USAF F-15EX News and Discussion Thread

mmo · Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:11 am

Spar,

Haven't read the file which Ozair linked but the link I posted had a total of 36 F-117s deployed which sounds about right considering some aircraft will be in for Depot work which will take about 20% of the fleet out of service, then you have another 20 having MX done in Dreamland at the time, then you have to consider the non-combat coded aircraft used for training and there is no way the entire fleet could be deployed.

The F-117s dropped 2.3% (Max) of the tonnage and only struck only 32 targets during the entire air phase. How is that such a dramatic effect? To be honest, I think the Secret Squirrel sortie did more strategic damage than the entire F-117 operation.

mmo · Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:13 pm

Spar.......obviously you haven't read the unclassified Rand Report. A quick synopsis is the USAF should buy the F-15NG as they call it. But what do they know, Right? I am sure they would love a critique on their analysis.

For your reading pleasure: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... cific.aspx

Spar · Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:30 pm

mmo........ Have you ever heard the term "military industrial complex"?

Do you understand what the term means?

As for your link: The requested URL was not found.

But anyway, this is a discussion forum, it's your obligation to make your case here, not just post links or say "go look here".

mmo · Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:37 pm

Spar wrote:
mmo........ Have you ever heard the term "military industrial complex"?

Do you understand what the term means?

As for your link: The requested URL was not found.

But anyway, this is a discussion forum, it's your obligation to make your case here, not just post links or say "go look here".

Spar,

I guess it's too much trouble to click on a link. Since it appears to be beyond your scope of work here is a direct link to the Mitre study. If you want I can read it to you but you'd have to call me in Spain.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DocumentFile ... -Study.pdf

My responsibility to make the case? Where is that in the forum rules. The study reiterates and reinforces what I and Ozair have been saying all along, and then some. But, you have a habit of only reading what you want and making all-encompassing statements without any sources.

Spar · Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:07 pm

mmo, I understand that you aren't happy with my posts, but you haven't made any coherent argument against any argument of mine.

In your post #804 you posted a link that came up as The requested URL was not found. Now you post a link to an off topic bit of bureaucratic boilerplate. This most recent link is to a study that principally concludes that the Air Force needs more overseas bases (Overall Recommendations "Air Force aircraft need to be significantly recapitalized, brought to a higher state of readiness, and provided with multiple new bases to operate from." and needs more aircraft: "The Air Force needs to increase many of its aircraft inventories." Surprise surprise, an Air Force study claims we need more Air Force. (I wonder what a Coast Guard study would conclude; maybe more Coast Guard bases and more Coast Guard Cutters?)

And you disclaim the obligation to even make a logical argument here in the forum while all this is done with a continuous dreary and unproductive level of snarkeyness.

Since you're unable to participate in the F-15EX discussion in a rational manner, I'm putting you on ignore.

HaveBlue · Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:58 am

mmo wrote:
Some USAF pilots train in the T-38, which is not the F-5. The F-5 evolved from the T-38, other than the manufacturer, Northrup, that is the only similarity.

Wow, that is just simply not true. The T-38 and F-5 share almost identical aircraft profile/planforms/overall designs, have the same length, wingspan, height, top speed, engines, etc. The similarities are way much more than the differences, the differences being that the F-5 is single seat and plumbed for munitions/stores and other than that the differences are superficial (inlet and exhaust shapes). The F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than the legacy F-18 and the Super Hornets. Your comment is a bit disingenuous.

mmo · Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:20 am

HaveBlue wrote:
mmo wrote:
Some USAF pilots train in the T-38, which is not the F-5. The F-5 evolved from the T-38, other than the manufacturer, Northrup, that is the only similarity.

Wow, that is just simply not true. The T-38 and F-5 share almost identical aircraft profile/planforms/overall designs, have the same length, wingspan, height, top speed, engines, etc. The similarities are way much more than the differences, the differences being that the F-5 is single seat and plumbed for munitions/stores and other than that the differences are superficial (inlet and exhaust shapes). The F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than the legacy F-18 and the Super Hornets. Your comment is a bit disingenuous.

I beg to differ. The F-5B and F-5F are two-seaters. The engines on the F-5 vs. T-38 produce more thrust in mil and A/B, higher gross weights, leading-edge devices on all F-5, tip tanks and on the E/F plumbing for a centerline fuel tank. The A/B has no radar but E/F does have radar. Different G limitations, different speed limits, T-38 M1.3 and F-5 is M 1.5 and IIRC command ejection on the F. The inlets designs are not "superficial" at all. They provide anti-icing while the T-38 has sever restrictions on a flight through icing, reported or forecast. The tail design is different due to the drag chute and hook and different engines. While I agree they have the same heritage, there are major differences between the two aircraft.
So, while having the same heritage there are significant differences between the two aircraft.

mmo · Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:27 am

Spar wrote:
mmo, I understand that you aren't happy with my posts, but you haven't made any coherent argument against any argument of mine.

In your post #804 you posted a link that came up as The requested URL was not found. Now you post a link to an off topic bit of bureaucratic boilerplate. This most recent link is to a study that principally concludes that the Air Force needs more overseas bases (Overall Recommendations "Air Force aircraft need to be significantly recapitalized, brought to a higher state of readiness, and provided with multiple new bases to operate from." and needs more aircraft: "The Air Force needs to increase many of its aircraft inventories." Surprise surprise, an Air Force study claims we need more Air Force. (I wonder what a Coast Guard study would conclude; maybe more Coast Guard bases and more Coast Guard Cutters?)

And you disclaim the obligation to even make a logical argument here in the forum while all this is done with a continuous dreary and unproductive level of snarkeyness.

Since you're unable to participate in the F-15EX discussion in a rational manner, I'm putting you on ignore.

So, you expect me to regurgitate what I and Ozair have previous written many, many times? How did you come up with "off topic"? Did you even read the rand report? It specifically made significant recommendations about the F-15NG, for one it recommended replacing the current F-15E with the NG for reasons such as common fleet, lower overall maintenance costs for the entire fleet. But, since I am on "ignore" I suppose it makes no difference to you. Obviously, that is your "out" for continuing the discussion when more and more evidence against your position is presented. You must have a different version of A.net than I do because I have been looking for an ignore button since I started reading your incoherent postings.

Spar · Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:40 am

HaveBlue wrote:
Wow, that is just simply not true. The T-38 and F-5 share almost identical aircraft profile/planforms/overall designs, have the same length, wingspan, height, top speed, engines, etc. The similarities are way much more than the differences, the differences being that the F-5 is single seat and plumbed for munitions/stores and other than that the differences are superficial (inlet and exhaust shapes). The F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than the legacy F-18 and the Super Hornets. Your comment is a bit disingenuous.

The F-5 and the T-38 seem to have more in common than the F-35 A and the F-35 C, which have different wing sizes.
Also the F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than various models of the 737, or even between different models of the Citabria, which have different wings and different engines (Champ and Decathlon).

Good call HaveBlue.

mmo · Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:50 am

The F=5 and T-38 have very different wings and different variants of the J-85. Plus the T-38 has no ability to carry nose weapons, the T-38B has a centerline gun pod but that's about it. The list really goes on and on. T-38, no anti-skid, F-5 anti-skid and better tires. After flying the T-38 for over 1500 hours the F-5 seems to have all the shortcomings of the T-38 built-in already.
But, it was politics which is why the F-5 wasn't sold in more numbers to the USAF and politics killed the F-20 which was a great aircraft.

HaveBlue · Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:26 pm

mmo wrote:
But, it was politics which is why the F-5 wasn't sold in more numbers to the USAF and politics killed the F-20 which was a great aircraft.

That I agree with 100%, loved the Tigershark.

ThePointblank · Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:33 am

mmo wrote:
The F=5 and T-38 have very different wings and different variants of the J-85. Plus the T-38 has no ability to carry nose weapons, the T-38B has a centerline gun pod but that's about it. The list really goes on and on. T-38, no anti-skid, F-5 anti-skid and better tires. After flying the T-38 for over 1500 hours the F-5 seems to have all the shortcomings of the T-38 built-in already.
But, it was politics which is why the F-5 wasn't sold in more numbers to the USAF and politics killed the F-20 which was a great aircraft.

The F-5 wasn't bought by the USAF for operational use because the USAF didn't have a need for a lightweight fighter, especially the F-5 because it was too short legged for operations, and the F-20 was an aircraft that pushed the base design too far, with no upgradeability. The F-16 at the time was a more capable aircraft in the air to air role, and in the air to ground role, and could be easily be upgraded. Furthermore, foreign customers didn't want to buy an aircraft the USAF didn't operate; having the USAF operate the same aircraft type enables many foreign customers to leverage USAF infrastructure and expertise, compared to other options.

bikerthai · Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:23 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The F-16 at the time was a more capable aircraft in the air to air role, and in the air to ground role, and could be easily be upgraded.

Wasn't the 16 one of the first production fighter that was inherently aerodynamically unstable, thus allowing it to be much more maneuverable than the 20?

mmo · Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:39 pm

Like I said politics.

Just a point of clarification, the F-5 was out long before the F-16 was even built. I went through pilot training in 76 at KCHD (Williams AFB) and there was an F-5E/F training squadron there and the F-16 wasn't operational until later than that. If you are talking about the F-20, I agree.

Ozair · Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:11 am

F-15EX has passed another hurdle for acquisition by the USAF. I don’t think this has removed any of the requirements stipulated on acquisition of the EX past the two test aircraft but as previously indicated those shouldn’t be too hard to do.

The other good news is the F-35 additional airframes were also funded so the USAF will get 12 above the SAR with a total of 96 delivered to the US services out of this budget.

Senate Appropriators Back F-15EX, Add Space Initiatives

Members of the Senate’s defense appropriations subcommittee on Sept. 10 endorsed the Air Force’s plan to buy the F-15EX from Boeing, signaling authorizers and appropriators in the House and Senate will all back the idea in the final defense policy and spending bills.

The panel’s version of the 2020 defense spending bill includes nearly $1 billion for eight of the new fighter jets, two of which will be used as test aircraft, according to a summary of the bill. Earlier this year, the Senate and House Armed Services committees as well as the House Appropriations Committee included eight F-15EXs in their own legislation, and lawmakers in both chambers must now agree on how much money to offer the program.

Senate appropriators also offer nearly $1.9 billion to plus up the Pentagon’s request for F-35s, bringing total Joint Strike Fighter procurement to 96 airframes in 2020. That includes an extra 12 F-35As for the Air Force and 60 overall for the service. The summary also notes an additional $156 million to jumpstart F-35A procurement in fiscal 2021.

...

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... tives.aspx

Ozair · Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:25 am

Looks like further changes may have been made to the spending bill to limit what can be spent on the F-15EX until Boeing and the USAF provide the requested documents. While I don’t see this as a major impediment to the USAF getting the F-15X, it may take them longer to acquire and perhaps some additional scrutiny around the deal and the justification. Interestingly enough though, the budget does continue to remove funding for F-15C/D upgrade work including new radars, EPWSS, longerons and the mission computer.

Senate appropriators question F-15EX acquisition strategy

Senate appropriators want more details about the Air Force's F-15EX procurement plan, including its reasoning for pursuing a sole-source buy of Boeing-made jets. The Senate Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2020 defense spending bill, which the committee approved today, would bar the Air Force from spending more than $37.2 million on long-lead materials until the service approves an F-15EX acquisition strategy and program baseline as well as a test and evaluation master plan, life-cycle sustainment plan, a post-production fielding strategy and...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/se ... n-strategy

estorilm · Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:15 pm

Ozair wrote:
Looks like further changes may have been made to the spending bill to limit what can be spent on the F-15EX until Boeing and the USAF provide the requested documents. While I don’t see this as a major impediment to the USAF getting the F-15X, it may take them longer to acquire and perhaps some additional scrutiny around the deal and the justification. Interestingly enough though, the budget does continue to remove funding for F-15C/D upgrade work including new radars, EPWSS, longerons and the mission computer.

Senate appropriators question F-15EX acquisition strategy

Senate appropriators want more details about the Air Force's F-15EX procurement plan, including its reasoning for pursuing a sole-source buy of Boeing-made jets. The Senate Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2020 defense spending bill, which the committee approved today, would bar the Air Force from spending more than $37.2 million on long-lead materials until the service approves an F-15EX acquisition strategy and program baseline as well as a test and evaluation master plan, life-cycle sustainment plan, a post-production fielding strategy and...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/se ... n-strategy

GOOD!

Initially this was looking FAR too easy for Boeing; something that was starting to look suspiciously expected on their part.

This is exactly what should have happened - new planes don't just get punched-out to IOC in a year or two these days, I don't care what the commonality is. Price (dev and per frame), IOC date, and mx / reliability goals MUST be me for this project to offer value over a mature and "leaned-out" F-35 program. I'm not completely against it (since the USAF was awarded those extra F-35s they wanted after all) however, they'll need strict oversight during this project.

bikerthai · Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:46 pm

Ozair wrote:
Interestingly enough though, the budget does continue to remove funding for F-15C/D upgrade work including new radars, EPWSS, longerons and the mission computer.

This tells me that the Senate already know much of what they are requesting from the F-15EX. They just want it documented and made official. I would also suspect that Boeing wouldn't mind seeing the AF's plans. It would give them a sense of how to align their future business effort.

estorilm wrote:
This is exactly what should have happened - new planes don't just get punched-out to IOC in a year or two these days, I don't care what the commonality is.

How quickly did they go from contract award to first flight for the T-X? (Is the two current flying frames pre-contract award or post?)

bt

Oroka · Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:47 pm

bikerthai wrote:
How quickly did they go from contract award to first flight for the T-X? (Is the two current flying frames pre-contract award or post?)

Because the T-X really isnt any new technology. These days it isnt the airframe that takes time to work out the bugs, its all the features. The T-X airframe is nothing revolutionary, no stealth (im sure its optimized), it uses an existing engine, probably existing avionics... the revolutionary part of the T-X is how non-revolutionary it is. The F-35 was pretty much structurally complete and flying since 2006 (minus the cracking bulkhead redesign), the last 13 years have been working out the kinks in the revolutionary bits. The F-35 airframe itself is nothing special, its the guts that puts it above everything else. Imagine how long it will take to design and build something that can trump an F-35? Other than some tweeks, the T-X is practically complete.

estorilm · Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:19 pm

Oroka wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
How quickly did they go from contract award to first flight for the T-X? (Is the two current flying frames pre-contract award or post?)

Because the T-X really isnt any new technology. These days it isnt the airframe that takes time to work out the bugs, its all the features. The T-X airframe is nothing revolutionary, no stealth (im sure its optimized), it uses an existing engine, probably existing avionics... the revolutionary part of the T-X is how non-revolutionary it is. The F-35 was pretty much structurally complete and flying since 2006 (minus the cracking bulkhead redesign), the last 13 years have been working out the kinks in the revolutionary bits. The F-35 airframe itself is nothing special, its the guts that puts it above everything else. Imagine how long it will take to design and build something that can trump an F-35? Other than some tweeks, the T-X is practically complete.

Right - I mean look at Boeing and the KC-46 as a perfect example. It's a "shell" of a plane they've been building for decades, with a fuel boom stuck on the back. Super simple right? They even have extensive experience with refueling systems too. Hah NOT so much.

So yeah, I expect most of this process to revolve around avionics, systems, sensors, targeting methods, weapons/pylon/loadout integration, and of course testing.

bikerthai · Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:18 pm

estorilm wrote:
So yeah, I expect most of this process to revolve around avionics, systems, sensors, targeting methods, weapons/pylon/loadout integration, and of course testing.

Remember that the EX will be based on the QA or SA. So the amount of development with respect to the above system will evolutionary, not revolutionary.

If my guess is right, much of the initial development schedule will be eaten up by engineering changes relating to aligning the fuselage to advanced manufacturing techniques. That is where Boeing is banking on providing the savings that is the base for their "low" bid. The same advanced manufacturing techniques that allow them to go from contract to first flight of the T-X in a relatively short amount of time. After first flight, you gets to dink around with upgrading systems, sensors, avionics etc.

bt

JayinKitsap · Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:23 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Interestingly enough though, the budget does continue to remove funding for F-15C/D upgrade work including new radars, EPWSS, longerons and the mission computer.

This tells me that the Senate already know much of what they are requesting from the F-15EX. They just want it documented and made official. I would also suspect that Boeing wouldn't mind seeing the AF's plans. It would give them a sense of how to align their future business effort.

estorilm wrote:
This is exactly what should have happened - new planes don't just get punched-out to IOC in a year or two these days, I don't care what the commonality is.

How quickly did they go from contract award to first flight for the T-X? (Is the two current flying frames pre-contract award or post?)

bt

The two T-X flying are pre-award. Program review found that the wetted surface is unchanged so are valid for testing. The program recently completed the 100 test flight milestone. It is surprisingly on track, but Boeing will be sure to screw up the execution at some point like the KC-46 has been.

The T-X is not revolutionary tech wise, but its computers on board are current generation with the trainers using the same software. More of a business jet or automobile approach vs a fighter. Had to do that to reduce the unit cost.

estorilm · Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:18 pm

bikerthai wrote:
estorilm wrote:
So yeah, I expect most of this process to revolve around avionics, systems, sensors, targeting methods, weapons/pylon/loadout integration, and of course testing.

Remember that the EX will be based on the QA or SA. So the amount of development with respect to the above system will evolutionary, not revolutionary.

If my guess is right, much of the initial development schedule will be eaten up by engineering changes relating to aligning the fuselage to advanced manufacturing techniques. That is where Boeing is banking on providing the savings that is the base for their "low" bid. The same advanced manufacturing techniques that allow them to go from contract to first flight of the T-X in a relatively short amount of time. After first flight, you gets to dink around with upgrading systems, sensors, avionics etc.

bt

I'm talking about integration with US-approved sensors, targeting, and weapons - everything from the mounting pylons to IFF stuff and items that we don't export will need to be integrated and tested.

Advanced manufacturing techniques? :roll:

It's all relative - maybe versus previous build F-15s lol.

bikerthai · Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:26 pm

estorilm wrote:
Advanced manufacturing techniques? It's all relative - maybe versus previous build F-15s lol.

Exactly. This process was developed after they already built the SA and I believe the QA. It's the process that they will use on the T-X and refueling drone. To incorporate it in to the F-15, they will have to re-do some Engineering Datasets and manufacturing planning for the airframe structures..

estorilm wrote:
I'm talking about integration with US-approved sensors, targeting, and weapons - everything from the mounting pylons to IFF stuff and items that we don't export will need to be integrated and tested.

Also true. But I trust the existing sensor suppliers are good at what they do and will have the right hardware for the plane. The integration should be straight forward. The thing that may definitely trip them up is Software. Having the contracts to maintain and upgrade the US F-15 fleet should give Boeing a sense of what to do and what not to do. :eyebrow:

bt

Ozair · Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:27 am

bikerthai wrote:
estorilm wrote:
So yeah, I expect most of this process to revolve around avionics, systems, sensors, targeting methods, weapons/pylon/loadout integration, and of course testing.

Remember that the EX will be based on the QA or SA. So the amount of development with respect to the above system will evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Within this context it is worth posting this article from Janes,

General Electric qualifies F110-129 engine for F-15EX

General Electric (GE) Aviation's F110-129 engine is fully qualified for the Boeing F-15EX fighter that the US Air Force (USAF) intends to buy, according to a company statement.

GE Aviation spokesman David Wilson said on 12 September ahead of the Air Force Association's (AFA's) conference that, in addition, the F110-129 is the only qualified engine for the F-15EX. He said the latest Boeing F-15 Eagle with its digital fly-by-wire control was qualified with the F110-129 engine to approve the foreign military sale (FMS) sale of this configuration to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Recent sales of the engine, Wilson added, have included as part of recent Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon international sales.

...

https://www.janes.com/article/91301/afa ... for-f-15ex

Hopefully this dispels any of those kooky theories about the F-15EX getting a different engine to what the SA and QA use.

Oroka · Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:00 am

estorilm wrote:
Right - I mean look at Boeing and the KC-46 as a perfect example. It's a "shell" of a plane they've been building for decades, with a fuel boom stuck on the back. Super simple right? They even have extensive experience with refueling systems too. Hah NOT so much.

IIRC the biggest issue with the KC-46 was the new boom and shoddy work. Rather than use the same boom they have been successfully using for years, they opted for a new one. Now often this is due to requirements from the client, but if they had just used as many existing technologies from the KC-135 and KC-10 as they could, things would have gone way smoother. Its not the airframe, its the new stuff.

Upgrades for fighters are different, because they can be working on those upgrades for years before they are planned to be installed. And if a particular upgrade is not working out, it can be dropped from the program, or the program waits a bit while the bugs get worked out. You dont notice drawn out delays as much because the jets are still out there doing their jobs with the old gear.

bikerthai · Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:09 pm

Ozair wrote:
Hopefully this dispels any of those kooky theories about the F-15EX getting a different engine to what the SA and QA use.

Also, this should put a damper on the F-15EX carrying a hypersonic missile. Maybe in the future, but looks like for now, the B-52 is designated, and B-1 loser to fruition.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... nal-stores

Currently, the B-52 is being allocated for the hypersonic weapons truck role, with external pylons specially engineered to weapons weighing tens of thousands of pounds. Yet the Bone's potential ability to also carry these weapons, and do so internally, would add tremendous value to the aging and increasingly finicky to operate type.

bt

Revelation · Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:22 pm

Oroka wrote:
IIRC the biggest issue with the KC-46 was the new boom and shoddy work. Rather than use the same boom they have been successfully using for years, they opted for a new one. Now often this is due to requirements from the client, but if they had just used as many existing technologies from the KC-135 and KC-10 as they could, things would have gone way smoother. Its not the airframe, its the new stuff.

Upgrades for fighters are different, because they can be working on those upgrades for years before they are planned to be installed. And if a particular upgrade is not working out, it can be dropped from the program, or the program waits a bit while the bugs get worked out. You dont notice drawn out delays as much because the jets are still out there doing their jobs with the old gear.

Indeed, KC-46 fuel flow rate is much greater than the "old stuff" so "new stuff" was required.

Surely, Boeing being as profit centric as it is, would have preferred to resell the "old stuff", IMO.

Ozair · Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:33 am

Boeing and the F-15EX still have a hurdle to cross for the EX program to start. The Senate may approve a continuing resolution that will result in the program not being authorised to start in either the next 6 or 12 months as the resolution only funds the previous year’s programs at the agreed funding levels.

Continuing Resolution Would Delay F-15EX Production, Up to 88 USAF New Starts

The Air Force is warning lawmakers that extending the current continuing resolution will delay development of key weapons systems—most notably F-15EX production—and will dramatically reduce munitions procurement.

The Senate this week began debate on fiscal 2020 funding bills in advance of the Nov. 21 deadline, when the current stopgap spending bill expires. If Capitol Hill approves a new six- or 12-month CR, it would block 88 spending initiatives listed in the 2020 budget request, 14 production increases for various programs, and 41 military construction projects across 19 states, according to an Air Force document outlining CR impacts that was obtained by Air Force Magazine.

...

A six-month CR would postpone 26 new starts, including $1.1 billion in F-15EX development and production. This may “negatively impact Boeing’s aggressive pricing,” which was key in the Pentagon’s decision to procure the new Eagle variant, according to the Air Force. Pushing back F-15EX would also mean sustaining the F-15C fleet longer than planned, “incurring added extensive maintenance actions due to structural health issues.”

...

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... tarts.aspx

Numerous other programs including the F-35 also suffer if a CR is passed.

bikerthai · Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:36 pm

Ozair wrote:
Boeing and the F-15EX still have a hurdle to cross for the EX program to start.

And the delay continues . . .

On the other hand . . .

https://www.defensedaily.com/boeing-res ... air-force/

More interestingly, looks like the cost savings from the airframe manufacturing stand point is being realized with the F-15QA frame.

The “record” speed anticipated from contract award to flying the aircraft is due in large part to new digital engineering capabilities and advanced manufacturing techniques Boeing is increasingly adopting, Kumar said.

He said the F-15 wing has been “remastered” using “contemporary” mode-based engineering and advanced manufacturing to produce “very tight tolerances,” resulting in increased quality with a nearly “shimless” design and improved efficiencies. In Korea, the wing production takes more than 80 people and in St. Louis it only takes 20, Kumar said, adding that it is also now requires 50 percent less facility footprint.

Kumar also said that the advanced manufacturing techniques have “dramatically” lowered the number of manually-drilled holes in the F-15 wings, from more than 2,400 to under 100 now. He said various parts come to Boeing pre-drilled from suppliers with “precise tolerances” to allow “almost Lego-like assembly.” This means fewer jigs and fixtures to put the pieces into position.

“It self assembles itself,” he said. “A pretty big deal.”

bt

texl1649 · Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:55 pm

The cost to produce these aircraft frames is remarkably low vs. only a few years ago, though that doesn’t go for the subsystems, or engines. I remain convinced it’s a good deal for the USAF, and that stationing F-35’s in Alaska for Tu-95 intrusions is if anything a waste.

Ozair · Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:57 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The cost to produce these aircraft frames is remarkably low vs. only a few years ago, though that doesn’t go for the subsystems, or engines. I remain convinced it’s a good deal for the USAF, and that stationing F-35’s in Alaska for Tu-95 intrusions is if anything a waste.

Those two points don't really have a link. There are no F-15s based in Alaska today, the last F-15 unit was replaced by the F-22s at Elmendorf in 2010. Locating the F-35s at Eielson is less about NORAD and more about using the extensive range there including hosting yearly Red Flag exercises. My understanding is the F-16 Aggressor squadron there will continue to run that mission alongside the F-35s, at least for the next decade or so.

While it is great that Boeing have reduced the build complexity of the F-15 the long term benefit just isn't there. Had this been available 10 years ago it would have been a compelling argument to reduce the F-35 build but with production costs falling as they are for the F-35 the limited F-15EXnbuy proposed for the USAF is likely all there will ever be.

Of course with the CR about to be signed the F-15EX still may never happen.

SuperiorPilotMe · Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:23 pm

So let me ask again: reroll Mud Hens from active to NatGuard as F-35s come online? Can they be flown effectively single-pilot?

Ozair · Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:57 pm

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
So let me ask again: reroll Mud Hens from active to NatGuard as F-35s come online? Can they be flown effectively single-pilot?

Can F-15E/X be flown single seat, of course. There is nothing uniquely special about the F-15E/X that means it requires two crew to operate it in a ground attack role. It might be slightly more proficient in that role with a second crewman but plenty of USAF and USN aircraft already operate single seat self-escort strike missions so it is hardly a leap.

If you’re suggesting re-role F-15Es to the ANG for use as single seat A2A aircraft only then there is absolutely no issue at all, the transition should be reasonably smooth between the jets. I would expect as per the F-18C to E transition a few check rides and some simulator time would be all that is required.

Will the USAF re-role the F-15Es to the ANG though? I doubt it, the F-15E continues to operate as their premier fighter sized strike aircraft and will continue to operate in that role for years to come, especially given the upgrades the fleet is going through. The F-15Es still have plenty of life left and there is a greater need to replace F-16s in active USAF squadrons than F-15Es.

Will the ANG end up operating an F-15 that is better than Active units? Possible but now the CR has been signed by Trump the F-15EX acquisition will be delayed until the next US Military budget submission. At that point the pressure from the F-35 lobby may now be strong enough, given the continued price reductions, to prevent it being acquired and the F-15X will disappear into history one of the variants of the aircraft suggested but never acquired.

bikerthai · Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:02 pm

As discussed earlier in this thread we see now Boeing is pitching the X from the hypersonic angle . . .
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... et-impasse

“F-15EX will be a great tool to deliver those weapons in the future,” Kumar said. “The payload [capacity] is just enormous, so you can hang a lot of heavy load weapons like future hypersonics with this jet.”

And while the US may not get their F-15X, if the cost reduction is what Boeing promises, I see the Israelis will get some as they seem to see a value of the F-15 along with their F-35's.

bt

seahawk · Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:55 pm

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
So let me ask again: reroll Mud Hens from active to NatGuard as F-35s come online? Can they be flown effectively single-pilot?

When those Mud Hens become available they will done. They are probably the hardest flown airframes in the USAF, if you consider that they came in around Desert Storm and played a heavy role in every conflict ever since.

bikerthai · Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:10 pm

Looks like the Defense bill does include 8 F-15X frames along with more F-35's.
Looks like they believed the Airforce more than some of the lobbying pundits.
It should bode well for more Israelis F-15's as well.

bt

JayinKitsap · Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:28 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Looks like the Defense bill does include 8 F-15X frames along with more F-35's.
Looks like they believed the Airforce more than some of the lobbying pundits.
It should bode well for more Israelis F-15's as well.
bt

Probably a big reason to get the AF to buy the F-15X is so it is "on the list" in the US inventory so export sales are easier than just a model sold to some countries already.

It looks like about an extra dozen F-35's put in the budget also, a good sign.

As long as the total F-35 buy stays close to the original program, building extra F-15Xs allows more foreign sales of the F-35 now instead of a decade or more from now.

Ozair · Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:56 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Looks like the Defense bill does include 8 F-15X frames along with more F-35's.
Looks like they believed the Airforce more than some of the lobbying pundits.

Steady on bt, the bill still includes the stipulations laid out in previous iterations that no funding can be allotted, except for the two dev airframes, until Boeing and the USAF provide Congress the requested documents.

SEC. 123. F–15EX AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.
(a) DESIGNATION OF MAJOR SUBPROGRAM.—In accordance with section 2430a of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall designate the F–15EX program as a major subprogram of the F–15 aircraft program.
(b) LIMITATION.—Except as provided in subsection (c), none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2020 for the Air Force may be obligated or expended to procure an F–15EX aircraft until a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees the following documentation relating to the F–15EX program:
(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.
(c) EXCEPTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PROTOTYPES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Secretary of the Air Force may use the funds described in paragraph (2) to develop, produce, and test not more than two prototypes of the F–15EX aircraft.
(2) FUNDS DESCRIBED.—The funds described in this paragraph are funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2020 for the Air Force for any of the following:
(A) Research and development, nonrecurring engineering.
(B) Aircraft procurement.
(d) F–15EX PROGRAM DEFINED.—In this section, the term “F–15EX program” means the F–15EX aircraft program of the Air Force as described in the materials submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense in support of the budget of the President for fiscal year 2020 (as submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... 93D62029F0

bikerthai wrote:
It should bode well for more Israelis F-15's as well.

bt

I don’t think USAF use or not of the F-15X would have much of an impact on the Israeli acquisition of the aircraft. They already operate large numbers of F-15s and the version offered is not sufficiently different to that being acquired by the Saudis and Qatar.

JayinKitsap wrote:
Probably a big reason to get the AF to buy the F-15X is so it is "on the list" in the US inventory so export sales are easier than just a model sold to some countries already.

As with the comment about Israel above, Boeing was selling F-15s before the US considered the EX version so I don’t see this being much of an impact. If the aircraft cannot be sold FMS it can still be acquired via commercial means, often with a higher price tag but fewer restrictions, and that hasn’t stopped nations from doing so.

Who else other than Israel is a potential operator of the aircraft?

JayinKitsap wrote:

As long as the total F-35 buy stays close to the original program, building extra F-15Xs allows more foreign sales of the F-35 now instead of a decade or more from now.

I don’t understand the link you are making here. If a nation signs up for F-35s then LM will increase the production rate and build them. The USAF build rate moves from 48 to 54 and then 60 a year in the next few years while partners are also increasing their buy. There are also the active competitions for Finland, Switzerland and Canada with Poland also expected to buy in the next few years and Singapore likely to take more than the initial small order as well. I haven’t seen anything in the media to indicate there is a max production rate for the airframe, it would probably be a supplier issue but even then I expect they could increase their rate with enough warning.

The issue for the F-15EX is about conversion time for aircrew and units, not the lack of airframes to convert those aircrew to.

texl1649 · Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:29 pm

I do think as well that part of the issue/benefit/case for the F-15EX is not just conversion time/cost for aircrew/units, but risk diversification as well for USAF.

At some point, the F-16 fleet is going to substantially wear out in the next 15 years (not in a linear fashion), and I suspect the F-22 will become a quite costly fleet to maintain mid-life, and beyond (the readiness issues are already quite self evident). The F-15 as new builds could provide some risk stratification prior to any notional PCA/next generation fighter finally coming on line (likely delayed beyond forecasted timelines based on the F-35 saga/experience).

Point is; the USAF really doesn’t want to have all it’s eggs in the 737 basket a la SWA on the commercial side, circa 2035-2040.

CX747 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:35 am

There are still plenty of hurdles till we get to a point where new F-15EX airframes are actually operational. One small step at a time! One of the markers laid out by the purse string holders was:

"In the bipartisan, bicameral agreement on fiscal 2020 defense policy released Dec. 9, congressional authorizers said they want the Air Force to use rapid acquisition rules typically meant to bring prototypes to the field faster than regular procurement allows. The language allows for two initial batches of aircraft and to get a head start on buying materials for future lots."

AKA- We want this fielded quickly and efficiently. Law out the answers to our questions and then move forward promptly (upon budget approval etc)

We have to stop seeing this program as a competitor to the F-35. It compliments the F-35 and grows our force structure. I don't want to see the F-35 buy decreased by this program. I also don't agree with the F-35 or nothing else approach that has plagued the service for many years. BOTH airframes have a place and we should be pulling for robust procurement for each. New F-35s and new F-15s provide us with better technology and capability than 1980s procured F-16Cs and F-15Cs.

CX747 · Sat Dec 21, 2019 6:32 pm

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/21/trump-s ... -bill.html

Defense Budget has been signed. Calls for the procurement of 90 F-35s (12 more than had been asked for) and 8 F-15EX.

Nice to see that both programs can co-exist and that there was an increase in bringing F-35s onboard.

estorilm · Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:43 pm

CX747 wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/21/trump-signs-738-billion-defense-bill.html

Defense Budget has been signed. Calls for the procurement of 90 F-35s (12 more than had been asked for) and 8 F-15EX.

Nice to see that both programs can co-exist and that there was an increase in bringing F-35s onboard.

Want to put any money on when those 8 F-15EX's will become operational?

I'm not really crying anymore since the F-35 numbers weren't just maintained, but actually bumped up - however my initial thoughts of "if we injected that money into the F-35 program, we'd have more of THOSE planes, quicker than we'd ever get the F-15EX" still holds somewhat true. It's kinda a moot point since I just don't think they can build them any faster. Then again who cares? I think we have plenty of fighters as it stands, even if WW3 began in 5 minutes. At the end of the day, in 10 years the F-15EX is likely to be a "wtf were we thinking" kinda plane - and before you tell me how old the F-15C's are, I know - but that was before the F-35 which TONS of countries now field, and highly-advanced airspace-denial technologies and SAM's now available.. There's no turning back now, 5th gen is the bar. Everything else is "support" - and that's a high price to pay for a "support" aircraft.

DigitalSea · Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:41 pm

estorilm wrote:
I'm not really crying anymore since the F-35 numbers weren't just maintained, but actually bumped up - however my initial thoughts of "if we injected that money into the F-35 program, we'd have more of THOSE planes, quicker than we'd ever get the F-15EX" still holds somewhat true. It's kinda a moot point since I just don't think they can build them any faster. Then again who cares? I think we have plenty of fighters as it stands, even if WW3 began in 5 minutes. At the end of the day, in 10 years the F-15EX is likely to be a "wtf were we thinking" kinda plane - and before you tell me how old the F-15C's are, I know - but that was before the F-35 which TONS of countries now field, and highly-advanced airspace-denial technologies and SAM's now available.. There's no turning back now, 5th gen is the bar. Everything else is "support" - and that's a high price to pay for a "support" aircraft.

Which is sad because we need aircraft with greater range to help deter the Chinese.

Ozair · Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:39 am

DigitalSea wrote:
estorilm wrote:
I'm not really crying anymore since the F-35 numbers weren't just maintained, but actually bumped up - however my initial thoughts of "if we injected that money into the F-35 program, we'd have more of THOSE planes, quicker than we'd ever get the F-15EX" still holds somewhat true. It's kinda a moot point since I just don't think they can build them any faster. Then again who cares? I think we have plenty of fighters as it stands, even if WW3 began in 5 minutes. At the end of the day, in 10 years the F-15EX is likely to be a "wtf were we thinking" kinda plane - and before you tell me how old the F-15C's are, I know - but that was before the F-35 which TONS of countries now field, and highly-advanced airspace-denial technologies and SAM's now available.. There's no turning back now, 5th gen is the bar. Everything else is "support" - and that's a high price to pay for a "support" aircraft.

Which is sad because we need aircraft with greater range to help deter the Chinese.

F-35 is longer ranged than the F-15E and I expect the X won't have a significant difference in range to the E.

426Shadow · Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:54 am

Ozair wrote:
DigitalSea wrote:
estorilm wrote:
I'm not really crying anymore since the F-35 numbers weren't just maintained, but actually bumped up - however my initial thoughts of "if we injected that money into the F-35 program, we'd have more of THOSE planes, quicker than we'd ever get the F-15EX" still holds somewhat true. It's kinda a moot point since I just don't think they can build them any faster. Then again who cares? I think we have plenty of fighters as it stands, even if WW3 began in 5 minutes. At the end of the day, in 10 years the F-15EX is likely to be a "wtf were we thinking" kinda plane - and before you tell me how old the F-15C's are, I know - but that was before the F-35 which TONS of countries now field, and highly-advanced airspace-denial technologies and SAM's now available.. There's no turning back now, 5th gen is the bar. Everything else is "support" - and that's a high price to pay for a "support" aircraft.

Which is sad because we need aircraft with greater range to help deter the Chinese.

F-35 is longer ranged than the F-15E and I expect the X won't have a significant difference in range to the E.

In stealth configuration? Not even close. The F-15E has more range than any other US fighter aircraft.

Now if you were to hang tanks on a F-35? Who knows.

Ozair · Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:25 am

426Shadow wrote:
Ozair wrote:
DigitalSea wrote:

Which is sad because we need aircraft with greater range to help deter the Chinese.

F-35 is longer ranged than the F-15E and I expect the X won't have a significant difference in range to the E.

In stealth configuration? Not even close. The F-15E has more range than any other US fighter aircraft.

Now if you were to hang tanks on a F-35? Who knows.

426Shadow, multiple F-15 aircrew who have converted to the F-35 have commented on the F-35s longer range than their previous F-15 aircraft of all varieties.

For example the following, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7XhqwtYBItg

426Shadow · Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:09 am

Ozair wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
Ozair wrote:
F-35 is longer ranged than the F-15E and I expect the X won't have a significant difference in range to the E.

In stealth configuration? Not even close. The F-15E has more range than any other US fighter aircraft.

Now if you were to hang tanks on a F-35? Who knows.

426Shadow, multiple F-15 aircrew who have converted to the F-35 have commented on the F-35s longer range than their previous F-15 aircraft of all varieties.

For example the following, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7XhqwtYBItg

If you can find ONE example of an F-35 pilot saying something blatantly negative about the F-35, I'll concede that this is true. Don't worry I'll wait.

I mean it not like I literally see the fuel tanks every day at work and might know a little something about it.

In addition to that, we've had several F-35 test pilots come here and do Q&A's and some of the questions they wont answer out loud they will in private. This was one of the questions I asked. It F-15E barely edges out the 35 but the payload is much higher, F-22 has less range than both.

bikerthai · Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:04 am

estorilm wrote:
however my initial thoughts of "if we injected that money into the F-35 program, we'd have more of THOSE planes, quicker than we'd ever get the F-15EX" still holds somewhat true.

While some here will not take the Air Force at their word, I believe them when the USAF say that even if they get those F-35's faster, they won't be able to train crews fast enough.

That is why they are buying the "inferior" planes. Less training to convert over, thus, more crew available for their operation tempo. This short fall is predicted in the 4-8 years time frame. After that there will be sufficient F-35 crew trained to fill out the force structure.

bt

Ozair · Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:21 pm

426Shadow wrote:

If you can find ONE example of an F-35 pilot saying something blatantly negative about the F-35, I'll concede that this is true. Don't worry I'll wait.

It is a logical fallacy to claim that by presenting a negative opinion to anything related to the F-35 that for some reason this justifies the truth behind the statement provided.

426Shadow wrote:
I mean it not like I literally see the fuel tanks every day at work and might know a little something about it.

That is great for you and I appreciate the info you can provide but compared to comments made by aircrew who have flown both the aircraft in operational realistic scenarios seeing the fuel tanks does not provide any additional information.

426Shadow wrote:
In addition to that, we've had several F-35 test pilots come here and do Q&A's and some of the questions they wont answer out loud they will in private. This was one of the questions I asked. It F-15E barely edges out the 35 but the payload is much higher, F-22 has less range than both.

Once you introduce operationally relevant scenarios into the profiles then the F-15E, lacking stealth, has significantly further distances to fly to reach its range targets in the presence of near peer threats. F-15E.info, a great website that unfortunately is no longer around, had some excellent images of loadouts used operationally by the aircraft over a lot of recent campaigns. The F-15E wasn't flying those operational sorties with max weapon loads. When the aircraft is equipped for max range, three drop tanks and its CFTs, then it will hit its max payload of 81,000 lbs with only two Mk84 weapons, the same that an F-35 would take in a stealth configuration.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net