Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
JayinKitsap wrote:In an opinion piece at RCD a retired Col writes how important to order the F-15ex, he has valid points but it smacks of a Loren Thompson article where contributors to his site asked him to write, basically PR not news.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 14972.html
I agree on the big importance of diversity, why I do like getting the F-15ex, but only if we keep going full throttle on acquiring F-35's , we should at this stage have hundreds more F-35's in service but for the program delays.
The Air Force has launched the process of buying new F-15EX fighters with dual pre-solicitation notices from the Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
The notices, dated Jan. 28, announce USAF’s intention to purchase F-15EX jets from Boeing and F110-129 engines from General Electric Aviation, with both companies as sole source suppliers.
The indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts are labeled as a “refresh to the F-15C/D fleet” as well as to “augment” the F-15C/D fleet with new airplanes. A contract is anticipated in May.
Although Pratt & Whitney also makes an engine that could power the F-15EX, its powerplant is not certified for the airframes the EX model is based on, which Boeing is building for Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The Air Force’s desire to obtain speedy delivery of the jets rules out a test program for the Pratt & Whitney engine, which has not been evaluated with the digital, fly-by-wire F-15EX, an Air Force acquisition official explained. Each F-15EX requires two engines, and USAF will also buy spares, for a package of up to 480 of the powerplants. Some of those may power older F-15s.
The GE F110-129 powers more than half of Air Force F-16s and more than 80 percent of USAF’s F-15E strike aircraft.
This first year of the program, the Air Force plans to buy eight F-15EX fighters, although future plans call for as many as 144 aircraft. Congress approved only two F-15EXs in the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, with the proviso that USAF can buy the other six after submitting a report on its acquisition strategy for the program. The eight aircraft, including initial engineering, hardware and software design, integration of subsytems and parts production, would run about $1.1 billion the first year.
...
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:I wish we can start calling it F-15E Block 40 or whatever, EX reeks of Boeing PR speak.
texl1649 wrote:F110 vs. F100 in the Eagles in USAF inventory is a bit amusing to happen now finally in the 2020’s vs. the past 40 years. It is a surprising decision but indicative again of the high degree of risk intolerance in procurement today for the USAF.
Ozair wrote:Perhaps we will get an official model number from the USAF at some point. It really feels like with the changes compared to the E that we could easily go to a “G” but that has traditionally been associated with wild weasel aircraft so maybe a “I”, nope that is Israeli so how about “K”, sorry South Korea, “M”, maybe we have arrived at the right one and perhaps fitting to stand for “Maybe” (not Mike) given the on again off again acquisition the aircraft has had to go through.
While I agree EX is very PR it may just stick unless the USAF wants really wants to go to G. I really can’t see them going to M…
steman wrote:Ozair wrote:Perhaps we will get an official model number from the USAF at some point. It really feels like with the changes compared to the E that we could easily go to a “G” but that has traditionally been associated with wild weasel aircraft so maybe a “I”, nope that is Israeli so how about “K”, sorry South Korea, “M”, maybe we have arrived at the right one and perhaps fitting to stand for “Maybe” (not Mike) given the on again off again acquisition the aircraft has had to go through.
While I agree EX is very PR it may just stick unless the USAF wants really wants to go to G. I really can’t see them going to M…
Isn´t F-15F available? It´s the next in line after the -E.
Although I´m sure they´ll go with some boring block number like on the F-16.
NASA and GD combined forces to replace the engine in 848. After receiving a production GE F110-129 engine, 848 eventually did achieve supersonic cruise (supercruise). 848 was modified with research gloves on both wings. The port wing glove was substantially larger. A team from NASA’s Langley Research and Dryden Research Centers, Rockwell International, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas designed and built the wing glove. 848 was used primarily for supersonic laminar-flow research. Once NASA test programs concluded in 1999, both of these distinctive aircraft went into storage at Edwards AFB. They remain there today.
bikerthai wrote:While many of the single letter remains, since this will more or less be the last USAF F-15 buy, it is logical to consider F-15US. Or if our Pres gets a say . . .F-15USA. . . .USB if heaven for bid, they decide in a 2 seat model.
bt
Oh, and there are two variants of the F-15X that are being offered by Boeing and will likely be procured. One is dubbed the F-15CX and the other is known as the F-15EX.
The F-15CX will be a single-seat configuration, while the F-15EX will be a two-seater with a fully missionized rear cockpit complete with a wide-area flat panel display, helmet-mounted display, and full flight controls. The F-15EX will cost a couple million dollars more than its single seat stablemate, but they will roll of the St. Louis production line right alongside one another.
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:I wish we can start calling it F-15E Block 40 or whatever, EX reeks of Boeing PR speak.
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:I wish we can start calling it F-15E Block 40 or whatever, EX reeks of Boeing PR speak.
The expected minimum procurement quantity for F-15EX is 144 aircraft (a combination of 2 in RDTE (PE27134F); 6 in F015E0 (Line #3); and 136 in F015EX (Line #4). F-15EX is currently a Middle Tier Acquisition program, not a Major Defense Acquisition Program. Once the program transitions to a Major Defense Acquisition Program and the Acquisition Program Baseline is approved, the total program quantity for F-15EX will be established. All numbers are based on the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency's initial Non-Advocate Cost Assessment and will be refined for major milestones and on an annual basis.
The F-15EX will be based on the 2-seat F-15QA (Qatar) configuration upgraded with USAF-only capabilities, including the Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS) and the Suite 9.1 Operational Flight Program (OFP) software. With two seats, it will be multirole-capable and operable by one or two aircrew. Many F-15C/Ds are beyond their service life and have SERIOUS structures risks, wire chafing issues, and obsolete parts. Readiness goals are unachievable due to continuous structural inspections, time-consuming repairs, and on-going modernization efforts. The average F-15C/D is 36 years old with over 8,400 flight hours; the oldest F-15C was delivered in 1979. F-15EX logistics, maintenance, and training will heavily leverage the existing F-15 infrastructure.
Flyaway - F-15EX Cost Recurring Cost Airframe 73.600
Engines (2) 11.200
AME 1.100
ECO 1.800
Subtotal: Recurring Cost for 12 airframes is 1,052.400
Boeing’s F-15 program is getting a second life as the U.S. Air Force begins buying new aircraft, but it remains to be seen whether the company will be able to ring in international sales of the F-15EX model in a competitive fighter market.
In December, Congress approved a $985 million request by the Air Force to buy the first eight F-15EX aircraft, with two to be delivered by the end of the year. The Air Force issued a pre-solicitation Jan. 23, declaring its intent to sole source the F-15EX from Boeing.
In a statement to Defense News, Boeing F-15 program manager Prat Kumar expressed concern about the pace of contract negotiations, but sounded optimistic about potential international sales.
“Needless to say, we need to be on contract to deliver these jets. We do not fully control the timing of when we get on contract, but we’re doing everything within our control to deliver F-15EX jets before the end of the year,” he said.
…
744SPX wrote:I get the feeling Boeing is pushing the EX over the CX as it will be cheaper for them (production commonality) to keep the E models twin seating arrangement. (when is the last time they produced a single seat F-15?) They will probably try and push it on foreign buyers as well. For the C model replacement, the twin seat cockpit adds completely unnecessary weight and drag, even if only a little. I had a bad feeling the CX would never see the light of day, and IMHO its looking like that will be the case.
texl1649 wrote:Something tells me these F110 powered F-15’s will be the final iteration of the breed in around 2050. Or later...
Ozair wrote:Agree 100%. I think the EX provides generally better flexibility going forward for what is either the same cost or as you suggest likely less cost than restarting single seat production.
744SPX wrote:Can't recall... does the second seat affect fuel capacity?
bikerthai wrote:744SPX wrote:Can't recall... does the second seat affect fuel capacity?
Looks like the bay for the second seat would have been used for electronics - similar to the "C".
http://aviazioneaereimilitari.altervist ... -eagle.jpg
bt
bikerthai wrote:
Actually this cost question is a little more complex.
Having to design the single seat variant from the QA would cost a little more in terms of non-recuring Engineering hours. But from a recurring production stand point, without the plumbing and wiring and cost of the second seat, the cost per frame would be lower.
We have always kicked around the phrase that Engineering hours are cheap when compared to manufacturing hours. Specially when the production quantity gets into the hundreds.
bikerthai wrote:
I wonder if that is the reason why the price went up . . . Because of the second seat?
bt
bikerthai wrote:The cut-away shows he refeuling receptacle on the left wing. If that is the same for all variant, then it does not make sense to place a tank forward of that. The complexity of running fuel lines forward would make it not worth while.
bikerthai wrote:The cost of the extra seat is not the only part of the calculation. You also have the cost of installing the plumbing for oxygen, and display for the additional pilot etc.
bikerthai wrote:If that they were going to have the provisions anyway, then I would say that the different cost of the extra seat would not make it to 4 mil. But if the full cockpit was not in the original estimate, the I can see how you can get there from here.
bt
Ozair wrote:Yes and I mentioned that already. This all already exists though so there is no engineering work to do done, it really isn't that much more cost wise.
bikerthai wrote:Ozair wrote:Yes and I mentioned that already. This all already exists though so there is no engineering work to do done, it really isn't that much more cost wise.
I do not disagree. It would cost engineering hours to remove the system for the second seat. But the per frame manufacturing cost would be lower.
bt
Pratt & Whitney is protesting the US Air Force's (USAF's) intention to sole source General Electric (GE) F110 engines for its Boeing F-15EX Advanced Eagle fighter aircraft, Jane's has learned.
The bid protest was filed on 7 February with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). A decision is due no later than 18 May.
The USAF on 23 January announced its intent to sole source the GE F110. The service plans to acquire as many as 480 F110 engines, engine monitoring system computers, integrated logistics support, support equipment, and tooling.
...
texl1649 wrote:I’m skeptical that would succeed, but admit procurement regs are confusing. It would seem the USAF is purchasing an ‘off the shelf’ variant and wouldn’t have to go through the bid process for components, at first glance. Given that the F110 is also in the USAF inventory I can’t see it making much of a difference, particularly as the total package was bid not by GE but by Boeing.
747classic wrote:Perhaps GE produces more efficient and more reliable fighter engines than PW , as demonstrated with the under performing F100-100 and 200 series, forcing PW to do their homework again finally with the -220 series.
Why are almost all export late built F16 and F15 fighters powered by GE engines, especially airforces that are operating in hot and sandy desert conditions.
And i won't even dear to mention the PW TF30, one of the worst engines ever designed, curtailing the F14 to become a superb fighter and hurting the F111.
…
Boeing is showing at #AWS20 an F-15EX with a new centerline store called a Multi-Purpose Booster, a 7,300lb., 30-in diameter and 270-in long weapon. Most likely applications would be hypersonic, long-range anti-surface, and possibly anti-satellite.
bikerthai wrote:And did you miss that short range missile coming off of the outboard fuel pylon?![]()
bt
744SPX wrote:I'd think for a number of reasons (inevitable weight increase over the E, possible competition from Pratt, improved performance), GE would would be pushing to offer the EX with the F110-GE-132. An extra ~7000 lbs of thrust would be a big asset.
The notices, dated Jan. 28, announce USAF’s intention to purchase F-15EX jets from Boeing and F110-129 engines from General Electric Aviation, with both companies as sole source suppliers.
Ozair wrote:Boeing has shown an interesting F-156X model at AWS20. The large missile carried on the centreline is large and heavy. It isn’t the nicest looking weapon and I’m not sure if this is a Boeing designed weapon or something the USAF is working on. I doubt it is an ASAT as Steve Tremble suggests, the weight is significantly more than would be necessary for that type of weapon.
The U.S. Air Force has become a leader in defense acquisition by pursuing clever ways to shorten the acquisition process, bypassing traditional, onerous steps to field new aircraft, missiles and drones. Today, speed is the mantra in the defense acquisition community, and the Air Force constantly seeks new ways to shorten the development cycle. However, speed in the pursuit of rapid fielding should never happen at the expense of competition.
The Air Force plans to procure a large number of new Boeing F-15EX fighters to replace aging F-15Cs. This program is on a fast track so that the replacement F-15EXs are fielded before the F-15Cs are grounded at the end of their structural life.
In its haste, the Air Force is buying the engines, two per F-15EX, on a sole-source contract from General Electric rather than on a competitive basis, despite the availability of Pratt & Whitney engines already flying on nearly all its F-15Es. The GE engines will be provided to Boeing from the Air Force as government-furnished equipment.
This is a curious decision because the Air Force has strongly advocated competitive buys for engines whenever possible. The F-15EX program contemplates the procurement of several hundred aircraft and upward of 500-700 engines, clearly a sufficient quantity to reap the benefits of competition.
...
bikerthai wrote:Would a competition delay the program enough that would cause a capacity gap? I mean if the competition and subsequent challenges drag out long enough, they would not need to buy the F-15 at all and go with all F-35's.
bt
he US Air Force’s (USAF) decision to cancel the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) and proceed with Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) came down to size and shape of the missile, in addition to budgetary pressures and a desire to move toward production faster.
...
Ultimately, ARRW was chosen over HCSW for several reasons.
The reason that we went with ARRW was not that HCSW was bad, but ARRW is smaller. You can carry twice as many on the B-52,” says Roper. “It’s possible it could go on the F-15, if we don’t experience mass growth, but we haven’t validated that yet. It’s in class to be able to fit on the center line.”
...
The Air Force’s planned purchase of the F-15EX to replace aging fighters is needed to maintain the homeland defense mission as aging F-15Cs continue to see reliability issues, the head of U.S. Northern Command told lawmakers.
USAF Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, commander of NORTHCOM and North American Aerospace Defense Command, told the House Armed Services Committee on March 11 that newer F-15EXs will bring on new capability for the mission, such as improved range, the ability to carry more missiles, and improved radar capabilities.
“That one aircraft can actually have much more of an effect, relatively for example, for the cruise missiles you’re trying to defend against,” O’Shaughnessy said.
...