F-35 Production ready to soar in 2019!

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post30 Jan 2019, 19:07

quicksilver wrote:Who knows; in this day and age, it’s hard to tell. The timing of BAs aggressive pricing strategies is likely coincidental, and more likely a consequence of their loss on bomber combined with the perceived shift of the department to LPTA proposal evaluations. The willingness of the Department to entertain and accept unsolicited proposals is what is worth wondering about.


Ramping up T-X and MQ-25, along with continued F-15 (foreign) and F/A-18 production (USN) isn't enough for BA? If they have to cut their prices to the bone to get the work... and there is little profit (or is there?)... why bother?

There certainly do seem to be other factors at play here.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 00:04

RIP sales of eurocanards and advanced teen series fighters
Russia stronk
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 00:39

Boing is going about the F-15X sale all wrong. F-15 is so yesteryear. A fantastic jet in its day... but it's day is come and gone.

I just can't believe the Boing PR machine hasn't convinced corporate to re-brand the F-15X with a new number... cuz, well... new and improved... built from scratch... super duper F-100-pw-229 motors... but those should be called F-229 motors! (229 >> 119 and 229 >> 135 -- anybody can see this)

And they should call it the F-51... !!!
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 00:48

:shock: :doh: Aaahh the F-51 from Area 51 & as much chance to become visible. :devil: :twisted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F51 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 01:01

"Boing is going about the F-15X sale all wrong."

They're largely repeating what they did w/ "Adv SH" -- a highly successful effort which got them a multi-year procurement of additional SHs that potentially bridges them to an FA-XX solution/start.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 01:28

quicksilver wrote:"Boing is going about the F-15X sale all wrong."

They're largely repeating what they did w/ "Adv SH" -- a highly successful effort which got them a multi-year procurement of additional SHs that potentially bridges them to an FA-XX solution/start.


Yeah, but... but...

Even with the Advanced Super Duper, they had gee whizzz conformal, stealthy gas tanks, stealthy weapons pod(s), plus a new name -- the Advanced Super Duper. But with F-15X... I fear the "X" just isn't going to cut it. Super Duper Eagle, or Super Eagle, or Hyper Eagle, or EagleClaw... something with more pizzazz. Or they could just try to steal the old Mustang thunder...

F-51
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 01:50

It’s an Eagle...for bleep’s sake ( :wink: )

Still alotta cache there, particularly w those who fly and maintain it/them. It has been said around here before, ‘pilots love most the [jet] that they loved first.’
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5697
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 02:26

afjag wrote:
I think this is actually the cheapest way to get to the USAF's long envisioned "arsenal plane" or "missile truck". I wonder if the procurement of the F-15X reflects a shift in TTP's to address China and other emerging threats.



No, as all 4th Generation Fighters will be obsolete post 2030 if not before. In addition as F-35's come online. The US will have large numbers of surplus F-16's. Which, have already been "paid" for! These are more than adequate to replace the existing F-15C's short term...

So, most logical plan would be to replace the "three" current F-15C's Squadrons operated by the USAF with F-35A's. While, the remaining ANG unit could re-equip with upgraded F-16V's.

Why would the US want to spend "$100 Million" for an F-15X with a service life of 30 years. When the type will be obsolete within a decade. Also, we have more than enough F-35 production available. With the latter costing between $80-90 Million...(vs $100 Million)

Oh, did I mention the F-35 is "vastly" more capable than the F-15X too? :wink:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5697
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 02:36

juretrn wrote:RIP sales of eurocanards and advanced teen series fighters


Yes, this Boeings last attempt to secure more F-15 Eagle sales. As the only customer for the type for these last several years have been the Gulf States. Now that those sales are complete. There is little prospects of additional sales....
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 03:24

quicksilver wrote: ... that potentially bridges them to an FA-XX solution/start.


Won't that now fall under a 'fast-prototyping' umbrella, to prove a new airframe at least works significantly better, in a direct competition with existing airframes (SH and F-35C) to be worth investing in? Rather than pre-allocating money and presuming a major program will come about from (a couple of) prototypes? Will USMC want any? And unless an F/A-XX is substantially better than F-35A/C I don't think Allies will be buying them this time.

Or has the F/A-XX capability 'requirement' largely been supplanted already, and even more-so with Block 4 and 5 updates?

Would the USN be better served by investing big $$$ into F-35C Block 5 evolution towards addressing identified F/A 'requirements' and just forget about an F/A 'replacement' program altogether - F/A-35D? If you can do it to a Tomcat ...
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 03:42

If you’re Boeing, how do you maintain a viable capability for the design and production of fighter aircraft into the future? When will there be a ‘new-start’ and what will that new-start look like? DoDs experience with F-35 suggests the future will not look like the past; that’s part of what PCA is trying to do — break the ever-lengthening capability cycle time. Another way is what BA is doing which is suggesting to DoD a significant morphing of their existing designs, rather than making the exceptionally costly investments of both time and capital required for a new start. Generally speaking, USG acquisition programs are incapable of ‘speed’ absent the compelling immediacy of war. Big programs (ACAT-1) are all but impossible unless...
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 05:53

quicksilver wrote:If you’re Boeing, how do you maintain a viable capability for the design and production of fighter aircraft into the future?


Certainly not by rolling obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source refreshes into
decades old designs and then branding them with names like F-15X and Advanced Super Hornet.

You don't need a hot line to design or even build a next generation fighter as Northrop, Boeing Classic
and Lockheed proved on ATF.

And you maintain your design and production capability by actually winning DOD competitions
for airborne platforms, air-breathers and airborne munitions in whatever form they materialize which
Boeing has done for example with X-51, T-3 and XS-1.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 06:17

quicksilver wrote:If you’re Boeing, how do you maintain a viable capability for the design and production of fighter aircraft into the future? When will there be a ‘new-start’ and what will that new-start look like? DoDs experience with F-35 suggests the future will not look like the past; that’s part of what PCA is trying to do — break the ever-lengthening capability cycle time. Another way is what BA is doing which is suggesting to DoD a significant morphing of their existing designs, rather than making the exceptionally costly investments of both time and capital required for a new start. Generally speaking, USG acquisition programs are incapable of ‘speed’ absent the compelling immediacy of war. Big programs (ACAT-1) are all but impossible unless...


I agree with your comments regarding ever lengthening product development cycles managed by the DoD. I fail to see how continued production of an F-15X, so far billed as essentially an American version of what has been sold to various Gulf states, keeps the engineering design weenies busy creating new stuff. It may keep their production people busy... but aren't they busy already with continued Super Duper production, new T-X production, and MQ-25 production?

If Boing wants to argue they need to keep their design expertise in place for "the good of the country," fine, I could possibly swallow that. But if that is the case, be upfront about it. Explain how the F-15 forms the "systems" basis which can morph into the Boing PCA contender. But nowhere do I see that sort of argument made.

In the past I have argued or suggested that DoD would be better served by smaller production lots of designs that turn over every five years or so. Leveraging computer database advances, just-in-time delivery technology, ALIS-like maintenance software with big data / AI algorithms to predict problems, additive manufacturing (e.g. Amazon distribution "stuff") should manage, if not suppress, what in the past has been higher maintenance and sustainment costs associated with lower production numbers.

A manufacturer creates a design, is chosen for production, tests it, puts it into production. But continual tweaks keeps the testing folks busy. A spiral period somewhere in the 6mo - 2yr period (a swag on my part), keeps the design / analysis / production folks busy. Since the military, esp. the JPO and B-21 folks, has already expressed a serious interest in open avionics / open architecture, if you accept somewhat lower performance (owing to a less optimized / integrated solution), you potentially gain in the long term by having a continuous, product improvement cycle built-in. You could potentially keep 3-5 aerospace teams busy, competing against each other for production quantities next year etc.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 10:23

You’re thinking like a taxpayer not a seller.

For example, who’d a thunk that ‘Hornet 2000’ — an internal design at McBoeing in 1985, birthed as E/F in 1992 — would become a ~700 aircraft buy that flies well into the 2030s? Do you think that BA doesn’t (or won’t) have a Block 4 super duper something or other on the shelf?

That’s the model; they are repeating it with Eagle right now. Go find/look at the Tyler Rogoway article from last summer. Go search the breathless reporting in the Israeli press, certain (with, of course, similarly unnamed sources) that the IAF is going to buy more F-15s. They create the perception of ‘need’ and of course suggest their product is the affordable (or take take your pick of adjectives from the usual list) solution. With SH it was the perpetual ‘fighter gap’; seems the more jets the Navy bought, the more the gap persisted. Who’d a thunk? :wink:

The other tool in this is the ‘unsolicited proposal.’
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post31 Jan 2019, 10:46

“Explain how the F-15 forms the "systems" basis which can morph into the Boing PCA contender. But nowhere do I see that sort of argument made.”

“A $300M dollar fighter? How does that sustain your force structure/ability to support war plans? Here’s what we can do for...(100, 120, whatever short of 150)”. Or at least that’s your claim.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests