It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USAF Actually Buying F-15Xs?

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



We're well behind on replacing aircraft, because of the idiotic decision made in 1991 that future combat aircraft would only be stealth aircraft. 

No, that was the right decision in regards to combat aircraft, even then. It was basically every other decision they made after that which has left them high and dry.
edit on 23-3-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The Air Force didnt need any more fighter jets in the 90s. More than enough F-15s and F-16s to go around in the post cold war era.
What did them in was ten years of wartime operations drying up funds while the fleets where pushed hard. Add to that an Administration that didn’t gave a crap about properly regenerating the military afterwards and a Congress playing pointless budget games and you get to where we are now.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

You don't wait until they're worn out to replace them. The 90s would have been a good time to start replacing the oldest of them. Or at least start putting together a plan for it.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But there was a plan - ATF and JSF. It would have worked out fine enough. You can hardly blame them for not anticipating ten years of sustained combat operations post 0911. Two wars killed the service life of the fighter fleets. And sucked up all the funds neccessary to regenerate than during the Bush years. Nothing to be done about that.

The main mistake was made by Gates in 2009 with cancelling the F-22 production in favor of JSF development.
Instead they should have cancelled JSF, continued F-22 production to eventually replace the entire F-15 fleet and evolve the type into an FB-22 while recapitalizing with late gen F-16s and F/A-18s for the Navy.
Would have saved them countless billions and they'd be better off today too.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   
The biggest mistake was a demand for VLO combined with gold-plating a tri-service international program.

If they had just pumped out an aligned platform with only spot treatments of RAM for problem spots, used completely mature technology from the Raptor (engine, datalink, and sensors) for a light-weight multi-role swing fighter with an RCS in the .01 range, and kept the Raptor line open, we'd be discussing whether we should retrofit the JAST airframes with DAS, other "F-35-stuffings", and new durable RAM treatments right now or if we should start a new more capable replacement/supplement program with "F-35"-stuffings.

We could have done that cheap and fast, even in the early 90's. It'd be more survivable and the costs would have allowed a near one for one replacement of the legacy fleet.

Instead they asked for an international bleeding -edge program and put off every upgrade and cut the Raptor line to afford it. And it took an extra two decades to get new airframes rolling off the line, while they rode their legacy platforms into the ground.

Now we finally caught up and have a chance to recap with a stealth VLO fleet with cutting-edge tech at a very low price thanks to all the money we wasted earlier, but are going to buy more expensive Eagles we don't need and spend a fortune on developing another bleeding -edge platform "immediately" instead .

Learned nothing from the last 30 years.We're still chasing the "next greatest thing" throwing crazy money on the bleeding -edge.

There is still a giant market internationally and domestically for a (comparatively) low-capability, inexpensive LO entry.
edit on 23-3-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

You don't wait until they're worn out to replace them. The 90s would have been a good time to start replacing the oldest of them. Or at least start putting together a plan for it.


True enough. However, that's what the F-22 was for. The fact it's production was shut down to pay for a bomber threw a wrench in that plan. You are right though, once that happened they should have moved faster getting on a replacement. The C-Model still had some decent money going into it with its AESA but the writing was on the wall when other upgrades each year kept getting pushed further down the list. I knew someone that used to tell me "The Raptor killed the AF, the JSF will kill the DOD". Pretty close but get a few more years to gap the 5th Gen to 6th Gen with some more capable 15s nothing wrong with that. The counting the difference in cost with a few million here and there doesn't make sense. Just to not sound too much rah rah for the X, I think they should upgrade or bridge the gap with some new 16s at some places too but nobody is talking about those guys going into a super mez right now only Eagles right? The only travesty is if they replace the C-Models with a lesser performance A2A system. I need to research those GE engines.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Seems most of us are in agreement, we just arrived here by different means.
I'm looking wistfully at a picture of the pair of prototype F-16XL's and wondering, what might an evolved series have been?



posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

The people that hate the F-35 are even funnier. I wonder if Boeing pays them to post here sometimes.

The F-35 can currently do the F-15 job, but there aren't enough of them. In an effort to "protect the industrial base", they're buying F-15s that won't be able to penetrate a modern A2AD bubble without serious help. But according to everyone that thinks this is a great idea, they're only going to be used in the homeland defense mission, which is why they're buying the EX, with a hefty ground attack role.


I wish Boeing was paying me. I probably would be more convincing. :-)



posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Here's my Boeing welfare proposal.

I'd rather fund an entire Boeing program based on a stripped down conventional X-32 layout with large bays for a next gen AAM and strike weapons.


One piece composite wing construction saves weight and has volume for fuel.
Maybe one in four is a two-seater with a DAS and radar. Rely on passive sensors and datalinks into the network/ "distributed lethality" / "family of systems".
Leave enough SWAP-C for a future NGJ install.
Limited RAM treatment.
Open architecture for eventual system or weapon growth.
F-135 engine. Leave SWAP-C for ADVENT maturity.
Everything off the shelf.
Maximize component commonality with F-35 supply line.

No gold plating!

There's your "cheap" bombtruck and AAM flying magazine.

All the design work, computational and airtunnel testing, and flight testing is done and paid for. Already signature-reduced. The data is already largely collected if they don't greatly change the outerlines. Can start production relatively quickly after green light. Plans for tooling already exist.

Two-seaters with sensors can task the others-- and LCAAT or other advanced loyal wingman programs eventually. They are all also tied into the F-35 system and LRSB and "other" platforms.

Keep costs to a minimum. Buy enough to drive the price even lower. Replace all the Eagles and Beagles. Send the Beagles to the ANG/Reserve Units. Start looking at gradual F-16 replacement once operating costs drop as the logistical train comes up to speed.

Keeps Boeing involved in modern construction and design. Because it's stripped down (and cheap) it is relatively easy to export. Large export market represents even cheaper operating and acquisition costs.


Push NGAD out another 15 years and cancel the F-15X program so you recap with F-35 and the Boeing mongrels.



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
USAF unfunded priorities list asks nicely for more F-35's... Meanwhile, Pentagon still shoving F-15's down their throat... OSD roadmap also shows a decrease in short-term F-35 procurement. OSD admits new Eagles only fit for standoff roles where air superiority is already achieved.

Maybe they can cut procurement even more and drive the F-35 unit price way up and use that as a reason to cut the line like we did the Raptors. Screw us and all the international partners this time.


Criminal stupidity at the DOD...



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 05:29 AM
link   
An article this morning said that the Air Force could buy as many as 400 F-15s, and recapitalize both the C/D and E fleets.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Im ok with this provided the following,
One, we invent a time machine, go back 5 years and make it happen then.
Two, they pull it off double quick time and keep the price to $40 million or less. When I say double quick time, I want to see the first aircraft rolling off the line in 9 months or less from contract with at least 80 delivered in the first year and ramp up to 120 a year after that.
Three, no gold plating, buy whats relevant for now and for networking with other aircraft like Loyal Wingman and F-35/22. Make it next gen engine ready and give the engine contract to GE for both (sorry P&W but you suck).



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Any idea what the cost would be, can't be that staggering $100m/frame figure.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In the neighborhood of $80-85M.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That still seems crazy to me for that frame. That's approaching F-35 cost if I am not mistaken.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The procurement costs are going to be close. The F-15 is getting AESA, large screen displays, digital threat warning, new missile rails, etc.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In the neighborhood of $80-85M.


says Boeing ... build an additional 150 F-35As over the same timeframe and procurement cost will be anything but close

The current budget has it at 1.05 Billion US-$ for 8 aircraft while the F-35A comes in at 4.2 billion for 48 aircraft (8 less than for FY19).
The Air Forces unfunded priorities list includes 12 F-35A...
I'm still hopefull Congress will kill it.
edit on 28-3-2019 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Unless they are expecting serious dogfighting I can't think of much benefit of the F-15 over the F-35, maybe I am missing something.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
"The people that hate the F-35 are even funnier. I wonder if Boeing pays them to post here sometimes. "

They do. They also pay the MSM to put pictures of Boeing products in their news articles. I was reading an article on Fox News' site the other day about the advanced missile capability of the Aegis cruisers. There was a picture of an F/A-18 in the article.

I have friends who are working in the Navy's F-35 program. Several people have been fired for leaking confidential information that made it's way to Boeing sponsored articles about the F-35 difficulties.

Now look who benefits from both the F-15 order and the Navy's order of F/A-18's.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The new missile rails. Increase the range of the AMRAAM, improve the seeker, and you have your missile truck. They're also talking about hypersonic weapons on them.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join