F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 13:30

crosshairs wrote:If SFERRIN is proposing that the X be procured just because its the only USAF fighter capable of carrying the gbu28, .


Apparently reading is not your strong suit. Did I use too many big words, or do you not have the attention span to make it more than a sentence or two in?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 13:32

Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:USAF has 55 fighter sqn, 44 of which will be F-35 by 2045. That program number won't change even with the F-15EX. The remaining 11 will comprise F-22 and F-15Es that will need to be replaced. If F-15EX, maybe 15-17 sqns. USAF wants 62 sqns.

No reason why PCA program can't gun for 18 sqns and ~700 units.


You seriously think the F-15EX will be a viable fighter much past 2030???


*cough* B-52, F-4. . .
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 13:37

marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:
If it is being bought partly for unique load-bearing qualities


There's no actual hypersonic weapons program of record. Just prototypes.


I thought the AGM-183A was supposed to be a program of record.

https://aviationweek.com/air-dominance/ ... d-agm-183a

"Disclosure of the Starry Sky 2 test comes as the U.S. Air Force continues to step up work on fast-track hypersonic weapons development in response to the growing threat of a new generation of Chinese and Russian hypervelocity systems. The first of the Air Force systems is the newly designated AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW). A development and production contract for the weapon was awarded to Florida-based Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

The ARRW, like many of the emerging threats, is an air-launched, rocket-boosted unpowered hypersonic glider. To be developed under a $480 million initial contract, potentially worth $780 million including early production through 2023, the ARRW work is an extension to Lockheed’s pre-existing DARPA contract under which it is building the virtually identical Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) demonstrator."


https://aviationweek.com/defense/first- ... n-agm-183a
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 13:40

mixelflick wrote:
chucky2 wrote:I wonder if this is some kind of strategery to get LM to reduce costs on F-35. We can always sell the X's to Israel...or Canada, when the world's stock of Hornets runs out.


I proposed the F-15X for Canada in the Politics section, and was summarily crucified for it.


I've been saying the same for years. (Assuming they didn't go for the F-35.) You don't need stealth to patrol borders and turn away bombers.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 14:09

marauder2048 wrote:And of course this again misses the main point: the big SLEP of the F-15Cs which was to start this year.

That was a truly low cost approach to the problem.


Could you provide a past reference to that as I was not aware of anything but the F-15C/D Longeron SLEP being authorized which is still referenced as being funded in the FY2020 budget request as I quoted earlier.

viewtopic.php?p=414671#p414671
Last edited by marsavian on 20 Mar 2019, 14:19, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 14:13

Well, history again. LOL.

The F-16 started out as a pure A2A machine that turned out to become a great A2G platform also.
The F-35 started as a pure attack (A2G) machine, and is a great A2A fighter too.

What Canada chose many years ago was a twin (F-18) mostly for safety reasons.
What Canada needs is a good interceptor with safety, but mostly RANGE and endurance.

For continued logistical stability that would be new SH. (never forget the logistical footprint when selecting something new).

Or?
F-35 or F-15 if they can get a good deal on them.
Depends on the primary mission ; Offensive or defensive.

But, and this is always forgotten; The cost of changing the logistical system.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 17:19

The F-35 was NEVER a "pure attack (A2G) machine". For everyone except the US, it is their primary A2A platform. Even the USAF said years ago that except for the F-22, it was the best A2A fighter of the time.

Given that the F-35 out-ranges the Classic Hornet that Canada currently uses, it will more than fill the role of it's replacement.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6470
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 18:54

The F-16 started out as a pure A2A machine that turned out to become a great A2G platform also.


Yes and no, the design changes from the YF-16 was already preping for A2G


The F-35 started as a pure attack (A2G) machine,


Utterly false, even before F-35, Even before the X-35 won, even before JSF program became JSF it was multirole from day 1

What Canada chose many years ago was a twin (F-18) mostly for safety reasons.


No. The F-18 was chosen as it could employ more varied types of ordnance from the start, namely the AIM-7 Sparrow. This was probably the biggest factor in the F-18s NFA win. The "twin engine for safety" reason was just an additional sales talking point to get the masses aboard. Its since grown to absurd disproportion as you demonstrate. People also seem to forget that the F-16 didnt get sparrow capability until block 25 in 1984, people often forget this, and attribute the win to number of engines. If F-16 had Sparrow capability from the outside a lot of early F-18 operators probably would have gone for it instead

What Canada needs is a good interceptor with safety, but mostly RANGE and endurance.


No

For continued logistical stability that would be new SH. (never forget the logistical footprint when selecting something new).


There is nearly nothing in common between SH and the legacy variant. The SHs size means canada needs new hangars and other infrastructure, but even more to the point, Canada's decades olds gear needs to be overhauled as it is now, even if they stuck with CF-18s for the next 5 decades.

At one point you have to actually replace gear. F-35s can operate out of the same Hangars the Marines built in the 60s for the A-4s, (other than the electrical) but at once point the idea is you have to build new stuff. We were building new hangars even when we weren't getting new aircraft.


Depends on the primary mission ; Offensive or defensive.


huh?

vilters wrote:But, and this is always forgotten; The cost of changing the logistical system.


But also:

vilters wrote:Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.


Image

No not at all. Everything from the SH, to the JSF, to the F-15X now has used commonality of logistics as a selling point. Canada has done study after study. The Gripen is sold almost entirely on logistics, the cost of changing or slightly altering the logistical system is constantly being talked about.



vilters wrote:Well, history again. LOL.


You know what I love about you Vilters, is you are incapable of embarrassment :mrgreen:
Last edited by XanderCrews on 20 Mar 2019, 20:19, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 20:10

sferrin wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:
If it is being bought partly for unique load-bearing qualities


There's no actual hypersonic weapons program of record. Just prototypes.


I thought the AGM-183A was supposed to be a program of record.

https://aviationweek.com/air-dominance/ ... d-agm-183a

https://aviationweek.com/defense/first- ... n-agm-183a


It's strictly LRIP (really SDD). There's no commitment to proceed with actual fielding or full-rate production.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6470
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 20:32

vilters wrote:And? it will take 18 months to replace Turkey in the F-35 supply chain if the time comes.

You need more baskets with different colored eggs if you want the Easter Bells to continue to fly. LOL.

Pretty simple actually, ever airframe hr flown needs to be replaced.


If F-15EX goes through the USAF won't see its first one until late 2023 or possibly even early 2024 as theyve already said its going to take 3 to 3 and a half years to deliver the first batch of 6 whole airframes. FY2021 is supposed to add 18 more F-15X, bringing the total up to 24 whole airplanes by 2024. or, you could just add 6 F-35As every year from FY2020 on out and get the same number of airplanes, without the additional cost of not only the F-15Xs themselves (which cost more) but without the additional expense of a 2 year test program as well...


This is an "emergency" that isn't, and its just as absurd as the Retarted Canadian PM's gambit of declaring a "capability gap" that needs to be solved "RIGHT NOW" but then suddenly is actually years away.




vilters wrote:Come on guys.

LM is building F-35 as fast as it can, but . . . .

When your day to day flight operations are consuming more available airframe flight hrs then the new F-35 can bring into the system, you need other manufactures with other airplanes to step in.

Currently the USA is consuming more flight hrs then new airframes are adding into the system.
Something has to be done. Be it with extra newly build F-16 or F-15.


How can you claim to be in fleet management but not understand the basics?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6470
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 21:02

sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:USAF has 55 fighter sqn, 44 of which will be F-35 by 2045. That program number won't change even with the F-15EX. The remaining 11 will comprise F-22 and F-15Es that will need to be replaced. If F-15EX, maybe 15-17 sqns. USAF wants 62 sqns.

No reason why PCA program can't gun for 18 sqns and ~700 units.


You seriously think the F-15EX will be a viable fighter much past 2030???


*cough* B-52, F-4. . .



If we go by the USAF's own hype they will be getting new F-15Xs past the 2028 date they said F-15s would be obsolete...


The Air Force has said the F-15 won’t be survivable against modern air defenses after 2028, so is it worth it to the service to spend the money to keep a non-stealthy, 1970s design into the 2040s?

“I think what we know is that we’re going to be fighting with 4th-gen [aircraft] in 2028, and in 2035, we’re still going to have those,” including the A-10 and F-16, he told Air Force Magazine. “The way to use these things is to collaborate on a network, and it’s going to be, what can those things bring to the fight faster?”


Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 21:22

XanderCrews wrote:
The Air Force has said the F-15 won’t be survivable against modern air defenses after 2028

What event will happen in 2028 that suddenly makes the F-15 not survivable compared to 2027?

Or is 2028 the envisioned end of a long accumulation of external threat buildups?
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 23:30

Investifation into Acting SecDef opens

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan is being investigated for allegedly showing favoritism to Boeing, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining the Pentagon.

"The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General has decided to investigate complaints we recently received that Acting Secretary Patrick Shanahan allegedly took actions to promote his former employer, Boeing, and disparage its competitors, allegedly in violation of ethics rules," a DoD IG spokesperson said on Wednesday.

The inspector general's office declined to specify which actions Shanahan allegedly took, but in January, Politico first reported that Shanahan had allegedly criticized how Lockheed Martin handled the F-35 program and argued Boeing would have done a better job.


More at the jump
https://taskandpurpose.com/shanahan-boe ... estigation
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Mar 2019, 23:54

SpudmanWP wrote:Investifation into Acting SecDef opens

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan is being investigated for allegedly showing favoritism to Boeing, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining the Pentagon.

"The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General has decided to investigate complaints we recently received that Acting Secretary Patrick Shanahan allegedly took actions to promote his former employer, Boeing, and disparage its competitors, allegedly in violation of ethics rules," a DoD IG spokesperson said on Wednesday.

The inspector general's office declined to specify which actions Shanahan allegedly took, but in January, Politico first reported that Shanahan had allegedly criticized how Lockheed Martin handled the F-35 program and argued Boeing would have done a better job.


More at the jump
https://taskandpurpose.com/shanahan-boe ... estigation


Sounds good to me. I wonder if that's also why the DoD structured future launch services the way they did. They're favoring ULA and SpaceX over Blue Origin and NG (ATK).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03 ... la-spacex/
"There I was. . ."
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post21 Mar 2019, 00:37

XanderCrews wrote:
How can you claim to be in fleet management but not understand the basics?


If I eat one bread a day, I have to buy one bread a day. :devil:
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests