posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 12:23 PM
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RadioRobert
Because you don't need an all stealth air force. But hey, what do I know. High tech rules.
You absolutely don't. But the reasons to recap with an F-15X instead of increasing the F-35 buy would all be $$$, and the numbers don't look very
Made up requirements: you want to retire extra airframes and replace 400 older legacy airframes as it an interim for PCA.
Options: Buy 400 new Eagles? Or for the same money, you can expand your F-35-buy by 325 (or more with economies of scale) airframes?
$65M x 400= $80M x 325
And when you can cut the entire F-15C/D/X lines from maintenance, training, spares, supplies and replace them with more F-35's and streamline, you see
even bigger savings (or alternatively, even more F-35's for the same money).
If you could rehab and refit old Eagles for $30-40M, that numbers look a lot better for that option because you are right, you absolutely don't need
an F-35 for many missions. You just need a truck. But Boeing is trying to keep the lines open on legacy projects because they don't have much in the
hopper for future production so they aren't pitching that. Once the lines close, they won't come back. Even limited runs to keep them open leave a
chance for follow-on orders. So it's all about the keeping them open at any cost right now.
Unfortunately for Boeing, right now the maths suck. I don't think you can squeeze the cost of even a 400-unit run on a big twin-engine fighter enough
to make the numbers work in it's favour.
edit on 26-7-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)