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: 16
8
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert
Apart from the obvious alternative of just buy more F-35's the only other practical option would be to rebuild a portion of the F-15 fleet and boneyard the rest. There were at last count a little over 200 F-15E's and their airframe life is better than the legacy A-D models. Given that the F-35 would be capable of taking on the Beagles current role, it might make more sense to rebuild the E's as an F-15X alternative at a lower price. The trick though would be in making it happen quick enough. Rebuild processes typically take a long time and you can start opening up Pandoras box if you discover corrosion or fatigue problems.




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Hey, if they could/would do F-15X rebuilds and zero out the old tired C/D's first, or as you suggest upgrade the Beagles, for $20-40M as they once suggested, this is an entirely different discussion. Probably would still not the road I'd take, but it'd be easy to make a case for. But this current plan is just about keeping the F-15 line open for the next X-many years so they can grab more export orders.
Everyone loves the Eagle. It's fantastic. But this plan makes zero sense.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   
First off:

The USAF cannot be trusted. Their High/High mix desires would have been a budget breaker even in the cold war. They have been less than forthcoming with the F-35's problems during development, tried to kill off the A-10 while it still had a mission with no real replacement in sight, etc etc.

They need a low end (which the F-15 is now) aircraft, that is versatile and relatively cheap compared to the 5th gen in flyaway costs and MRO / cost per flight hour. You do not need first day of war aircraft in every theater every time on every mission

The reality is that as fun as a High/High mix would be, a High/Low mix is cheaper and more sustainable in the long run. Plus you need in effect a missile truck to compensate for the load outs on the F-22 and the F-35 if they are in stealth mode. You get a long range A2A missile like the meteor or an ER version of the AIM-120 and it can lob a2a's at the Chicoms from a safe distance allowing the Raptors to direct
edit on 5/20/19 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT




They need a low end (which the F-15 is now) aircraft, that is versatile and relatively cheap compared to the 5th gen in flyaway costs and MRO / cost per flight hour.


That's a fine argument for buying more Vipers. But when the F-15X is more expensive to purchase and the costs per flight hour are roughly equivalent (while the F-35 is still being introduced, and its cost per flight hour continues to fall) that argument falls flat.

So as of today, I'm paying more to buy it, paying more to fly it, and it is still less survivable and has less range/endurance than an F-35. And retiring the Eagles completely and eliminating them from thr supply chain would save even more money. And buying more F-35's drives down lot prices for you and allies while taking advantage of even more savings in operational costs because of economies of scale.I

There is a case to be made for a "low" component to the high/low mix. They have that with the F-16's. They could use updates, and there is plenty of room for a lower end bomb truck to bomb Sandistan and avoid burning hours off other more expensive airframes.

But the new build F-15 plan is a loser. They've already admitted industrial-base concerns as a reasoning. It's not even great for that. There are plenty of things to buy from Boeing that might make sense.



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Agree with a lot of what you all are saying. The F-16, no matter how much upgraded won’t compare to even a C-Model. I’ll even put an A model Eagle higher for the air to air role.

When these things don’t make sense it’s because it’s forced. It’s forced because of Raptor drawdown and delayed F-35 Penguin production. We have to have an air dominance fighter. Should have been one right after the Raptor but they missed the boat.

Can’t upgrade the C-Models. The throughput timeframe to fix them all is too long. The X is a stop gap to get flying rates higher, fleet force age lower, and maintain air dominance until an all 5th Gen force or higher is ready.

It is a problem. How do you fix a problem from poor planning? Throw money at it.

It’s not a big deal. At least they are doing something about it. Now I’ll start dodging the spears.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
HASC wants details before it signs off on the F-15EX.

www.defensenews.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They're demanding full details of the B-52 engine program as well.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Hopefully sanity prevails in both instances.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

They're demanding full details of the B-52 engine program as well.




The Air Force has said it will utilize its Section 804 Authorities Middle Tier Acquisition law authority, which includes new practices that streamline the process and push decisions down to program officers, to expedite new engines for the aircraft, known throughout the force as the BUFF, or "Big Ugly Fat Fellow."

"We're concerned that … by utilizing that authority, they're not doing their due diligence with regard to the requirements," said a committee staff member, referencing an early draft of the House Armed Services Committee defense bill.

Congress first authorized the practice in the fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.www.military.com...


As Yoda would say "trust we lack, firm requirements must you set"
edit on 6/3/19 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Not sure the program cost makes sense anymore. They missed their window, imo. But there is a severe shortage of common sense about, so who knows what will happen.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:41 AM
link   
warontherocks.com...

Long read but goes over some courses of action and explains costs.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: glib2

It would take a long tome to unpack all the bull snip stuffed into that article.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: glib2


warontherocks.com...

Long read but goes over some courses of action and explains costs.
Interesting article and it does bring up a number of factors that are not traditionally looked at like base upgrade costs if you replace the F-15C's with 35's etc.

The reality as I have said before is that not every aircraft needs to be first day of war capable. Even if the costs are close, the utility of the E(X) as a missile truck (24 a2a and perhaps more) as well as its ability to go air to mud will be quite valuable in less contested airspace.

You also need to the Defend the CONUS and you will never have enough Raptors and 35A's to do both that and cover all of our other commitments etc.

This conclusion sums up exactly my thoughts on this whole matter


The optimal solution may include a mix of F-15EX and F-35A to replace the F-15C. This involves starting F-15EX procurement immediately to address F-15C readiness concerns and assess the viability of transitioning some, but not all, F-15C squadrons to the F-35A. If the assessment is positive, the Air Force could begin the 3–5-year transition cycle to build infrastructure supporting the F-35A and cross-train personnel at selected bases. Additional F-15EX and F-35A aircraft would then be purchased between 2025–2029 to complete the divestment of the aging F-15C fleet. While this will result in high procurement costs, the Air Force will return on its investment close to 2040 by divesting the F-15C and its high annual operating cost. The F-15EX will provide superior firepower and magazine capacity to complement the advantages of stealth provided by the F-35A and F-22. This option spreads procurement costs over several budget cycles, addresses readiness and capacity concerns, provides increased capability, allows time for F-35A basing to establish required infrastructure, and lowers annual operating costs by getting rid of 40-year-old fighters.warontherocks.com...


And if we really want to leverage the C model, we should sell them to Taiwan and let them upgrade them and use them.



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Shanahan is out.

Secretary of the Army Mark Esper will take over as Acting Secretary of Defense.


twitter.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

He's ex Raytheon...



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

yeah but at least they already got the radars for the F-15X



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
8 EXs funded.

Da Bill



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: glib2
8 EXs funded.

Da Bill


Not yet. Since its above the caps, the House and Senate will have to negotiate the final version and we will see. You also can tell who has a stronger lobby with the above requested earmarks



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The OMB has objected to the classification of the F-15EX as a major subprogram of the F-15, as well as only procuring 2 prototypes.


The Administration objects to section 123, which
would designate the F-15EX as a major subprogram of the F-15. The designation as a major
subprogram would needlessly delay the fielding of the F-15EX by an estimated two years while
providing only marginal decision-making value to the Milestone Decision Authority given the F15EX high level of technology readiness. The delays would exacerbate capacity issues within the
tactical aircraft portfolio, prevent the execution of key nonrecurring engineering and manufacturing
activities, and require operating the less capable F-15C/D longer with its significant structural
issues and high cost. The Administration objects to the proposed limitation on procuring only two
F-15EX prototypes, and requests full funding for the first eight F-15EX aircraft.

Source



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Sounds like its "on like Donkey Kong", here we go again with the delays, infighting and behind the scenes shuffling and pork barreling.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join