Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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...
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 strategySenate 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
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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
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
estorilm wrote:Advanced manufacturing techniques? It's all relative - maybe versus previous build F-15s lol.
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
...
Ozair wrote:Boeing and the F-15EX still have a hurdle to cross for the EX program to start.
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.”
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.
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?
“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.”
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?
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
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.
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).
bikerthai wrote:It should bode well for more Israelis F-15's as well.
bt
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.