USAF Actually Buying F-15Xs?

Bloomberg is reporting that the Pentagon is 'forcing' the USAF to buy 12 F-15X fighters for the price of $1.2B. These would be used to replace some F-15C/Ds. THhe reported price is /worse/ than what we discussed here. This seems like a stupid waste on multiple fronts. The NGAD request for next year was to be about this price. Additionally, you would get /more/ F-35s for this amount of money. At least 13 F-35s instead of 12 F-15Xs.

Wth.

This is such a stupid idea.

about.bgov.com...

Why not force them to buy more f35s?
Doesn't make much sense to buy the obsolete model.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Obsolete and at a higher price. At this price, 12 F-15Xs cost MORE than 13 F-35As.

And the USAF probably wouldn't fight getting 13 more F-35As.

It should be noted that Shanahan used to be a Boeing exec and Boeing has had its hand smacked for bribery before.

a reply to: Bluntone22

This is a strange move indeed... wonder what's prompting this?

a reply to: Masisoar

Whoever is getting their pockets lined

a reply to: anzha

Why do this instead of buying F-35s?

It probably has to do with the 24 missiles it can carry. Good strategy IMO.

a reply to: tadaman

a reply to: Masisoar

They're going to Guard units for the National Air Defense mission primarily. You won't see them carrying anywhere near their max loadout on routine missions, as there's no need for that many, even when intercepting Russian aircraft. The current F-15s, at minimum, need new longerons. They're going to need a new wing soon, before you can do any serious upgrades, such as activating the 1 and 9 stations. The longeron replacement is at least $1M per shipset. The new wing would be a big chunk of budget, depending on how many aircraft you keep in inventory.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't know that. I just thought it makes sense since the idea of arsenal ships floating outside of a combat zone has been played around with already. The B-52 and other possible platforms come to mind.

Why only use resources to upgrade a huge target like a B-52 when you could also use a handful of fighters in the same role?

Either way, it's not that I have a nonsensical hatred of the F35 and F22. I love them. I just hate the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket.

Money is a problem I get it. That's really all it boils down to.

Strategy should not have to be limited though. Whatever they do I just assume it's the best strategy based on available funds.

I do hope we don't worry only about getting new planes because they are new designs. Building more new planes just makes sense. Even if OLD but upgraded designs that are still useful.

I wish we could just build so many planes and everything else we actually need to the point that we start to have surplus problems.

The F-35 project has been something of a hardware development disaster.

The variance between what was promised, and what we HAVE at this point in the project, is huge.

The F-15 is a proven airframe that works. The F-35... it works, sometimes, except when it doesn't... and the premise that it will replace the A-10 as a Close Air Support platform is a joke.

Lastly, regardless of what the propaganda, put skilled F-15 pilots up against skilled F-35 pilots in a match up, and I would put my money on the F-15s.

The F-35 looks really great... theoretically. In practice the F-15 is doing more heavy lifting.

The F-35 HAS improved over time, as the kinks get worked out. But it will be one LONG expensive haul.

I would rather have 12 f-15x's flying around than 13 f35s. The F-35 is absolute trash and a perfect example of govt. waste. We should've produced the F-22 instead.

a reply to: tadaman

It's about return. One B-52 can go from Anderson to near China to their launch point, with maybe one refueling each way, utilizing maybe four tankers. Then at the launch point, that single B-52 can launch at least 12 JASSM/-ER missiles. You'd need at least 6 F-15s, which would require probably 6-8 tankers to do the same thing using TACAIR.

I love the F-15, but this is a bad idea. You need something big and long ranged in the Pacific, not more fighters needing more tankers.

a reply to: Lulpin

The F-35 is one of the better fighters out there actually, in terms of performance. Contrary to the bad press it gets every time you turn around, the pilots absolutely love it, and have nothing but great things to say about its capabilities. That's reinforced in just about every exercise they participate in, and they'll continue to show that during IOT&E.

a reply to: anzha

You can't fix stupid.

ETA: I would not fully support, but might see the argument for zeroing out the old C/D's hours and filling them with new stuffings, which would also be slightly less expensive.
A new run of 12 only makes sense as a pilot program like the Japanese program- and a new larger production run would have to follow it. This is just stripping money from other programs while you could use (a lot less) money to expand your F-35 buy to replace worn out Eagles.

a reply to: dasman888

The variance between what was promised, and what we HAVE at this point in the project, is huge.

That's true of just about everything we have in the inventory. They promise the world, and deliver as little of it as possible. We hear all these amazing things that the Pentagon wants them to do, only to later hear that it's not possible, or we're getting a massively reduced performance version.

The F-15 is a proven airframe that works.

Except when it doesn't. They have a decent Mission Capable rate, at 71 and 70% for the C/D, but that's going to start dropping as they age more.

The F-35... it works, sometimes, except when it doesn't...

True of everything in the Air Force.

and the premise that it will replace the A-10 as a Close Air Support platform is a joke.

Close Air Support isn't the same as it was 20 years ago. You have B-1s and B-52s flying CAS now.

Lastly, regardless of what the propaganda,

I always have to laugh that when something good is published about the F-35 it's propaganda. When something bad is published, it's Truth.

put skilled F-15 pilots up against skilled F-35 pilots in a match up, and I would put my money on the F-15s.

In WVR, of course the F-15 would have a much better chance. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter, where the F-15 is. But the point of the F-35 is to avoid getting to WVR, and to get home again after launching weapons. Put an F-15 against a trained S400 battery, along with an F-35, and see which comes back again.

In practice the F-15 is doing more heavy lifting.

That's because there are only 300 F-35s delivered as of June of this year, with IOT&E having just started. The F-35 can't do much yet, because of that.

a reply to: Lulpin

Talk to the pilots that are flying them...

They'll tell you something else entirely. Reports out of exercises like Red Flag say otherwise, as well.

Are there bugs? Yes. Every new system has bugs. From the infantry grunts rifle, to the latest in CAS aircraft. Bugs are a fact of life.

But it's not even remotely "absolute trash".

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tadaman

a reply to: Masisoar

They're going to Guard units for the National Air Defense mission primarily. You won't see them carrying anywhere near their max loadout on routine missions, as there's no need for that many, even when intercepting Russian aircraft. The current F-15s, at minimum, need new longerons. They're going to need a new wing soon, before you can do any serious upgrades, such as activating the 1 and 9 stations. The longeron replacement is at least $1M per shipset. The new wing would be a big chunk of budget, depending on how many aircraft you keep in inventory.

Are you saying the airframes need to be redesigned or that part of the airframes are just old?

a reply to: Tempter

Old. As I understand it, and Zaph will happily correct me if I'm wrong...it's what he does, even with top notch maintenance and zero-timing of the airframes, there is only so much life in an aircraft part. Eventually, they'll have to be totally rebuilt, or replaced.

Yeah, I could see that. I mean, there are coatings and whatnot that can extend the life of a metal but one of the first things they teach you in maintenance training is that metal starts decaying the moment it is created.

a reply to: Tempter

Both. The vast majority of the original F-15 fleet was delivered with longerons that were cut wrong. In 2007 the entire fleet was grounded three times, after an aircraft broke apart during ACM. The problem was traced to faulty longerons that were delivered cut too thin. Somewhere around 160 aircraft were retired because of it.

The F-15 was originally designed with an 8,000 hour life cycle. In 2006, something like 90% of the aircraft flying had used 95% of that life cycle or more. There were aircraft that were past that point and still flying. The Air Force did fatigue testing and a SLEP, and extended it to something like 12,000 hours. We're now approaching that point. In most aircraft, the limiting factor in life cycle is the center wing. So to continue to fly them, they're going to have to SLEP that portion of the aircraft, and if they want to add more capabilities, such as adding two more missile racks to the wings, they need to replace the wing with a new type of wing that was developed for the F-15QA.

a reply to: Tempter

Add to that fatigue from maneuvering and assorted other stresses, and yep...they just flat wear out.