reminder of what sanity in acquisition looks like.

Naw the process then was still flawed, difference now is that the amount of money compared to current prices seem low, but adjusted for inflation based on the time, it was bad, maybe not as bad but bad.
Google the introduction of the F-18 into Navy service it had a lot of problems some which required political influence to get over the hump, it biggest failing - short legs - was finally addressed more than 10 years into service, imagine that, for a ship borne a/c.
 
keesje
Posts: 8604
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 18, 2010 11:48 am

I think Boeing in recent years delivered F18s at spec, price & schedule.

It's the same as at the office.

You have those guys/girls that don't argue but just do the job, a bit faster then you asked for.

It works.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 18, 2010 3:19 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
It is a smart move by Boeing and sure to get the attention of Congress as they look at the LM cost overruns of the F-35.

Can't help but think that the Super Hornet MYP deal is a quid pro quo to stop Boeing from pestering the DoD with incessant offers of the Silent Eagle.
Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
So what are they going to do about the lack of F-15's and F-16's in the near future, you cannot believe that they will order the F-35 at whatever price LM decides to charge? The F-35 will go the way of the F-22, too expensive to afford, mathematics will become its best weapon as its smaller numbers will somehow force a re-invention of engagement and deployment methods.

It is not a quid pro quo if Boeing made the price offer for the F/A/EA-18E/F/G. They just want to continue the production line. Nothing wrong with that, it is sort of like the deal LM made with the RAAF last year for their first 24 F-35As.

As far as the F-15SE and F/A-18E/F goes, they are both Gen. 4.5 fighters, equil to or better than most of the current and near to mid future fighters, except the F-22A. There is not much of a need for the Gen. 5 fighters as not to many can afford them, and I question if the F-35A/B/C is truely a Gen. 5 fighter anyway. I doubt it can take on a good Gen. 4 or 4.5 fighter in the hands of a good pilot anyway. These include the F-15, F-16, Typhoon, and several others from Sweden or Russia, it may even have trouble with the F-4s still flying around the world.

Simply because the F-35 is a stealth fighter does not make it a Gen. 5 fighter.

Quoting keesje (Reply 12):
I think Boeing in recent years delivered F18s at spec, price & schedule.

Correct, just ask the RAAF and USN.
 
kingairta
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:24 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 1:36 pm

X32 couldn't do super sonic flight without removing pieces from the plane used for VTOL and it had an issue with hot air injestion while in hover inducing compressor stalls.

The X35 was able to do VTOL to super sonic flight without maintenance and with the ducted fan it eliminated the hot air injestion because most of the thrust is cold air from above the plane rather then the exhaust.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 2:42 pm

Quoting KingairTA (Reply 14):
Boeing "slashed" its prices by around 10% in return for the four-year contract.

In the business world, this is what's called a volume discount.



To expand on the volume discount concept:
The four year contract allow Boeing to go to it's supplier and get a discount which is passed along to the Navy.
With the four year contract a supplier can go to a bank and get the necessary lower interest loans for any up-front tooling, raw materials etc . . .

Boeing and suppliers can also incorporate efficiency improvements that may not be approved by the bean counters if only a year to year buy is expected.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 4:42 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 15):
To expand on the volume discount concept:
The four year contract allow Boeing to go to it's supplier and get a discount which is passed along to the Navy.
With the four year contract a supplier can go to a bank and get the necessary lower interest loans for any up-front tooling, raw materials etc . . .

Boeing and suppliers can also incorporate efficiency improvements that may not be approved by the bean counters if only a year to year buy is expected.

It also should be known that the Navy is running out of F-18C's, they are quickly approaching the time when all of them will not be able to go the boat due they are trapped out and the center barrel replacement is not cost effective and is not adding many hours or traps to the airframes to make it worth the cost and time to do each F-18C and or F-18A+. Do not know if the USMC F-18C's are in the same boat (pardon the pun) since they don't go to the CV's as much.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 4:52 pm

Just to put out there as a thought, if the ANG goes the F-18SH route would it be a waste of material if they have all the capability to land on a CV and never use it? Will DOD make it possible for the USN to take newer airframes from the guard and give them trapped out birds for long runway use only? Maybe ANG will deploy for a cruise once in a while just for the beuatiful joint duty of it.
" And now for my point"
Buying a Super Hornet IMHO for land use only is a waste of money, some countries have bought the SH but do not own CV's.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 5:00 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 17):
Buying a Super Hornet IMHO for land use only is a waste of money, some countries have bought the SH but do not own CV's.

The two nation comes to mind is Canada and Australia. These nations have vast territories without proper landing facilities (not unlike the ocean) so the additional engine would come in handy. Now, why an F-18 instead of an F-15? I would not venture to guess.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 5:28 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18):
Now, why an F-18 instead of an F-15? I would not venture to guess.

1. Not offered for sale
2. Too expensive
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 6:14 pm

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More 

But wait there's more!

If Boeing is smart, order another 124 within the next hour and get a additional baker's dozen for free, just pay shipping and handling.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 6:44 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 17):
Maybe ANG will deploy for a cruise once in a while just for the beuatiful joint duty of it.

During the time the ANG units would need to spin up for that training, would the USN make another CVN available for training only?

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 20):
If Boeing is smart, order another 124 within the next hour and get a additional baker's dozen for free, just pay shipping and handling.

Or we can DOUBLE the order, just pay shipping and handling.

              

All this time I thought Billy Mays was dead.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 6:57 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
During the time the ANG units would need to spin up for that training, would the USN make another CVN available for training only?

Make the Enterprise or the Kitty Hawk training ships, the the oil spill in the gulf with no commerical fishing and a future crack down on drilling we should use that body of water for something.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 7:22 pm

Now, what is the drawback of a 4 year contract as opposed to buying year to year?

If the Navy decides not to order the full 124 planes, there will be penalty involved.

If you return those planes . . . you pay the shipping charge and re-stocking fee.   
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Wed May 19, 2010 9:51 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 23):
If you return those planes . . . you pay the shipping charge and re-stocking fee.

All orders are FOB St. Louis Missouri. They come with a full tank of gas and guns loaded so please return them full, and with ejection seats unused or recharged.

As for the restocking fee, 15% of $43 Million is $6.45 Million. Please have your credit card available when you call.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Thu May 20, 2010 4:28 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 24):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 23):
If you return those planes . . . you pay the shipping charge and re-stocking fee.

All orders are FOB St. Louis Missouri. They come with a full tank of gas and guns loaded so please return them full, and with ejection seats unused or recharged.

As for the restocking fee, 15% of $43 Million is $6.45 Million. Please have your credit card available when you call.

Would you give the US Government another credit card?

              
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 12:48 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
So what are they going to do about the lack of F-15's and F-16's in the near future

Apparently, they had decided to settle for the Super Hornet in the meantime.

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
you cannot believe that they will order the F-35 at whatever price LM decides to charge?

I don't think the Government is that helpless. An RFI to a theoretical partnership between, say, NG and Eurofighter GmBH could work wonders - witness the VH-X and KC-X tenders. However, LM's lobbyists would exert their utmost to deny funding for any other contender --- while Boeing could be relied upon to be there again with their Silent Eagle, thus completing the cycle for another endless epic. Which then begs the question - "What happened to the security imperative?"

Quoting par13del (Reply 19):
1. Not offered for sale

That kind of conflicts with this.....

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
I think the Air Force should follow the Navy, negotiate a fixed price for a bulk buy of additional F-15's and F-16's, why introduce a new a/c into the mix when the existing a/c are still being produced, if the F-15 and F-16 line had been closed I would agree with you, but they are not,

Nonetheless, I doubt Boeing was just kidding when it offered the USAF the Super Eagle earlier, nor that it had nothing else better to do when it unveiled the Silent Eagle --- assertion it was just for foreign sales notwithstanding.

Quoting par13del (Reply 19):
2. Too expensive

The $100M price quoted for the Silent Eagle given its touted abilities compares well with that of the F/A-18EF (provided they could peg it at that, and deliver on spec and schedule) and a bargain when viewed against the JSF. The USAF could then make up the shortfall with Super Vipers --- then pass on their legacy Eagles and Falcons to the ANG.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 10:33 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
So what are they going to do about the lack of F-15's and F-16's in the near future

Apparently, they had decided to settle for the Super Hornet in the meantime.

The Navy has ordered F-18's, the US Air Force who are the users of the F-15 and F-15 have not yet addressed their shortage due to lower numbers of F-22's, F-15 needing earlier retirement and possible a lower number of F-35's due to cost.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
Quoting par13del (Reply 19):
1. Not offered for sale

The above response was to the question in post 18 below

[quote=bikerthai,reply=18]The two nation comes to mind is Canada and Australia.

When Canada and Australia first purchased Hornet's the F-15 was and still is more expensive, the current purchase for Australia is for the Super Hornet, they like Canada already operate C models.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
That kind of conflicts with this.....

No conflict, the post were addressing different situations with different nations, the US Air Force getting additional F-15 and F-16 a/c make sense versus getting new F-18's, a/c which they do not now operate and which is probably a decrease in capabilities.
Canada and Australia do not have F-15's so the F-18's for them makes sense.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 10:34 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
The $100M price quoted for the Silent Eagle given its touted abilities compares well with that of the F/A-18EF (provided they could peg it at that, and deliver on spec and schedule) and a bargain when viewed against the JSF. The USAF could then make up the shortfall with Super Vipers --- then pass on their legacy Eagles and Falcons to the ANG.

$100M for the F-15SE? I thought it was about $70M-$75M each.

But everyday I am becoming less impressed with the F-35 JSF, as I see it as less capable than the F-15s F-16s, and F/A-18E/Fs we have today. It is bad when we believe that Gen. 4 and 4.5 fighters are more capable than a Gen. 5 fighter.

But why can't we just buy new build Super Vipers and Silent Eagles for both active USAF squadrons and ANG squadrons?

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
So what are they going to do about the lack of F-15's and F-16's in the near future

Apparently, they had decided to settle for the Super Hornet in the meantime.

Only the USN has, the USAF is not considering the SH, at least not right now. The lack of fighters in the near future comes down to one thing, poor USAF Leadership, or lack of leadership. You not only see that in the fighter force, but also in the bomber, reccee, helio, and tanker forces.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 12:05 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
It is bad when we believe that Gen. 4 and 4.5 fighters are more capable than a Gen. 5 fighter.

Question would be what is a Gen.5 fighter, what we have seen is that definitions are redefined based on financial issues, I would not be shocked if the F-35 redefines what class a/c it is.
As for what we believe, we know it is not faster than the a/c it will replace, it is not more manuverable than a/c it will replace, may not have as much range or payload as a/c it will replace, it is a Gen.5 fighter so we believe and are assured by the designers that it will be better than any lesser gen fighter.
Gotta believe the designer, after all, they are the experts.  
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 12:36 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
But why can't we just buy new build Super Vipers and Silent Eagles for both active USAF squadrons and ANG squadrons?

For the same reason we can't just re-engine KC-135s to get another decade or two out of them: not enough Corporate Welfare will be created.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 1:44 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
not enough Corporate Welfare will be created.

Corporate welfare will always be there. It's a question of who will get it. (F15 = Boeing, F35/F16 LM)

Some corporate welfare provides wepons for our defense while other make food cheaper for our dining room table. Doesn't mean that it's right, it's just is.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 2:28 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
US Air Force who are the users of the F-15 and F-15 have not yet addressed their shortage due to lower numbers of F-22's, F-15 needing earlier retirement and possible a lower number of F-35's due to cost.

Well, the USAF did this to themselves, just like retiring KC-135Es with still some 15,000 hours and 20 years of service left in them, they have retired too many F-15s and F-16s too fast. No they are crying they don't have enough fighters or tankers.

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
It is bad when we believe that Gen. 4 and 4.5 fighters are more capable than a Gen. 5 fighter.

Question would be what is a Gen.5 fighter, what we have seen is that definitions are redefined based on financial issues, I would not be shocked if the F-35 redefines what class a/c it is.
As for what we believe, we know it is not faster than the a/c it will replace, it is not more manuverable than a/c it will replace, may not have as much range or payload as a/c it will replace, it is a Gen.5 fighter so we believe and are assured by the designers that it will be better than any lesser gen fighter.
Gotta believe the designer, after all, they are the experts.

Right now there is only one true Gen. 5 fighter, the F-22A. It is faster, more unrefueled range, and more manuverable than the F-15C. All the F-35A/B/C has going for it is stealth. It is not faster, more range or more manuverable than the F-16C. But, it is called a Gen. 5 fighter by the USAF Leadership. In reality, it is only slightly better than the Gen. 1 F-117A.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
But why can't we just buy new build Super Vipers and Silent Eagles for both active USAF squadrons and ANG squadrons?


For the same reason we can't just re-engine KC-135s to get another decade or two out of them: not enough Corporate Welfare will be created.

More or less correct, but I think it is more of "terminal shiny new airplane disease".
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 4:00 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
No conflict, the post were addressing different situations with different nations, the US Air Force getting additional F-15 and F-16 a/c make sense versus getting new F-18's
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Only the USN has, the USAF is not considering the SH, at least not right now.

I stand corrected.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
$100M for the F-15SE? I thought it was about $70M-$75M each.

That was what they initially came out with.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-costs-for-100-million-f-15se.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ent-coming-in-under-the-radar.html

.....although they back-pedalled a bit later.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...eing-military-president-chris.html

For all we know, that might increase once the commitments are in.         
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 4:35 pm

What Boeing should do is to make a couple development F-15 Silent Eagles and have them out there for folks to test fly and see what they can do, if it remains on paper LM and other's who push the "newest is best" mantra will only have to defeat the a/c on paper, what's easier than that, obviously LM's PR department is much better than Boeing's so.........
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 7:05 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
We do need *something* like the F-35 in the long run,

A one plane fits all idea? That is terrible. It hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now. Asking one plane to do that many roles is silly. Build a great fighter, and see what else you can make it do. Then build yourself a great attack plane if you need that. If the same plane can work for both the USAF and Navy, all the better, but for God's sake don't force them to take a subpar plane.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
BladeLWS
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 9:21 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):

A one plane fits all idea? That is terrible. It hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now. Asking one plane to do that many roles is silly. Build a great fighter, and see what else you can make it do. Then build yourself a great attack plane if you need that. If the same plane can work for both the USAF and Navy, all the better, but for God's sake don't force them to take a subpar plane.

um, F-4 Phantom?
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 9:36 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
Was it so unworkable to further pursue development of the Boeing entrant?

I believe the Boeing X-32 had a number of major design issues that made it inferior to the Lockheed X-35. Namely, a difficult to manufacture wing, very poor V/STOL performance (the major deal breaker), and poor transition abilities. The Pentagon decided that the X-35 represented a more mature platform that showed better capabilities.

Thank you for the explanation! So basically the extra lift fan paid off for Lockheed. I can't see how the normal version would be greatly penalized by its space requirements.

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
Naw the process then was still flawed, difference now is that the amount of money compared to current prices seem low, but adjusted for inflation based on the time, it was bad, maybe not as bad but bad.
Google the introduction of the F-18 into Navy service it had a lot of problems some which required political influence to get over the hump, it biggest failing - short legs - was finally addressed more than 10 years into service, imagine that, for a ship borne a/c.

Well, I meant the present, expedient solution of buying a cost effective, proven plane. Flawed is the name of the game, I guess, but problems still come in degrees of severity. See the C-17... but the cash pile is not endless, and frugality is actually a boon that can focus minds when not taken to extremes.

Quoting keesje (Reply 12):
It's the same as at the office.

You have those guys/girls that don't argue but just do the job, a bit faster then you asked for.

It works.

  

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
But everyday I am becoming less impressed with the F-35 JSF, as I see it as less capable than the F-15s F-16s, and F/A-18E/Fs we have today. It is bad when we believe that Gen. 4 and 4.5 fighters are more capable than a Gen. 5 fighter.

But why can't we just buy new build Super Vipers and Silent Eagles for both active USAF squadrons and ANG squadrons?

I agree up to a point. The F-35 is supposed to have more capable systems, and its stealth is certainly not a bad thing. We really shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. The entire concept is inane. Like going for a one engine... why create a single point of failure of such magnitude.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
We do need *something* like the F-35 in the long run,

A one plane fits all idea? That is terrible. It hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now

Agree. I expressed myself imprecisely. Simply the idea that a fighter should also perform the ground attack role of an A-10 is idiotic (and I'm not just throwing around invective).
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Fri May 21, 2010 9:51 pm

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 36):
um, F-4 Phantom?

Had you bothered to read the rest of my post...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Build a great fighter, and see what else you can make it do.

  
and

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
If the same plane can work for both the USAF and Navy, all the better, but for God's sake don't force them to take a subpar plane.

   Both of those things are exactly what happened to the F-4, but perhaps in the opposite order. Either way, the F-4 was always a fighter first and adapted to other roles.

I didn't say that one plane could not fill several roles, or wouldn't work for more than one branch. But designing a plane to do specifically that is a fool's errand. Exhibit A: The F-111.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 37):
and its stealth is certainly not a bad thing.

Well, the Air Force has stealth attack planes. And then they got a stealth fighter, which they cut short. And the Navy had their own stealth attack plane, which they cancelled, so I don't have much sympathy for them.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Sat May 22, 2010 12:16 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):

But everyday I am becoming less impressed with the F-35 JSF, as I see it as less capable than the F-15s F-16s, and F/A-18E/Fs we have today. It is bad when we believe that Gen. 4 and 4.5 fighters are more capable than a Gen. 5 fighter.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
All the F-35A/B/C has going for it is stealth. It is not faster, more range or more manuverable than the F-16C. But, it is called a Gen. 5 fighter by the USAF Leadership. In reality, it is only slightly better than the Gen. 1 F-117A.

Careful there, Boom! I'm no defender of the F-35 JSF, and you can beat it on the head with many different things, e.g. out-of-control price, delays, etc, but careful when it comes to technical capability. It is as agile as an F-16 (which is a very agile plane) with a superior radar, EW suites and sensors, which makes its agility even more lethal and potent in its maneuverable envelope. Sure, on paper its top speed is nothing to boast about, but it can maintain top speed at much greater length of time, while the F-teens can only maintain its theoretical top speed is short burst before running out of fuel. As of now, all the public reports out of flight tests indicate that the F-35 is meeting or exceeding all KPP. And important to remember, the F-35 JSF is supposed to replace the F16 and F18 legacy Hornet, not the F15 and/or F18 E/F. Its cost-benefit ratio may be terrible, but when it comes to pure technical performance the F35 may turn out a fantastic plane in its own right. LM has a good track record of delivering very capable fighter jets.

[Edited 2010-05-21 17:48:05]
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Sat May 22, 2010 12:44 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 34):
What Boeing should do is to make a couple development F-15 Silent Eagles and have them out there for folks to test fly and see what they can do,

Boeing doesn't appear to be in too much of a hurry now to accomplish that. They actually seem headed for the minimum change/minimum risk direction.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-f-15-silent-eagle-corrected.html

Quote:
"CORRECTION: Boeing says the F-15SE flight test aircraft was never intended to have canted tails, nor has the production configuration been settled. The flight test programme will evaluate the conformal weapons bay, but not the radar absorbent materials.

Boeing has eliminated the distinctive canted tails from the early prototype and production configuration of the proposed stealthy Silent Eagle version of the F-15.

[.....]

The canted tail design, highlighted during Boeing's F-15SE unveiling last March in St Louis, Missouri has been abandoned until later stages of the programme, he says."


At this pace, Boeing might discover that the JSF has finally sorted itself out, and the Silent Eagle may yet find itself without a market.   
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Sun May 23, 2010 2:49 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 40):
At this pace, Boeing might discover that the JSF has finally sorted itself out, and the Silent Eagle may yet find itself without a market.

Ditto. Just a guess, I think the Silent Eagle might be forever Silent. That means it will NEVER get off the ppt presentation and brochure pamphlet. A dead end, non-starter!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Sun May 23, 2010 10:46 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 34):
What Boeing should do is to make a couple development F-15 Silent Eagles and have them out there for folks to test fly and see what they can do, if it remains on paper LM and other's who push the "newest is best" mantra will only have to defeat the a/c on paper, what's easier than that, obviously LM's PR department is much better than Boeing's so.........

That is what they should do, but in reality, they (Boeing) won't do that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 9):
We do need *something* like the F-35 in the long run,

A one plane fits all idea? That is terrible. It hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now. Asking one plane to do that many roles is silly. Build a great fighter, and see what else you can make it do. Then build yourself a great attack plane if you need that. If the same plane can work for both the USAF and Navy, all the better, but for God's sake don't force them to take a subpar plane.
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 36):
um, F-4 Phantom?

The F-4 started out as a USN fleet defense fighter/interceptor. It was only later the USAF developed it into an attack/bomber airplane while keeping it's fighter qualities. Later the USAF developed a gun package pod for use on the F-4C/D, and later a built in gun for the F-4E. The USN later followed the USAF's lead.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 37):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
But everyday I am becoming less impressed with the F-35 JSF, as I see it as less capable than the F-15s F-16s, and F/A-18E/Fs we have today. It is bad when we believe that Gen. 4 and 4.5 fighters are more capable than a Gen. 5 fighter.

But why can't we just buy new build Super Vipers and Silent Eagles for both active USAF squadrons and ANG squadrons?

I agree up to a point. The F-35 is supposed to have more capable systems, and its stealth is certainly not a bad thing. We really shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. The entire concept is inane. Like going for a one engine... why create a single point of failure of such magnitude.

The single engine does not bother me as much as the anemic offensive capabilities do. The F-16 has survived on a single engine for years, including in combat operations. Can the F-35 offensive systems be developed or improved? Yes, but at what costs, the F-35's sticker price is already north of $120M each.

Quoting Beta (Reply 39):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):

But everyday I am becoming less impressed with the F-35 JSF, as I see it as less capable than the F-15s F-16s, and F/A-18E/Fs we have today. It is bad when we believe that Gen. 4 and 4.5 fighters are more capable than a Gen. 5 fighter.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
All the F-35A/B/C has going for it is stealth. It is not faster, more range or more manuverable than the F-16C. But, it is called a Gen. 5 fighter by the USAF Leadership. In reality, it is only slightly better than the Gen. 1 F-117A.

Careful there, Boom! I'm no defender of the F-35 JSF, and you can beat it on the head with many different things, e.g. out-of-control price, delays, etc, but careful when it comes to technical capability. It is as agile as an F-16 (which is a very agile plane) with a superior radar, EW suites and sensors, which makes its agility even more lethal and potent in its maneuverable envelope. Sure, on paper its top speed is nothing to boast about, but it can maintain top speed at much greater length of time, while the F-teens can only maintain its theoretical top speed is short burst before running out of fuel. As of now, all the public reports out of flight tests indicate that the F-35 is meeting or exceeding all KPP. And important to remember, the F-35 JSF is supposed to replace the F16 and F18 legacy Hornet, not the F15 and/or F18 E/F. Its cost-benefit ratio may be terrible, but when it comes to pure technical performance the F35 may turn out a fantastic plane in its own right. LM has a good track record of delivering very capable fighter jets.

The radar and other systems can be put into other fighters. Don't get me wrong, stealth is very important, but it is more defensive than offensive, and it does not guaruntee it will not get shot down. Look at how the Serbs shot down a F-117, with a barage of missiles, even though they could not 'see' in on radar. I have no doubt the F-35 could become a great fighter, but it will not be one, at least for the initial blocks. It needs much more money thrown at it. I still question the range it has. Could the F-35 accomplish the Israeli F-16 mission that took out the Iraqi nuke facility back in 1982? I just don't see it being able to do that.

Quoting Beta (Reply 41):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 40):
At this pace, Boeing might discover that the JSF has finally sorted itself out, and the Silent Eagle may yet find itself without a market.

Ditto. Just a guess, I think the Silent Eagle might be forever Silent. That means it will NEVER get off the ppt presentation and brochure pamphlet. A dead end, non-starter!

Never say never.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 24, 2010 1:51 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
A one plane fits all idea? That is terrible. It hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now.
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 36):
um, F-4 Phantom?

The F-4 was a lousy multi-role fighter.

Frankly, the one that has been the most successful was the F-15. Not so much the air superiority variants (A/B/C/D), but the F-15E, which is capable of all of the air superiority duties, and is an excellent bomb truck. The F-15E might not be as good at being a bomber as the aircraft it succeeded, but it did pretty well, and is even better in the air superiority role than the A/B/C/D variants, primarily due to updated avionics and engines. And actually, the F-15E (on paper) is superior to the F-111 in almost every aspect other than range.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 24, 2010 3:38 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 43):
Quoting Beta (Reply 41):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 40):
At this pace, Boeing might discover that the JSF has finally sorted itself out, and the Silent Eagle may yet find itself without a market.

Ditto. Just a guess, I think the Silent Eagle might be forever Silent. That means it will NEVER get off the ppt presentation and brochure pamphlet. A dead end, non-starter!

Never say never.



Specially if the SE is marketed to those countries who may not want, need or be allowed to have the F35.

Still if the US Air Force is willing to buy a few, the per unit cost would come down for everyone, making the SE a little more attractive.

We need a similie for STEALTH. Something that fades like a Klingon Warbird.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 24, 2010 4:19 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 43):
Frankly, the one that has been the most successful was the F-15.

Exactly. Sit down, build the best fighter in the world and then see what else it can do. Scrap that lemon known as the JSF, restart the F-22, develop the FB-22, and design an updated A-10. As far as the Navy goes, replace the Super Hornet starting in a decade or so with a combination of a new air superiority fighter (maybe an FN-22, or maybe not) and a new attack aircraft (like the A-12).
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Mon May 24, 2010 5:15 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
replace the Super Hornet starting in a decade or so with a combination of a new air superiority fighter

If they wait too long, then the next plane would be a UAV. Perhaps not as an air superiority fighter but definitely a strike UAV.

bikerthai.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 25, 2010 12:02 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 46):
If they wait too long, then the next plane would be a UAV. Perhaps not as an air superiority fighter but definitely a strike UAV.

Yes, a UAV could do the attack mission, as some are doing it now, I just don't see an air superiority UAV for now, the technology just isn't there. So, the next fighter (beyond the F-35) will have a pilot.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 25, 2010 2:08 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 46):
If they wait too long, then the next plane would be a UAV.

Boeing came out with a couple of concepts, and I think they said that they were "pilot optional."
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
kingairta
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:24 pm

RE: Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More

Tue May 25, 2010 2:09 pm

The 117 was shot down because of idiotic strategy. They were confined to a very narrow corridor and the bad guys found out and were able to zero in on their target. Not a failure of stealth.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tugger and 7 guests