JayinKitsap
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue May 21, 2019 7:18 pm

The foreign sales of the F-35, those are in addition to the DOD budget birds, correct? I would think there is 1-2 dozen added that way per year. The big thing is to get all the allied fleets modernized, their planes will be located close to the action also. To me it makes sense to buy 15-20 F-15EX per year for a while, it is over a decade before the production will come close to satisfying current demand, much less any added squadrons.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue May 21, 2019 10:08 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Pretty clear that if budget is an issue the F-15EX loses to the F-35 but until that point it looks like it is full steam ahead on acquiring the EX.


Looks that way:

From Defense Daily:

The [House Appropriations] committee is approving the Air Force’s request for new Boeing [BA]-made F-15s because it views the program as the fastest and most cost-effective way to recapitalize the service’s aging F-15C/D fleet, which are stationed in Air National Guard units around the country. “The Committee further finds that considerations of parts commonality, low conversion cost, and operator familiarity make the F-15EX procurement a sensible if regrettably necessary investment,” the report said."

bt


Some interesting wording in the link. As discussed over the life of this thread the F-15EX acquisition is going ahead because of the low cost for the transition from the C to EX.

texl1649 wrote:
Is there a thumbnail reason why if USMC procurement is temporarily falling USAF procurement can’t expand for the F-35?

The number of jets acquired isn’t the issue. The USAF asked for 48 jets this submission, as per the F-35 SAR, and also requested an additional twelve in the unfunded priorities list which will be funded.

The USMC reduced their order because they changed their mind and will now retire the classic Hornet before the AV-8B. That decision saw an increase in USMC F-35C orders but less F-35B orders. Congress have, as with the USAF, added twelve F-35Bs to the order so the USMC wins both ways.

LM can deliver additional jets if the USAF requested them, the issue is likely to be the training pipeline that prevents those ordered jets being used. As per the Heritage report I posted in the F-35 thread the other day the USAF is already inflating the per hour cost of the F-35A because they are overstaffing the maintenance units in an attempt to rapidly train up additional staff on the jet for new squadrons. They can get around this by spending more money but that is where the F-15EX is an easy sell, it takes the respective units down for less time to transition while using a lot of the same equipment for the new aircraft.

par13del wrote:
It would probably require an Accounting RFP to adjust the line cost for the different versions of the jet, cost millions to have vendors review and subsequently adjust their schedules to produce parts for the different version on a different timeline, bearing in mind that figures on production of the various versions are made in stone and are not adjustable on a whim and fancy. By the time all of that is done, the USMC / Navy would probably be ready to resume normal production, so other than the cost to the accountants and lawyer, it probably a moot point.

Not really. These aircraft haven’t been ordered yet so no parts have been built. It would only become difficult if they wanted to change the models after the contract has been signed. Even then, there are plenty of other nations who would step up and grab those airframes anyway.

JayinKitsap wrote:
The foreign sales of the F-35, those are in addition to the DOD budget birds, correct? I would think there is 1-2 dozen added that way per year.

Yes. Each of the partner nations order their aircraft separately to the US. The FMS partners order via the US but they are clearly indicated as FMS orders and are separate to US orders. The partner and FMS customers are participating in a bulk buy, acquiring over a three year period to reduce the price while the US at this point is prevented from participating in the first bulk buy until the jet passes OT&E.

JayinKitsap wrote:
The big thing is to get all the allied fleets modernized, their planes will be located close to the action also. To me it makes sense to buy 15-20 F-15EX per year for a while, it is over a decade before the production will come close to satisfying current demand, much less any added squadrons.

There is plenty of capability to increase F-35s per year, the issue is the funds required to make that happen, in the case of infrastructure, maintenance staff and training, pilot training and conversion etc, make that a more costly exercise.

The plan for the EX is 84 aircraft in five years and from the article I quoted earlier in the thread an expectation the USAF will get approx 144 over a decade. I expect they will all go directly to ANG units and a few ANG squadrons will remain flying the best C/D aircraft left into the early 2030s.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue May 21, 2019 10:45 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
The foreign sales of the F-35, those are in addition to the DOD budget birds, correct? I would think there is 1-2 dozen added that way per year. The big thing is to get all the allied fleets modernized, their planes will be located close to the action also. To me it makes sense to buy 15-20 F-15EX per year for a while, it is over a decade before the production will come close to satisfying current demand, much less any added squadrons.

You don't seem to understand that Shanahan's DOD ordered a cutback in F-35 production for this year.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue May 21, 2019 11:31 pm

Spar wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The foreign sales of the F-35, those are in addition to the DOD budget birds, correct? I would think there is 1-2 dozen added that way per year. The big thing is to get all the allied fleets modernized, their planes will be located close to the action also. To me it makes sense to buy 15-20 F-15EX per year for a while, it is over a decade before the production will come close to satisfying current demand, much less any added squadrons.

You don't seem to understand that Shanahan's DOD ordered a cutback in F-35 production for this year.

Shanahan didn’t order a cutback in F-35 production. The 48 rate per year for the USAF was in the SAR before Shanahan sat in the seat. The USAF made the call on lowering the yearly number between the FY17 and FY18 SARs. The expected production rate reduced from 80 to 60 per year while the production timeframe increased by approx 4 years. Shanahan wasn’t in the job until July 2017 but the FY16 SAR was released three months previous. Mattis may have influenced the decision but I doubt it, I expect that decision came from the USAF based on the already discussed training pipeline issues and the USAF's desire for more Blk 4 aircraft than Blk 3F being upgraded.

The only change that has occurred with Shanahan is between the FY17 and FY18 SARs when FY2023 USAF changed from 60 jets to 54, so a reduction of just six aircraft. The USN/USMC also lost two jets, one from FY21 and one from FY22. Given Congress has funded 30+ additional jets from FY15-17 that small change is inconsequential.

You are welcome to review the SARs to compare what I have stated above,
https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf
https://fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR-2018.pdf
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... c_2017.pdf
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed May 22, 2019 12:51 am

Ozair wrote:
The only change that has occurred with Shanahan is between the FY17 and FY18 SARs when FY2023 USAF changed from 60 jets to 54, so a reduction of just six aircraft.

Six planes is six planes. Then there is the fact that Congress is able to add thirty planes and the manufacturer accepts the order. I don't see signs of a manufacturing bottleneck as JayinKitsap does. The DOD is the one throttling back the production from what I can see.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed May 22, 2019 1:10 am

Ozair -
Thank you for all the excellent information on this and the F-35 thread.

Ozair wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The foreign sales of the F-35, those are in addition to the DOD budget birds, correct? I would think there is 1-2 dozen added that way per year.

Yes. Each of the partner nations order their aircraft separately to the US. The FMS partners order via the US but they are clearly indicated as FMS orders and are separate to US orders. The partner and FMS customers are participating in a bulk buy, acquiring over a three year period to reduce the price while the US at this point is prevented from participating in the first bulk buy until the jet passes OT&E.


I've seen similar contract award for FMS with the P-8.

I found in 2018 there were 37 deliveries to other countries and the 2019 production is expected to be like 130, so over 40 to other countries.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed May 22, 2019 2:02 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Ozair -
Thank you for all the excellent information on this and the F-35 thread.

No problem at all.

JayinKitsap wrote:
I've seen similar contract award for FMS with the P-8.

I found in 2018 there were 37 deliveries to other countries and the 2019 production is expected to be like 130, so over 40 to other countries.

The first bulk buy shows the break down below for LRIP 12, which is scheduled for delivery in 2020.
The contacting action will help fund a total of 255 jets, including:
• 64 F-35As for the U.S. Air Force in LRIP 12
• 26 F-35Bs for the U.S. Marine Corps in LRIP 12
• 16 F-35Cs for the U.S. Navy in LRIP 12
• 89 F-35As and F-35Bs for international partner nations in LRIP 12, 13 and 14
• 60 F-35As for Foreign Military sales customers in LRIP 12, 13, 14
• Long lead parts for lot 14

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11 ... block-buy/

The contract announcement for LRIP 11, due for delivery in 2019, had 141 aircraft,

Today’s announcement was for LRIP 11, which covers a whopping 141 aircraft:
 102 F-35As, the base model used by the US Air Force and most international customers, for $89.2 million apiece, down 5.4 percent from LRIP 10;
 25 F-35Bs, the “jump jet” version used by the Marine Corps, Italian Navy and British Royal Navy, for $115.5 million each, down 5.7 percent; and
 14 F-35Cs, the extra-tough carrier-based variant used by the US Navy, for $107.7 million each, down 11.1 percent.


https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/f-3 ... -an-f-35a/


I believe that LRIP 11 had approximately 55 partner and FMS sales but it is harder to find the specific breakdown on which nation is receiving aircraft from which lot. This is a rough estimate from another forum.

Image
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri May 24, 2019 3:00 am

The Senate Armed Services Committee has authorised the initial eight F-15EX aircraft but not to the amount of funding requested in the budget submission by the US DoD.

$948 million for 8 F-15X aircraft, $162 million below the administration’s request to reflect excess nonrecurring costs

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/i ... ummary.pdf
 
mmo
Posts: 1725
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri May 24, 2019 9:35 am

Ozair wrote:
The Senate Armed Services Committee has authorised the initial eight F-15EX aircraft but not to the amount of funding requested in the budget submission by the US DoD.

$948 million for 8 F-15X aircraft, $162 million below the administration’s request to reflect excess nonrecurring costs

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/i ... ummary.pdf



It will now go to committee to be resolved. My gut feeling is all 8 will be funded fully and the full USAF buy will be funded even though the USAF didn't ask for them.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri May 24, 2019 11:39 am

mmo wrote:
even though the USAF didn't ask for them.

So we know that given sufficient budget they would prefer replacing the C/D with F-35's. What kind of reaction would they get from Congress if they proposed that and find that they do not have sufficiernt training program to train everyone in order to meet the near term needs, considering that they are delaying purchases of the F-35 to get more of the later upgrades? Then what kind of reaction will they get if they proprose the C/D mod, when Congress will surely will know about the FX proposal or at least the cost of a QA buy?

With all the lobbying from the F-35 side, I'm surprise this proposal is moving through this easily. But as we discussed here, the alternatives are not all Rosey either.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri May 31, 2019 6:08 pm

Some reasons I support going to the F-15EX are: a) the risk of having all one type of fighter, a problem that grounds the fleet would be a disaster. b) The F-35 international sales will grab over 20 slots a year of the build, adding in the F-15EX will increase total fighter production by 15 or so per year for the 80 plane buy. c) Transitioning bases has a large cost, by delaying this by 5 to 10 years both reduces expense and allows the lessons learned of the F-35 build out to be applied.

This article is the first where I saw budget comparisons of the options.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15e ... periority/
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri May 31, 2019 6:49 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
This article is the first where I saw budget comparisons of the options.


Awesome read. It hits all the points we were discussing and add the additional details about basing transitions.

Interesting how it puts the retrofit of the C as a worst option. We all talk about the structure mods, but there's the wiring issue, DMS of mission equipment that would need to be replaced as well. And the author didn't even touch any hydraulics or oxygen systems that may need to be replaced.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri May 31, 2019 11:01 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Some reasons I support going to the F-15EX are: a) the risk of having all one type of fighter, a problem that grounds the fleet would be a disaster. b) The F-35 international sales will grab over 20 slots a year of the build, adding in the F-15EX will increase total fighter production by 15 or so per year for the 80 plane buy. c) Transitioning bases has a large cost, by delaying this by 5 to 10 years both reduces expense and allows the lessons learned of the F-35 build out to be applied.

This article is the first where I saw budget comparisons of the options.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15e ... periority/


An F-15EX buy does make sense but only under a particular set of circumstances - one of those being the current F-15E fleet is updated to a current standard.

I don’t think anybody’s kidding themselves that the F-15E fleet isn’t going to have a long service life ahead. They’re significantly newer than the Cs, get better maintenance priority and are structurally strengthened to begin with. But it’s a missed opportunity to not have the whole fleet to the same block standard.

In fact really this corrects a missed buy from years ago at least. We should’ve retired the whole single seat fleet and bought Mud Hens to replace them, rerolling the units into multi-role missions like everyone else.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri May 31, 2019 11:55 pm

Well, Shanahan overcame a major hurdle when an internal ethics investigation cleared him of allegations that he promoted his former employer, Boeing, and disparaged its competitors in official discussions. He probably will be careful now.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:23 am

bikerthai wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
This article is the first where I saw budget comparisons of the options.


Awesome read. It hits all the points we were discussing and add the additional details about basing transitions.

Interesting how it puts the retrofit of the C as a worst option. We all talk about the structure mods, but there's the wiring issue, DMS of mission equipment that would need to be replaced as well. And the author didn't even touch any hydraulics or oxygen systems that may need to be replaced.

bt


I've been on many building renovations that in the long run would have been better and cheaper to tear the monster down and start afresh. On the west coast of the US renovating masonry buildings to meet seismic is a real budget killer.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:32 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15ex-and-f-35a-the-future-of-american-air-superiority/
That article is the biggest load of malarkey I've seen in a long time. Every paragraph I've looked at contains information that is just plain wrong.

Here's some comments on the text of the "warontherocks" article.
Air Force and Department of Defense leaders have focused on the need to maintain fighter capacity and keep costs down.
We know for sure that the EX version will cost tens of millions of dollars more per copy than a re-winged C model, we also know that the F-35 is cheaper per copy that the EX would be. There is reason to believe that the maintenance costs for a re-winged C model will be much lower than the $35,000 per hour projection.

The most expensive option is the EX proposal by far.
This should not be a discussion specifically about whether the F-15EX or the F-35A is a better weapon system.
That's a slippery, disingenuous argument if I've ever heard one. Specifically? That's a strawman argument. The issue this raises is whether a non-stealth aircraft is even suitable for the job. While an F-15 is perfectly suited for the peacetime Operation Noble Eagle mission, our nation also needs protection in a wartime environment. The F-15 isn't even close to being as effective of an interceptor as an F-35 if the other guy is sending strike packages, especially if the other guy is sending stealth fighters along to clear the way. The F-35 has a lot more than just stealth going for it in an interceptor role. There is another point that needs to be acknowledged and that is if the United States ever did get into a fight to the death - a war of attrition; an F-15 is useless as a front line replacement if we ever ran low on F-35s on the forward edge. Then there is the problem of operating two separate supply chains for AF fighters if we were to really keep F-15's in inventory past 2035.
It is important the Air Force retain some fourth-generation aircraft that can address air defense and air superiority missions the F-22 does not have the capacity to meet.
Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever.
it (the F-15) excels at defensive counterair missions
No it doesn't if "excels" means being the best at the task. An F-15 of any type vs an F-35 in air to air will leave the F-35 the victor every time. The F-15 is good at a close in maneuvering dogfight against an enemy it can see. Good luck with that against a Chinese or Russian stealth aircraft.
F-35s, can use stealth and advanced sensors to exploit contested battlespace while F-15Cs with large external weapons payloads can target enemy formations.
That's more illogic, the F-35 can carry more ordnance that an F-15.
Fourth-generation airframes like the F-15C will be critical for enabling the F-22 and F-35 fleets to focus on high-end air superiority missions or penetrating counter-air capabilities.
Huh? What has this guy been smoking?
(F-15C can be upgraded), including longerons and wings, for $12.1 million per aircraft.
I'm glad "warontherocks" stated that. One thing they got wrong though is the number of F-15s to receive the upgrade. This article says the number is 234, but the DOD is only planning to keep 196 F-15s. When you work the numbers that makes at least a 20% difference.
Completing these repairs would take several years and readiness rates would lag as aircraft were removed from operational squadrons and sent to depots.
There is no need for any lag, they could start the program with mothballed F-15s and swap them out in batches, no new training becessary (which again reduces the cost of the program).
Additional funding would be required to upgrade airframes with new avionics including $3.4 billion for Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System providing updated electronic warfare capabilities critical to operating in contested environments.
I believe that there's some hocus pocus in this statement, for 196 aircraft the EPAWSS comes out to 17 million per plane. Or does that 3.4 billion also include upgrading the E model fleet? If it really is 17 million per install, that means that the EX has a 17 million dollar add on that is included it it's quoted price; I haven't kept up with the latest price quote but my understanding is the quote looked questionably low even without this 17 million per plane addition. Something doesn't seem to add up.

This article has to be a product of Boeing's marketing department.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:33 pm

Spar wrote:
This article has to be a product of Boeing's marketing department.


" Brad Orgeron is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force. "

No, this article is an opinion of a well informed non-retired Air Force officer. As opposed to the opinion of us not so well informed A-net enthusiasts.

And if you believe that Mr. Orgeron is working for Boeing, then we would just have to assume that you believe someone did not go to jail for the KC-46 fiasco.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:26 pm

bikerthai wrote:
No, this article is an opinion of a well informed non-retired Air Force officer. As opposed to the opinion of us not so well informed A-net enthusiasts.

There are any number of reasons why an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel might be in Boeing's pocket.

Please!
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:19 pm

Spar wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
No, this article is an opinion of a well informed non-retired Air Force officer. As opposed to the opinion of us not so well informed A-net enthusiasts.

There are any number of reasons why an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel might be in Boeing's pocket.

Please!

I think we can relax on the intrigue. I doubt highly that he is in Boeing's pocket, he is just a strong advocate for the aircraft given he has flown it for so long.

I don't mind the article, noting it has some obvious issues with accuracy in places (the comparison of payloads and the suggestion the EX is better suited to payload than the F-35, the poor understanding of how a stealthy aircraft can still operate in non stealthy mode and be almost as effective, the cost assumptions that factor in a tight EX operating cost but do not factor in a reducing F-35 operating cost, the poor use of cost figures for the F-35 acquisition price, incorrect numbers for base conversion costs, incorrect numbers for F-15C current and future use etc).

He does well articulating the issues of the F-15C fleet and how risky the update is. His costs for the upgrade of the F-15C instead of acquiring and operating the F-15EX compare well with what I and others have calculated even on the first page of this thread. He also makes it very clear, and the consensus here is in agreement, that converting the ANG units to the F-35 is going to take longer and cost more. Even Congress recognized that this was the right move from a cost perspective while not the best move for overall USAF capability.

keesje wrote:
Well, Shanahan overcame a major hurdle when an internal ethics investigation cleared him of allegations that he promoted his former employer, Boeing, and disparaged its competitors in official discussions. He probably will be careful now.

Shanahan really has little to do with this. In the end the F-15EX buy is likely the best option based on the funding available and the operational readiness requirement demand. Boeing got lucky and will make some good money out of this over the next 20 years although I don't think the EX will serve as long in USAF service as they currently suggest.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:09 pm

Ozair wrote:
I think we can relax on the intrigue. I doubt highly that he is in Boeing's pocket, he is just a strong advocate for the aircraft given he has flown it for so long.
There's no intrigue. That accusation is beneath you. Of course he's a strong advocate for the aircraft "given he has flown it for so long", that's why he's in Boeing's pocket. If he flew A-10s they would have had to have pumped up somebody else. This is a buddy buddy old boy network we're seeing.
Ozair wrote:
[I don't mind the article, noting it has some obvious issues with accuracy in places (the comparison of payloads and the suggestion the EX is better suited to payload than the F-35, the poor understanding of how a stealthy aircraft can still operate in non stealthy mode and be almost as effective, the cost assumptions that factor in a tight EX operating cost but do not factor in a reducing F-35 operating cost, the poor use of cost figures for the F-35 acquisition price, incorrect numbers for base conversion costs, incorrect numbers for F-15C current and future use etc).
You might have noted that a stealthy aircraft can still operate in non stealthy mode and be almost as effective as it would be in stealthy mode and just as effective as a non-stealthy plane would be in the same role; not "almost as effective."

Ozair wrote:
He does well articulating the issues of the F-15C fleet and how risky the update is.
Is this an allusion to the they might find something else wrong when they totally replace the wings nonsense? They have been flying this aircraft for 40 years, they know every nut and bolt, every rivet and they have spent gargantuan engineering effort in re-analyzing the stresses on the airframe after the Missouri accident. There are no surprises to be found. And to kill that BS completely, there is the glaring fact that we are comparing a 12.1 million dollar upgrade to a 90 million dollar acquisition, there's 77.9 million dollars of room to play with before there would even be a cost overrun.

That argument is pure strawman.

Ozair wrote:
His costs for the upgrade of the F-15C instead of acquiring and operating the F-15EX compare well with what I and others have calculated even on the first page of this thread. He also makes it very clear, and the consensus here is in agreement, that converting the ANG units to the F-35 is going to take longer and cost more. Even Congress recognized that this was the right move from a cost perspective while not the best move for overall USAF capability.
So in this logic, 12.1 is about the same as 90.
Yea, right!
Ozair wrote:
Shanahan really has little to do with this.
Shanahan is acting as the Secretary of Defense, one frown from him and this project is dead. How can you say he has nothing to do with it?

Ozair wrote:
In the end the F-15EX buy is likely the best option based on the funding available and the operational readiness requirement demand. Boeing got lucky and will make some good money out of this over the next 20 years although I don't think the EX will serve as long in USAF service as they currently suggest.
Well your cavein is now complete.

This is corruption plain and simple.
If a third world country opted for a piece of technology that was a generation behind and more expensive than the alternative, nobody would hesitate to call it what it is. But the aviation community falls in line because, "one hand washes the other", even Lockheed won't go full court press to reverse this corrupt decision because they surely have dirty laundry too.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:56 pm

In re-reading my responses there are two things I would like to re-state.

The first is where I said You might have noted that a stealthy aircraft can still operate in non stealthy mode and be almost as effective as it would be in stealthy mode and just as effective as a non-stealthy plane would be in the same role; not "almost as effective."

I should have pointed out that the F-35 would be more effective than any version of an F-15 because of its improved sensor set, sensor fusion, communications link and the fact that the F-35 has a very active upgrade program that will be continuing for the life of the aircraft, while the F-15 is at a dead end technologically speaking.

In my penultimate response where I said: How can you say he has nothing to do with it?, I should have said: How can you say he has little to do with it?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:21 pm

Spar wrote:
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel might be in Boeing's pocket.


Perhaps you are only speaking in figurative, and not really mean that Boeing is paying the General for the article. If you truly believe that there is money changing hands, then it would be reasonable to argue that LM is doing the same for their lobbying effort and that the political system in the US is just as corrupt as it is in Russia. Either way, it is fine to dispute an opinion piece by arguing the merits, but to discredit a position by accusation of impropriety just because our President does it, does not make your position any stronger.

And tell me that in non-stealth mode, an F-35 can carry 22 missiles :santahat:

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:29 pm

Spar wrote:
while the F-15 is at a dead end technologically speaking.


If you are referring to things like improved Radar, computing and system integration, those same technology can be integrated into an F-15.

Oh by the way, any one know if the F-15 still have a metal wing? If it does, then it would be more survivable if hit than a composite wing.

I don't know much about the F-35 wing, but I understand that all composite wings don't fare as well as metal wing with an exploding round inside the fuel tank.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:38 pm

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
I think we can relax on the intrigue. I doubt highly that he is in Boeing's pocket, he is just a strong advocate for the aircraft given he has flown it for so long.
There's no intrigue. That accusation is beneath you. Of course he's a strong advocate for the aircraft "given he has flown it for so long", that's why he's in Boeing's pocket. If he flew A-10s they would have had to have pumped up somebody else. This is a buddy buddy old boy network we're seeing.

You are welcome to believe that but I have more confidence, and clearly respect, for the servicemen and women of the USAF.

Spar wrote:
You might have noted that a stealthy aircraft can still operate in non stealthy mode and be almost as effective as it would be in stealthy mode and just as effective as a non-stealthy plane would be in the same role; not "almost as effective."

I did put etc in, does that ease your concern...


Spar wrote:
Is this an allusion to the they might find something else wrong when they totally replace the wings nonsense? They have been flying this aircraft for 40 years, they know every nut and bolt, every rivet and they have spent gargantuan engineering effort in re-analyzing the stresses on the airframe after the Missouri accident. There are no surprises to be found. And to kill that BS completely, there is the glaring fact that we are comparing a 12.1 million dollar upgrade to a 90 million dollar acquisition, there's 77.9 million dollars of room to play with before there would even be a cost overrun.

That argument is pure strawman.

Spar, I have already proven to you that that claim is false. The USAF is still trying to understand the fatigue on the jet. Go back and reread the link I provided you about the USAF F-15C contracts to conduct additional fatigue testing on the aircraft.


Spar wrote:
So in this logic, 12.1 is about the same as 90.
Yea, right!

As multiple people keep trying to explain to you, this is not really about money. The USAF knows the money for the jets is about the same. What is also knows is it can't convert ANG F-15C units over to F-35 units within the same timeframe as the EX conversion and when it does so it pays less total costs due to similar infrastructure. That is the central argument and point of this acquisition. Money is a very distant second to the priority of this deal.

Spar wrote:
Shanahan is acting as the Secretary of Defense, one frown from him and this project is dead. How can you say he has nothing to do with it?

Because Congress, both house and Senate, thoroughly reviewed this deal and despite also stating they didn't really like it acknowledged that it was the right course of action based on the information and requirements. If they thought something more was amiss they would have quashed it. The F-35 still benefited as it was acquired in greater numbers that the USAF requested.


Spar wrote:
Well your cavein is now complete.

This is corruption plain and simple.
If a third world country opted for a piece of technology that was a generation behind and more expensive than the alternative, nobody would hesitate to call it what it is. But the aviation community falls in line because, "one hand washes the other", even Lockheed won't go full court press to reverse this corrupt decision because they surely have dirty laundry too.

LM's best option here is the reduce the acquisition and sustainment costs of the F-35 as much as they can. In doing so they can make the F-35 so compelling a sale that the USAF will end F-15EX acquisition at the 84 jet mark instead of the 144 mooted.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:40 pm

Spar wrote:
In re-reading my responses there are two things I would like to re-state.

FYI you can edit your previous post if you do so within an hour of posting. When I do I usually add an edit to the bottom to ensure people know it has happened given the intent could be different.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:09 am

Ozair wrote:
Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
I think we can relax on the intrigue. I doubt highly that he is in Boeing's pocket, he is just a strong advocate for the aircraft given he has flown it for so long.
There's no intrigue. That accusation is beneath you. Of course he's a strong advocate for the aircraft "given he has flown it for so long", that's why he's in Boeing's pocket. If he flew A-10s they would have had to have pumped up somebody else. This is a buddy buddy old boy network we're seeing.

You are welcome to believe that but I have more confidence, and clearly respect, for the servicemen and women of the USAF.
That's a bit of condescending tripe if I've ever heard such. Old boy networks are everywhere, even in the Vatican I've heard, and as an ex-US military member I can tell you that they do exist there.
Spar wrote:
You might have noted that a stealthy aircraft can still operate in non stealthy mode and be almost as effective as it would be in stealthy mode and just as effective as a non-stealthy plane would be in the same role; not "almost as effective."

Ozair wrote:
I did put etc in, does that ease your concern...
You are an adept user of rhetoric no doubt, but not so good that your salesmanship doesn't shine through.
Spar wrote:
Is this an allusion to the they might find something else wrong when they totally replace the wings nonsense? They have been flying this aircraft for 40 years, they know every nut and bolt, every rivet and they have spent gargantuan engineering effort in re-analyzing the stresses on the airframe after the Missouri accident. There are no surprises to be found. And to kill that BS completely, there is the glaring fact that we are comparing a 12.1 million dollar upgrade to a 90 million dollar acquisition, there's 77.9 million dollars of room to play with before there would even be a cost overrun. That argument is pure strawman.

Ozair wrote:
Spar, I have already proven to you that that claim is false. The USAF is still trying to understand the fatigue on the jet. Go back and reread the link I provided you about the USAF F-15C contracts to conduct additional fatigue testing on the aircraft.
The Missouri accident occurred eleven years ago, I think they have a pretty good handle on what caused the failure by now. It's fine that the military does fatigue analysis, but for this problem the solution is obvious and already called out: replace the longeron's while the planes are apart for the new wings. This has been costed out already, one million each.
Spar wrote:
So in this logic, 12.1 is about the same as 90. Yea, right!

Ozair wrote:
As multiple people keep trying to explain to you, this is not really about money. The USAF knows the money for the jets is about the same. What is also knows is it can't convert ANG F-15C units over to F-35 units within the same timeframe as the EX conversion and when it does so it pays less total costs due to similar infrastructure. That is the central argument and point of this acquisition. Money is a very distant second to the priority of this deal.
Oh, but Ozair, this is about money, it is all about money. You see 12.1 is not the same as 90. Not only that, but there is also where the money goes to consider; Boeing which Trump seems to love, or Lockheed which Trump has been badmouthing since the summer of 2016.
Spar wrote:
Shanahan is acting as the Secretary of Defense, one frown from him and this project is dead. How can you say he has nothing to do with it?

Ozair wrote:
Because Congress, both house and Senate, thoroughly reviewed this deal and despite also stating they didn't really like it acknowledged that it was the right course of action based on the information and requirements. If they thought something more was amiss they would have quashed it. The F-35 still benefited as it was acquired in greater numbers that the USAF requested.
I don't know how things work in Australia, but here in the US, the Congress is a political body, it make its decisions based on deals and compromises. Thinking they base their decisions on cost analysis is a quaint idea.
Spar wrote:
Well your cavein is now complete. This is corruption plain and simple.

Ozair wrote:
[LM's best option here is the reduce the acquisition and sustainment costs of the F-35 as much as they can. In doing so they can make the F-35 so compelling a sale that the USAF will end F-15EX acquisition at the 84 jet mark instead of the 144 mooted.

There are so many loose ends here that the fast talkers want to poo poo. You just raised another, why does Brad Orgeron use 234 as the number of F-15s, while the DOD uses the number 196 when they ask for upgrade funding, but then they only say they want 144 EX models? When one looks at this proposal, everything seems to be a moving target, or vague or based on what appears to be numbers pulled from out of the sky. And so much just gets pushed to the side and ignored.

One thing that gets ignored is that these EX models will have to be replaced by F-35s anyway. What person in private industry would be willing to spend thirteen billion dollars on an interim solution when the permanent solution is available? I'll answer that: none. What person in private industry would be willing to spend thirteen billion dollars on an interim solution when there is a solution that is just as viable but costs less than two billion dollars? None. These are American taxpayers dollars we are talking about, not some ephemeral river of money in the sky.

Now I expect some condescending nonsense about how you and bikerthai have been trying to tell me.................. But if you're doing the sales job it's up to you to explain away the nonsense. Why can't eleven billion dollars (the cost difference between 144 new aircraft for 90B and 144 upgrades for 2B) solve the "pilot training" problem?

Why isn't the fact that the F-35 has a lot more than just stealth going for it in an interceptor role a factor in this conversation?
Why isn't the fact that in an actual war an F-15 is useless as a front line replacement if we ever ran low on F-35s a factor in this conversation?
Why isn't the fact that with the F15EX there is the problem of operating two separate supply chains for Air Force fighters (three supply chains until the last C model is retired) that could all be one supply chain if we went with F-35s? I mention this because there is the ever present innuendo that the EX model has such a long life expectancy that it can continue flying into the 2050s, which sounds like a huge sinkhole for money on a supply tail for 144 aircraft.

What is it about the current C model that makes it so expensive to keep in the air, and why will a plane that is pretty much the same plane be expected to be so much cheaper to keep in the air? Could this be a case of fudged accounting practices? Or might it be that with new wings and new longerons the price per hour of the C model will fall to about the same as the EX?

There's more but this is enough for now.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:15 pm

Spar wrote:
That's a bit of condescending tripe if I've ever heard such. Old boy networks are everywhere, even in the Vatican I've heard, and as an ex-US military member I can tell you that they do exist there.

Again, you are welcome to believe what you want but your assertion has no factual basis to it, is less than hearsay and frankly defamation.

Spar wrote:
You are an adept user of rhetoric no doubt, but not so good that your salesmanship doesn't shine through.

Salemanship... You are asserting again that I am trying to sell the F-15EX. Well at least you are consistent if not actually logical. No I don't work for Boeing, or LM or anyone else in Aerospace right now. I want the USAF to increase the F-35 buy rate to 100+ a year because its the right thing to do but I also understand that there are compromises that are necessary in order to build, maintain and sustain a fighter jet fleet.

Spar wrote:
The Missouri accident occurred eleven years ago, I think they have a pretty good handle on what caused the failure by now. It's fine that the military does fatigue analysis, but for this problem the solution is obvious and already called out: replace the longeron's while the planes are apart for the new wings. This has been costed out already, one million each.

Believe what you will but the facts as provided by myself speak otherwise. You have not provided any evidence to support your position. Do so.

Spar wrote:
Oh, but Ozair, this is about money, it is all about money. You see 12.1 is not the same as 90. Not only that, but there is also where the money goes to consider; Boeing which Trump seems to love, or Lockheed which Trump has been badmouthing since the summer of 2016.

If all you want to see is that argument then you can quit right now, we all understand what your position is and no amount of facts, reasoning and logical analysis provided to you appears able to change that.

Spar wrote:
I don't know how things work in Australia, but here in the US, the Congress is a political body, it make its decisions based on deals and compromises. Thinking they base their decisions on cost analysis is a quaint idea.

Given Congress didn't fund the F-15EX to the full amount requested I think we can be assured that they did review the costs. They specifically removed some of the non-recurring costs as those have likely already been paid for by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and hence prevented Boeing from double dipping.

Spar wrote:
There are so many loose ends here that the fast talkers want to poo poo. You just raised another, why does Brad Orgeron use 234 as the number of F-15s, while the DOD uses the number 196 when they ask for upgrade funding, but then they only say they want 144 EX models? When one looks at this proposal, everything seems to be a moving target, or vague or based on what appears to be numbers pulled from out of the sky. And so much just gets pushed to the side and ignored.

He clearly missed some of the facts or used outdated information. That is the opportunity we have to review and correct.

Spar wrote:
One thing that gets ignored is that these EX models will have to be replaced by F-35s anyway. What person in private industry would be willing to spend thirteen billion dollars on an interim solution when the permanent solution is available? I'll answer that: none. What person in private industry would be willing to spend thirteen billion dollars on an interim solution when there is a solution that is just as viable but costs less than two billion dollars? None. These are American taxpayers dollars we are talking about, not some ephemeral river of money in the sky.

Your assertion is false, there is no reason the F-15EX will be replaced by the F-35. It could very well be replaced by PCA in the late 2030s, or the US move the F-22s to be all ANG units once PCA arrives in numbers, or replaced by high performance UCAVS etc. Plenty of options and F-35 production already has 1200 F-16s and 200 A-10s to replace over the next 15 years.

Spar wrote:
Now I expect some condescending nonsense about how you and bikerthai have been trying to tell me.................. But if you're doing the sales job it's up to you to explain away the nonsense. Why can't eleven billion dollars (the cost difference between 144 new aircraft for 90B and 144 upgrades for 2B) solve the "pilot training" problem?

It isn't a pilot problem, it is the number of airframes available at any one time problem. By converting a squadron you take that out of the line and remove those aircraft from use. Given the timeframe to convert a pilot onto the F-35 and train them to sufficient capability, it is clear why the USAF will struggle to maintain the required fleet of aircraft if they moved the F-35 too fast. The USAF have already inflated the sustainment cost of the F-35 squadrons because they are over manning the maintenance units to build up more capability.

Spar wrote:
Why isn't the fact that the F-35 has a lot more than just stealth going for it in an interceptor role a factor in this conversation?
Why isn't the fact that in an actual war an F-15 is useless as a front line replacement if we ever ran low on F-35s a factor in this conversation?

Those are all relevant points and have been discussed frequently. The USAF has made it very clear it wants F-35s but it also acknowledges the F-15EX is right now the best aircraft to replace the F-15C, not from a capability perspective but from a fleet rapid transition perspective.

Spar wrote:
Why isn't the fact that with the F15EX there is the problem of operating two separate supply chains for Air Force fighters (three supply chains until the last C model is retired) that could all be one supply chain if we went with F-35s? I mention this because there is the ever present innuendo that the EX model has such a long life expectancy that it can continue flying into the 2050s, which sounds like a huge sinkhole for money on a supply tail for 144 aircraft.

Well the supply chain currently is F-15C, 15E, 16C/D, A-10, F-22, F-35, T-38, soon T-X as well as a host of bombers, transports etc. Adding one more aircraft in the form of the F-15EX that has 80% commonality with the C and E fleets isn't that big a deal.

Spar wrote:
What is it about the current C model that makes it so expensive to keep in the air, and why will a plane that is pretty much the same plane be expected to be so much cheaper to keep in the air? Could this be a case of fudged accounting practices? Or might it be that with new wings and new longerons the price per hour of the C model will fall to about the same as the EX?

Because the systems that power the C/D fleet are old, the airframes weren't built to the same standard as the E fleet and the E fleet has received significantly more upgrade funding over the same timeframe.

With the C/D upgrade there will likely be a decrease in annual sustainment costs but as already stated numerous times there is also the risk of not identified issues arising that could increase that cost. The E fleet, and the EX fleet, will be very similar and therefore the USAF knows what age and use will do to the EX fleet.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:58 pm

Ozair wrote:
Because the systems that power the C/D fleet are old, the airframes weren't built to the same standard as the E


Just a question on details. Does the C retrofit include systems? I would assume that the rewing would include new systems there. But will they get new engines and replace all the systems in the fuselage, including electronics? If not, then I can see why the operating cost for the C will never approach the EX. Even on commercial aircraft, theses "systems" have higher failure rates than structures and what really drives the day to day maintenance cost.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
mmo
Posts: 1725
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:13 pm

Spar wrote:
There are any number of reasons why an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel might be in Boeing's pocket.

Please!

A USAF LT. Col. would have absolutely ZERO influence in the decision to purchase the F-15EX. Not sure where you got the idea but it just isn't the reality of the real world of ranks. A Lt Col in the Pentagon might be able to make coffee for a 4 star but not much more.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:15 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Because the systems that power the C/D fleet are old, the airframes weren't built to the same standard as the E


Just a question on details. Does the C retrofit include systems? I would assume that the rewing would include new systems there. But will they get new engines and replace all the systems in the fuselage, including electronics? If not, then I can see why the operating cost for the C will never approach the EX. Even on commercial aircraft, theses "systems" have higher failure rates than structures and what really drives the day to day maintenance cost.

bt

I have never seen a comprehensive upgrade proposal for the C/D fleet, only the respective separate upgrade programs such as longerans and wings and of course the radar.

Some systems changes would of course be needed and while that might cost more at the time of upgrade would reduce the sustainment cost and improve reliability. It is the small things that impact the fleet though, such as the radar scope still being the old small monochrome display even though the aircraft has a great AESA.

The below article has some info on cockpit upgrade suggestions but is from 2012 and shows that the aircraft is in need of something drastic.

Image

http://aviationintel.com/update-on-the- ... ance-team/
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:22 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Spar wrote:
while the F-15 is at a dead end technologically speaking.


If you are referring to things like improved Radar, computing and system integration, those same technology can be integrated into an F-15.

Oh by the way, any one know if the F-15 still have a metal wing? If it does, then it would be more survivable if hit than a composite wing.

I don't know much about the F-35 wing, but I understand that all composite wings don't fare as well as metal wing with an exploding round inside the fuel tank.

bt

Aircraft have had self sealing fuel tanks since before WW2. I have seen nothing that suggests that the composite wing is an issue. F-35 has been extensively tested for combat damage performance with the DOT&E having no problem with the results.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:52 am

Ozair wrote:
Aircraft have had self sealing fuel tanks since before WW2. I have seen nothing that suggests that the composite wing is an issue. F-35 has been extensively tested for combat damage performance with the DOT&E having no problem with the results.


It's not the hole in the fuel tank that is at issue. From my short time working with a composite wing box, the problem is that a 23mm exploding round will cause a hydraulic shock wave that rips the spars from the skins. Metal spars and skins absorb the energy better. A composite spar and skin combination usually require much easier gauges. You can solve this by using titanium spars with the composite skin. Not sure how the F-35 wing is built, but I would bet my money that the 15 would fare better. It has shown it could take significant damage in the past.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:04 am

Spar wrote:
Unless he goes about writing articles for publication that are meant to gain public support for the project.


Actually, I would agree with you on this point. But it would be more believable if the backer of this general is a faction in the Pentagon and not Boeing. Besides, the public has no interest in this detail of the budget. Congress bought into this scheme with not much of a floor fight. The nation's attention is elsewhere.

So unless there is new revelation, this fight is over. The only question left is how many 15 they will buy in the long run.

And no, Boeing will not touch this General with a ten foot pole. Not for at least a couple of years. Darleen Druyun anyone?

And to press the hypothetical, would we all agree that if the C were to be retrofitted, that Boeing would most likely win that contract? So the only way they would lose is if the C were replaced by the 35s.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:59 pm

Sort of a counterpoint article about the F-15EX, I have some differences with it but it also has some good information.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15e ... er-debate/


JayinKitsap wrote:
Some reasons I support going to the F-15EX are: a) the risk of having all one type of fighter, a problem that grounds the fleet would be a disaster. b) The F-35 international sales will grab over 20 slots a year of the build, adding in the F-15EX will increase total fighter production by 15 or so per year for the 80 plane buy. c) Transitioning bases has a large cost, by delaying this by 5 to 10 years both reduces expense and allows the lessons learned of the F-35 build out to be applied.

This article is the first where I saw budget comparisons of the options.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15e ... periority/
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:14 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Sort of a counterpoint article about the F-15EX, I have some differences with it but it also has some good information.

If it had any good information I couldn't find it. That piece has more strawmen than the state of Iowa. A tragedy about articles like that is that people who really don't know much about current multirole fighters try to learn from this kind of gibberish and wind up being left more confused than when they started reading.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:29 pm

spar your arguments would be all the stronger with a bit less rancor.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:13 am

Planeflyer wrote:
spar your arguments would be all the stronger with a bit less rancor.

I feel I have to shout, I'm countering what I see as false appeals to authority in spades. The opening sentence in the warontherocks article begins: "The fallout from the U.S. Air Force’s request to buy F-15EX fighter jets....", and as everyone here knows, it wasn't the Airforce that requested the EX deal, it was the DOD. Every following sentence is just as disingenuous.

Besides, there is a reason I was never awarded the Nobel prize for literature.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:49 am

Right, the Air Force never requested the EX deal. We all know that. The Air Force also never requested the C modification program. Or at least I did not hear any vocal advocate for it, in the rank and file or in Congress. But with the realities of force structure, the Air Force arm was twisted to take the EX. Same kind of arm twisting that forced them to keep the A-10 longer than they want.

It happens . . . We will only know if it's a wise decision after the fact.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:21 am

bikerthai wrote:
The Air Force also never requested the C modification program.

The Air Force must have requested the C modification program, it follows because they are ones who are doing the maintenance on those planes. They knew they will need at least that much to be put into their budget in coming years. That's how the conversation must have gotten started.

Then someone in the DoD said "we have a better idea".
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:46 pm

Spar wrote:
The Air Force must have requested the C modification program, it follows because they are ones who are doing the maintenance on those planes.


True, it's a mater of semantics. They probably have a plan for the C mod as a sounding board for other options. Ultimately whether by hook or crook, no body seems to be advocating for it.

Even if Boeing would have been beneficial of the C mod (since they own the IT for the design), they would prefer to sell new planes. Anyone who would compete with Boeing on the mod bid would have to buy that IT or start from scratch (no easy endeavor as Boeing is much reluctant to let others peek at that info).

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:46 am

The argument that the US should not have the F-35 as the only fighter type is a poor one.

Just because it would be the only fighter aircraft in production does not mean it will ever make up 100% of the fighter fleet.

By the time the US has 2000 F-35's in service the 6th gen fighter will be starting production. Plus you have F-22's, F-16's and F-15's in the fleet for another decade or two. All the equipment shifts downwards, the new high end fighter replaces the front line equipment first and the ANG units get replaced last. There is no risk really.

Every squadron that currently operates F-15's and F-16's will probably get F-35's eventually, even the ANG units. The current top squadrons that currently fly the F-35's will probably transition to the 6th gen PCA. The F-35 might peak at say 80% of the total manned fighter fleet as the PCA production ramps up.

Aircraft fleet are managed to fly certain hours per year. They could simply fly the current f-15C's more to cover the short term gap and retire them a few years earlier. This gices plenty of time for F-35 production to reach any rate they want.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:14 am

RJMAZ wrote:
They could simply fly the current f-15C's more to cover the short term gap and retire them a few years earlier


Oops, didn't read the rest of the threads did you? I don't blame you. But flying the C more is not an option because it is running out out life. Even if you keep flying it at the current rate, youl'll run out of frames before they can replace them with 35's, or at least the 35s in the configuration that they prefer.
That is why they are in a pickle right now.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:38 am

bikerthai wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
They could simply fly the current f-15C's more to cover the short term gap and retire them a few years earlier


Oops, didn't read the rest of the threads did you? I don't blame you. But flying the C more is not an option because it is running out out life. Even if you keep flying it at the current rate, youl'll run out of frames before they can replace them with 35's, or at least the 35s in the configuration that they prefer.
That is why they are in a pickle right now.

bt

I did read the whole thing and all I saw multiple incorrect posts. The F-35 in 10 years time can be at any production rate required to hit any fleet size. The F-15C's still have many years of life yet without upgrades. Flying them more often will mean they simply need to be retired earlier or get upgraded sooner which is a medium term problem. When that times come the USAF can have a surplus of F-35's providing they ramp up production.

Full rate production is planned to hit 180 aircraft per year in 2 years time. The USAF could easily keep ramping up production to above 200 aircraft per year. So with 20 surplus F-35's it will completely cover the medium term problem of not having enough F-15's.

Upgrading the F-15C's actually takes aircraft out of the fleet in the short term.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:39 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The F-35 in 10 years time can be at any production rate required to hit any fleet size.


True the discussion never evaluated the impact of using up the C model faster. However, if the short term predicament is the shortage of frames in the near to medium terms while pilots and squadron are switched over to the 35. This will happen whether if they do it now or later. Up tempo of the C model would require massive maintenance cost (albeit in the short term) which the Air Force is reluctant to commit as they would not want to pull their limited budget from buying more F-35's.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:06 pm

While not having much in terms of details, this article lay out the straight from the Air Force story on the F-15X, not some lobbyist think tank.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... k-For.aspx

At the rollout of the 2020 defense budget request, however, Pentagon Comptroller Elaine A. McCusker revealed that it was former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis who ordered the Air Force to buy new Eagles.
[Not Pat Shanahan]

More of the calculus was explained by Maj. Gen. David A. Krumm, USAF’s Director of Strategic Plans and Requirements, who told Air Force Magazine the thinking behind the controversial add of Eagles. Essentially, he said, the National Defense Strategy demands more combat capacity immediately, or as soon as possible. And while buying more F-35s is the Air Force’s preferred solution, the F-15EX move could put more iron on the ramp more quickly; mostly because the transition time for individual units would take months rather than years.


Air Force leaders have said they are seeking an early, interim hypersonics capability, and having F-15s that are not speed-limited due to their age (as current aircraft are) could be helpful in that pursuit. The F-15 design is technically capable of exceeding Mach 3, and so could accelerate a hypersonic missile close to its Mach 5-plus operating regime. That, in turn, would permit smaller booster rockets for weapons such as the Tactical Boost Glide hypersonic concept. The F-35, which was never designed to be USAF’s high-end dogfighter, has a top speed of Mach 1.6, and the first generation of hypersonic missiles is unlikely to fit inside its weapons bay.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:06 pm

bikerthai wrote:
While not having much in terms of details, this article lay out the straight from the Air Force story on the F-15X, not some lobbyist think tank.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... k-For.aspx

At the rollout of the 2020 defense budget request, however, Pentagon Comptroller Elaine A. McCusker revealed that it was former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis who ordered the Air Force to buy new Eagles.
[Not Pat Shanahan]

Makes sense, this has also clearly been in process for a while.

bikerthai wrote:
More of the calculus was explained by Maj. Gen. David A. Krumm, USAF’s Director of Strategic Plans and Requirements, who told Air Force Magazine the thinking behind the controversial add of Eagles. Essentially, he said, the National Defense Strategy demands more combat capacity immediately, or as soon as possible. And while buying more F-35s is the Air Force’s preferred solution, the F-15EX move could put more iron on the ramp more quickly; mostly because the transition time for individual units would take months rather than years.


Also makes sense. We have come to this conclusion and the articles coming out of Air Force and Congress make this clear.

bikerthai wrote:
Air Force leaders have said they are seeking an early, interim hypersonics capability, and having F-15s that are not speed-limited due to their age (as current aircraft are) could be helpful in that pursuit. The F-15 design is technically capable of exceeding Mach 3, and so could accelerate a hypersonic missile close to its Mach 5-plus operating regime. That, in turn, would permit smaller booster rockets for weapons such as the Tactical Boost Glide hypersonic concept. The F-35, which was never designed to be USAF’s high-end dogfighter, has a top speed of Mach 1.6, and the first generation of hypersonic missiles is unlikely to fit inside its weapons bay.


This makes little sense. No one in their right mind is flying an F-15 of any variety to Mach 3... While the design may technically be capable of it it certainly isn't with an external payload and certainly not with the CFTs mounted on the airframe, the Eagle would be lucky to hit Mach 2 with a big Hypersonic missile onboard.

Image

Image

Additionally the writer has made the all too often mistake of stating the F-35's internals bays are too small for the hypersonic missile while for some reason completely ignoring the two external pylons rated for 5000 lbs. Payload isn't an issue for F-35 carriage of a hypersonic weapon, the capability of the airframe likely is in that it is probably far more worthwhile being used for other missions than lugging big missiles around.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:10 pm

bikerthai wrote:
While not having much in terms of details, this article lay out the straight from the Air Force story on the F-15X, not some lobbyist think tank.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... k-For.aspx

At the rollout of the 2020 defense budget request, however, Pentagon Comptroller Elaine A. McCusker revealed that it was former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis who ordered the Air Force to buy new Eagles.
[Not Pat Shanahan]This is attempted pushback against the obvious conclusion by anyone not connected to the DoD that Shanahan is the driving force behind the order for 4th generation Boeing F-15s. Of course Mattis was the man who placed the order but that doesn't mean much when you take into consideration the fact that Mattis, who was a career Marine officer on an Infantry track for his entire career, hired Shanahan to be his Deputy Secretary of Defense long before the F-15EX became a "thing" in the DoD. Any knowledgeable person who can't see that Mattis hired Shanahan to be his technical expert on aviation details is being willfully ignorant. But articles like these aren't targeted towards the "knowledgeable".

More of the calculus was explained by Maj. Gen. David A. Krumm, USAF’s Director of Strategic Plans and Requirements, who told Air Force Magazine the thinking behind the controversial add of Eagles. Essentially, he said, the National Defense Strategy demands more combat capacity immediately, or as soon as possible. And while buying more F-35s is the Air Force’s preferred solution, the F-15EX move could put more iron on the ramp more quickly; mostly because the transition time for individual units would take months rather than years.
So he says that we need it "immediately, or as soon as possible" yet the same article it points out that the C model will "age out" in the 2027-28 time frame. So the "hurry" is non-existent, it is being used as a misdirection tactic. Even if we took the long route and equipped all these NG units with F-35s, there is ample time to accomplish that; but as we know, there are other options available that could provide the necessary capability, and at much lower cost.

Air Force leaders have said they are seeking an early, interim hypersonics capability, and having F-15s that are not speed-limited due to their age (as current aircraft are) could be helpful in that pursuit. The F-15 design is technically capable of exceeding Mach 3, and so could accelerate a hypersonic missile close to its Mach 5-plus operating regime. That, in turn, would permit smaller booster rockets for weapons such as the Tactical Boost Glide hypersonic concept. The F-35, which was never designed to be USAF’s high-end dogfighter, has a top speed of Mach 1.6, and the first generation of hypersonic missiles is unlikely to fit inside its weapons bay.
The writers are jumbling three issues together which produces some probably intended confusion.

First, let's kill this "inside its weapons bay" canard, the F-35 is perfectly capable of hanging things off of it's wings just like an F-15 and it will carry an equivalent load. This argument is a non-starter.

"Speed limited" is another false issue. As has been pointed out in may articles discussing the supposed speed advantages of the F-22, "speed" turns out to be a fuel issue. The F-22, F-35 and F-15 have similar speed capabilities when consideration is made for fuel usage while using afterburners. It is also completely irrelevant that the F-15 was originally designed for a mach 2.3 upper limit, that upper limit has never been approached by any but test pilots and has no function in aerial combat because those speeds are achievable only when an F-15 is clean, carrying no weapons under it's wings. If there ever were any advantages to the few more knots of pursuit speed of an F-15, (if such exists) they are completely and overwhelmingly outweighed by the F-35's stealth and sensor set.

The "hypersonic missile" nonsense is a strawman issue. There is no such missile, and if there was, there is no reason to think that the national Guard would be the unit to deploy it. Nor is there any reason to think that an F-35 couldn't do the same job.

Also, a glaring deficiency in the article is the failure to even mention what is the lowest cost, least intrusive method of solving the F-15C's structural issues which would be to replace the wings and fuselage longerons on the existing aircraft which would easily provide them with enough longevity to continue their mission until their scheduled retirement date.

In essence, the article is just some more F-15EX pulp fiction.
 
Spar
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:44 pm

Somehow in the above I lost the paragraph I had written debunking the idea that Shanahan was/is a bystander in the F-15EX program. While it is true that the order for the EX carries Mattis's signature, that fact doesn't mean much. Mattis is the one who hired Shanahan as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mattis is a career marine officer who had built that career around the infantry. It should be obvious that when Shanahan was hired in early 2017 (long before the F-15EX proposal) Shanahan was to be the technical expert in aviation matters. The proposal for the F-15EX had to have come from Shanahan, to think otherwise would be naive.

In fact, these attempts to claim otherwise stand out as inept attempts of coverup IMO.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:16 pm

Ozair wrote:
This makes little sense. No one in their right mind is flying an F-15 of any variety to Mach 3...


This thought came to my mind as well.
Spar wrote:
First, let's kill this "inside its weapons bay" canard, the F-35 is perfectly capable of hanging things off of it's wings just like an F-15 and it will carry an equivalent load. This argument is a non-starter.


And so was this. We know that this will not be an issue once a hypersonic missile is developed that will fit in an F-35. However we are not there yet. How long will it be till we get there?

Reading between the lines I can only surmise that a fringe benefit of getting a few EX would be to get a beefed up frame with new engines that when you strip away all the excess, you can use the platform to develop the weapon. Note that in the development stage, you will have big missiles and you want to push those missile as far into the Mach envelope as possible before release. You don't want to pull the F-22 from front line duties to do these experiment. God forbid if something go wrong and you lose the airframe as well. Experimenting is dangerous.

For development, the F-35 would also be not useful unless Ozair can tell me that the F-35 in a clean configuration with one huge missile can hit Mach 2 without shaking apart. Isn't it true that at Mach+, its down to the shear power of your engine(s)?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:20 pm

Spar wrote:
Mattis is the one who hired Shanahan as Deputy Secretary of Defense.


I highly doubt that. Hiring a person with non-military/non-government experience sounds more like a Trump thing. From the latest readings, it seems that Shanahan was selected because of Bolton. And Trump is having second thought about it after Shanahan told the rest of the Arm Force to be a political, after the McCain incident.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elshad, GalaxyFlyer, Kiwirob, RetiredWeasel and 16 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos