FY2020 DoD Budget

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 13 Mar 2019, 19:14

And 10 of the 20 F-35 Cs are USMC jets...

usnvo · by **usnvo** » 13 Mar 2019, 20:18

quicksilver wrote:And 10 of the 20 F-35 Cs are USMC jets...

It doesn't really matter if they are USMC or USN squadrons. Unlike the USMC F-18s. all F-35C squadrons will be assigned to CVWs. About the only difference is one will be stationed at El Centro and one will be stationed at Miramar, from a warfighting standpoint, it is all the same. It actually makes sense.

1. Minimizes the impact of F-35 pilot transition on the perennial USN F-18 pilot shortage (which is what led the Navy Dept. to assign USMC squadrons to CVWs in the first place).
2. Since the Navy transferred all their F-18A-Ds to the Marines, it speeds up the transition of the classic Hornet out of the force. A Navy squadron transitioning just frees up more SHs for other squadrons or to wait on depot level work.
3. It leverages the USMC lobby to advocate for more F-35Bs. Lets face it, the USMC has a much better lobby and a much stronger argument for replacing their aircraft.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 13 Mar 2019, 21:36

This F-15(E)X buy has been discussed extensively elsewhere. So just a few points:

Given typical Boing FUD wrt F/A-18E/F costs... it will be difficult to know how much an F-15EX costs. Boing (and the press) will quote or say "around $80M apiece," but the costs will probably be far closer to $125M each. One recent story said, (paraphrasing) around $80M each, but maybe upwards of $125M each given other costs such as restarting the line or some comment related to production line costs. Excuse me... I thought one of the whole reasons to justify this purchase was to take advantage of a production line that has never gone cold, and to leverage all the other toys other nations have paid to have included on the Eagle?. Meh. Whatever.
There are substantial (or perhaps I should say, not inconsequential infrastructure costs associated with making an air base F-35 capable. So purchasing additional F-35s to replace F-15s at some bases would require substantial costs to ready that base, and therefore, may also affect timeschedules. So F-15EX is, for the most part, simply plug and play, although the logistical supply lines will become more complicated.
Point 2 above would argue towards just buying 8 or 12 or 24 F-15EX over the next couple years until F-35 infrastructure issues could be resolved. But... once this camel's nose is under the tent... now we are talking about 80 or 144 new obsolete tactical combat aircraft? That, IMO, is a waste of money.
The Air Force itself never requested the F-15EX aircraft. Their arm was twisted and it was "strongly suggested" (or hinted) at by staff in the DOD (Sec'y Defense office or related to it?) that the Air Force put in the request. Doesn't make sense to me. It just smells. (Bad)

Other stories have mentioned that Air Force leaders have said they need at least 72 airframes per year... and any airframes over and above F-35 airframes to get to seventy-two do NOT have to be F-15's. If that is the case... then why not F-17V's? Cheaper than the Eagles, and I think you are looking at far fewer logistical supply line charlie foxtrots than all the new stuff the F-15EX would introduce.

Got to hand it to Boing execs, though... they could sell sand to the Arabs.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 13 Mar 2019, 22:20

usnvo wrote:
quicksilver wrote:And 10 of the 20 F-35 Cs are USMC jets...

It doesn't really matter if they are USMC or USN squadrons. Unlike the USMC F-18s. all F-35C squadrons will be assigned to CVWs. About the only difference is one will be stationed at El Centro and one will be stationed at Miramar, from a warfighting standpoint, it is all the same. It actually makes sense.

1. Minimizes the impact of F-35 pilot transition on the perennial USN F-18 pilot shortage (which is what led the Navy Dept. to assign USMC squadrons to CVWs in the first place).
2. Since the Navy transferred all their F-18A-Ds to the Marines, it speeds up the transition of the classic Hornet out of the force. A Navy squadron transitioning just frees up more SHs for other squadrons or to wait on depot level work.
3. It leverages the USMC lobby to advocate for more F-35Bs. Lets face it, the USMC has a much better lobby and a much stronger argument for replacing their aircraft.

This is one of the reasons in the end too that the USMC prefers the STOVL jets. The CTOL stuff just becomes the CVW's jets regardless of who's name is on the tail section. (theyre all technically the Navy's jets-- but STOVL is "icky")

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 Mar 2019, 22:28

STOVL is "icky" - heheh. YES the USN do slouch/sponge off the USMC fixed wing conventional carrier jet aircraft.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Mar 2019, 22:48

lamoey wrote:
Keep in mind that the acting SecDef is a former Boeing executive...

You can count on the Democrats to jump on that fact. Plus, they control the US House Armed Services Committee. Which, has the most influence over the Defense Budget. So, if some think this is a done deal. They are sadly mistaken....

In short could the USAF end up with some F-15X's. Sure but the odds are very much against it.

usnvo · by **usnvo** » 13 Mar 2019, 23:49

spazsinbad wrote:STOVL is "icky" - heheh. YES the USN do slouch/sponge off the USMC fixed wing conventional carrier jet aircraft.

They do, but it is important to remember why. When the post-Cold War cuts were being made in the early 90s, the USMC was going to lose those five squadrons. But, because the Navy was short on F-18 bubbas and the USMC was flush, to help solve those issues, and because they wanted to have their own pilots in the CVW to support the Marines ashore and obviously the Navy couldn't be trusted to do that, the USMC agreed to provide the CVW with 5 squadrons of F-18s and 5 USN squadrons got the axe instead. So for all intents, the USMC asked the Navy to sponge off them.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Mar 2019, 00:15

Yeah those DEVIL DOGS are gluttons for punishment - WAKE ISLAND Lives!

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 14 Mar 2019, 01:23

Two hearings on Capitol Hill tommarow.

Here is the link to the hearing:

Department of Defense Budget Posture
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2019 Time: 09:30 AM
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/h ... et-posture

There is another one over at the House tomorrow too:

Department of the Air Force Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request (Shanahan not scheduled to be at this one)
Thursday, March 14, 2019 (10am Rayburn 2212 Open)
https://armedservices.house.gov/hearing ... 135F0E3A27

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 14 Mar 2019, 01:38

SpudmanWP wrote:Two hearings on Capitol Hill tommarow.

Here is the link to the hearing:

Department of Defense Budget Posture
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2019 Time: 09:30 AM
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/h ... et-posture

There is another one over at the House tomorrow too:

Department of the Air Force Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request (Shanahan not scheduled to be at this one)
Thursday, March 14, 2019 (10am Rayburn 2212 Open)
https://armedservices.house.gov/hearing ... 135F0E3A27

Going to be interesting.... :wink:

wolfpak · by **wolfpak** » 14 Mar 2019, 03:58

The dilemma is if the AF says they can replace F-15's with F-35's then how do they justify the PCA which is to be the F-22/F-15 replacement? They need to craft a PR strategy to say that the F-35 would be the interim fix until the PCA is in service. Further they should outline that F-35's bought for the F-15 replacement will move to squadrons assigned to the traditional role for that aircraft at a later date.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 14 Mar 2019, 04:25

Because it's about Corporate Welfare and not capability.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 14 Mar 2019, 04:29

There's a $1b going to NGAD (aka PCA) research for FY 2020 which is more than double FY 19 budget. Its not going to make much difference if they pour more money at this stage. Shifting F-15 funds to PCA now is not going to generate more airframes either.

What could be costly in the longer run is if the industrial base to maintain the F-15 parts is lost due to line closure which will result in either a more expensive fleet to maintain going forward or a smaller fleet. Its partly smoke and mirrors if foreign sales continue to come in but going with the F-15EX means no reliance on foreign sales.

Regardless of what people think, the F-15 is planned to be in the fleet past 2040.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 14 Mar 2019, 04:38

SpudmanWP wrote:Because it's about Corporate Welfare and not capability.

Which, is the whole point.....and it will be extremely costly to the US Taxpayer. While, diminishing the capabilities of the US Military and their Allies.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 14 Mar 2019, 04:43

wolfpak wrote:The dilemma is if the AF says they can replace F-15's with F-35's then how do they justify the PCA which is to be the F-22/F-15 replacement? They need to craft a PR strategy to say that the F-35 would be the interim fix until the PCA is in service. Further they should outline that F-35's bought for the F-15 replacement will move to squadrons assigned to the traditional role for that aircraft at a later date.

Honestly, the USAF Leadership must just be fuming over this. As for over a decade they've been pushing the need for Stealthy 5th Generation Fighters and Bombers. Then just when production ramps up and exports look to explode. Trump and Shanahan come along and blow it all up........ :shock: