FY2020 DoD Budget

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

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3896
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post14 Mar 2019, 22:53

steve2267 wrote:F-15EX will have a 16,000 hr airframe?

and cost half as much to operate for those 16,000hrs compared to an F-35 for 8,000hrs. what a steal! Why did anyone tell us the CPFH was only going to be $7,000/hr?! That is some Grippen level sh*t right there! :roll:
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2059
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post14 Mar 2019, 23:14

Have I somehow missed the story of Mattis accepting an offer from Boing, or an invitation to sit on Boing's board?

Frankly I would be shocked if that were to come to pass, but... twice the airframe hours at less than half the cost (whilst burning two older-tech motors...)? Stranger things have come to pass, I suppose.
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

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8037
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Mar 2019, 23:31

I wonder if that 16k lifetime estimate is based on only a CONUS A2A role?

As soon as you start strapping on 2k weapons then the lifetime drops.

Besides, the F-15X is benefiting from 30+ years of experience and testing to determine what to reinforce in order to get a new jet to 16k. The F-35 will also learn these same patterns in it's lifetime and will most certainly make it will beyond 8k.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2059
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post14 Mar 2019, 23:44

SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder if that 16k lifetime estimate is based on only a CONUS A2A role?

As soon as you start strapping on 2k weapons then the lifetime drops.

Besides, the F-15X is benefiting from 30+ years of experience and testing to determine what to reinforce in order to get a new jet to 16k. The F-35 will also learn these same patterns in it's lifetime and will most certainly make it will beyond 8k.


Saw a recent blurb somewhere about an F-15C being re-winged with an "E" wing, to which the gov't owns all the intellectual property rights. As the "E" was designed to carry a lot more weight than the -C, I wonder how far that would go towards an implied 16,000 hr lifetime? But I thought the -C also had some cracking issues somewhere in the fuselage as well?

The F-35 has been undergoing three lifetimes worth of accelerated, dynamic lifetime testing. The Killer Bee has run into some issues on it's 2nd lifetime, but that is not too surprising (to me anyway) given the dynamics that airframe must endure, and the design decisions made to save weight on account of STO and VL ops. Still, I recall no red flags wrt the -B testing. Just that LM had to make minor changes here and there (e.g. a little more metal here, a little more there), to address stress concentrations.

It would not surprise me in the least that the F-35A will be able to go at least two lifetimes (16,000 hr), if they were shaking it to at least three lifetimes...
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

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 01:09

steve2267 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder if that 16k lifetime estimate is based on only a CONUS A2A role?

As soon as you start strapping on 2k weapons then the lifetime drops.

Besides, the F-15X is benefiting from 30+ years of experience and testing to determine what to reinforce in order to get a new jet to 16k. The F-35 will also learn these same patterns in it's lifetime and will most certainly make it will beyond 8k.


Saw a recent blurb somewhere about an F-15C being re-winged with an "E" wing, to which the gov't owns all the intellectual property rights. As the "E" was designed to carry a lot more weight than the -C, I wonder how far that would go towards an implied 16,000 hr lifetime? But I thought the -C also had some cracking issues somewhere in the fuselage as well?

The F-35 has been undergoing three lifetimes worth of accelerated, dynamic lifetime testing. The Killer Bee has run into some issues on it's 2nd lifetime, but that is not too surprising (to me anyway) given the dynamics that airframe must endure, and the design decisions made to save weight on account of STO and VL ops. Still, I recall no red flags wrt the -B testing. Just that LM had to make minor changes here and there (e.g. a little more metal here, a little more there), to address stress concentrations.

It would not surprise me in the least that the F-35A will be able to go at least two lifetimes (16,000 hr), if they were shaking it to at least three lifetimes...


An aircraft is required to be tested to twice its service life. The DOT&E deceptively moves the bar and tries to claim a three times service life requirement without actually saying so (it is mute on the actual requirement and tries to insinuate that the program office desire for testing to three service lives is the requirement).

So F-35A tested to three service lives (24,000hrs, one service life beyond required) would equate to a 12,000hrs service life, assuming nothing is found in the tear down. Of course, assuming everything looks good at 24,000hrs of testing, there is nothing that would prevent them to getting another test item and running it to 32,000hrs. In fact, it is almost a forgone conclusion they will do so since it is a relatively low cost operation with an incredible potential payoff if it works out.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2059
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 01:20

Enlightening. Thank you.
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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1403
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 02:23

Looking at the USN LRASM buys, 48 budgeted for FY 2020 which will bring it to 134 (FY17 - 17, FY 18 - 34, FY 19 -35). This is not counting USAF which was 46 to FY 19.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22273
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 18:49

More on the F-15EXcalibur Role (pulling a rabbit out of a hat NOT the sword out of the stone) HYPERSONICS BABY!
Strategic Planner: F-15EX Could Be Hypersonics Platform
14 Mar 2019 John A. TIrpak & Brian Everstine

"Buying F-15EXs could preserve years of readiness that might otherwise be lost if units transitioned to an all-new airplane, and the fighter could have application to new missions such as a hypersonic missile launch platform, Air Force Director of Strategic Plans and Requirements Maj. Gen. David Krumm told Air Force Magazine Thursday. These factors weighed against the fact that the F-15EX won’t be able to penetrate enemy air defenses, he said....

...Brand-new F-15EXs will have strong bones and could last a long time—Krumm said 20,000 hours—meaning it could potentially serve well into the 2040s or 50s...."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... tform.aspx
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 495
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 21:00

More invention of CONOPS: they were envisioning the same booster-stack for the fighters (F-15E and F-35) and the bombers.
That's the only way this system is remotely affordable.

And of course the SLEP plan is completely disregarded.
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 22:30

“That’s all already in the inventory,” he said, but the similarity of aircraft also means “we’re looking at a transition time of months—less than six months”—to transition units now flying the C-model to EX. “Typically, [with] an Active unit, that takes 18 months; with the Guard, it takes three years…If you average that out, Active and Guard, each time we do that we save about two years of readiness,” meaning aircraft available for combat use that would otherwise be sidelined, “And that’s important for us.”

[...]

When combined with the fact the F-15C will age out in the 2027-2028 timeframe, Dunford said “the best solution” was to go with the F-15EX to “backfill” the F-15 fleet.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... tform.aspx


There is not going to be any retraining needed for neither F-35 nor F-15EX from the F-15C/D air crews because these air crew will end their 20 years of active cockpit duty at about the same rate as the C/D retire.

On average the air crew of any fighter squadron will have about half of the 20 years of cockpit service left and with manning levels at the ANG running at 70-80% and last C/D retires in 2027/28 - well these aircrew and their aircraft are sync'd in their retirement.

Which means a new generation of new F-15 pilots will have to be trained to take these 16,000 hours out to 2060 or more.

Of course during that time upgrades will be needed for a small fleet. Of course also new ground equipment will have to be bought - unless they intend to use the existing material for another 40 years. Mu duh!

Which means that by the end of the life of these "backfill" F-15EX' you will have bought new jets, trained new air crew and bought new ground equipment, just as if you buy a new system with everything included from the beginning.

Very sneaky of Boeing.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2371
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 22:57

You can bet your sweet [keester] that the bean counters who rationalized this purchase will be nowhere to be found if these jets become the first ones to die in the next shooting war...

Wrt training time, there is never a perfect time to take down a unit to transition to another aircraft. There are, however, periods where the assumed risk is less by doing so. This would appear to be one of those periods.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2059
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 00:24

I doubt anybody bothered to asked the guys (and gals) whose asses would be going to war in these replacement jets, whether they would prefer the F-15EX or an F-35A. Just sayin'.
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.
Online

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 824
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 00:34

spazsinbad wrote:More on the F-15EXcalibur Role (pulling a rabbit out of a hat NOT the sword out of the stone) HYPERSONICS BABY!
Strategic Planner: F-15EX Could Be Hypersonics Platform
14 Mar 2019 John A. TIrpak & Brian Everstine

"Buying F-15EXs could preserve years of readiness that might otherwise be lost if units transitioned to an all-new airplane, and the fighter could have application to new missions such as a hypersonic missile launch platform, Air Force Director of Strategic Plans and Requirements Maj. Gen. David Krumm told Air Force Magazine Thursday. These factors weighed against the fact that the F-15EX won’t be able to penetrate enemy air defenses, he said....

...Brand-new F-15EXs will have strong bones and could last a long time—Krumm said 20,000 hours—meaning it could potentially serve well into the 2040s or 50s...."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... tform.aspx


Apparently according to them F-15 is also in the SR-71 class ;)

The F-15 design is technically capable of exceeding Mach 3, and so could accelerate a hypersonic missile close to its Mach 5-plus operating regime. That in turn would permit smaller booster rockets for the rest of the acceleration to Mach 5 for weapons such as the Tactical Boost Glide hypersonic concept. The F-35, which was not designed to be USAF’s high-end dogfighter, has a top speed of Mach 1.6, and the first generation of hypersonic missiles is unlikely to fit inside its weapons bay.


There is also another flaw in this saving money argument, they will be replacing old F-15C single seaters with latest spec two seat F-15E which will mean the addition of a WSO to go with that F-15C pilot and that won't be cheap. However it does seem Boeing via Shanahan has the whole DoD singing from this new hymnsheet so Congress will have to work hard to counter all these arguments and it just may not bother and sign them off anyway.
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 01:57

marsavian wrote:There is also another flaw in this saving money argument, they will be replacing old F-15C single seaters with latest spec two seat F-15E which will mean the addition of a WSO to go with that F-15C pilot and that won't be cheap. However it does seem Boeing via Shanahan has the whole DoD singing from this new hymnsheet so Congress will have to work hard to counter all these arguments and it just may not bother and sign them off anyway.


I was under the impression that the new F-15 (I vote for SDE or Super Duper Eagle) is pretty much identical to the F-15SA/F-15QA. So it is still a single seater.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8037
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 03:52

steve2267 wrote:I doubt anybody bothered to asked the guys (and gals) whose asses would be going to war in these replacement jets, whether they would prefer the F-15EX or an F-35A. Just sayin'.


They did ask them and they have repeatedly said they prefer the F-35.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marsavian and 7 guests