FY2020 DoD Budget

[marsavian]

F-15 proponents have been beating the drum for them before Shanahan's arrival. From 2 years ago ...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/center- ... illes-heel

The proposed retirement is a serious issue for the ANG, which is run by the states. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose state is home to the 104th Fighter Wing, an F-15C unit, raised the issue with Air Force leaders during a congressional hearing. They stressed it was predecisional, and the ANG’s adjutant generals are being consulted as studies continue.

John Goheen, a spokesman for the National Guard Association of the U.S., says the ANG would prefer to see these aircraft modernized, not retired. He acknowledges that the F-15C fleet presents a large bill at a time of constrained budgets and competing priorities, but the units in question are highly skilled in the air superiority mission, an Air Force core competency. “They provide the bulk of the defense of the nation’s air sovereignty and also deploy overseas,” he says. “These are busy aircraft and our preference would be for them to be modernized.”

[mixelflick]

I'm local here with that unit, and have heard Warren's comments.

I'm not so sure it's the marriage to the F-15C that's important. Meaning I think she'll have no trouble welcoming 24 F-35's, all of the supporting staff and infrastructure development (read, $) pouring into the base/community.

Just a hunch on my part..

[doge]

Steve Trimble Retweeted Steve Trimble

Rep Matt Gaetz notes Lockheed Martin's commitment to reduce operating cost of F-35A to $25,000 per hour by 2025, then compares that to information that apparently DOD provided him showing that F-15X would cost $27,000-$30,000 per hour.


https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 3238421504

I found a video uploaded by that Rep.

[usnvo]

Steve Trimble Retweeted Steve Trimble

Rep Matt Gaetz notes Lockheed Martin's commitment to reduce operating cost of F-35A to $25,000 per hour by 2025, then compares that to information that apparently DOD provided him showing that F-15X would cost $27,000-$30,000 per hour.


https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 3238421504

I found a video uploaded by that Rep.

Not DoDs finest hour in front of Congress. Interestingly, if you look at the F-35 SAR from the FY19 budget Spazsinbad posted on page 12 of this thread, $8k of the per flight hour (~$29k/hr) for an F-35 is personnel cost, $10k for the F-16. Since the F-15 squadron is probably higher than either of those, there is no way the F-15EX comes in at half the cost per hour without either discarding personnel costs or flying a whole lot more hours per year per air frame than either an F-16 or F-35. In any event, it would be interesting to see the breakdown.

[marsavian]

Heh, Shanahan looks shell shocked, like don't you believe the story my guys are telling you ?! This will come down to whose political pull is greater, F-35 or F-15, LMT or BA ...

[spazsinbad]

99 House lawmakers push for more F-35s
01 Apr 2019 Joe Gould

"WASHINGTON — With Lockheed’s fifth-generation F-35 and Boeing’s fourth-generation F-15X in a dogfight for budget dollars, a bipartisan group of 99 House lawmakers has called on colleagues to add 24 F-35s over President Donald Trump’s 2020 budget request, for a total of 102. The Joint Strike Fighter Caucus, on Monday, sent a letter to lead House authorizers and defense appropriators, following an Air Force budget request that proposed buying F-15s after a 20-year hiatus while holding the F-35A buy-rate flat....

...propose adding 12 F-35As for 60 total — which mirrors the Air Force’s annual unfunded priorities list — but also, 12 F-35Bs for 22 total. It does not add to the request for 20 F-35Cs…

...internal lobbying efforts are not unusual, and last year, congressional appropriators added 16 F-35s to the Pentagon’s request....

...The lawmakers said that an unspecified increase in funding would help the F-35 get in line with a Pentagon mandate that 80 percent of key tactical aircraft be mission capable. It would pay for, “spare parts and depot level repair capability to meet the required availability rates and accelerate the stand-up repair process of mandated organic government repair capabilities.”"

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ore-f-35s/

[marsavian]

So calling for F-15EX sure led to a drop in demand for those F-35s . This could potentially be a win-win, F-15EX solely for the ANG and more F-35A/B for the USAF/USMC.

“To reach the minimum 50% ratio of 5th Generation and 4th Generation fighters in the timeframe required to meet the threat, the U.S. must acquire F-35s in much larger quantities,” they wrote, adding later: “F-35 modernization is crucial for 4th generation aircraft systems, which are increasingly vulnerable and reliant on 5th generation production.”

So more F-35 are needed to protect the new F-15 ... well it's an argument that is not illogical .

[marauder2048]

So calling for F-15EX sure led to a drop in demand for those F-35s . .

It's no different than what's been the in Air Force's unfunded priorities list for the F-35 in the past few years.

[mixelflick]

102 is a beautiful number

I hope it comes to pass. The fact it's a bi-partisan bill tells the tale. What have Democrats and Republicans agreed upon in recent memory? Can't think of much...

[marsavian]

I would contend that the F-35/F-15EX question is not a zero sum one as neither was extending A-10 into infinity either even though F-35 was specifically meant to replace A-10 but never was specifically meant to replace the F-15. The A-10 prolongation has not reduced the F-35 total as neither in all likelihood will the F-15EX. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have different backers in Congress but considering jobs are in question it is more likely other less voter friendly budget considerations will suffer than either F-35 or F-15EX so the latter may just be pure extra additional aircraft for military aviators. Above all Congress wants good value for money propositions for military aircraft which is probably why F-14 and especially F-22 had such short lives. F-15EX has basically come in around the F-35 procurement level but at a lower cost in a legacy sustainment role at existing F-15 bases especially given the long life being offered. So despite the legacy 4th generation nature of F-15 the EX buy has a good chance of getting through if F-35 does not demonstrably suffer as a result for its supporters.

[marauder2048]

I would contend that the F-35/F-15EX question is not a zero sum one

Despite the budgetary out years showing exactly the opposite.

as neither was extending A-10 into infinity either even though F-35 was specifically meant to replace A-10 but never was specifically meant to replace the F-15. The A-10 prolongation has not reduced the F-35 total

It created the very bad precedent of making the F-35 the bill payer for other programs which
has demonstrably hurt the ramp rate and hurt the induction rate since the A-10 retention has
exacerbated the maintainers crisis.

But by extension of your logic, the wing SLEP for the F-15 (as planned in last years budget) would be
the way to go. But you are arguing for new builds.

Above all Congress wants good value for money propositions for military aircraft which is probably why F-14 and especially F-22 had such short lives.

Then the Air Force and the Navy would mainly be flying armed trainers.

So despite the legacy 4th generation nature of F-15 the EX buy has a good chance of getting through if F-35 does not demonstrably suffer as a result for its supporters.

The F-35 is demonstrably suffering as shown in the out year acquisition profile.

[quicksilver]

What marauder said.

[Corsair1963]

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus Co-Chairs Announce Record Support for Program

Apr 3, 2019
Press Release

Today, the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus Co-Chairs, Reps. Mike Turner (OH-10), John B. Larson (CT-01), Marc A. Veasey (TX-33), and Martha Roby (AL-02), announced record support for the F-35 Program, with 103 bipartisan cosigners for the FY2019 appropriations and authorization letter. The letter requests funding for 102 F-35 aircraft.

“As you consider the Fiscal Year 2020 defense authorization and appropriations bills, we strongly urge your continued support for the F-35 Lightning II program. As you well know, our adversaries continue to advance surface-to-air missile systems and develop their own stealth fighters. It is essential that we continue to increase production of our nation’s only 5th generation stealth aircraft in order to ensure the United States maintains air dominance and to further reduce overall program costs,” wrote the Members.

“The F-35’s unique capabilities and lethality have enhanced our air superiority and bolstered our ability to deter adversaries,” said Turner. “Now is the time to increase procurement to match emerging threats. Doing so ensures our continued dominance of the skies, enables the realization of cost savings, and assures our partners that we are committed to 5th Generation Aircraft.”

“Global threats continue to increase and it is imperative that we continue to support our nation’s only 5th generation fighter,” said Larson. “The F-35 is of vital importance to the national security of the United States and our allies, and supports thousands of high-skilled manufacturing jobs in Connecticut and across the country. I am tremendously proud of the unprecedented support that our request received.”

“The competitiveness and safety of the United States military is our top priority,” said Veasey. “Congress’ financial commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is key to bolstering and maintaining our national security and the security of our allies. I’m proud that Dallas-Fort Worth is home to the development and production of F-35s, and continue to believe in the mission and future of this vital program.”

“The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is our military’s most cutting-edge war machine, and it is critically important to the national security of the United States and our allies,” said Roby. “Congress must increase procurement of this next-generation fighter jet to ensure our country’s continued dominance in the skies.”

https://turner.house.gov/media-center/p ... upport-for

[marsavian]

as neither was extending A-10 into infinity either even though F-35 was specifically meant to replace A-10 but never was specifically meant to replace the F-15. The A-10 prolongation has not reduced the F-35 total

It created the very bad precedent of making the F-35 the bill payer for other programs which
has demonstrably hurt the ramp rate and hurt the induction rate since the A-10 retention has
exacerbated the maintainers crisis.

But by extension of your logic, the wing SLEP for the F-15 (as planned in last years budget) would be
the way to go. But you are arguing for new builds.

I think that i.e. F-15C SLEP re-wing with EPAWSS is an equally valid way to go forward. The EX buy though would give you the long term option of using it as a hypersonic missile truck through most of this century.

[steve2267]

I think that i.e. F-15C SLEP re-wing with EPAWSS is an equally valid way to go forward. The EX buy though would give you the long term option of using it as a hypersonic missile truck through most of this century.

Is there some reason the F-35 could not equally well serve as a hypersonic missile truck?

A hypersonic missile truck probably presumes the hypersonic missile is an external store. When not performing truck roles, the F-35 still gives you the force flexibility option of additional stealth assets. The F-15XYZ does not.