Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:32 am

You're good at the insults and all that, I suppose you've found that to be a valuable asset in your life; but how about coming up with some links to your F-15EX news.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:54 am

Ozair wrote:
Actually Spar, again you demonstrate your inability to review a set of data and draw a valid conclusion from it… From FlightGlobal in March where they quoted Congressional Testimony.
"Our challenge was when you look at the force structure that we have there were four fourth-[generation] airplanes – F-16, F-15E, A-10 and F-15C – that we need to fly in [the] 2030s. The F-15C is not going to make it. It is old and it is not going to fly past the mid-20s,” USAF chief of staff General David Goldfein said in testimony to the US Senate Appropriations Committee on 13 March.

Do you think that even once in General David Goldfein's career, spanning the time from when he was a 2nd lieutenant until him being the four star that he is, do you think that even once in that career he ever publically claimed that he was doing something or supporting something simply because his boss made him do it?

I doubt very much that he ever did any such thing. Which makes your argument not only empty but out and out silly. The DoD foisted the EX off on the Air Force and the Air Force brass did what they always do; they followed orders.

You claim to not know that?
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:05 pm

Spar wrote:
Do you think that even once in General David Goldfein's career, spanning the time from when he was a 2nd lieutenant until him being the four star that he is, do you think that even once in that career he ever publically claimed that he was doing something or supporting something simply because his boss made him do it?

I doubt very much that he ever did any such thing. Which makes your argument not only empty but out and out silly.

Sorry Spar that doesn't cut it. You have no evidence of what you are claiming whereas I have provided clear evidence that the USAF has evaluated the F-15EX and from a cost perspective determined that it was the best option to replace the F-15C fleet, with the continuing stipulation it didn't impact the F-35 acquisition.

Spar wrote:
The DoD foisted the EX off on the Air Force and the Air Force brass did what they always do; they followed orders.

The USAF evaluated the F-15EX, probably at the request of the US DoD, and determined it was the most cost effective option. It was not an order and the USAF made the decision to acquire the jet. The congressional testimony makes this clear. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, which of course we would all appreciate you provide, it is time to suck it up and stop the personal crusade.

Spar wrote:
You claim to not know that?


You haven't provided any evidence to substantiate the claim. As far as additional evidence to support the position, have a look at the original news article that broke the F-15X story,

Boeing Is Pitching the US a New F-15, Using Its Super Hornet Game Plan

Unlike its successful Super Hornet pitch to the Trump administration last year, the F-15 pitch has not made its way to White House, according to sources with knowledge of the project. When Trump visited a Boeing commercial factory in South Carolina in February 2017, reporters traveling with the President spotted then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus with a Boeing white paper that compared an advanced version of the Super Hornet to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter made by rival Lockheed Martin.

Air Force leaders say they are currently evaluating their mix of aircraft.

“We have a new National Defense Strategy and the Air Force is working through the process of determining what Air Force is needed to meet that new National Defense Strategy and how do you represent that to the world, Gen. James “Mike” Holmes, the head of Air Combat Command, said June 28 at a Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.

Among the options being considered are new versions of F-15s and F-16s, according to one Air Force observer.

...

https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... an/149839/

Tyler Rogoway's sources also confirm this is what happened,

Exclusive: Unmasking The F-15X, Boeing's F-15C/D Eagle Replacement Fighter

Although it has been framed as a Boeing solicitation to the USAF, the opposite is actually true—the USAF began the discussion over a year and a half ago. Since then, ongoing talks have been kept incredibly hush-hush, along with the details of the aircraft involved—until now.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, The War Zone has learned about the F-15X's origins, its intended capabilities and features, and where it would fit inside the USAF's tactical airpower ecosystem.

The F-15X came out of a quiet USAF inquiry to Boeing and Lockheed Martin about fielding an aircraft that could seamlessly plug into their existing air combat infrastructure as part of better-defined high-low capability mix strategy—one intended to specifically help counter the service's shrinking force structure.

The airframe would have to be cost-effective both in terms of operation and acquisition, very low-risk, and most of all, it would need to be non-disruptive to the larger F-35 procurement initiative. If anything else, it had to be seen as complementary to the F-35, not as an alternative to it.

So the F-15X initiative is not some cold-call Boeing pitch, it was born out of hundreds of ever-strengthening discussions between various stakeholders within USAF and the aircraft manufacturer. All parties involved had worked hard not to disclose the talks out of respect for ongoing procurement programs and the USAF's stated needs. Additionally, doing so without providing adequate detail would surely result in the F-15X being misconstrued by the press as being some huge challenger to the F-35, when that was never actually the case or the scope of the proposed initiative.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... nt-fighter

The timeframes for the start of this discussion are right around the time the USAF made it clear it was going to retire the F-15C/D fleet and replace it with something else. This report shows how the USAF was investigating other options for the C/D fleet all the way back to the start of 2017 before Trump was in the WhiteHouse.

The Air Force's top general isn't sold on the potential retirement of the F-15C/D Eagle, he said Wednesday.

After an event at the Heritage Foundation, Gen. David Goldfein told reporters he was still undecided on whether the service should retire its fleet of F-15C/D jets in the mid-2020s.

"We're looking at all options all the time because until we get a budget, it's really hard to plan. So occasionally you're going to see us look at all kinds of different options," he said. "So I have not made any decision on the F-15. I actually haven't made a decision on any of the aircraft. We're going to keep the F-15C around at least until 2020."

Earlier this month, Air Force officials disclosed a budget planning option that would sideline the F-15C/D, replacing them with F-16s upgraded for better survivability in air-to-air combat. The younger fleet of F-15E Strike Eagles would remain intact.

Goldfein, speaking today, said continued high operational tempo precludes any immediate decision on its fleet of C and D model F-15s.

"In the Air Force, we need capacity, because we're in high demand, whether you want to talk about what we're doing in the Middle East or whether you want to talk about what we're doing in the Korean Peninsula, or what we're doing forward in Europe," he said. "Airpower is in higher and higher demand. So right now I'm looking very closely at capacity."

...

https://www.navytimes.com/air/2017/04/1 ... etirement/

The link above again shows how Goldfein was constrained by the fact he had to generate aircraft for missions and capacity was a big issue, the same issue that essentially has led to the F-15EX acquisition, the ability to smoothly transition F-15C squadrons to a new aircraft while not impacting aircraft and mission availability.

Care to share your evidence... not your opinion but some reasoned analysis or news article.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:43 pm

Ozair wrote:
Care to share your evidence... not your opinion but some reasoned analysis or news article.


Actually, it is O.K. for Spar to share his opinion. It is O.K. for him (I assumed that he is a he and not a she) to be passionate about his opinion. It is also O.K. if he is not passionate about his opinion and is just trolling us. All that matter is we take opinions and facts at their face values and respond accordingly. There is a saying "like water off a duck's back". I recommend we proceed with any fact that may be presented and ignore the opinions unless you want to get caught into a pissing match.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:18 pm

Ozair wrote:
Spar wrote:
Do you think that even once in General David Goldfein's career, spanning the time from when he was a 2nd lieutenant until him being the four star that he is, do you think that even once in that career he ever publically claimed that he was doing something or supporting something simply because his boss made him do it?

I doubt very much that he ever did any such thing. Which makes your argument not only empty but out and out silly.

Sorry Spar that doesn't cut it. You have no evidence of what you are claiming whereas I have provided clear evidence that the USAF has evaluated the F-15EX and from a cost perspective determined that it was the best option to replace the F-15C fleet, with the continuing stipulation it didn't impact the F-35 acquisition.

You have provided no evidence to show that a 90 million dollar plane is cheaper than a 12 million dollar upgrade.

And you avoided the question: Do you think that even once in General David Goldfein's career he ever publically claimed that he was doing something or supporting something simply because his boss made him do it?
 
mmo
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:55 pm

Spar wrote:
You have provided no evidence to show that a 90 million dollar plane is cheaper than a 12 million dollar upgrade.


One of the reasons the F-15E/X was forced on the USAF is the reason you cite above. There is no guarantee the upgrade would cost 12 million or less. The C/D models being retired now have major issues with the structure and the wiring because it has been flown near or at the g limits almost it's entire career. In a perfect world, it wouldn't make much difference. Just doing the bare minimum on keeping the C/D is not, in the opinion of the DOD decision makers, enough to get the extension they need. The renewed interest in the F-15 has caused the DOD to review its plans and decide a new E/X version gives then longer life for a known amount of money.

The USAF didn't make the decision on the F-15, it was decided for then (rammed down their throats). I think it will, in my opinion, survive the conference committee between the House and Senate as there is the political issue of jobs with an E/X. The USAF has made it clear it will not give up F-35s for E/X, I think both Houses are listening to what they say, but the funds have to be there for the E/X program to come to fruition.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... nt-fighter
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... -decision/
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:17 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Care to share your evidence... not your opinion but some reasoned analysis or news article.


Actually, it is O.K. for Spar to share his opinion. It is O.K. for him (I assumed that he is a he and not a she) to be passionate about his opinion. It is also O.K. if he is not passionate about his opinion and is just trolling us. All that matter is we take opinions and facts at their face values and respond accordingly. There is a saying "like water off a duck's back". I recommend we proceed with any fact that may be presented and ignore the opinions unless you want to get caught into a pissing match.

bt

Appreciate that BT. After a while though I get tired of being accused of things, especially when an opinion is being presented as fact. The forum rules are very clear on this.
a. When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.


So when I quote facts to support statement I make I expect the same from those I am discussing issues with. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion but the rules makes it very clear we need to state them as such. This discussion is presenting an opinion as fact without any supporting evidence. This is very much as the last line on the rules quoted above states, an argument based on a rumour or misinformation.

Spar wrote:
You have provided no evidence to show that a 90 million dollar plane is cheaper than a 12 million dollar upgrade.

Clearly a US$90 million dollar aircraft is not cheaper than a US$12 million dollar upgrade… In place of that I have Lt Gen Mark Nowland from one of the links above making it clear why they haven’t gone for a US$12 million dollar upgrade. In case you missed it,

At an earlier event, Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Nowland, the deputy chief of staff for operations who is also a former F-15C/D pilot, said the F-16 could probably fill that homeland defense role if it gets the right upgrades, such as an active electronically scanned aperture (AESA) radar. But ultimately, neither the F-16 nor F-15 will be viable in future high-threat environments overseas, and both will rely on fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and F-22 to clear out advanced weapon systems.

"The question of an F-15 and an F-16 in a European scenario on its own, neither one is going to do it. They both are going to get shot down and die," he said. "But a combination with a concept of operation that puts together electronic combat, that puts together fifth-generation [fighters], fourth-generation [fighters], timing, tempo, long-range munitions, standoff munitions ... it’s going to make it better."

The Guard loves the F-15C, but it is an "old airplane" that already had 7,100 flight hours on it when Rowland was flying them in 2001, he said. Even then, the aircraft required extensive maintenance, and the newer F-22 can conduct air superiority missions better.

"People forget I was at Lakenheath when the nose of an F-15 broke off in flight," he said. "The fact of the matter is, there’s limits to what you can do with service life extensions. So it really comes down to fleet management."

https://www.navytimes.com/air/2017/04/1 ... etirement/



Spar wrote:
And you avoided the question: Do you think that even once in General David Goldfein's career he ever publically claimed that he was doing something or supporting something simply because his boss made him do it?

I don’t need to avoid the question Spar because the question is irrelevant. My position does not rest of David Goldfein being a guy who would stand up to his superiors or not. My position has been supported by multiple quotes and news articles that clearly spell out that the USAF investigated were evaluating new build F-16s and F-15s, long before Shanahan was in any position in the WhiteHouse. The result was that as long as it didn’t impact the F-35 timeline the F-15EX was the most affordable option to replace the F-15C/D fleet.

Again, just so it is clear. In my opinion (see what I did there…) the best thing the USAF could do would be to increase the USAF F-35A production rate to 100+ a year and replace those ANG F-15C/Ds as soon as possible. It benefits the future fleet and significantly improves overall USAF capability and flexibility as well as being probably cheaper overall.

Unfortunately the USAF for this has two issues they need to deal with, the rising cost and lowing availability of the F-15C/D fleet and the requirement to maintain the availability and readiness of units. Gen Goldfein make it clear there are very high demands on generating sorties and therefore the USAF does not have the ability to take units out of the line long enough the convert them to F-35, which we know is going to take at least 18 months for an active squadron and closer to three years for an ANG squadron. The solution to that is to acquire new F-15s, in the form of the EX, which allow those ANG F-15C/D units to convert to a newer version in a significantly shorter period of time (likely less than six months). Yes it probably costs the USAF more money in the long run to do this.

The thing to remember is the USAF is not an accounting organisation. Its duty and mission is to generate airpower to support US Government policy. If the F-15EX solution costs more but allows for more aircraft and aircrew to be available to generate airpower then that, in this current threat environment, is what they are going to choose and that is their “affordable” decision.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:39 am

mmo wrote:
There is no guarantee the upgrade would cost 12 million or less.
Just as there is no guarantee that Boeing would deliver the EX product for the price they are bidding. There is no reason to think one project is more likely to go overbudget than the other and please remember we are comparing 90 million with 12 million. It strikes me a ludicrous to even be discussing this.
mmo wrote:
The C/D models being retired now have major issues with the structure and the wiring because it has been flown near or at the g limits almost it's entire career.

"Flown at or near G limits", that's why they will get new wings, that's what this is all about, yes they need new wings and some key fuselage spars - and if given these upgrades, there is every reason to think that they can continue the Noble Eagle mission until their scheduled retirement date sometime around 2030 and there is no reason to think they can't.

mmo wrote:
Just doing the bare minimum on keeping the C/D is not, in the opinion of the DOD decision makers, enough to get the extension they need.

There are several things wrong with that sentence beginning with the rhetorical device: "just doing the bare minimum", spare me that kind of nonsense please. Then there is the implication that the DoD "decision makers" have based the F-15EX decision on anything other than Mike Shanahan's preferences. Later on this very thread, you drag out the argument about how much needed employment the F-15EX project will bring as if that's the undeniable reason for the EX. The reason for the EX is to enhance the prospects of Boeing stockholders at the expense of the nation, nothing else.

mmo wrote:
The renewed interest in the F-15 has caused the DOD to review its plans and decide a new E/X version gives then longer life for a known amount of money.
What "renewed interest"? What "review of plans"? Longer life for 7X the price? This reminds me of the Danny DeVito - Richard Dreyfuss movie: Tin Men (think how much this is going to reduce your heating bill).

mmo wrote:
The USAF didn't make the decision on the F-15, it was decided for then (rammed down their throats). I think it will, in my opinion, survive the conference committee between the House and Senate as there is the political issue of jobs with an E/X.
Correct, it was rammed down their throats.

mmo wrote:
The USAF has made it clear it will not give up F-35s for E/X, I think both Houses are listening to what they say, but the funds have to be there for the E/X program to come to fruition.
From what I can discern the AF has it's hands full integrating the available F-35s coming off the line into front line units and is happy to leave the defense of CONUS to the NG and the F-15s until all the oversea units and training units are up to speed in stealth mode. It's not a matter of "giving up F-35s for EX". They just want the NG transition to be kept on hold for something like eight years, and then they'll begin to retire the last of the nation's non-stealth air combat units.

If somebody has to be the last to be converted to 5th gen / stealth, it should be those units that will never be given the task of penetrating other people's air defense shields. There's nothing complex about that.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:13 am

Ozair wrote:
[I have Lt Gen Mark Nowland from one of the links above making it clear why they haven’t gone for a US$12 million dollar upgrade. In case you missed it,
The Nowland quote you provided doesn't even address that subject. Are you sure you cut and pasted the right stuff? You quoted him from a 2017 article where he referred to a 2014 accident involving an F-15 and then (maybe at the same time, maybe not) issued the vague non-contextualized statement about limits to SLEPs, but none of that is a defense for the EX or addresses the proposal to re-wing the F-15 C's. We know that there have been Air Force people analizing hypotheticals, like f-16 replacement for f-15 Cs. That's not news.

Ozair wrote:
The thing to remember is the USAF is not an accounting organisation.

This is the until now unstated crux of your belief, and the reason why your argument has been so winding and circular.

Essentially, you don't give a shit about cost. You just like bright shiny new fighter planes and you don't give a hoot about the poor chumps paying for them. You don't care at all that there is a solution for the F-15 C longevity problem that is many billions of dollars cheaper than the purchase of brand new Boeing aircraft. You just don't care.

Well I do.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:35 am

Spar wrote:
The Nowland quote you provided doesn't even address that subject. Are you sure you cut and pasted the right stuff? You quoted him from a 2017 article where he referred to a 2014 accident involving an F-15 and then (maybe at the same time, maybe not) issued the vague non-contextualized statement about limits to SLEPs, but none of that is a defense for the EX or addresses the proposal to re-wing the F-15 C's. We know that there have been Air Force people analizing hypotheticals, like f-16 replacement for f-15 Cs. That's not news.

As mmo indicated, the issue remains the USAF’s confidence in the C/D fleet. The quote was very clear that the USAF considers the F-15C/D unsustainable past that mid 2020s point and additional work on the aircraft deemed not a valid investment.

Again, you haven’t provided any evidence that these upgrades can occur with no issues. Compared to your comments, the USAF has been clear multiple times it does not have confidence in the F-15C/D going the length of time required, even with the advocated upgrades.

Who should we believe then, your opinion or the facts presented by the USAF who actually operate the aircraft?

Spar wrote:
This is the until now unstated crux of your belief, and the reason why your argument has been so winding and circular.

Essentially, you don't give a shit about cost. You just like bright shiny new fighter planes and you don't give a hoot about the poor chumps paying for them. You don't care at all that there is a solution for the F-15 C longevity problem that is many billions of dollars cheaper than the purchase of brand new Boeing aircraft. You just don't care.

Well I do.

Your attempt to make this about what I care or don’t care about is irrelevant. Whether I care about the costs is immaterial to the discussion (although a read of even the first page of this thread shows I have been vocal on costs throughout). It isn’t what I care about, it is what the USAF cares about given they made this decision, not me. Clearly availability of aircraft and their ability to generate mission sorties is a higher priority for them than cost. The USAF is the steward of the budget they are allotted, which has been approved by the House and Senate. If you don’t like the decision they have made, write your Congressman/Senator and ask him/her to not vote for the spending bill. I don’t have a say in the matter…
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:23 am

Spar wrote:
Just as there is no guarantee that Boeing would deliver the EX product for the price they are bidding.


But I thought that this would be a fixed price contract?. Development risk is being addressed by the non-recurring funds that have already been approved by the Houses. And if Boeing mess up, they will have to eat it like they are doing with the tanker. And unlike the tanker, there is no mass quantity to make up in volume.

Personally, how Boeing has proceed with the T-X, gives me confidence that they can deliver with the EX. And before someone chime in with the MAX debacle, understand that the Engineers doing the EX are not the same as those with the MAX.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:46 am

bikerthai wrote:
But I thought that this would be a fixed price contract?. Development risk is being addressed by the non-recurring funds that have already been approved by the Houses. And if Boeing mess up, they will have to eat it like they are doing with the tanker. And unlike the tanker, there is no mass quantity to make up in volume.

You'll have to come up with a link to a news story or something. I haven't seen anything like that in this thread. The tanker contract has history behind it; a Boeing executive even went to jail over the tanker deal. That contract isn't the norm.

In any event, the idea that the re-wing contract would have a cost overrun is just a figment of someone's imagination, there is no reason to think it would happen. Behind that is the fact that it would have to overrun 700% before it even approached the cost of new F-15s.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:46 pm

estorilm wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Could have saved a fortune with all of them being STOVL as a single program, but those damn sailors want their tail hooks.


That was never an option - the capabilities of a STOVL-only F-35 would be rather unimpressive (as an entire program).

When people cite performance statistics, load-out, range, etc they are doing so with the F-35A in mind. Not to mention there's a MASSIVE price gap between the A and the B for example (the lift-fan system is incredibly complicated).

Land-based USAF wings with 11,000' runways don't need to lug around the STOVL crap, reduce payload and range, and dramatically increase maintenance costs. However this also allows them to have an integrated cannon, for example.

There was never any way around having different variants of the aircraft. Likewise, the Charlie version is really required for adequate carrier landing handling characteristics and loiter time - not to mention they can integrate other changes (corrosion resistance, repetitive stress and landing considerations) which cost significant amounts of money, but aren't required on the other variants.

It's just an expensive plane is all.


If STOVL were the goal, they would have built the plane around it rather than it be an option.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:19 pm

Spar wrote:
You'll have to come up with a link to a news story or something.


I know you don't trust The Drive, but this is something that do not get bantered out haphazardly.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... m-per-copy

In addition, the F-15X was offered by Boeing to the USAF under a firm, fixed-price contract terms. In other words, if the USAF executes the offer, and the aircraft cost more than what is estimated, Boeing eats that cost directly, just as it has with the KC-46 tanker.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
texl1649
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:20 pm

If the USAF, Israelis, saudis, Qataris, Japanese, Taiwan, and Koreans are all buying or taking a hard look at this aircraft, it must make a pretty compelling argument for itself.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:23 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Spar wrote:
You'll have to come up with a link to a news story or something.


I know you don't trust The Drive, but this is something that do not get bantered out haphazardly.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... m-per-copy

In addition, the F-15X was offered by Boeing to the USAF under a firm, fixed-price contract terms. In other words, if the USAF executes the offer, and the aircraft cost more than what is estimated, Boeing eats that cost directly, just as it has with the KC-46 tanker.


bt


BT-
A great article, the quote that I liked is:

“If they choose to have an order of the F-15, it won’t be at the expense of F-35 quantities... I'm hearing that directly from leadership in the Pentagon, and I think that's an important point for me to make. It's not just our suspicion, but I've been told that directly.”


To me that is essential, we need a lot of new metal right now as the F-35 full rate production is just now occurring not 5 years ago. But it is so important to keep the F-35 production running, the USAF needs over 1,000 new F-35's in the next decade. Yes, the F-15EX is near the same price as a F-35, but it slides in easily into the existing squadrons, allowing pilots already trained to fly it, many in reserve units. That allows the F-35 crews to fly the F-35 now and when they move over to the reserves later, will still be trained. The F-15 pilots in the reserves have a shorter period to retirement.

After 30 years, all the parts in a machine are old and are probably due to be replaced. So a total rebuild vs just wings are probably needed. An Abrams tank is a great candidate for rebuild as the heavy frame probably is like new. What is vital is we don't walk into a boondoggle like the DDG-1000, 25B for 3 ships with a questionable role. I would have preferred 240 new F-35's.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:27 am

texl1649 wrote:
If the USAF, Israelis, saudis, Qataris, Japanese, Taiwan, and Koreans are all buying or taking a hard look at this aircraft, it must make a pretty compelling argument for itself.

Saudi Arabia has been denied the F-35 and have pursued the SA model; they did that prior to the EX, an EX would be a downgrade for them.
Qatar has been denied the F-35 and have pursued the QA model; they also did that prior to the EX, an EX would also be a downgrade for them.
Taiwan is in the same boat, they have been denied the F-35, so they may go with some version of the F-15.
The Koreans are onboard with the F-35.
In the past, Japan made their own Mitsubishi version called the F-15J, but they have gone with the F-35.

Compelling argument?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:42 pm

Spar wrote:
EX would be a downgrade for them.


Flame bait warning :flamed: :rotfl:

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:25 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Spar wrote:
EX would be a downgrade for them.


Flame bait warning :flamed: :rotfl:

bt
As has often been the case for this thread, once again we have a deflection; a change of subject.
The point is, that texl1649 wasn't even close to being accurate, it seems that he had made up the "facts" of his post out of thin air.
 
mmo
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:40 pm

Spar. so much for your theories on the F-35 and how it will replace everything.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-w ... pable-goal
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:13 pm

If the EX design is based in the QA or SA configuration, saying it's a down grade requires explanation. Sure, the three configuration are meant for different missions, and would have different capabilities, but calling the EX as a down grade would require details on what is the ranking parameters.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:16 pm

mmo wrote:
Spar. so much for your theories on the F-35 and how it will replace everything.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-w ... pable-goal


Supply chain problems can be solved. It would just takes more money . . . :dopey: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign:

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:00 pm

mmo wrote:
Spar. so much for your theories on the F-35 and how it will replace everything.
https://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-w ... pable-goal

The temporary canopy problem?

Are you sure this isn't the link you wanted to post?
https://aviationweek.com/defense/pentag ... y-30-years



bikerthai wrote:
If the EX design is based in the QA or SA configuration, saying it's a down grade requires explanation. Sure, the three configuration are meant for different missions, and would have different capabilities, but calling the EX as a down grade would require details on what is the ranking parameters.

You just explained it: different intended missions.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:36 pm

Spar wrote:

bikerthai wrote:
If the EX design is based in the QA or SA configuration, saying it's a down grade requires explanation. Sure, the three configuration are meant for different missions, and would have different capabilities, but calling the EX as a down grade would require details on what is the ranking parameters.

You just explained it: different intended missions.

The F-15EX is not a downgrade from the F-15SA/QA and to suggest such is clearly wrong.

For a start the EX comes with EPAWSS which is not present on any of the export aircraft. It is a significant improvement for the F-15E fleet, and the EX when it arrives, over the current systems present in all previous domestic and exported F-15 variants. Additionally the SA has the APG-63 V3 radar while the EX has the APG-82 V1, the 82 being the newer and more capable system. Finally the F-15SA, nor any current export F-15 variant, has the new ADCPII processor which is again a significant upgrade to the aircraft.

All in all the F-15EX is far and away the most capable F-15 variant ever developed and wis more capable than the F-15SA/QA in any mission set the three variants were expected to undertake.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:54 pm

mmo wrote:

And the F-35 doesn't have the money or the vendors to solve the problem. Thus the E/X.

That isn't correct mmo. The program has the funding and new suppliers are being identified. The F-22 won't hit the 80% mark because of a lack of stealth maintenance infrastructure, exacerbated by the damage to Tyndall, and the F-16 will only hit the mark because the USAF increased the spares holdings and added additional maintenance shifts.

The acquisition of the EX has nothing to do with the delay in the F-35 achieving the 80% mission availability rate. It has lots to do with the F-15C fleet not achieving the 80% mission availability rate...
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:18 pm

Spar wrote:
You just explained it: different intended missions.


Then you should have stated so in the first place.

Ozair wrote:
All in all the F-15EX is far and away the most capable F-15 variant ever developed and wis more capable than the F-15SA/QA in any mission set the three variants were expected to undertake.


And don't forget the EX will be able to carry more missiles than the QA or SA. From that myopic point of comparison, the EX has twice as capable as the other two :rotfl:

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
mmo
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:03 pm

[quote="Ozair".

The acquisition of the EX has nothing to do with the delay in the F-35 achieving the 80% mission availability rate. It has lots to do with the F-15C fleet not achieving the 80% mission availability rate...[/quote]

I never wrote or inferred it did. It should be obvious, the EX would have a higher MA rate vs the current C/D. Please don't refer to things I never wrote.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
estorilm
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:15 pm

DL717 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Could have saved a fortune with all of them being STOVL as a single program, but those damn sailors want their tail hooks.


That was never an option - the capabilities of a STOVL-only F-35 would be rather unimpressive (as an entire program).

When people cite performance statistics, load-out, range, etc they are doing so with the F-35A in mind. Not to mention there's a MASSIVE price gap between the A and the B for example (the lift-fan system is incredibly complicated).

Land-based USAF wings with 11,000' runways don't need to lug around the STOVL crap, reduce payload and range, and dramatically increase maintenance costs. However this also allows them to have an integrated cannon, for example.

There was never any way around having different variants of the aircraft. Likewise, the Charlie version is really required for adequate carrier landing handling characteristics and loiter time - not to mention they can integrate other changes (corrosion resistance, repetitive stress and landing considerations) which cost significant amounts of money, but aren't required on the other variants.

It's just an expensive plane is all.


If STOVL were the goal, they would have built the plane around it rather than it be an option.

I'm confused - they absolutely built the aircraft with STOVL in mind, from the very first sketches.

It was a primary requirement for the entire JSF program. Keep in mind that Boeing's concept aircraft struggled to even achieve a vertical takeoff WITH a hover pit, min fuel, and some physical parts of the aircraft actually removed to further reduce weight, while the X-35 in original test trim took off in 500', went supersonic, and landed vertically on a conventional surface. To this day it remains the only aircraft to ever do so (and it did this 18 years ago).

That Boeing X-32 was your alternative to the F-35 by the way - just to keep things in perspective here lol.

The F-35 is an exceptional "compromise" and I think every branch is quite happy with its capabilities and performance, if you filter out political BS. Price will forever haunt the program, but honestly there was just no way around it.

Also (for what it's worth) I think the F-35A is coming into its own element now as a relatively cheap ($80mil) fighter which offers capabilities that no other aircraft on earth can match. We're about to pay over 100m each for 4.5 gen F-15X's for example. Gotta keep things in perspective - a Eurofighter Typhoon costs nearly $140m USD, and I would absolutely NOT want to be flying one against an F-35.

Hell that's $25 million more than the most expensive (ie. STOVL) F-35B variant, and they aren't even remotely comparable in a highly contested (SAM & A2A) environment.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:10 pm

mmo wrote:

I never wrote or inferred it did. It should be obvious, the EX would have a higher MA rate vs the current C/D. Please don't refer to things I never wrote.

The post I quoted was deleted mmo.

bikerthai wrote:
And don't forget the EX will be able to carry more missiles than the QA or SA. From that myopic point of comparison, the EX has twice as capable as the other two :rotfl:

bt

Not quite. Both the SA and QA would be capable of carrying the larger missile loads as both have the outside wing pylons now capable of carrying ordnance. It only comes down to the rack adapters that increase the missile load being sold to them, once Boeing actually develops them. I haven't seen any funding for those specific adapters though so I'm not sure whether they will actually be acquired by the USAF.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:14 am

Looks like the Defense budget is going to pass at the US$738 billion funded amount the House agreed to and not the US$750 billion amount the Senate was looking for.

Based on that the F-15EX is going ahead with the noted stipulations discussed previously on money available and the reporting requirement to the House Armed Services committee.

Trump and Pelosi Strike a Big Budget Deal

President Trump announced Monday afternoon that he had reached a deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional leaders to raise spending on both defense and non-defense programs over the next two years and suspend the nation’s borrowing limit.

If passed, the agreement would avoid steep automatic cuts set to take effect for fiscal year 2020 and defuse the threat of a possible debt default.

...

“Defense would jump to $738 billion next year, a 3% hike.”

...

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/07/ ... udget-Deal
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:51 am

Hmm? Now unless something comes up, we can freeze this discussion until first flight.
;-)
bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:26 am

bikerthai wrote:
Hmm? Now unless something comes up, we can freeze this discussion until first flight.
;-)
bt


Well we have the mandate to deliver the documentation to the Congressional Defence Committees so that looks like the likely next step and would almost certainly be expected before the USAF goes much further with the design.

As a reminder the documentation is
(1) A program acquisition strategy
(2) An acquisition program baseline.
(3) A test and evaluation master plan.
(4) A life-cycle sustainment plan.
(5) A post-production fielding strategy.

The above is all straight forward stuff so I expect it shouldn’t hold up the program too much.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:17 pm

Ozair wrote:
would almost certainly be expected before the USAF goes much further with the design.


Actually my reading is that Boeing would have the go-a-head with detail designing of the aircraft once the contract is released for the two test planes.
The basic statement of work and drawing release schedule would have been laid out already as part of the proposal. Engineering releases would begin to drop a couple of weeks after signing, unless they already started by using their own R&D money as a hedge on the schedule. Most of the system architecture would probably be the same as existing aircraft. They would just need to re-do the major wing and fuselage components to incorporate their new manufacturing process to reduce cost and flow time.

I would not be surprise if the time line would mirror the T-X time line.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
estorilm
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:39 pm

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Well I just find it interesting with SHanahan (with an S) gone now all of a sudden we have two seaters floated.

As for this being a Boeing handout...after the trainer win? After MX win, and barely having to demonstrate a prototype? After a huge tanker win? If I haven’t made it obvious before I don’t trust how anything from the Trump Administration smells (notwithstanding the Obama era tanker decision.) Boeing as it is already has enough money from a virtual airliner monopoly. That’s the larger issue, monopolies and dualopolies in most if not all industrial sectors

Don't forget about the ridiculous MQ-25 win for the Navy. :roll:

It is a handout, period.

We're paying for things that under-perform, are over-budget, and/or not required (or even asked for) in the first place. The KC-46 is STILL a disaster. I don't think this has anything to do with Trump, if anything he's tight with $$$ and won't hesitate to call foul. Perhaps "protecting" US interests or this is just really deep into the DoD.

The F-35 program is finally well-established... going all-in is no longer a risk, IT'S A REWARD! Dumping this money into the JSF will further cut costs and net a larger (quicker procurement) fleet of far more survivable aircraft that belong in the modern battle space.

bikerthai wrote:
And before someone chime in with the MAX debacle, understand that the Engineers doing the EX are not the same as those with the MAX.

bt


You're right, they're probably closer to the engineers that can't figure out how to turn a plane they've been building for 40 years into a tanker without being $4 BILLION DOLLARS over budget and a couple years late. :duck: :eyepopping:
 
mmo
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:31 pm

Have looked for the article I read yesterday, but the base F-15X will be a single-seat F-15QA version. The piece went on to say it is not an F-35 replacement and was never intended to be. The article went on to state that Israel and Qatar will most certainly order a further 36 aircraft each. Much R&D (5 Billion$) has already been paid for by foreign countries so investment by the DOD is minimal. In addition, the production line has plenty of room to increase capacity. Expect a fixed price contract of $95 million or less flyaway cost. Infrastructure spending will be at a minimum and training costs will be at a minimum. The airframe will have a 20,000 hour lifetime.

Turkey's F-35 slots are being fought over by countries which have ordered the F-35.

Those are pretty much the highlights and I will try to find the piece I read to post it for all the nay sayers.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:41 pm

mmo wrote:
Expect a fixed price contract of $95 million or less flyaway cost.
The airframe will have a 20,000 hour lifetime.
Turkey's F-35 slots are being fought over by countries which have ordered the F-35.
Those are pretty much the highlights and I will try to find the piece I read to post it for all the nay sayers.

So the EX estimated price has gone up by another five million and it is now $15 million a copy more expensive than an F-35 or $83 million each more expensive than just upgrading the current F-15 C models.

The 20,000 hour lifetime is great news because it offers the opportunity to lighten it up some, as the 20,000 hour lifetime isn't needed. The F -15 type aircraft are obsolete and this is just an interim measure anyway.

"fighting" over the Turk slots? You really need a citation for something like that.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:56 pm

Spar wrote:
The 20,000 hour lifetime is great news because it offers the opportunity to lighten it up some, as the 20,000 hour lifetime isn't needed.


This is a curious. As far as I can tell, they have to stay with metal as going to composite would cost a bundle and the current high temperature composite won't let you go any faster than the F-35.

Thus the 20,000 would have to come from new alloys of aluminum or even titanium. Increasing fatigue life and maintaining existing material would mean up-gauging.

Anyone know what material the current F-15 wings are made from?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:55 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
would almost certainly be expected before the USAF goes much further with the design.


Actually my reading is that Boeing would have the go-a-head with detail designing of the aircraft once the contract is released for the two test planes.
The basic statement of work and drawing release schedule would have been laid out already as part of the proposal. Engineering releases would begin to drop a couple of weeks after signing, unless they already started by using their own R&D money as a hedge on the schedule. Most of the system architecture would probably be the same as existing aircraft. They would just need to re-do the major wing and fuselage components to incorporate their new manufacturing process to reduce cost and flow time.

I would not be surprise if the time line would mirror the T-X time line.

bt

Yes they do have that go ahead but let's be realistic, Boeing isn't going to press forward without for instance the third piece of requested doco, a test and evaluation master plan. It is in Boeing’s and the USAF’s interest to get that doco set completed and while progress on the two prototypes can continue the doco set should be complete long before first flight.

Spar wrote:
The 20,000 hour lifetime is great news because it offers the opportunity to lighten it up some, as the 20,000 hour lifetime isn't needed.

That isn’t the way things work. Removing reinforcement from the wing to reduce fatigue life is a waste of time. The weight saved at this stage of the F-15s life is minimal and would likely be detriment to the airframe, not beneficial. It would also cost a lot more to do.

bikerthai wrote:
This is a curious. As far as I can tell, they have to stay with metal as going to composite would cost a bundle and the current high temperature composite won't let you go any faster than the F-35.

The M1.6 limitation related to the operational concept. The aircraft wasn’t required to exceed those speeds so the materials were designed around that speed. The jet is likely to be quite capable of going faster than that given the thrust but is outside the operational envelope.

bikerthai wrote:
Thus the 20,000 would have to come from new alloys of aluminum or even titanium. Increasing fatigue life and maintaining existing material would mean up-gauging.

The 20,000 hour lifetime comes from strengthening of the airframe over the C model which was already extended to I think 12k or even 15k. The E fleet is also expected to make it to 20k flight hours as it was also strengthened over the C.
Reinforcement of about 60% of the airframe to permit longer operation at low-level, though the F-15E retained a high degree of parts commonality with the F-15C/D. Improved materials were used in some assemblies, while fire-resistant foam was installed between the fuel tanks and the engines to improve survivability.

http://www.airvectors.net/avf15_1.html

Noting the F-15E hasn’t spent anywhere near the time expected at low level and therefore from a fatigue perspective the airframe is in good shape.


bikerthai wrote:
Anyone know what material the current F-15 wings are made from?

The QA received some wing modifications but nothing cosmic (and no mention of new material).
In an interview with FlightGlobal on 22 February, Parker also confirmed the F-15QA also will be delivered with a redesigned wing that strengthens the internal structure without changing the aerodynamics,. The redesign was made possible by using advanced new manufacturing techniques developed within Boeing in the last few years, he adds.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... af-446189/

Noting the SA/QA aircraft also required that strengthening to make better use of the new outer wing weapons stations.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:42 am

Ozair wrote:
Spar wrote:
The 20,000 hour lifetime is great news because it offers the opportunity to lighten it up some, as the 20,000 hour lifetime isn't needed.

That isn’t the way things work. Removing reinforcement from the wing to reduce fatigue life is a waste of time. The weight saved at this stage of the F-15s life is minimal and would likely be detriment to the airframe, not beneficial. It would also cost a lot more to do.
You apparently missed my point about the 20,000 hour lifetime being a false selling point. This plane is just meant to plug the gap until the entire fleet is replaced by F-35s.

Unless these 4th generation aircraft are intended to make the manufacture of some of the future 5th gen F-35s unnecessary.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:15 am

Spar wrote:
You apparently missed my point about the 20,000 hour lifetime being a false selling point.

Your point wasn’t clear. If you were referencing the aircraft not being flown to the 20,000 hour limit due to replacement why mention the suggestion to lighten them?

Spar wrote:
This plane is just meant to plug the gap until the entire fleet is replaced by F-35s.

Perhaps but given the USAF intends to operate the F-15E until the early 2040s they will likely continue to use any F-15EX acquired in one role or another.

Spar wrote:
Unless these 4th generation aircraft are intended to make the manufacture of some of the future 5th gen F-35s unnecessary.

As has been stated numerous times the F-15C/D fleet was never slated for replacement by the F-35. The current program of record for USAF F-35 aircraft does not cover that, the intent is to replace F-16/A-10 aircraft. At the current expected rate, as per the last SAR, the USAF F-35 buy sits at 60 from 2024 to 2044, so 1200 aircraft. At the moment the USAF has approximately 791 F-16s and 287 A-10s in service. At the proposed production rate and the number of aircraft to be replaced there won’t be excess to replace other aircraft until 2038. That doesn’t mean at some point the F-35 won’t replace the F-15C/D, or EX, but that there are enough F-16s/A-10s to replace over the next 20 years that the USAF will be busy enough converting those units over.

A good idea is the USAF increase the production rate of the F-35 to 100+ a year (save money, increase capability, get through the build quicker) but that brings with it issues with availability of aircraft for current missions. The USAF can only take so many active squadrons off the line to replace them with F-35s, generally a two year process, before they start to hit limits on the number of aircraft/trained aircrew available for tasking should the need arise. Hence it remains, as with the acquisition of the EX to replace the C/D, a balancing act of funding, availability and capability required to complete the tasked missions.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:32 am

Ozair wrote:
given the USAF intends to operate the F-15E until the early 2040s ......


When did it change?
Ozair wrote:
Over the past two years, the USAF has discussed options for keeping a subset of the F-15C fleet in service through the mid- to late-2030s. Those aircraft would require a longeron replacement with a $1 million cost per shipset, Parker says. Some Air Force officials also are discussing options to keep the F-15Cs in service even longer, which could require a wing replacement, Parker says.

The additional life extension is currently “not required, but it my be something they want to do”” Parker says. “We’re just giving them some options.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... af-446189/
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:53 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
given the USAF intends to operate the F-15E until the early 2040s ......


When did it change?
Ozair wrote:
Over the past two years, the USAF has discussed options for keeping a subset of the F-15C fleet in service through the mid- to late-2030s. Those aircraft would require a longeron replacement with a $1 million cost per shipset, Parker says. Some Air Force officials also are discussing options to keep the F-15Cs in service even longer, which could require a wing replacement, Parker says.

The additional life extension is currently “not required, but it my be something they want to do”” Parker says. “We’re just giving them some options.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... af-446189/

Read clearly what I wrote. The first quote from me is E model, not C. The E’s were acquired much later and were structurally reinforced.

As for the second quote yes agree that Parker, from Boeing, was looking to sell the USAF on F-15C/D service life extensions but as I have previously linked to you the USAF doesn’t understand the full extent of the fatigue issue, hence the contracted work to try and determine the current state of the fleet. The articles discussing the USAF ANG units retiring the F-15C and being replaced with F-16s or something else were published previous to the Feb 18 interview with Parker (replacement with F-16s was published in April 2017… https://www.navytimes.com/air/2017/04/1 ... etirement/).

Additionally I have quoted numerous times in this thread multiple senior USAF people, including the link above, who are very clear about how long the F-15C will last and what can and cannot be done to extend its life.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:45 am

Ozair wrote:
Read clearly what I wrote. The first quote from me is E model, not C. The E’s were acquired much later and were structurally reinforced.

Yes I shouldn't have used that quote. However, the time when the F-15s are to be retired has lately been quoted here as in the 2040s, when earlier in this thread it was at least alluded to as 2030s.

Earlier in this thread you indicated that you thought that F-35s would replace the F-15s. In post #185 you said:
"As already provided, the F-35 is cheaper to acquire, cheaper to run than both the F-15C and X versions while being as capable as a missile truck and likely more capable in the A2A role. It is the clear stated preference of the USAF and the F-35 will start going to National Guard units this year."

But now you say that's not correct. Where is this kind of information coming from?

Ozair wrote:
the USAF doesn’t understand the full extent of the fatigue issue

I'm not convinced that there is a fatigue issue beyond the wing spars approaching the maximum number of flexes before weakening can be predicted. The fuselage spar replacement looks to be less of a fatigue issue than that of a possible initial design was understrength as the Missouri accident seems to have revealed. A poorly manufactured spar is what was attributed to that accident from what I've read. It apparently was not a fatigue failure.

None of this could be any mystery to the engineers who have studied the F-15. They have plenty of high hour aircraft available for destructive testing if they suspect some unknown. It looks more like a sales pitch, not a real issue.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:22 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Read clearly what I wrote. The first quote from me is E model, not C. The E’s were acquired much later and were structurally reinforced.

Yes I shouldn't have used that quote. However, the time when the F-15s are to be retired has lately been quoted here as in the 2040s, when earlier in this thread it was at least alluded to as 2030s.

Earlier in this thread you indicated that you thought that F-35s would replace the F-15s. In post #185 you said:
"As already provided, the F-35 is cheaper to acquire, cheaper to run than both the F-15C and X versions while being as capable as a missile truck and likely more capable in the A2A role. It is the clear stated preference of the USAF and the F-35 will start going to National Guard units this year."

But now you say that's not correct. Where is this kind of information coming from?

Spar, the quote from #185 is still correct, the F-35 is cheaper to acquire, will be cheaper to run than both by the time the F-15EX enters service, is just as good a missile truck and certainly better air to air. It is also the clear stated preference for the USAF given any F-15EX acquisition could not impact the F-35 program of record. Yes the F-35 is also in the hands of ANG units shortly, the Vermont ANG is expecting the first jets later this year.

But those facts haven’t changed in the debate. What has changed is that the USAF has made it quite clear that readiness is the issue, not cost. As already explained multiple times, the USAF cannot afford to take the F-15C/D ANG units down for the duration of time required to convert them to F-35, doing so would take three years. By converting to the F-15EX they can do so in likely less than six months. That means those units are able to generate mission sorties and aircraft/aircrew availability much sooner and that suits the USAF, which continues to shrink in fighter jet strength.

Spar wrote:
[
Ozair wrote:
the USAF doesn’t understand the full extent of the fatigue issue

I'm not convinced that there is a fatigue issue beyond the wing spars approaching the maximum number of flexes before weakening can be predicted. The fuselage spar replacement looks to be less of a fatigue issue than that of a possible initial design was understrength as the Missouri accident seems to have revealed. A poorly manufactured spar is what was attributed to that accident from what I've read. It apparently was not a fatigue failure.

None of this could be any mystery to the engineers who have studied the F-15. They have plenty of high hour aircraft available for destructive testing if they suspect some unknown. It looks more like a sales pitch, not a real issue.


Given the USAF is willing to spend US$254 million to figure it out it gives you an excellent idea of what they know about the jet and what they don’t know.

Boeing wins US$254m F-15 fatigue testing contract

Boeing has been awarded a US$254m contract for F-15 C/E full-scale fatigue testing services. This effort is split into several sections: testing, repairs, and limited teardown and analysis of the FTA7 and FTE10 aircraft test articles.
The testing section addresses tasks to be performed by the contractor for efforts associated with continuation of the FTA7 (F-15C) and the FTE10 (F-15E) full-scale fatigue tests to assess the ramifications of flying F-15 aircraft beyond the original design service life, the US Department of Defense said on August 19.

The repair section addresses tasks to be performed by Boeing for efforts associated with repairing the test articles either during testing, or following post-cycling inspections to return the test article to cycling.
The limited teardown and failure analysis section includes tasks to be performed by Boeing for efforts associated with the partial disassembly, inspection and fractographic analysis of selected parts experiencing cracking during the course of the testing.
Work is scheduled to be completed by August 31, 2021.

https://www.aerospacetestinginternation ... tract.html

The work is going on now and will continue until late 2021 but from the statements of multiple senior USAF officials I think we can guess where the program is currently sitting.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:29 am

Ozair wrote:
time required to convert them to F-35,.... three years.

It's going to take three years to train pilots, each with many years of experience flying (multi engine) jet fighters in the exact same location, in the exact same mission? And they're going to be trained on an aircraft that is more automated than the one(s) that they are already experienced with? Let's add to that the fact that the most demanding part of the F-35 systems is probably the ground attack aspect, which the National Guard, flying their CONUS Air Defense mission have no need for.

Whoever is selling you that premise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
And the maintenance people are not the reason for anything beyond six months of delay.
You know a whole air force base doesn't have to be shut down just because an F-35 has landed there for the first time. Life can go on while training takes place.


Ozair wrote:
Given the USAF is willing to spend US$254 million

That appears to be just some more welfare for Boeing stockholders.
If there had ever been a failure I might be able to see an all out effort to find the problem, but there is no empirical basis for this fear other than ordinary due caution. Anyway, if the AF only intends to keep 196 F-15s in flying shape after 2026 and maybe even less than that, it seems to make much more sense to just take the structural data that was gleaned after the Missouri accident and spend the money on the actual aircraft if spending taxpayers money is the main objective.
 
mmo
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:00 am

Spar wrote:
mmo wrote:
Expect a fixed price contract of $95 million or less flyaway cost.
The airframe will have a 20,000 hour lifetime.
Turkey's F-35 slots are being fought over by countries which have ordered the F-35.
Those are pretty much the highlights and I will try to find the piece I read to post it for all the nay sayers.

So the EX estimated price has gone up by another five million and it is now $15 million a copy more expensive than an F-35 or $83 million each more expensive than just upgrading the current F-15 C models.

The 20,000 hour lifetime is great news because it offers the opportunity to lighten it up some, as the 20,000 hour lifetime isn't needed. The F -15 type aircraft are obsolete and this is just an interim measure anyway.

"fighting" over the Turk slots? You really need a citation for something like that.


In reading your posts, one thing becomes very clear, you're not a Boeing fan. However, please provide a link to your "fly away" cost figures. Usually, the engines are not included in the price of the airframe with military aircraft.

Secondly, the fatigue issue is an unknown issue and the current indications are the C/D, after having been flown harder and faster than expected lifetime. So rather than opening a pandora's box with a rework of the existing C/D the DOD and GAO feel it is more economical to purchase the X/C model.

Everything I have read, states the original plan was to keep the F-15 in the inventory until 2040. That was reduced to 2030 due to the amount of flying done during the last 20 years which was substantially more than planned, thus the life of the current C/D model was shortened considerably. Now with the X/C model, there is less pressure to replace the fleet with a 1-1 replacement of F-35. No one is saying the F-15 is not going to replaced with the F-35, it's just not going to happen in the time frame you want.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Ozair
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:20 pm

Spar wrote:
It's going to take three years to train pilots, each with many years of experience flying (multi engine) jet fighters in the exact same location, in the exact same mission? And they're going to be trained on an aircraft that is more automated than the one(s) that they are already experienced with? Let's add to that the fact that the most demanding part of the F-35 systems is probably the ground attack aspect, which the National Guard, flying their CONUS Air Defense mission have no need for.

Whoever is selling you that premise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
And the maintenance people are not the reason for anything beyond six months of delay.
You know a whole air force base doesn't have to be shut down just because an F-35 has landed there for the first time. Life can go on while training takes place.

Spar, I have posted this previously but again because you seem to doubt it over and over again.

Part of the expected operating savings will come from easier transitions for pilots and maintenance personnel from the F-15C to the F-15EX.

"If you transition an F-15 to any other airplane it takes about 24 months if it’s an active duty squadron, or 36 months if it's a [National] Guard squadron, for it to be deployable again and be back to the top of its readiness," the source says. "You’ve got to send all those pilots to Luke [AFB] to train them and then the maintainers to Sheppard [AFB], or wherever your conversion schools are going to be."

The USAF estimates that the transition time from an F-15 squadron to an F-35 squadron takes roughly 18 months for an active duty squadron and 36 months for an Air National Guard squadron. It estimates that six months or less will be required to transition from the F-15C to the F-15EX.

The transition period takes aircraft out of the USAF inventory, hurting its average readiness rates, which would be contrary to former Secretary of Defense James Mattis's goal of increasing this metric to above 80%.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ix-456480/

The above time frames are very clear, there is no argument that you have proposed that is more clear or logical that what is presented above. No wool over eyes mate, just facts...

Spar wrote:
That appears to be just some more welfare for Boeing stockholders.
If there had ever been a failure I might be able to see an all out effort to find the problem, but there is no empirical basis for this fear other than ordinary due caution. Anyway, if the AF only intends to keep 196 F-15s in flying shape after 2026 and maybe even less than that, it seems to make much more sense to just take the structural data that was gleaned after the Missouri accident and spend the money on the actual aircraft if spending taxpayers money is the main objective.

Spar, again the evidence is clear before you. The USAF, the operator of the aircraft, is the one that instituted that study. Whether you believe the aircraft is struggling or not doesn't really matter because the people who actually fly and fight with the aircraft have far more knowledge of the current situation that you and are clearly making decisions based on that knowledge.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:51 pm

Spar wrote:
That appears to be just some more welfare for Boeing stockholders.


:rotfl: Ah but I can see LM standing in the same welfare line. Heck LM is more dependent on government spending than Boeing.

But lets not get a good talking point get in the way of actual physical data.

Fatigue is a big issue with the USAF. Not only for the F-15 but other programs as well. There's a B-1 airframe that is current under fatigue testing to determine what is life is left with the fleet and what can be done to extend that life. Again you can call it corporate welfare for Boeing. At least that would be consistent.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:54 pm

Ozair wrote:
Spar wrote:
It's going to take three years to train pilots, each with many years of experience flying (multi engine) jet fighters in the exact same location, in the exact same mission? And they're going to be trained on an aircraft that is more automated than the one(s) that they are already experienced with? Let's add to that the fact that the most demanding part of the F-35 systems is probably the ground attack aspect, which the National Guard, flying their CONUS Air Defense mission have no need for.

Whoever is selling you that premise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
And the maintenance people are not the reason for anything beyond six months of delay.
You know a whole air force base doesn't have to be shut down just because an F-35 has landed there for the first time. Life can go on while training takes place.

Spar, I have posted this previously but again because you seem to doubt it over and over again.

Ozair, you can post it 10 more times and it still will stick out as a falsehood.

Ozair, The circumstance involved in converting NG units which have the defense of CONUS as their mission are not the same as for an imaginary squadron in some bureaucrat's project planner. The NG units have a very specialized and very limited role, there is no reason why a NG squadron couldn't fly two different types to fulfill its mission; heck, most of the NG territory could be serviced just fine with F-5s, and all AF pilots are experienced with F-5s. You're just throwing up pompous officialdom as a substitute for actual logic. Three years is ridiculous.

Ozair wrote:
Spar, again the evidence is clear before you. The USAF, the operator of the aircraft, is the one that instituted that study.

Ozair, I repeat, the "fatigue" issue of the F-15 C lacks empirical evidence to show that it even exists. It has a strong appearance of being a political ploy, or something that is being blown out of proportion in order to control a conversation.

Ozair wrote:
Whether you believe the aircraft is struggling or not doesn't really matter because the people who actually fly and fight with the aircraft have far more knowledge of the current situation that you and are clearly making decisions based on that knowledge.


Ozair, Here lies the difference between our positions. You, as a career government employee, are unswervingly obedient and loth to challenge anything said by those 'above" you. I, as (mostly) a lifelong civilian believe that no one is above review, especially someone who is spending my money.

Ozair, you need to face the fact that left unchecked, the Air Force is a self serving organization.
 
mmo
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:27 pm

Spar wrote:
Ozair, you can post it 10 more times and it still will stick out as a falsehood.

Ozair, The circumstance involved in converting NG units which have the defense of CONUS as their mission are not the same as for an imaginary squadron in some bureaucrat's project planner. The NG units have a very specialized and very limited role, there is no reason why a NG squadron couldn't fly two different types to fulfill its mission; heck, most of the NG territory could be serviced just fine with F-5s, and all AF pilots are experienced with F-5s. You're just throwing up pompous officialdom as a substitute for actual logic. Three years is ridiculous.


Can you tell me where you come with the statement that all AF pilots are experienced with F-5s? Do you know the range of the F-5 radar? Now you are advocating an ANG, AFRES Squadron fly two types of aircraft. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read! The ANG/AFRES units are staffed mainly with part-time pilots who can't take the entire time off to attend a full RTU course. For all your bravado, I am surprised you didn't advocate a return to SPADS.

Ozair wrote:
Spar, again the evidence is clear before you. The USAF, the operator of the aircraft, is the one that instituted that study.

Ozair, I repeat, the "fatigue" issue of the F-15 C lacks empirical evidence to show that it even exists. It has a strong appearance of being a political ploy, or something that is being blown out of proportion in order to control a conversation.[/quote] Do you even fly or have a military background? I have about 1200 hours in the C/D and I can tell you the G restrictions are there for a reason. Those reasons are fatigue. There wiring issues, avionics issues, hydraulic issues, the list goes on and on. The aircraft has had the crap flown out of them.

Ozair wrote:
Whether you believe the aircraft is struggling or not doesn't really matter because the people who actually fly and fight with the aircraft have far more knowledge of the current situation that you and are clearly making decisions based on that knowledge.


Ozair, Here lies the difference between our positions. You, as a career government employee, are unswervingly obedient and loth to challenge anything said by those 'above" you. I, as (mostly) a lifelong civilian believe that no one is above review, especially someone who is spending my money.

Ozair, you need to face the fact that left unchecked, the Air Force is a self serving organization.[/quote]

I would say the difference in positions is more you seem to consider yourself an expert at all things and anyone who does not agree with you is not an expert. I spend 11 years on active duty as a pilot and 11 more in the ANG as a pilot. I can categorically state you don't have a clue what you are talking about. How many holes in the ground is it going to take for you to accept the current C/D models need to be replaced.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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