FY2020 DoD Budget

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2173
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 Jul 2019, 12:51

weasel1962 wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/air-force-wants-eight-upgraded-boeing-fighters-along-with-f-35s


One problem that I have with sources within the media such as the above is claims like this:

With its internal weapons carriage, the F-35 probably can’t accommodate planned heavier weapons, such as hypersonic missiles that are now under development.


Why people (this case within the media) still continue to ignore the FACT that the F-35 also carries weapons externally??

One or several of those new weapons cannot be carried inside (internal) the F-35? No problem, they still can be carried externally.

Regarding the F-15X (or whatever), the reason for its procurement is IMO quite simple:
- To keep the Boeing fighter production line open and running, period.
And IMO it's strange why does the media avoids mentioning this reason (even as being a possibility)?
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post06 Jul 2019, 21:37

"One or several of those new weapons cannot be carried inside (internal) the F-35? No problem, they still can be carried externally."

@ricnunes This defeats the entire purpose of having a stealth aircraft might as well use f-16s to carry them.

@weasel1962 "the F-35 probably can’t accommodate planned heavier weapons, such as hypersonic missiles that are now under development."

GLL-AP-02 is said to be 3 meters in length however I do not know the diameter of it. NASA and Dryden helped invest in the Kholod project so our experience is plenty in this field and there can be future designs for a hypersonic internal missile placement.
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post06 Jul 2019, 22:29

weasel1962 wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/air-force-wants-eight-upgraded-boeing-fighters-along-with-f-35s

Chicago-based Boeing has offered the aircraft, including engines, for about $80 million per plane under a fixed-price contract with the first deliveries to come in 2022.


While that is what was reported, the budget book for the F-15EX doesn't support that. Clearly the $80 million initial estimate from the program office came from somewhere but what conditions are set on that estimate is not clear. Fixed Cost? Multi-year procurement?

The budget book doesn't have comments for GFM or Engines (which would seem to be a no brainer since it is on every other program budget book), yet some of the "US Only" equipment planned for the F-15EX will be GFM as will the engines. Is the cost of the engines and equipment included in the Boeing estimate or only their installation on the aircraft by Boeing?

The budget book gives every indication of being thrown together at the last minute without adult supervision so I have little to no confidence as to any of the estimates provided within.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1736
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 05:29

spazsinbad wrote:Manipulation goes on I guess so how hard is it to discourage less useful USAF pilots to stay or whatever - for the numbers.


Those less useful pilots will have a chance to be more useful backseat drivers. in a 70s "ferrari" no less.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 10:26

AFAIK the two seater may not be the seater of USAF choice. Then what? What is incentive for a pilot to become a WIZO?
Attachments
SMOKIN The MASK Animation tenor.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2173
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 13:48

fidgetspinner wrote:"One or several of those new weapons cannot be carried inside (internal) the F-35? No problem, they still can be carried externally."

@ricnunes This defeats the entire purpose of having a stealth aircraft might as well use f-16s to carry them.


In a mission where the objective is to release some of those big (or very big?) hypersonic and very long range weapons, the RCS/stealth factor becomes somehow less important when compared to carrying shorter ranged weapons.

Moreover the RCS of the F-35 with external weapons will always be lower than the RCS of the F-15 also with external weapon (and also likely lower than a clean F-15) so it's always a Win-Win situation for the F-35 (compared to the F-15)!
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6002
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 16:04

fidgetspinner wrote:
@ricnunes This defeats the entire purpose of having a stealth aircraft might as well use f-16s to carry them.



No. The idea is the F-35 can do everything a fourth gen fighter can do along with fifth generation. That's the whole point of external weapons capability on F-22 and F-35. Versatility.

That's like saying you might as well use an A-6 anytime you have to strap bombs to a super hornet.
Choose Crews
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 16:51

@xanderscrew

"No. The idea is the F-35 can do everything a fourth gen fighter can do along with fifth generation. That's the whole point of external weapons capability on F-22 and F-35. Versatility.

That's like saying you might as well use an A-6 anytime you have to strap bombs to a super hornet."


If F-35s and F-22s come with an internal weapons carriage I usually say its best they keep a stealth profile or what their purpose was built for. I just think same tasks of a 4th gen carrying a external HAWC can accomplish as much as a 5th gen carrying a external HAWC the only difference being is the 5th gen aircraft is being put at risk. I don't know the size or what the RCS would show of a 5th gen carrying an external weapon. But I have seen a lot of new information of newer radars some claiming a 100 background noise reduction. Versatility is great to have don't get me wrong but that is something I would not do. Lets say for example HAWC has a 300km range and the altitude release of the weapon to be effective for that range is 5kms. There is a stationary radar that I have seen at a certain expo with a 5m2 target tracking at 3000kms and the target detection at 600kms would be .008m2. If an F-35 and F-16 are flying at a 5km altitude with a planned release of 300kms the F-35 carrying an external weapon would be at as much risk as the F-16. However if the F-35 has received a hypersonic missile with an internal carry it will not be at risk compared to the F-16 carrying it externally. If a 5th gen aircrafts comes with the benefit of stealth which a 4th gen aircraft does not have I say use it for that purpose that is the point I am trying to make.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3272
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 19:54

fidgetspinner wrote:"One or several of those new weapons cannot be carried inside (internal) the F-35? No problem, they still can be carried externally."

@ricnunes This defeats the entire purpose of having a stealth aircraft might as well use f-16s to carry them.

@weasel1962 "the F-35 probably can’t accommodate planned heavier weapons, such as hypersonic missiles that are now under development."

GLL-AP-02 is said to be 3 meters in length however I do not know the diameter of it. NASA and Dryden helped invest in the Kholod project so our experience is plenty in this field and there can be future designs for a hypersonic internal missile placement.


Not every mission requires a full stealth configuration. The F-35 was designed from the start to carry external weapons. As for accommodating heavier weapons, the inner hard points can carry 5,000lb weapons. F-15s aren't carrying anything heavier than that, either.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5722
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 23:25

wrightwing wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:"One or several of those new weapons cannot be carried inside (internal) the F-35? No problem, they still can be carried externally."

@ricnunes This defeats the entire purpose of having a stealth aircraft might as well use f-16s to carry them.

@weasel1962 "the F-35 probably can’t accommodate planned heavier weapons, such as hypersonic missiles that are now under development."

GLL-AP-02 is said to be 3 meters in length however I do not know the diameter of it. NASA and Dryden helped invest in the Kholod project so our experience is plenty in this field and there can be future designs for a hypersonic internal missile placement.


Not every mission requires a full stealth configuration. The F-35 was designed from the start to carry external weapons. As for accommodating heavier weapons, the inner hard points can carry 5,000lb weapons. F-15s aren't carrying anything heavier than that, either.


On most missions the F-15's would carry external tanks on the inner pylons. Which, are the ones rated for 5,000 lbs. Just another shortcoming the critics often leave out....
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3272
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 00:38

Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:"One or several of those new weapons cannot be carried inside (internal) the F-35? No problem, they still can be carried externally."

@ricnunes This defeats the entire purpose of having a stealth aircraft might as well use f-16s to carry them.

@weasel1962 "the F-35 probably can’t accommodate planned heavier weapons, such as hypersonic missiles that are now under development."

GLL-AP-02 is said to be 3 meters in length however I do not know the diameter of it. NASA and Dryden helped invest in the Kholod project so our experience is plenty in this field and there can be future designs for a hypersonic internal missile placement.


Not every mission requires a full stealth configuration. The F-35 was designed from the start to carry external weapons. As for accommodating heavier weapons, the inner hard points can carry 5,000lb weapons. F-15s aren't carrying anything heavier than that, either.


On most missions the F-15's would carry external tanks on the inner pylons. Which, are the ones rated for 5,000 lbs. Just another shortcoming the critics often leave out....

Not to mention that the hypersonic weapons will very likely be launched well beyond the radar horizon of any threats, negating any concerns about RCS.
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 00:56

Lets assume that, just for arguments sake, the F-15EX could carry a really heavy hypersonic missile on a specially configured launcher that replaces the conformal tank on one side of the F-15EX. Then it could maybe carry up to a 10klbs missile or more, clearly beyond what the F-35 can carry. And, let's say for whatever reason this is the smallest size of hypersonic missile that could be developed and deployed today. Does this support and argument for the F-15EX?

No.

First, the USAF has reported that the F-15EX will replace F-15Cs and no additional training in Air to Ground will be provided to said F-15C pilots. So the pilots won't be trained in the mission although that is easily changed.

But more importantly, why couldn't you just use some of the 200+ existing F-15Es in the USAF inventory that will be around for another 20 years plus for this role? I mean, if you can't risk the F-15EX on "Day One", you can't risk F-15Es either, so they will be looking for a mission. Since the missiles themselves will be extremely expensive, how many do you plan to fire? 20? 100? 200? So unless you want to shoot them by the bushel full, there are more than enough existing F-15Es around for the mission.

To me, the whole argument for the F-15EX is just a ploy to keep the manned Penetrating Counter Air fighter. If the F-35 replaces F-15Cs, you can expect the entire PCA program to be pushed to the right by a decade or more because the F-35 will be good enough for much longer than an F-15. I expect much of the Navy's desire for the Super Duper is for the exact same reason. Because once you have a bunch of shiny new F-35Cs on deck, the much dreamed of true successor to the F-14 is also in jeopardy. But now, both services who are largely run by fighter pilots will have vulnerable fighter that just has to be replaced in the 2030s.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5722
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 02:57

usnvo wrote:Lets assume that, just for arguments sake, the F-15EX could carry a really heavy hypersonic missile on a specially configured launcher that replaces the conformal tank on one side of the F-15EX. Then it could maybe carry up to a 10klbs missile or more, clearly beyond what the F-35 can carry. And, let's say for whatever reason this is the smallest size of hypersonic missile that could be developed and deployed today. Does this support and argument for the F-15EX?

No.

First, the USAF has reported that the F-15EX will replace F-15Cs and no additional training in Air to Ground will be provided to said F-15C pilots. So the pilots won't be trained in the mission although that is easily changed.

But more importantly, why couldn't you just use some of the 200+ existing F-15Es in the USAF inventory that will be around for another 20 years plus for this role? I mean, if you can't risk the F-15EX on "Day One", you can't risk F-15Es either, so they will be looking for a mission. Since the missiles themselves will be extremely expensive, how many do you plan to fire? 20? 100? 200? So unless you want to shoot them by the bushel full, there are more than enough existing F-15Es around for the mission.

To me, the whole argument for the F-15EX is just a ploy to keep the manned Penetrating Counter Air fighter. If the F-35 replaces F-15Cs, you can expect the entire PCA program to be pushed to the right by a decade or more because the F-35 will be good enough for much longer than an F-15. I expect much of the Navy's desire for the Super Duper is for the exact same reason. Because once you have a bunch of shiny new F-35Cs on deck, the much dreamed of true successor to the F-14 is also in jeopardy. But now, both services who are largely run by fighter pilots will have vulnerable fighter that just has to be replaced in the 2030s.



I don't see the US Military pushing the PCA and/or NGAD to the right. Not with the development of the Tempest and NGF.

Which, are moving right along... :|
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jul 2019, 03:43

Good luck with any BUDGIE prediction. There is a weird system at play here & PLAY they do whilst the US military suffers.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... stalemate/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5722
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Jul 2019, 04:07

Future US Defense Budgets will decline and every year will be a big fight for what they do get. Which, I have been telling the members of the forum for sometime now.


Which, is why spending anything on the F-15EX is a very bad idea..... :doh:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 101spider and 15 guests