I would sell Taiwan used US F-15s and AV-8Bs, the Harriers would come in handy as China will no doubt try to take out Taiwan airfields with ballistic Missiles.

A number of F-15C's were withdrawn from service due to the longeron issue, all a/c were not repaired, some were operated with restrictions on their performance. If they are going to be used against near peer a/c, operating with restrictions may not be ideal, if they are transferred without repairs.

par13del wrote:

A number of F-15C's were withdrawn from service due to the longeron issue, all a/c were not repaired, some were operated with restrictions on their performance. If they are going to be used against near peer a/c, operating with restrictions may not be ideal, if they are transferred without repairs.

The Boeing bid to put new wings on them, fix the longeron issue and upgrade the radar was 12 million each.
This would be like a D check. The planes would be good for another 30 years.

STT757 wrote:

I would sell Taiwan used US F-15s and AV-8Bs, the Harriers would come in handy as China will no doubt try to take out Taiwan airfields with ballistic Missiles.

The Harriers would simply be targets to soak up the PRC’s anti-air.

bikerthai wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Short of large number of f35s, there is nothing India can obtain that would concern pla. Having advanced surface to air missiles doesn't help you that much if you lose air control.

Ukraine have shown that losing air superiority does not diminish the importance of SAM. It only emphasize it. Unless you are not seeing the same press I am.

India getting F-35 is somewhat a distance dream. It becomes what is the best India can get short of stealth. My argument that the logistics of F-15 is better than the Rafael, whether it's a conflict with Pakistan or China.

Personally I feel that ultimately down the road India will get F-35 long before it can develop its own stealth capability.

It will be interesting to see if India can get MQ-28 before F-35s.

bt

There is a huge gap between stealth and non stealth aircraft. Buying f15ex would be an improvement over rafale, but it may not be worth the cost of another fleet to operate. In the end, if India wants to be a superpower, it needs to develop its own military industrial complex. I don't see how buying f15s would support that.

Also, I wouldn't use Russian incompetence to dismiss the importance of air superiority. It's questionable right now whether Russian air force could even beat Pakistan air force.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Slight off topic but actually there is:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/sout ... ms-n607641

I know of that ruling. It simply states that China's 9 dash claim is invalid. It does not really rule which rocks/islands belong to which nation. I'm not sure if there could be a fair ruling on that since every rock/island is claimed by multiple countries.

tphuang wrote:

Buying f15ex would be an improvement over rafale, but it may not be worth the cost of another fleet to operate. In the end, if India wants to be a superpower, it needs to develop its own military industrial complex. I don't see how buying f15s would support that.

They can reduce the fleet by replacing the Soviet aircrafts.

It would take time for India to build up it's defense sector. It may be a long shot, but if they can get Boeing to build the EX in India, that would be a great start.

bt

I posed the question soon after the incident, but no replies. Do we know what happened to cause the dual ejection of the pilots from their F-15QA at BLV in May 2021?

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... rport.html

Better pic:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... ct-safely/

Article states "emergency opon landing" but that's about it.

Any latest updates?

bikerthai wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Buying f15ex would be an improvement over rafale, but it may not be worth the cost of another fleet to operate. In the end, if India wants to be a superpower, it needs to develop its own military industrial complex. I don't see how buying f15s would support that.

They can reduce the fleet by replacing the Soviet aircrafts.

It would take time for India to build up it's defense sector. It may be a long shot, but if they can get Boeing to build the EX in India, that would be a great start.

bt

Lockheed’s already offered to build the F-16 there (basically shipping the gear to do so from South Carolina). By the time this procurement is actually done, Boeing will probably also be done with the production equipment in St Louis. India has been working on producing their own indigenous tactical combat aircraft for 40 years but it is not particularly competitive (Tejas etc).

texl1649 wrote:

Lockheed’s already offered to build the F-16 there (basically shipping the gear to do so from South Carolina). By the time this procurement is actually done, Boeing will probably also be done with the production equipment in St Louis.

Lockheed has experience with overseas production of the F-16. Boeing has more experience in India with indigenous manufacturing.

India is already building F-15EX parts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wap.busine ... 679_1.html

Dynamics have been involved in building military hardware for For Boeing since they build components for the first P-8I.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

By the time this procurement is actually done, Boeing will probably also be done with the production equipment in St Louis.

The 144 US frames could extend the line for some times. I could see if India gets the F-15EX, all fuselage production could ultimately go to India (including US frames) just like all AH-64 fuselage being built in india right now.

bt

Sure, that’s possible. I don’t think India would really gain a lot of know-how from having their nationals build F-15 fuselages though. Frankly…It’s early 70’s aerospace tech. The upgraded radar/computers/components/software either way (F-16 or F-15) really won’t be built there. China knows everything there is to know about the older hardware.

texl1649 wrote:

I don’t think India would really gain a lot of know-how from having their nationals build F-15 fuselages though.

It's not only the defense design technology. What India wants is the aerospace manufacturing technology. They have been building Migs for years, but the process for building those Migs don't necessarily translate to the current advance technology need for commercial airplane manufacturing. That is where the big money is made.

Even if they get to build something like the F-35, they would not be able see the engineering basis behind rhe design, so they are only getting a little more insight than building the F-15.

bt

mxaxai wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Would F-15 makes sense for Taiwan when they have F-16s already? Assuming that in a major conflict, they would only need to hold out long enough for the US F-35 to arrive.

bt

With up to 20 missiles (+-) on each F-15, this might help Taiwan against the feared numerical advantage of the Chinese forces. Singapore also operates both F-15 and F-16, as do Israel, Korea and Japan. Their situations are fairly similar (small country, large neighbors, few allies nearby).

I doubt they'd want used, old F-15C, though.

If they want anything they want F35Bs as they will have no runways after the first day or two of PLA strikes!

trex8 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Would F-15 makes sense for Taiwan when they have F-16s already? Assuming that in a major conflict, they would only need to hold out long enough for the US F-35 to arrive.

bt

With up to 20 missiles (+-) on each F-15, this might help Taiwan against the feared numerical advantage of the Chinese forces. Singapore also operates both F-15 and F-16, as do Israel, Korea and Japan. Their situations are fairly similar (small country, large neighbors, few allies nearby).

I doubt they'd want used, old F-15C, though.

If they want anything they want F35Bs as they will have no runways after the first day or two of PLA strikes!

I don't know, look at Ukraine. They still have an Air Force. I'm not putting China in the same category as Russia who has really been exposed.

trex8 wrote:

If they want anything they want F35Bs as they will have no runways after the first day or two of PLA strikes!

But could they get them? Pretty sure they can get F-15s if they want them. But in a crunch, spare parts will be an issue, and sticking with one type will help with that.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

trex8 wrote:

If they want anything they want F35Bs as they will have no runways after the first day or two of PLA strikes!

But could they get them? Pretty sure they can get F-15s if they want them. But in a crunch, spare parts will be an issue, and sticking with one type will help with that.

bt

The F-15Cs have the radar and load out to be a serious air to air counter to Chinese aircraft, drones and cruise missiles. The F-15 radar can track and engage multiple targets at once.

STT757 wrote:

The F-15Cs have the radar and load out to be a serious air to air counter to Chinese aircraft, drones and cruise missiles. The F-15 radar can track and engage multiple targets at once.

All valid except that it would be the EX and not the C if Taiwan were to get some.

Not arguing about the capabilities but is questioning the "bang for the buck" aspect.

I mean, if Austrailia could get the MQ-28 into operation quickly, I see that as a more viable option for Taiwan when teaming up with there existing F-16s.

bt

Officials within the U.S. Air Force are examining options for canceling the service’s new F-15EX Eagle II fighter, a type that was only accepted into the inventory a little over a year ago, after buying just 80 examples.

And it's not clear where these 80 examples would go: defense role, air superiority or ground strike?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-f-15ex-program-is-in-trouble

Seems like a bit of an about-face. Perhaps indicating greater confidence in NGAD?

To me (not an expert) the F-15EX has one purpose - oversized hypersonic missiles.

So if they are cutting down to 80 and accelerating the delivery, it could mean that they expect to have hypersonic that could be carried by the F-35 sooner than later.

Still not a bad deal for Boeing as the US order opened the door for other international orders.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

To me (not an expert) the F-15EX has one purpose - oversized hypersonic missiles.

So if they are cutting down to 80 and accelerating the delivery, it could mean that they expect to have hypersonic that could be carried by the F-35 sooner than later.

Still not a bad deal for Boeing as the US order opened the door for other international orders.

bt

It actually looks like the USAF is looking for a way to completely cancel the F-15EX purchase instead.

The report indicates that the Secretary of the Air Force has asked the the budget corps to consider canceling the purchase; the Pentagon pushed back.

I believe the theory that the whole purpose of the EX is anti-Sat capability.

So this story struck me as odd.

United States will ban direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) missile tests that create orbital debris.
https://spacenews.com/u-s-declares-ban- ... s-to-join/

I thought maybe the "Space Force" thinks we have that technology perfected, therefore we don't need any more testing?

Could there be inter-service rivalry at play here? The AF doesn't want the space force's hardware in their budget?

Stranger things have happened.

bikerthai wrote:

To me (not an expert) the F-15EX has one purpose - oversized hypersonic missiles.

So if they are cutting down to 80 and accelerating the delivery, it could mean that they expect to have hypersonic that could be carried by the F-35 sooner than later.

Still not a bad deal for Boeing as the US order opened the door for other international orders.

bt

Sell them to Taiwan.

I know Tyler is onto that hook, but it seems like bait to me. I strongly doubt the USAF is looking to reduce the buy in reality, but I can absolutely believe they are playing games haggling with congressional negotiators for funding. It’s an election year in the states for legislators, fyi everyone. Much of the F-15 production work is in Missouri and Ohio I believe, and I think this is somewhat just dancing around the usual bs.

For more reasons than the F-15EX of course, I expect Boeing to increase it’s lobbying budget this year.

STT757 wrote:

Sell them to Taiwan.

Egypt is approved.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... -what-cost

Along with the Indonesian bid.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

I know Tyler is onto that hook, but it seems like bait to me. I strongly doubt the USAF is looking to reduce the buy in reality, but I can absolutely believe they are playing games haggling with congressional negotiators for funding. It’s an election year in the states for legislators, fyi everyone. Much of the F-15 production work is in Missouri and Ohio I believe, and I think this is somewhat just dancing around the usual bs.

For more reasons than the F-15EX of course, I expect Boeing to increase it’s lobbying budget this year.

Tyler was quoting another article:

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/f-3 ... s-in-fy23/

While this may seem like the service is pivoting its interest toward the Boeing-made fighter, the Air Force’s rationale is more circumspect. According to two sources with knowledge of the matter, Kendall had tasked the service’s budget corps to consider cancelling the F-15EX. However, proponents of the program within the Air Force and in the Pentagon pushed back, protecting the program.

As a result, the Air Force opted to surge F-15EX procurement so that it could replace its F-15C/Ds as quickly as possible and lower F-35 procurement until the time where the service can buy the more advanced F-35 Block 4 model.

More information from USAF about the reduction in the F-15EX buy, in testimony before Congress. They intend to rely longer on the F-15E model rather than replacing them with the EX. Reason given was budget concerns. So they will buy EX at a higher rate to replace C/D models initially, then taper off and not replace E models.

If I were the head of Boeing's F-15EX Sales team, I'd be sending a delegation to Slovakia pronto..
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1470285&start=5150#p23282395

889091 wrote:

If I were the head of Boeing's F-15EX Sales team, I'd be sending a delegation to Slovakia pronto..
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1470285&start=5150#p23282395

While I'm an F-15EX fan, I see the F-16 as a better fit for Slovakia. Which means when Poland gets their F-35s, the F-16s will go to either Ukraine or Slovakia.

The Boeing team will probably not go there until they get a version if the F/A-7 ready to go.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

889091 wrote:

If I were the head of Boeing's F-15EX Sales team, I'd be sending a delegation to Slovakia pronto..
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1470285&start=5150#p23282395

While I'm an F-15EX fan, I see the F-16 as a better fit for Slovakia. Which means when Poland gets their F-35s, the F-16s will go to either Ukraine or Slovakia.

The Boeing team will probably not go there until they get a version if the F/A-7 ready to go.

bt

True, but they need a missile/bomb-truck within NATO/EU.

Within NATO, each country contribute to the best of their ability (or at least that is the goal). Not all country can contribute bomb trucks.

Take Lithuania for example. Check out their Airforce

There was an article talking about how hard it is for a pilot to go from MIGs to an F-16 let alone F-35 or the EX.

Perun (Youtube) has a video discussing the benefits if smaller countries going asymmetric. So for Slovakia, and maybe Ukraine in the future, it may be more effective going with something easy to train and operate, like the F/A-7 and surround the asset with lots of drones and wingman/bomb truck. Especially with Ukraine where they now have lots of drone operators and not as many pilots.

bt

I was wondering what you meant with the F/A-7 as ted venerable A-7 Corsair Ii hasn't been in service for a while.
You mean a fighter/atttack version of the Red Hawk T-7A I'm guessing? Wouldn't it get a different number to avoid confusion?

ReverseFlow wrote:

You mean a fighter/atttack version of the Red Hawk T-7A I'm guessing? Wouldn't it get a different number to avoid confusion?

Not a clue on the designation of the combat version of the T-7. But they have the two seat version where the second seater could be used to manage drones. You let the drones do all the work and the manned aircraft can just have a couple of defensive AA missiles and an electronic pod.

bt

Confirmation to what we all are saying?

General Brown also explained that the F-15EX would be the first jet in Air Force service for certification with the new Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM).

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ile-202116

Not A-SAT. Not necessarily a massive AA missile truck. And fewer EX and keeping the E longer, implies that these EX were not meant to replace the 35s but ultimately would be merged with the Mudhen squadrons.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

For more reasons than the F-15EX of course, I expect Boeing to increase it’s lobbying budget this year.

It will be interesting to see where their lobbying efforts will focus on.

If you don't see a lot of energy by Boeing to increase the F-15EX buy for the US, then you can probably speculate that they think they are in a good position with NGAD.



bt

bikerthai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

For more reasons than the F-15EX of course, I expect Boeing to increase it’s lobbying budget this year.

It will be interesting to see where their lobbying efforts will focus on.

If you don't see a lot of energy by Boeing to increase the F-15EX buy for the US, then you can probably speculate that they think they are in a good position with NGAD.



bt

Is Boeing the prime contractor for NGAD, or has it not been disclosed yet? I'm thinking its LM since their classified project took a t $225M hit last fall.

My understanding is that the major players are involved with multiple concepts. But the details of which we regular folks do not know.

What I've been told/read is that NGAD will be small batches with constantly evolving technology, so there may be more than one winners and the winner(s) need to be agile.

bt

The concept of NGAD production is USAF development with distributed production. Rather than winner-take-all as has been more prevalent in recent years. USN is doing the same with their submersible autonomous vehicle development. This builds a more robust manufacturing infrastructure and maintains multiple vendors.

Contract for the next block of F-15EX is near.

Not sure of all the details, but report says Boeing can maintain $80 mil per frame cost.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/des ... -15ex/amp/

bt

Wow, that would be about the only thing on earth whose price hasn’t gone up 20 percent this year.

texl1649 wrote:

Wow, that would be about the only thing on earth whose price hasn’t gone up 20 percent this year.

Could it be that Boeing's margin is dropping by 20% to just 15%? !!!

That is what surprising to me as the F-15 carries the extra cost of the second engine. So playing with the margin does mitigate that.

Unless the cost dies not include the engine?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

That is what surprising to me as the F-15 carries the extra cost of the second engine. So playing with the margin does mitigate that.

Unless the cost dies not include the engine?

bt

The engines are bought directly from GE, who won the RFP.

In the miracle of government contracting probably both the F-35 and F-15EX price tags do not include engines.

JayinKitsap wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

That is what surprising to me as the F-15 carries the extra cost of the second engine. So playing with the margin does mitigate that.

Unless the cost dies not include the engine?

bt

The engines are bought directly from GE, who won the RFP.

In the miracle of government contracting probably both the F-35 and F-15EX price tags do not include engines.

Both flyaway prices include the engines. The F-135 is more expensive than both F-110 engines.

Where the F-35 differs is that all the instrumentation packages are integrated into the airframe, and are included. Whereas for the F-15EX, some packages are optional or upgrades, and thus counted separately.

Here's what doesn't make any sense to me. The EX is sold by Boeing and the DoD as a replacement for the National Guard "C" model, supposedly because the C model has problems with longerons; the wing spars are timing out on number of flexes, and they're 'old'. These are bogus arguments because Boeing has said they can re-wing the C models for 12 million each, and all the "problems" are solved. New EX models are going to cost 68 million apiece more than that. And they are all scheduled to be replaced by F-35s by 2040.

I'm sure that a person can quibble about this or that, but the bulk of this article remains valid.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/air ... nt-add-up/

So buying EXs to replace the C models comes off as crazy talk. There is also the "old" argument, which is just a sales pitch, a slur on the C models. The C models have very low hours by normal aviation standards. With new wings, they can do the job well into the 2040s.

And what is their job? In peace time it is to intercept the occasional biz jet or such that has lost radio contact or strayed into places is shouldn't, or the extreme situation would be to shoot down an airliner suspected of having been hijacked. An F-5 could do those jobs just fine. However, there is also the national defense task which is to shoot down Russian TU-95s or TU-160s over Canada, while being directed toward the targets by NORAD radar.

Let's understand something here, these TUs are bombers, not fighters, they are capable of about zero evasive action and the distances involved between Russia and the US exclude the possibility of fighter escorts; an intercept would probably take place beyond visual range. Because of it's range and payload, an F-15 is the appropriate plane for that job; so an F-5 can't do the main job of the National Guard Air Defense mission. (Here I have to ask why that NG pilot was pulling 9 Gs over Missouri, the taxpayers could save a lot of money by sending him to Disneyland if he needs thrills in his life). However the F-15 EX adds nothing to the needed capability for this mission. It's sensor suite, second seat and on and on and on are all unneeded for the NG air defense task. The radar would be nice, but that's a bolt on item, the C models could have that too, there's no need to buy a new plane for that.

The EX fans go on and on about all the new capabilities the EX has (the unneeded capabilities for the NG task); but things get foggy when we delve into that subject.

It appears that the EX fans are in love with the EX for about the same reasons a Ford lover loved his Fords or a Chevy lover loves his Chevys. Nobody even tries to make a case for why all these new and wonderful capabilities are needed and everybody skips by the fact that these planes will be flown by National Guard pilots who aren't even trained in air to ground. And if they were trained so, (which is no small detail), who would defend CONUS while these guys were on the other side of the world doing their air strikes? The same question arises about the anti-sat role, if there is such a role.

So why are we spending 14 billion dollars of taxpayer money on 200 shiny new F-15s? Shouldn't we be spending this money on the Next Generation Fighter? Or if we're intending to give Boeing's stockholders a gift, why not just cut them a check for 3 billion or so and save 10 billion of taxpayers money?

I think the choices faced by USAF were:

1. Upgrade the F-15c/d at a cost of $50M
2. Acquire the F-15ex at a cost of $90M
3. Accelerate the F-35a at a cost of $85M

Another consideration was maintaining two active fighter vendors within the US. Yet another was lower hourly costs of the F-15.

Option #3 was ruled out because the F-35, despite being a vastly advanced aircraft, doesn't have the same weapons delivery potential. And costs more for routine flight hours that define many F-15 missions.

Between options #1 and #2, the difference is capacity & range vs cost. Option #1 is only a little more than half the cost of Option #2, but Option #2 brings greater capacity and range, with a more advanced airframe.

So is that worth the extra $40M per aircraft? That's basically the decision point. That debate is going to continue for some time. There are valid points on each side. Neither one is necessarily a bad choice, it's just a trade-off as to which benefit is most important.

Avatar2go wrote:

I think the choices faced by USAF were:

1. Upgrade the F-15c/d at a cost of $50M

The cost for new wings and the longeron fix was agreed to be 12 million apiece in most of this thread.


Originally the AF said 10 mil apiece.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1399883&p=21333011#p21333759

That's a big difference.

The only reason that makes sense to me to buy the EX and only 144 frames is they want that platform for hypersonic missiles.

Yes, I keep harping on hypersonic. But isn't it all the talk right now?

They want the EX because they want another platform other than the 52 to carry the first generation of hypersonics. Once they can reduce the missile weight, and the 35 can carry them, they can move the EX into the E squadrons.

The other reason is the inability to train enough F-35 pilots while maintaining their overall readiness rate. But many here don't believe that. Of course training slots will be more accute with more allies buying more F-35s.

bt

Vintage wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I think the choices faced by USAF were:

1. Upgrade the F-15c/d at a cost of $50M

The cost for new wings and the longeron fix was agreed to be 12 million apiece in most of this thread.


Originally the AF said 10 mil apiece.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1399883&p=21333011#p21333759

That's a big difference.

That very well may be true, I was referring to the overall upgrade cost for the F-15c/d, as quoted by the USAF to Congress in 2016.

The estimated bill: $12 billion over the next two decades, according to Air Combat Command, the arm of the Air Force that oversees all of its fighter jets.

"The F-15s need new longerons, steel beams that hold the structure of the plane together. The Eagles also need new wings, a major upgrade planned to be done by the mid-2020s.

Then there is the new electronic equipment, including a new central computer, needed to keep the plane lethal against Russian and Chinese surface-to-air missiles and aircraft. Another upgrade, a long-wave infrared search-and-track system, would allow the jet to see enemy threats from long distances. There are also classified improvements being eyed. And that doesn’t include other options, like conformal fuel tanks that attach to the side of the plane’s fuselage."

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2 ... nt/133206/

Note that I excluded EPAWS here, which in 2016, was estimated at an additional $6B, but was still in development and not yet approved. Also not mentioned but included, is a glass cockpit upgrade to integrate the other new systems.

bikerthai wrote:

The only reason that makes sense to me to buy the EX and only 144 frames is they want that platform for hypersonic missiles.
training slots will be more acute with more allies buying more F-35s.

Hypersonic missiles weren't a 'thing' back when the subject of replacing the National Guard's F-15s was first raised. Back then, the reason given was that the NG F-15s were old and falling apart; the crash in Missouri (almost 15 years ago) was cited as the proof.

If one wants to guess at ulterior motives for the DoD (not the AF) requesting replacement for the NG F-15Cs, the go to guess is to carry an anti-sat missile (not the same as a hypersonic missile) but that still doesn't make any sense because if we were engaging in an act of war against China or Russia, that would be the very time the NG F-15s would be most needed for their air defense role. These planes are going to the National Guard, not the Air Force. They can't be taken away from the NG unless the NG stops defending CONUS.

Building 1980s planes in the 21st century makes no sense.

Avatar2go wrote:

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/11/decision-time-half-americas-f-15s-need-overhauls-or-retirement/133206/
Note that I excluded EPAWS here, which in 2016, was estimated at an additional $6B, but was still in development and not yet approved. Also not mentioned but included, is a glass cockpit upgrade to integrate the other new systems.

Your citation is six years old, there have been several iterations since then, the number that has been accepted by everyone in this thread was 12 million per plane.