FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 04:28
by SpudmanWP
The FY2020 Budget will be about in a few days.

Please put anything you find interesting here and if you post it in another thread, post a link here so it makes searches easier.

As in the past, the USN site is the first to create a 2020 page but all the PDFs are just placeholders.

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Pag ... -2020.aspx

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 04:44
by weasel1962
President's budget is here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... fy2020.pdf

The Budget also buys two large experimental unmanned surface ships and 12 battle force ships, including three guided missile destroyers, three fast attack submarines, and the first of a new class of guided missile frig-ates. The Budget also supports the Navy’s recent innovative procurement of nuclear aircraft carriers, which should enable the shipbuilder to achieve unprecedented efficiencies from the construction of two ships.


NS factsheet: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... _FINAL.pdf

In 2020, the Budget funds an end strength of 2,140,300 active and reserve military personnel, buys 12 battle force ships and two large experimental unmanned surface vessels, procures 110 fighter aircraft, and modernizes nearly two brigade combat teams.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 04:55
by spazsinbad
A BUDGET FOR A Better America - PROMISES KEPT. TAXPAYERS FIRST.
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

" DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Funding Highlights:
• The Department of Defense (DOD) provides the combat credible military capabilities needed to compete, deter, and if necessary, fight and win wars to protect the security of the United States.

• The Budget funds the National Defense Strategy to support DOD’s three lines of effort: rebuilding readiness and lethality; strengthening alliances and partnerships; and improving performance and affordability through reform.

The Budget requests $718 billion for DOD, a $33 billion or 5-percent increase from the 2019 enacted level."
&
"...Advances Airpower for the 21st Century. The Budget request supports the continued modernization of DOD’s aircraft fleets to enable them to meet the challenges they will face in the contested environment of the future. The Air Force’s tactical fighter investment program is focused on procuring the advanced F-35A stealth fighter while improving its fleet of current fighters such as the F-15 and F-16. The Navy and Marine Corps would also continue to procure their own variants of the F-35, as well as modernize their current F/A-18E/F fighters. In addition, the Budget continues to fund the
development of the next generation stealth bomber and procurement of KC-46 aerial refueling tankers. These investment programs would ensure that DOD will be able to successfully counter the wide variety of threats that could be encountered in future combat situations....


https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... fy2020.pdf (1.9Mb) attached below.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 05:05
by popcorn
SECDEF Mattis parting gift to the DoD.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/09/poli ... index.html

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 21:23
by spazsinbad
Navy Unveils Record Budget, Pushing Above 300 Ships
12 Mar 2019 Paul McLeary

"The US Navy now says it'll reach 355 ships by 2034, while whacking F-35Bs and a carrier from its five-year plan. What's the strategy?

...The aircraft budget, the Navy wants to spend $18.6 billion to purchase 148 aircraft, including 20 F-35Cs, which is four more compared to last year’s plan. But it also wants to buy 10 F-35Bs, 10-plane fewer than estimated last year. There is also a line for 24 more F/A-18E-F Super Hornets.

When it comes to the proposed F-35 cuts, those decisions were “tied to force structure mixes,” Crites said, adding that the Navy and Marines are looking to avoid duplicating efforts.

Elsewhere, the Marine Corps F-35B program was slashed by 19 planes over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), with 10 fewer in 2020, five in 2021, three in 2022 and one in 2023."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/nav ... 300-ships/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 21:35
by SpudmanWP
Can we finally put to bed the myth that the SecDef is not pushing Boeing planes across the services?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:15
by spazsinbad
2020 BUDGET: Airpower Wins Big; ‘Multi-Domain’ Emerges
12 Mar 2019 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"For all the talk of major changes, the Pentagon is pouring money into some pretty traditional priorities.

...At $57.7 billion, the “Air Domain” is the largest single category, by far, in the 2020 budget request’s list of major investments to “enhance competitiveness” with great-power rivals. Almost all of it is Air Force programs, with the F-35, despite cuts, still the largest single item….

...these investments still pale beside the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, still the largest conventional weapons program in US history. When it comes to future warfare, the Pentagon’s vision still boils down to massive investments in airpower. That’s despite increasing concerns that China and Russia have focused their own investments precisely on keeping our airplanes at bay, even the stealth aircraft — an approach known as Anti-Access/Area Denial — and on disrupting the globe-spanning networks required to coordinate them — through cyber and electronic warfare...."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/202 ... -buzzword/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:20
by spazsinbad
Air Force Asks for 4,400 More Airmen, New F-15EX Fighter in Budget Request
12 Mar 2019 Oriana Pawlyk

"...As anticipated, the Air Force will officially ask to fund eight brand-new F-15EX fourth-plus generation fighters at a cost of $1.05 billion to gradually begin replacing its older F-15C/D Eagle fleet, the budget documents reveal. Service officials recently disclosed the Air Force needs to boost its fighter inventory, but it had not expected to do so with an F-15X variant.

"We remain committed to the F-35 and its game-changing capabilities … [but the budget] balances readiness and modernization in the near-term by procuring eight F-15EX aircraft to refresh our [current] F-15 fleet, allowing us to benefit from foreign partner investments in the F-15 line," said Air Force Maj. Gen. John Pletcher. Pletcher, the deputy assistant secretary for budget at the Air Force's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and the Comptroller at the Pentagon, briefed reporters Tuesday.

The Air Force estimates it will cost $80 million per aircraft, but that cost could rise to roughly $125 million for each of the eight jets "to set up the line" and account for non-recurring engineering costs in the first year of procurement, he said. "And, of course, you have the spares and everything else as well."

By comparison, the cost of the Air Force’s F-35A has dropped to $89 million per aircraft....

...More F-35As. The service wants 48 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, down eight from the 56 it received last year at a cost of $4.9 billion. The service requested 48 in fiscal 2019, but got additional funding from lawmakers. The Air Force is supposed to plus-up its fifth-generation inventory to 54 aircraft per year beginning in fiscal 2021…."

Source: https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2019/0 ... quest.html

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:32
by spazsinbad
Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020
Budget Office of Budget - 2019
PDF pp130

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... s-Book.pdf (14Mb) ATTACHED 'PRN' [reprinted PDF] to reduce file size.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 00:49
by weasel1962
USAF is also up. Anti-F15 folks won't like it. It includes 8 F-15EX.

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/

See slide 12.
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... 110008-150

110 fighters = 48 F-35A, 10 F-35B, 20 F-35C, 24 F-18E/F, 8 F-15EX.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 01:08
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:USAF is also up. Anti-F15 folks won't like it. It includes 8 F-15EX.

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/

See slide 12.
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... 110008-150

110 fighters = 48 F-35A, 10 F-35B, 20 F-35C, 24 F-18E/F, 8 F-15EX.



We all knew the USAF was going to request F-15X's in the FY2020 Budget. We also knew it was because of pressure from the Acting Secretary of Defense. (ex-Boeing Executive Patrick M. Shanahan)


Yet, what some may not know. Is there is considerable pressure in both the US Senate and US House that strongly oppose the deal. Which, includes the Democratic Controlled U.S. House Armed Services Committee. (Very Powerful) That has no love for either Donald Trump or Patrick Shanahan....


In short the odds are very much against the USAF ever getting a single F-15X. Especially, at the cost of $125 Million each vs $80-90 Million for the F-35A.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 01:11
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020
Budget Office of Budget - 2019
PDF pp130

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... s-Book.pdf (14Mb) ATTACHED 'PRN' [reprinted PDF] to reduce file size.



Honestly, the numbers mean little as the US House usually provide additional aircraft above what the services request. So, expect the final numbers for the F-35B's and F-35C's to increase. When all is said and done....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 01:25
by crosshairs
Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020
Budget Office of Budget - 2019
PDF pp130

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... s-Book.pdf (14Mb) ATTACHED 'PRN' [reprinted PDF] to reduce file size.



Honestly, the numbers mean little as the US House usually provide additional aircraft above what the services request. So, expect the final numbers for the F-35B's and F-35C's to increase. When all is said and done....


Why again is the USAF only procuring 48 F- 35A? Is there a engineering issue that they need to buy 8 F-15 instead of 8 to 10 more F-35?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 01:42
by bring_it_on
crosshairs wrote:
Why again is the USAF only procuring 48 F- 35A? Is there a engineering issue that they need to buy 8 F-15 instead of 8 to 10 more F-35?


48 F-35A's is consistent with the last F-35 SAR so the AF is asking exactly what it said it would order for FY20, though the AF has reduced the total F-35A request over the FYDP by not ramping up to 50+ aircraft as it had previously planned (maintains the 48 a year request). That said, requesting a set amount is one thing getting what they request is all together another thing. It is quite likely that the enacted budget exceeds the USAF's request just like it did last year.

I see a scenario where Congress gives them 56 F-35A's and 8 F-15X's keeping both the camps happy for both FY20 and FY21 as this will be a two year deal so at least we will have a topline defined for next year.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 01:44
by weasel1962
crosshairs wrote:Why again is the USAF only procuring 48 F- 35A? Is there a engineering issue that they need to buy 8 F-15 instead of 8 to 10 more F-35?


That has been the plan until lot 14 which is the last LRIP before step up to full rate acquisition. The difference is the gap has narrowed because FRP has dropped from 80 to 60.

What is interesting is that Trump (whose budget is done in consultation (i.e. driven by) with DoD) is stepping up F-35C production in place of B. 169 C to lot 17 which catches up to 219 Bs. That will slow down USMC recapitalisation (and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement).

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 02:07
by weasel1962
bring_it_on wrote:I see a scenario where Congress gives them 56 F-35A's and 8 F-15X's keeping both the camps happy for both FY20 and FY21 as this will be a two year deal so at least we will have a topline defined for next year.


And the easiest way to achieve this is just to cut the F-18E/F buy.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 02:20
by spazsinbad
'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 02:25
by weasel1962
spazsinbad wrote:'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.


Its not a claim, its a deduction. If one slows down B procurement and buys more Cs. There are only 2 possibilities. One is less B sqns but more USMC C sqns or less B sqns and more USN C sqns. Take your pick.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 02:43
by bring_it_on
weasel1962 wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:I see a scenario where Congress gives them 56 F-35A's and 8 F-15X's keeping both the camps happy for both FY20 and FY21 as this will be a two year deal so at least we will have a topline defined for next year.


And the easiest way to achieve this is just to cut the F-18E/F buy.


No one is going to cut a navy fighter plan that is part of a larger buy to fund AF jets. This will probably be just via increase to the AF F-35 buy with money scrambled from a bunch of other areas within the procurement budget. The DON will likely also see an F-35 buy increase since it has requested fewer aircraft than planned (6 fewer I believe). All in we could probably see as many as 15 F-35's added to the request once everything is said and done..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 02:53
by quicksilver
weasel1962 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.


Its not a claim, its a deduction. If one slows down B procurement and buys more Cs. There are only 2 possibilities. One is less B sqns but more USMC C sqns or less B sqns and more USN C sqns. Take your pick.


I agree w what weasel deduced. Some portion of the annual ‘C’ buy has been for USMC jets. Don’t know the breakdown for each, but this re-profiling of ‘C’ buys seems to indicate some movement of USMC buys to the left.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 02:55
by weasel1962
The Trump plan shows 56 new fighter buys for the USAF and 54 for USN/USMC. That's clearly not balanced.

I'm not so sure USN has a more urgent need than the USAF. Consider how much larger the USAF is compared to the other 2 and the fact that the USN fleet is newer (not commenting on the fleet state). Then factor in USMC's fleet state...

Congress has its work cut out.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 02:56
by Corsair1963
bring_it_on wrote:
48 F-35A's is consistent with the last F-35 SAR so the AF is asking exactly what it said it would order for FY20, though the AF has reduced the total F-35A request over the FYDP by not ramping up to 50+ aircraft as it had previously planned (maintains the 48 a year request). That said, requesting a set amount is one thing getting what they request is all together another thing. It is quite likely that the enacted budget exceeds the USAF's request just like it did last year.

I see a scenario where Congress gives them 56 F-35A's and 8 F-15X's keeping both the camps happy for both FY20 and FY21 as this will be a two year deal so at least we will have a topline defined for next year.



Sounds like a good compromise for the next year or two. Yet, problem is to agree to "8" F-15X's today. You're in fact agreeing to hundreds more over the next decade! Trust me the Armed Services Committee are well aware of this....

In short "In for a Penny in for a Pound"! :shock:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:00
by bring_it_on
weasel1962 wrote:The Trump plan shows 56 new fighter buys for the USAF and 54 for USN/USMC. That's clearly not balanced.

I'm not so sure USN has a more urgent need than the USAF. Consider how much larger the USAF is compared to the other 2 and the fact that the USN fleet is newer (not commenting on the fleet state). Then factor in USMC's fleet state...

Congress has its work cut out.


That has nothing to do with it. The F-18 E/F additional buy was sanctioned last year. If you want to compare USAF and USN fighter buys, a good data point would be looking at overall fighter aircraft procured over the last decade.

The F/A-18E/F plan to buy 100+ aircraft is pretty much set in stone and so is the 24 per year production plan for the program. Barring any exports (allowing the Navy to move some of its buys to the right) or an overall reduction in the USN plan to buy the SHornet this will not change.

We are likely talking about adding around 14 F-35's to the overall request (8 for AF and 6 for the USMC)..this can easily be done by moving things around or adding to the topline by altering the R&D and procurement mix for example. Last year the Congress added 16 F-35's to the number requested.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:03
by bring_it_on
Corsair1963 wrote:

Sounds like a good compromise for the next year or two. Yet, problem is to agree to "8" F-15X's today. You're in fact agreeing to hundreds more over the next decade! Trust me the Armed Services Committee are well aware of this....

In short "In for a Penny in for a Pound"! :shock:


In short, what you've described (knowingly or unknowingly) is exactly how the defense budget process has been working during the BCA budgets and this isn't unexpected to change much :). With a looming 2-year budget deal, I don't think much the ASC's both in the House and the Senate have a lot of say that they would during normal circumstances...

I'm not sure whether the AF (or OSD) actually have hundreds of F-15EX's planned. I don't think the number is any more than 80...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:16
by weasel1962
bring_it_on wrote:That has nothing to do with it. The F-18 E/F additional buy was sanctioned last year. If you want to compare USAF and USN fighter buys, a good data point would be looking at overall fighter aircraft procured over the last decade.


Exactly my point. Its lopsided.

bring_it_on wrote:The F/A-18E/F plan to buy 100+ aircraft is pretty much set in stone and so is the 24 per year production plan for the program. Barring any exports (allowing the Navy to move some of its buys to the right) or an overall reduction in the USN plan to buy the SHornet this will not change.


Kuwait buy.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:23
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.


Its not a claim, its a deduction. If one slows down B procurement and buys more Cs. There are only 2 possibilities. One is less B sqns but more USMC C sqns or less B sqns and more USN C sqns. Take your pick.


I agree w what weasel deduced. Some portion of the annual ‘C’ buy has been for USMC jets. Don’t know the breakdown for each, but this re-profiling of ‘C’ buys seems to indicate some movement of USMC buys to the left.

:shock: Agreed about 'once again' the USMC taking up the USN SLACK. However some official documentation would be nice. Otherwise I'll have to sit on the fence and hope I ain't HUMPTY DUMPTY. :roll: Maybe BreakaDaFence will tell us soon?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:31
by bring_it_on
weasel1962 wrote:Kuwait buy.\


Kuwait buy won't cover what the USN has laid out as far as its 110 SH buys in its last budget. They have approved that increase in procurement based on a review overseen by higher ups at the Pentagon and I don't think anyone is going to alter that in any way, just as that was left untouched as the Congress added 16 F-35's last year.

At this point, I can see a scenario where the Congress defers the F-15X decision to next year if it comes to chopping something to add more F-35s to the USAF but the Navy's SH buy is not going to change as they have requested that and no one in Congress challenged their 110 increase when that number was derived a while ago. A more likely scenario is that everything will be kept in place and a dozen or more F-35's added on top..We are 7 fighters away from last year's fighter number and I'm sure many in Congress would want to go beyond 117 given an overall increase in the budget top line.

We're talking about $1.5- $2 Billion increase/shift to a $719 Billion budget request so this is not something that will require serious engineering...The Congress is used to the plus ups and I don't think anything as dramatic as chopping the USN's acquisition plans is going to be required...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:35
by usnvo
Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020
Budget Office of Budget - 2019
PDF pp130

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... s-Book.pdf (14Mb) ATTACHED 'PRN' [reprinted PDF] to reduce file size.



Honestly, the numbers mean little as the US House usually provide additional aircraft above what the services request. So, expect the final numbers for the F-35B's and F-35C's to increase. When all is said and done....


I immediately thought of the Clinton Years when I saw the budget. Outside of the F-15X thing (I doubt the camel gets its nose under the tent but we will see, almost seems like a red hearing), it looks like all the services are gaming the system. Game plan is simple:
1. Ask for less than you want, especially with programs with strong congressional critter support. These are things like shipbuilding and aircraft (LPDs, CVN mid-life ROH, F-35, etc) that employ large numbers of people.
2. Claim you would buy more if only you had more money but you are being fiscally responsible. Have figures crossed behind back.
3. Make sure the things that you can't get a plus up on is in the submitted budget. Because cutting anything out of the budget is difficult but adding pork, I mean critical defense capabilities, is always possible. Especially when they make jobs.
4. Complain in hearings that Congress is killing the budget.
5. Smile all the way back to the Pentagon.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:48
by Corsair1963
usnvo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020
Budget Office of Budget - 2019
PDF pp130

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... s-Book.pdf (14Mb) ATTACHED 'PRN' [reprinted PDF] to reduce file size.



Honestly, the numbers mean little as the US House usually provide additional aircraft above what the services request. So, expect the final numbers for the F-35B's and F-35C's to increase. When all is said and done....


I immediately thought of the Clinton Years when I saw the budget. Outside of the F-15X thing (I doubt the camel gets its nose under the tent but we will see, almost seems like a red hearing), it looks like all the services are gaming the system. Game plan is simple:
1. Ask for less than you want, especially with programs with strong congressional critter support. These are things like shipbuilding and aircraft (LPDs, CVN mid-life ROH, F-35, etc) that employ large numbers of people.
2. Claim you would buy more if only you had more money but you are being fiscally responsible. Have figures crossed behind back.
3. Make sure the things that you can't get a plus up on is in the submitted budget. Because cutting anything out of the budget is difficult but adding pork, I mean critical defense capabilities, is always possible. Especially when they make jobs.
4. Complain in hearings that Congress is killing the budget.
5. Smile all the way back to the Pentagon.



The services know the Defense Budget is likely to decline in coming years. Especially, if the Democrats beat Trump in 2020. Yet, I've never seen this level of politics from them directly ever.....(something I know a little about)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:53
by bring_it_on
Spaz, the DON request is difficult to dissect because the SAR never breaks up B and C variants by year. They've asked for 6 fewer jets compared to the last SAR so I'm assuming that those would have been Bs so some of them will most likely be added back in.. A 16 F-35B and 20 F-35C mix would be a nice balance :).

Corsair1963 wrote:The services know the Defense Budget is likely to decline in coming years. Especially, if the Democrats beat Trump in 2020. Yet, I've never seen this level of politics from them directly ever.....(something I know a little about)


IMHO the defense budgets will be determined by what happens post BCA. If they can't end up with a solution and we go back to cost caps then defense spending levels will continue to be driven by congressional negotiations which means that the makeup of the Senate and the House will likely have more influence.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 03:56
by SpudmanWP
bring_it_on wrote:48 F-35A's is consistent with the last F-35 SAR

The issue is that the services have been constantly told that there was no extra money so they have been reducing their ramp aggressiveness. Suddenly, the DoD finds enough money for a whole new program and they think they are fooling anyone that it is not coming at the expense of the F-35?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 04:04
by bring_it_on
SpudmanWP wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:48 F-35A's is consistent with the last F-35 SAR

The issue is that the services have been constantly told that there was no extra money so they have been reducing their ramp aggressiveness. Suddenly, the DoD finds enough money for a whole new program and they think they are fooling anyone that it is not coming at the expense of the F-35?


Getting more F-35As over the requested level has not been an issue for the AF though. They've made a case for more, if money was available :wink: :wink: , and they have been getting them quite routinely with a pretty good hit rate - to the tune of 23 F-35A's between FY-17-19. If I were the USAF or the DOD, knowing how well the program is supported in Congress I'd also begin gaming the system as Corsair1963 pointed.

The USAF probably needs 60-70 F-35A's just to buy the number it needs or has sanctioned in a reasonable way..otherwise you just keep punting the problem down the road. In an ideal world they need to get 70 F-35As with any F-15EX's on top of that but then there are likely other industrial base reasons why the OSD would prefer something else so this is something for the Congress to come in and correct..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 04:12
by weasel1962
As mentioned in the F-15 thread.

If USAF requests only higher numbers of F-35As, they are not going to get more F-35As.
If USAF requests lower no of F-35As + F-15X, they are more likely to get more F-35As with maybe F-15s. I think the folks on top have already gamed out that this is likely to result in the most number of new fighters for the USAF.

The F-15 is an industrial base decision. Nothing new and that's language that Congress understands.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 04:34
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:USAF is also up. Anti-F15 folks won't like it. It includes 8 F-15EX.
8 F-15EX.



Waste of money, but whatever. There's a new white elephant in town! Maybe get some cool models out of it.


weasel1962 wrote:
crosshairs wrote:stepping up F-35C production in place of B. 169 C to lot 17 which catches up to 219 Bs. That will slow down USMC recapitalisation (and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement).



makes sense as the Harrier and Hornet retirement timelines switched places.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 04:40
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:The services know the Defense Budget is likely to decline in coming years. Especially, if the Democrats beat Trump in 2020. Yet, I've never seen this level of politics from them directly ever.....(something I know a little about)



Nothing "declines" anymore here America just goes deeper in debt. the notion of "its this or that" is so 20th century...

Image

The budget will only be biggering. its already set to bigger next year

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 04:46
by Corsair1963
Democrats want to beat Trump with a passion. Which, means they will be above board until the Election is over in November of 2020.

So, don't expect them to approve to much Corporate Welfare from Trump between now and then.... :wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 07:19
by weasel1962
Liked this page (extracted from slide 38 of the FY 2020 AF budget overview).

Image

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 08:58
by spazsinbad
:devil: Just because I DO NOT LIKE PHOTOBUCKET: https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... %20v2_.pdf

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 09:38
by doge
8)
https://www.journalinquirer.com/busines ... 9c68e.html
State’s delegation opposes F-35 cut
By Zachary F. Vasile Mar 12, 2019
The state’s congressional delegation is mounting a vigorous defense of the F-35 Lightning II following reports that the federal government plans to scale back its 2020 order for the famously expensive next-generation fighter jet.

In a joint message to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, the delegation called the Lockheed Martin aircraft “the only viable path forward” to equip the nation’s armed forces and pointed to the over 11,000 Connecticut jobs supported by the F-35 program.

“Cutting our only fifth-generation fighter jet for any military service would be a mistake, and we urge you to reconsider this decision or provide immediate justification for this potential cut,” the letter read.

East Hartford-based Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corp., builds the F135 afterburning turbofan engine used by the F-35.

Citing defense officials, Bloomberg reported last week that the Pentagon will request 78 F-35 jets, six fewer than originally anticipated for fiscal year 2020.

The change is likely to raise concerns on Capitol Hill, the news service said, because the U.S. Air Force plans to seek funding for eight new upgraded F-15 tactical fighters, manufactured by Lockheed’s rival Boeing.

The sudden pivot toward the F-15, which the military has not purchased in almost two decades, raises the possibility of a conflict of interest for Shanahan, who spent over 30 years at Boeing serving in various roles, including as vice president of the company’s commercial aircraft unit and general manager of the Dreamliner program.

He has recused himself from all department matters involving Boeing.

Though the Defense Department has not presented a rationale for the reduction, the adjustment could be interpreted as the rare cost-saving measure in a record-sized $4.75 trillion presidential budget that largely boosted support for the military at the expense of various social programs.

The F-35 initiative is the most expensive aircraft development project in American military history and has drawn criticism from some analysts, members of Congress, and President Donald Trump, who famously labeled the program “out of control” in a 2016 Twitter posting that briefly drove down the price of Lockheed’s stock.

Still, the fighter jet has received positive reviews from the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, and from foreign military partners such as the United Kingdom, who have placed orders of their own and are in various stages of testing the new aircraft.

Specific details of the Pentagon’s budget, including money allotted for F-35 orders, are expected to be made public this week.

Regardless of the new figures, however, Congress, which has the final say on most federal spending, will likely restore or boost the F-35 request, with an eye toward expanding military capability and protecting jobs.

The state delegation’s letter to the Defense Department arrived on the heels of a similar statement to the president from the leaders of Congress’s F-35 Caucus, co-chaired by U.S. Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, whose hometown of East Hartford has Pratt & Whitney’s headquarters.

That message slammed defense officials for appearing to backtrack on F-35 procurement efforts and inexplicably reverting back to the F-15, which the Air Force has not ordered since 2001.

“This procurement appears to have been dropped into the budget without a validated DoD Joint Requirements Oversight Council requirement, without verification of the technology readiness assessment, and without a fair and open competition and with the analytic rigor to merit a directed buy,” the co-chairs wrote.

“The fact that we are even discussing buying F-15 aircraft that the services have not procured for some 18 years is troubling in and of itself, but to think that the DoD would consider buying these aircraft with no regard to the acquisition process is even more troubling.”

The military ultimately plans to acquire 2,456 F-35s.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 10:19
by Corsair1963
This is another one that clearly spells out what is really going on.........

No Sign of “The Air Force We Need” in USAF Budget; 80-Plus New-Old F-15s Coming

Although Air Force leaders have pushed a case for 72 new fighters a year as essential in meeting the requirements of the National Defense Strategy, there was no evidence of a move toward a larger force structure in the service’s fiscal 2020 budget request.


In fact, the USAF budget request includes just 48 Lockheed Martin-built F-35A fighters, eight aircraft less than what was in the fiscal 2019 enacted budget, and eight new Boeing F-15EX fighters—16 airplanes short of what Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein has said is the minimum needed to prevent the fighter force from shrinking and growing older than its current average age of 28 years. The Air Force is asking $5.7 billion to buy the 48 F-35s and $1.05 billion for the eight F-15EXs.


Long-term, the budget will call for far more F-15s than USAF officials have hinted at in recent months. USAF officials have only suggested a dozen such airplanes that might be in the budget, but according to budget documents the F-15EX buy “initiates the refresh” of the F-15 fleet. Air Force Maj. Gen. John Pletcher, briefing the press on the USAF budget on Tuesday, acknowledged there are 80 F-15EXs in the five-year Future Years Defense Plan. A service official reported the ultimate buy could be 144, completed after the FYDP. The plan, if approved by Congress, would represent more than $14 billion worth of Air Force fighter work for Boeing that would otherwise have gone to Lockheed Martin.



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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 10:45
by spazsinbad
TURN DOWN SOUND BEFORE HITTING THIS LINK: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/FedBudgie2020

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 13:18
by spazsinbad

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 13:27
by mixelflick
Well, it looks like the USAF is hell bent on no small number of F-15X. I've read they'll cost 80 million/apiece, and upwards of 125 million/copy when everything is priced in..

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.co ... new-f-15s/

That's insane $ for a more expensive, less capable fighter vs. the F-35, and I fail to see how it's "not taking away" from the F-35 buy. I LOVE the F-15, but this was disappointing. Is the USAF so out of touch that it can't see the error of their ways? The 144 F-15's are going to be good for little more than air defense of the CONUS. Perhaps 2nd or 3rd day of war duties maintaining air superiority, but that's it.

I'll be interested to see whether or not Boeing increases the F-15X's internal fuel. That would make sense to me, as their selling point without stealth is going to have to be persistence and total AAM loadout. One thing you won't see is an attempt to turn it into an SU-35. No thrust vectoring. The emphasis instead being on weapons, sensors and improved SA.

I'd bet anything that in the end, they'll be more than 125 million/copy too...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 17:38
by lamoey
mixelflick wrote:That's insane $ for a more expensive, less capable fighter vs. the F-35, and I fail to see how it's "not taking away" from the F-35 buy. I LOVE the F-15, but this was disappointing. Is the USAF so out of touch that it can't see the error of their ways? The 144 F-15's are going to be good for little more than air defense of the CONUS. Perhaps 2nd or 3rd day of war duties maintaining air superiority, but that's it.


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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 17:52
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:As mentioned in the F-15 thread.

If USAF requests only higher numbers of F-35As, they are not going to get more F-35As.


Demonstrably untrue as demonstrated by the fact that the AF has asked for more
via unfunded priorities and has gotten more as a consequence.

This was an OSD diktat; the AF did not have the F-15 in its budget submission.
The was stated by the Air Force secretary who is now resigning.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 19:14
by quicksilver
And 10 of the 20 F-35 Cs are USMC jets...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 20:18
by usnvo
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 21:36
by steve2267
This F-15(E)X buy has been discussed extensively elsewhere. So just a few points:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 22:20
by XanderCrews
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")

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 22:28
by spazsinbad
STOVL is "icky" - heheh. YES the USN do slouch/sponge off the USMC fixed wing conventional carrier jet aircraft.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 22:48
by Corsair1963
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. :?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 23:49
by usnvo
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 00:15
by spazsinbad
Yeah those DEVIL DOGS are gluttons for punishment - WAKE ISLAND Lives!

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 01:23
by SpudmanWP
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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 01:38
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 03:58
by wolfpak
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 04:25
by SpudmanWP
Because it's about Corporate Welfare and not capability.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 04:29
by weasel1962
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 04:38
by Corsair1963
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 04:43
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 04:47
by marauder2048
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.


It was stated explicitly in testimony just last year that the F-35 would begin to replace the F-15C.
That didn't undermine PCA then. Why would it undermine PCA now?

weasel1962 wrote: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.


An industrial base for the F-15 would be maintained via the SLEP contracts that the Air Force was
going to hand out for the longerons and the wings. The latter being an E-wing derivative for which
the government owns the data rights.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 04:53
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Regardless of what people think, the F-15 is planned to be in the fleet past 2040.



Honestly, I have my doubts the F-15E Strike Eagle will be around much past 2040. As the Eagle will begin to look "pretty old" by then. Being both costly to operate and maintain. While, offering little capability vs later models of the F-35.


Of course much will depend on the status of the F-35 Program? (Sales, Outstanding Orders, etc.)


"IMHO"

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 05:23
by Corsair1963
March 13, 2019
Glenn A. Fine
Acting Inspector General
U.S. Department of Defense
4800 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22350-1500
Re: Request for Investigation of Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan
Dear Acting Inspector General Fine:

According to news reports, during his tenure at the Department of Defense (“DoD”) Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has made numerous statements promoting his former employer Boeing and has disparaged the company’s competitors before subordinates at the agency. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) therefore respectfully requests that the Office of Inspector General investigate these allegations to determine whether Acting Secretary Shanahan violated ethics rules, including the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (“Standards of Conduct”) and the Ethics Pledge he signed as a condition of his appointment.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/press ... ng-at-dod/


QUOTE:

One prominent example raised in news reports is DoD’s apparent recent decision to request new fighter planes from Boeing.14 According to Bloomberg, DoD made plans to request $1.2 billion for 12 Boeing F-15X fighter aircraft in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, a decision that reportedly was made “with some prodding” by Mr. Shanahan.15 Bloomberg subsequently reported that DoD would request eight F-15Xs in the 2020 budget request as part of a potential purchase of 80 F-15Xs over the next five years.16 However, “the Air Force has said it does not want” the aircraft, and “military experts seemed baffled by the F-15X decision,” arguing that the jet, unlike the F-35 fighter produced by Boeing competitor Lockheed Martin, “is ineffective against enemies like Russia and China” who have “sophisticated air defense technologies.”17 DoD’s fiscal year 2020 budget proposal ultimately included a request for eight updated models of Boeing’s older F-15 fighter jet at a cost of $1.1 billion.18

In addition to allegations that Mr. Shanahan advocated for his former employer Boeing, his “private remarks” at DoD have raised concerns that he may “harbor[] an unfair bias against other big military contractors” competing with Boeing for lucrative government contracts.19 In particular,
Mr. Shanahan allegedly criticized Lockheed Martin’s handling of the production of the F-35 fighter jet in meetings with subordinates.
According to public reports, Mr. Shanahan “repeatedly ‘dumped’ on the F-35 in meetings,” stated that the plane was “f---ed up,” and argued that Lockheed, which won the contract to build the plane over Boeing, “doesn’t know how to run a program.”20 Mr. Shanahan also allegedly stated that if Lockheed’s contract “had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better,” and “slammed” Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson.21 As one former official described Shanahan’s comments: “He would complain about Lockheed’s timing and their inability to deliver, and from a Boeing point of view, say things like, ‘We would never do that.’”22
Acting Secretary Shanahan is the first person to lead DoD since the 1950’s to “come purely from the private sector” and with “virtually no government or policy experience.”23 At Boeing, Mr. Shanahan was integral in helping the company win defense contracts and oversaw military programs including Boeing Missile Defense Systems and Boeing Rotorcraft Systems.24 Since Mr. Shanahan’s arrival at DoD, Boeing has been very successful in winning government contracts. For example, in December 2018, public reporting suggested a Boeing “takeover” at DoD, noting that “in the last six months, Boeing has won three multibillion-dollar competitions for major Department of Defense aircraft programs, despite massive delays in delivering a new tanker fleet to the U.S. Air Force.”25 Those Boeing contracts with the government included a $2.4 billion agreement with DoD to build Huey helicopters with another company, and beating out Lockheed Martin to win a $9.2 billion contract building training jets for the Air Force.26 Boeing also secured an $805 million deal to build aerial-refueling drones for the Navy.27 In early 2019, Boeing shares increased in value by 6.2 percent after the company beat quarterly earnings expectations and posted annual revenue of more than $100 billion for the first time ever.28

https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citize ... -FINAL.pdf

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 06:23
by weasel1962
Extract from USN FY 2020 budget summary. Reposted below.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 06:26
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Extract from USN FY 2020 budget summary.

Image



Obviously, inventory doesn't mean in the fleet. For example they list "22" Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruisers.....Yet, they may have half that number is service. :?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 06:33
by spazsinbad
'weasel1962' IF the photobucket images posted are yours in your photobucket account why not upload these same image here please. Otherwise (I guess) a NON photobucket users such as myself will see a degraded image (I'll post a screenshot) AND if one DARES to go to the PB URL then one will be quickly infected with a 'harmless' (I HOPE) spyware malarkey msg.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 06:51
by weasel1962
Gotcha. Thanks Spaz. Did not realise it could be done.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 07:45
by Corsair1963
QUOTE:

However, the budget plan states that the next carrier, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), would not be refueled and instead would be used until its nuclear fuel is spent, sending it to an early retirement later in the 2020s. Several media outlets have reported that this decision was a Pentagon-level decision, not one the Navy wanted to pursue.

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/12/fy-202 ... rocurement

Sounds Familiar? Could this be more handiwork from Patrick Shanahan???

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 08:17
by spazsinbad
weasel1962 wrote:Gotcha. Thanks Spaz. Did not realise it could be done.

Thanks. The watermark & other GOTCHAS on the PhotoBucket website are why I no longer use it. YMMV.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 08:59
by weasel1962
For those who have no clue about cruiser status and are too lazy to google....

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... -cruisers/

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/09/fy-201 ... m-congress

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 20:44
by spazsinbad
USMC Identifies Potential F-35C Backlog
12 Mar 2019 Lee Hudson

"The U.S. Marine Corps wants to purchase fewer Lockheed Martin F-35Bs in fiscal 2020 because a future backlog was identified for the aircraft’s C-model, the service confirmed to Aerospace DAILY.

The service is purchasing both the B and C models of the aircraft. The Marine Corps anticipated purchasing 20 F-35Bs in fiscal 2020, but in the request the buy was cut by half to 10 jets. The fiscal 2020 budget proposal requests 10 F-35B and F-35C jets for the service.

The decision was made to reduce the B model buy and increase the C variant purchase to avoid a potential backlog, service spokesman Capt. Chris Harrison told Aerospace DAILY...." [THEN UNECCESSARY BLATHER ABOUT OLD C PROBLEMS?]

PDF: https://aviationweek.com/site-files/avi ... 9_cht4.pdf

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/usmc-i ... 5c-backlog

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 22:06
by spazsinbad
:devil: SHANAHANNAHANHAN not to BLAME for the F-15 EXtraEXpensive BUY - speculation is fun isn't it. So is the US MilBUDGIE! :doh:
Dunford: New F-15 Buy for Air Force Fills F-35 Capacity and Capability Shortfall
14 Mar 2019 Brian Everstine

"The Pentagon’s decision to add new F-15EXs to its budget request for the Air Force, a move not requested by the service itself, was based on a lack of capability and capacity of the current fleet and the presumptive cheaper cost of the Eagles, the military’s top uniformed officer told lawmakers on Thursday. [presumptive = consumptive?]

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2020 budget request includes about $1 billion for eight F-15EX “advanced Eagles,” a decision that stemmed from former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Senate Armed Services Committee the “framework” of the decision came from a study of the future needs of the military’s tactical aircraft fleet, which showed the Air Force had a shortage in its number of aircraft and the amount of ordnance those aircraft could carry.

"Then they had the F-15C, which was aging out in the 2027-2028 period," he said "So, within the next five or 10 years the best solution was to go to the F-15, called the EX, platform to backfill the F-15. Eventually we’ll get to an all F-35 program, but from both a cost perspective and a capability perspective, this particular mix of aircraft for the near term was determined to be the right mix of aircraft.”

The F-15EX initially would only be “slightly” cheaper to buy than a new F-35, it will be more than 50 percent cheaper than the Joint Strike Fighter to operate over its life. Additionally, it has “twice as many hours” [?] in terms of how long it lasts.

The Air Force’s five-year Future Years Defense Plan calls for buying 80 of the F-15EXs, though the ultimate buy could be as many as 144. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said before the budget was released the F-15s were inserted into the budget by entities outside the Air Force, and the service instead preferred to buy more F-35s.

“The primary aircraft of the future for the Air Force is the F-35, and they’re not walking back off that program,” Dunford said."

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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 22:11
by SpudmanWP
Hey Bulldog.. How's that bus feel?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 22:13
by spazsinbad
HUH? Lots of BlahBlah about how cheap to buy/use/train for the F-15EX will be (predicting the future anyone? Buehler?).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ix-456480/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 22:42
by steve2267
F-15EX will have a 16,000 hr airframe?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 22:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 23:14
by steve2267
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 23:31
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 23:44
by steve2267
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...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 01:09
by usnvo
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 01:20
by steve2267
Enlightening. Thank you.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 02:23
by weasel1962
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 18:49
by spazsinbad
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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 21:00
by marauder2048
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 22:30
by bumtish
“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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 22:57
by quicksilver
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 00:24
by steve2267
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'.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 00:34
by marsavian
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 01:57
by usnvo
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 03:52
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 13:33
by mixelflick
Holy smokes... this is Sputnik news level reporting. F-15 a mach 3 bird. Who knew?? And hypersonics for what, CON US air defense?? Talk about overkill!

If the Canadians had any brains, they'd step in and offer to buy them for $1 more than what Boeing's proposing. A mach 3 capable, hypersonic weapons carrying, low CPFH fighter with a 20,000hr service life sounds precisely like what they need. Big(ger) country than ours, whole lotta real estate to cover. It could also meet their NATO obligations. Plus, it'd help Trudeau get out of the corner he's painted himself into when he said, "no F-35".

From what I can see, it'd be ideal for Canada!

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 15:37
by marsavian
usnvo wrote:
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.


All F-15E variants e.g. F-15SA/F-15QA/F-15EX are two seaters, Pilot and WSO. When/If the DoD places an order for F-15CX then we will know Boeing have actually got round to making a single seater out of their current production line.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 02:34
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:
usnvo wrote:
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.


All F-15E variants e.g. F-15SA/F-15QA/F-15EX are two seaters, Pilot and WSO. When/If the DoD places an order for F-15CX then we will know Boeing have actually got round to making a single seater out of their current production line.



Yes, the OSD says the New F-15EX are needed to replace the F-15C's. Yet, the F-15EX is nothing but an updated "Strike Eagle. (i.e. F-15E) Which, is in essence really a Tactical Bomber not an "Air Superiority Fighter". Just one of a number of reasons given to acquire the F-15X. Which, don't hold water....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 14:45
by quicksilver
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.


It matters to the USMC and the USN. The Navy diddled around with their procurement numbers for years (while simultaneously courting more SH numbers). 101 was essentially a flying club; the USMC would have taken some of those jets and transitioned an operational unit and thereby IOCd the first 'C' squadron too. The shrieking would have been historic.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 15:08
by spazsinbad
:shock: "...The shrieking would have been historic." :roll: :twisted: :devil: LIKE IN THE MOVIES?! SHREEK! SHREEK!? :roll: 8) :shock:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 21:15
by SpudmanWP
The Justification Books are up (both USAF and USN).

Dive in...

USAF
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/

USN
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Pag ... -2020.aspx

-------Things found
F-15EX:
F-15EX "details" are just "airframe", no GFE, CFE, avionics, engines, etc. REC Flyway is $80mil but full Flyaway is $131 mil.

"The pre-decisional plan is for the first two aircraft ordered in FY20 to be taken from the existing production line and delivered approximately 2 years after contract award to support flight testing. The subsequent delivery of aircraft 3-8, also ordered in FY20, are expected approximately 3 to 3.5 years after contract award."

F-35A:
All F-35As will be Block 3F by the end of FY2020. There are only 13 left that needed Tech Refresh 2 (from Lots 2-5) and 60+ from Lots 6-9ish (3F cutover was mid Lot) that only need a software update by the end of FY2020.

All Concurrency updates due for completion by the end of FY2024.

F-35B:
All early Lot F-35Bs are at least Block 3i and all F-35Bs will be Block 3F by end of FY2020.

F-35C:
All F-35Cs will be Block 3F by end of FY2019

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 22:08
by marauder2048
The F-15C/D Wing SLEP disappears without a trace. And so does the F-35A ramp rate.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 22:14
by spazsinbad
Thanks for being able to READ those details 'SWP'. The USN PDF is almost impossible to read, let alone GROK, for moi. :roll:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 22:24
by marsavian
Heh, so the F-15EX low cost price is just smoke and mirrors, bait and switch. Excellent news about all the F-35 being initial production standard 3F by FY2020, concurrency theory came good in the end ! ;)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 23:53
by SpudmanWP
Concurrency is not tied to a specific Block standard. It has more to do with airframe life and ease of maintenance. That is why it's "All 3F" by FY2020 and "All Concurrency done" by FY2024.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 00:39
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:
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.


It matters to the USMC and the USN. The Navy diddled around with their procurement numbers for years (while simultaneously courting more SH numbers). 101 was essentially a flying club; the USMC would have taken some of those jets and transitioned an operational unit and thereby IOCd the first 'C' squadron too. The shrieking would have been historic.


Honestly, still don't see the problem? As the USMC already operate four Strike Fighter Squadrons within USN Carrier Air Wings and has so for decades. So, nothing has changed.....

I would add the US Congress will likely buy F-35C's at a slightly higher rate than currently planned by the USN/USMC. Which, means the two squadrons per CVW should happen within the decade. (by 2030)

Also, after that is complete. Odds are good that the USN will just continue to buy F-35C's and start replacing the remaining Super Hornets. Which, shouldn't surprise anyone as the Super Hornet did the same with the Hornets. This is also supported by the fact that the NGAD won't be ready during this time frame either.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 01:55
by quicksilver
There was no way in hell the Navy was going let the first deployed/operational F-35C squadron have MARINES painted on the side. Once that potentiality was killed by circumstances, the reprofiled POM for B procurement emerges (from an apparent agreement on the USMC/USN split for Cs).

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 02:35
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:There was no way in hell the Navy was going let the first deployed/operational F-35C squadron have MARINES painted on the side. Once that potentiality was killed by circumstances, the reprofiled POM for B procurement emerges (from an apparent agreement on the USMC/USN split for Cs).



Sorry, to break it to you. Yet, the first Aircraft Carrier Deployment with the F-35C will be on the USS Carl Vinson in 2021. Which, will have two Squadrons....VFA-147 (USN) and VMFA-314 (USMC)


As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same. Both being "Naval Aviators" with Wings of Gold...

Honestly, have no idea why anybody would be excited by it. As the USN and USMC aren't..... :wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 03:44
by quicksilver
Well, I hate to break it to you, but that (first deployment) wasn’t always the case (ref the SecDef directed study on SH v C and CVW mix of early 2017). Look it up.

How’s your F-15x prediction workin out?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 03:45
by quicksilver
“As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.”

Not on this planet.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 04:00
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:'Corsair1963' claim: “As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.”
'QS' response: "Not on this planet."

Heheh. I wondered what you're reaction would be to that 'Corsair1963' claim.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 10:33
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:Well, I hate to break it to you, but that (first deployment) wasn’t always the case (ref the SecDef directed study on SH v C and CVW mix of early 2017). Look it up.


What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China????



How’s your F-15x prediction workin out?


When they actually fund the F-15X come see me. It's far from a done deal....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 10:38
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:“As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.”

Not on this planet.


USN and USMC Pilots are both Naval Aviators and go to many of the same schools. In addition both have operate side by side since the dawn of Naval Aviation. While, operating the same aircraft.....

Which, is not to say they don't have their own identity. Yet, they're extremely close and share far more than not.


So, spare me... :roll:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 15:19
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:
quicksilver wrote:'Corsair1963' claim: “As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.”
'QS' response: "Not on this planet."

Heheh. I wondered what you're reaction would be to that 'Corsair1963' claim.


:wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 15:44
by quicksilver
Corsair1963 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:“As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.”

Not on this planet.


USN and USMC Pilots are both Naval Aviators and go to many of the same schools. In addition both have operate side by side since the dawn of Naval Aviation. While, operating the same aircraft.....

Which, is not to say they don't have their own identity. Yet, they're extremely close and share far more than not.


So, spare me... :roll:


Kumbaya. Got it.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 16:44
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:
As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.



Image

our fighter pilots don't need airplanes to kill people

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 18:30
by spazsinbad
marsavian wrote:
usnvo wrote:
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.


All F-15E variants e.g. F-15SA/F-15QA/F-15EX are two seaters, Pilot and WSO. When/If the DoD places an order for F-15CX then we will know Boeing have actually got round to making a single seater out of their current production line.

USAF’s Five-Year Plan Includes $7.86 Billion for 80 F-15EXs
18 Mar 2019 Brian Everstine​

"...The new aircraft will be based on the F-15QA, which Boeing built for the Qatar Emiri Air Force, though it will have USAF-specific capabilities, including the Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System and the Suite 9.1 Operational Flight Program software. The jet will have two seats to be flown by one or two aircrew, and will be multi-role capable, according to the justification document, or J-Book....

...The gross weapon system unit cost is $131.25 million, with $80 million of that solely for the aircraft [explained earlier]....

...Maj. Gen. David Krumm, the Air Force’s director of strategic plans and requirements, said last week the F-15EX has about 80-90 percent commonality with the F-15C, and the new jets can use the same ground equipment. Even though the Air Force is bringing on the jet in a new start acquisition program, it will not take money away from the main jet of the future—the F-35, he said...."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... 15EXs.aspx

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 19:03
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:
As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.


Hey Corsair... just keepa flappin' your gums, or your folded arms like a chicken...

Gotta love an internet "personna" arguing with a Marine aviator. LMFAO... :doh:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 19:17
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote: it will not take money away from the main jet of the future—the F-35, he said...."


Which of course it is. Only Rogoway was stupid enough to believe this.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 00:47
by weasel1962
DN claiming that the move towards retiring 6 ticos is gaining traction in congresss (weasel's note: as a budget offset) and likely to be finally successful.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/ ... ave-money/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:31
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.


Hey Corsair... just keepa flappin' your gums, or your folded arms like a chicken...

Gotta love an internet "personna" arguing with a Marine aviator. LMFAO... :doh:



So, USN and USMC don't often operate side by side??? They don't have the same Wings of Gold??? They don't operate the same types?? They don't go to many of the same schools??? (etc. etc. etc.)

Nonetheless, all I said is they're both Naval Aviators and in the case of the F-35C. Both operate from Aircraft Carriers. Which, in that case there is little difference within that environment.

That said, I also made it clear. That both services still have their own identity....


I guess some have nothing better to do than split hairs........

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:34
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: it will not take money away from the main jet of the future—the F-35, he said...."


Which of course it is. Only Rogoway was stupid enough to believe this.



Yes, this idea that buying the F-15X. Would have no effect on the F-35 Program is well laughable.... :doh:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:40
by weasel1962
Someone may need a straw.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:44
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:DN claiming that the move towards retiring 6 ticos is gaining traction in congresss (weasel's note: as a budget offset) and likely to be finally successful.



Honestly, this is hardly a big deal at all. As the USN is only keeping "11" Aegis Cruisers in service. In order to support the "11" Carrier Battle Groups. This has been the plan for many years now....


So, why keep these six old cruisers in mothballs. Which, they will never upgrade or refit again??? Plus, the remaining "16" ships are more than enough to keep 11 ship in service. That is until the New LSC come online in the latter part of the 2020's.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 01:53
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.



Image

our fighter pilots don't need airplanes to kill people



In my defense I was speaking in respect to operating USN and USMC F-35C's from Aircraft Carriers. In that setting very little difference between the two. (operationally)

I surely didn't mean any "disrespect" to any USN and/or USMC Pilot. They do very much have their own identities. Yet, they also have considerable similarities. Which, was my point...

Sad that some has to try to spin it into something it was not..... :|

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 02:39
by usnvo
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:DN claiming that the move towards retiring 6 ticos is gaining traction in congresss (weasel's note: as a budget offset) and likely to be finally successful.



Honestly, this is hardly a big deal at all. As the USN is only keeping "11" Aegis Cruisers in service. In order to support the "11" Carrier Battle Groups. This has been the plan for many years now....


So, why keep these six old cruisers in mothballs. Which, they will never upgrade or refit again??? Plus, the remaining "16" ships are more than enough to keep 11 ship in service. That is until the New LSC come online in the latter part of the 2020's.


Not to mention there are 88 DDG-51 class in commission, under construction, or approved. Which leaves you something like 5-6 AEGIS ships for every CVN or LHA even discounting the 21 flight 1 DDGs. There is also currently no shortage of VLS holes, MH-60 spots, or pretty much anything else you need a CG for. Sometimes more is just more.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 02:45
by Corsair1963
usnvo wrote:
Not to mention there are 88 DDG-51 class in commission, under construction, or approved. Which leaves you something like 5-6 AEGIS ships for every CVN or LHA even discounting the 21 flight 1 DDGs. There is also currently no shortage of VLS holes, MH-60 spots, or pretty much anything else you need a CG for. Sometimes more is just more.


It's not it wouldn't be great to have more ships with more VL cells. Yet, the fact is the Aegis Cruisers are getting old and worn out. So, you have to manage the resources you have. Until a replacement is ready and in service....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 03:25
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:So, USN and USMC don't often operate side by side???

They do.
Corsair1963 wrote:They don't have the same Wings of Gold???

They do.
Corsair1963 wrote:They don't operate the same types?? They don't go to many of the same schools??? (etc. etc. etc.)

They do. They do.

They are NOT the same.

Corsair1963 wrote:Nonetheless, all I said is they're both Naval Aviators and in the case of the F-35C. Both operate from Aircraft Carriers. Which, in that case there is little difference within that environment.

That said, I also made it clear. That both services still have their own identity....

I guess some have nothing better to do than split hairs........

No, what you said was:

Corsair1963 wrote:
As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.


You did NOT differentiate between them. You stated they "are one and the same." IMO, a YUGE, Trumpian, mistake. I'm not sure who you insulted more: Nasal Radiators, or Leathernecked stick actuators.

Corsair1963 wrote:In my defense I was speaking in respect to operating USN and USMC F-35C's from Aircraft Carriers. In that setting very little difference between the two. (operationally)

I surely didn't mean any "disrespect" to any USN and/or USMC Pilot. They do very much have their own identities. Yet, they also have considerable similarities. Which, was my point...

Sad that some has to try to spin it into something it was not..... :|


There's not much defense here. Other than, perhaps, to humbly apologize and acknowledge that you are not familiar with the culture, tradition, and mindset of Naval aviators, and how those are similar to, yet different from Marine aviators.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 03:43
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:So, USN and USMC don't often operate side by side???

They do.
Corsair1963 wrote:They don't have the same Wings of Gold???

They do.
Corsair1963 wrote:They don't operate the same types?? They don't go to many of the same schools??? (etc. etc. etc.)

They do. They do.

They are NOT the same.

Corsair1963 wrote:Nonetheless, all I said is they're both Naval Aviators and in the case of the F-35C. Both operate from Aircraft Carriers. Which, in that case there is little difference within that environment.

That said, I also made it clear. That both services still have their own identity....

I guess some have nothing better to do than split hairs........

No, what you said was:

Corsair1963 wrote:
As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.


You did NOT differentiate between them. You stated they "are one and the same." IMO, a YUGE, Trumpian, mistake. I'm not sure who you insulted more: Nasal Radiators, or Leathernecked stick actuators.

Corsair1963 wrote:In my defense I was speaking in respect to operating USN and USMC F-35C's from Aircraft Carriers. In that setting very little difference between the two. (operationally)

I surely didn't mean any "disrespect" to any USN and/or USMC Pilot. They do very much have their own identities. Yet, they also have considerable similarities. Which, was my point...

Sad that some has to try to spin it into something it was not..... :|


There's not much defense here. Other than, perhaps, to humbly apologize and acknowledge that you are not familiar with the culture, tradition, and mindset of Naval aviators, and how those are similar to, yet different from Marine aviators.


While, stating one and the same "was a poor choice of words". Which, I did apologize for and corrected. Much of what I said was in fact true. Which, you even admitted.

In addition you totally ignored much of the content of the discussion and the point I was trying to make. Which, was in regards to F-35C's being operated by USN and/or USMC Pilots within a CVW. (Carrier Air Wing)

Yet, feel free to bash me some more. If, you think that is what a Good Marine does.......

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 03:57
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:While, stating one and the same "was a poor choice of words". Which, I did apologize for and corrected. Much of what I said was in fact true. Which, you even admitted.


I at least know better than to call nasal radiators and leathernecked stick actuators "one and the same."

I didn't recall your "apology" nor your correction. I went back to look for it... since if I'd missed it, I might owe you an apology. Nope. Still can't find it.

But hey, this isn't my fight. I'm going to go get some popcorn whilst you keep spritzing the fire with white gas.

Or to use the hole metaphor... I have several shovels in my truck. Good shovels. The best. While I won't help you dig... if you want to borrow a great shovel for that hole you're a workin' on... just let me know.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 04:27
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:While, stating one and the same "was a poor choice of words". Which, I did apologize for and corrected. Much of what I said was in fact true. Which, you even admitted.


I at least know better than to call nasal radiators and leathernecked stick actuators "one and the same."

I didn't recall your "apology" nor your correction. I went back to look for it... since if I'd missed it, I might owe you an apology. Nope. Still can't find it.

But hey, this isn't my fight. I'm going to go get some popcorn whilst you keep spritzing the fire with white gas.

Or to use the hole metaphor... I have several shovels in my truck. Good shovels. The best. While I won't help you dig... if you want to borrow a great shovel for that hole you're a workin' on... just let me know.



I'll be happy to say it ONE MORE TIME. That I used a poor choice of words. When I said "USN and USMC Pilots are one and the same". Which, I think some took out of context. Nonetheless, my intent was "not" to offend anyone. Especially, pilots from either service. Which, I highly respect..........

I also apologize to my fellow members of this forum. I should have corrected my error earlier and just moved on. (instead of this back and forth)

Had other things on my mind..... :|

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 16:58
by usnvo
Corsair1963 wrote:
usnvo wrote:
Not to mention there are 88 DDG-51 class in commission, under construction, or approved. Which leaves you something like 5-6 AEGIS ships for every CVN or LHA even discounting the 21 flight 1 DDGs. There is also currently no shortage of VLS holes, MH-60 spots, or pretty much anything else you need a CG for. Sometimes more is just more.


It's not it wouldn't be great to have more ships with more VL cells. Yet, the fact is the Aegis Cruisers are getting old and worn out. So, you have to manage the resources you have. Until a replacement is ready and in service....


I agree, and It would be even better to have more weapons than VLS holes to fill, but that is probably not happening either. The important question is not that 6 additional CGs have value, inherently they do, it is if their value exceeds their opportunity cost. I am not sure that is the case.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 00:17
by Corsair1963
usnvo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
usnvo wrote:
Not to mention there are 88 DDG-51 class in commission, under construction, or approved. Which leaves you something like 5-6 AEGIS ships for every CVN or LHA even discounting the 21 flight 1 DDGs. There is also currently no shortage of VLS holes, MH-60 spots, or pretty much anything else you need a CG for. Sometimes more is just more.


It's not it wouldn't be great to have more ships with more VL cells. Yet, the fact is the Aegis Cruisers are getting old and worn out. So, you have to manage the resources you have. Until a replacement is ready and in service....


I agree, and It would be even better to have more weapons than VLS holes to fill, but that is probably not happening either. The important question is not that 6 additional CGs have value, inherently they do, it is if their value exceeds their opportunity cost. I am not sure that is the case.



Speaking of more cells. We are still building Aegis Destroyers and the FFG(X) and LSC are coming. Plus, talk of adding MK 41 VLS to existing LPD's during their refits. So, that could be an options to increase the number of weapons the USN can bring to bear....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 01:33
by usnvo
Corsair1963 wrote:Speaking of more cells. We are still building Aegis Destroyers and the FFG(X) and LSC are coming. Plus, talk of adding MK 41 VLS to existing LPD's during their refits. So, that could be an options to increase the number of weapons the USN can bring to bear....


The USN has something like 10,000 strike length VLS holes either is service or under construction. While I haven't seen the actual numbers of missiles in the inventory, I would take a bet that all of the VLS cells can't be filled at once. So while adding more will clearly be better for the group at the pointy end of the spear, it really doesn't do anything for the force as a whole. One of the reasons I really don't worry about replenishment at sea of VLS launchers. With What? It is easier to just bring new ships into the theater.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 01:45
by quicksilver
Corsair1963 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:While, stating one and the same "was a poor choice of words". Which, I did apologize for and corrected. Much of what I said was in fact true. Which, you even admitted.


I at least know better than to call nasal radiators and leathernecked stick actuators "one and the same."


Shipmate, what Stevie was gently and in noble fashion trying to guide you to was a realization of the fact that you were lecturing a retired Naval Aviator about Naval Aviation (i.e. "same schools", etc etc). That retired dude is me. Proud that I did it and was successful; humbled by the talent, dedication, and commitment of those with whom I shared the experience (from E-1 to O-10); and, grateful for those whose imparted wisdom kept me alive long enough to allow me to collect a DD-214 with characterization of service as 'honorable' on the backside of it all.

Not here to brag or pontificate; simply sharing some perspective born of experience.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 02:10
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
As far as Naval Aviation goes USN and USMC pilots are one and the same.



Image

our fighter pilots don't need airplanes to kill people



In my defense I was speaking in respect to operating USN and USMC F-35C's from Aircraft Carriers. In that setting very little difference between the two. (operationally)

I surely didn't mean any "disrespect" to any USN and/or USMC Pilot. They do very much have their own identities. Yet, they also have considerable similarities. Which, was my point...

Sad that some has to try to spin it into something it was not..... :|


Don't worry about it. :mrgreen:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 02:24
by steve2267
Backstory to the picture: Maj Robb McDonald receiving a Silver Star for his actions in helping to repel attackers at Camp Bastion in 2012:

https://www.militarytimes.com/2013/12/1 ... p-bastion/

Dude was prior enlisted, Marine Recon + MARSOC, and also a JTAC. Damn.

ETA: Killer Bee was made for this dude.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 02:48
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:Backstory to the picture: Maj Robb McDonald receiving a Silver Star for his actions in helping to repel attackers at Camp Bastion in 2012:

https://www.militarytimes.com/2013/12/1 ... p-bastion/

Dude was prior enlisted, Marine Recon + MARSOC, and also a JTAC. Damn.

ETA: Killer Bee was made for this dude.



He is one hell of a Marine! Makes you proud to be an American..... 8)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 02:56
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:
He is one hell of a Marine! Makes you proud to be an American..... 8)


Hear, hear!

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 03:56
by SpudmanWP
After some number crunching, here is the Pre-Block 3F Fleet status.

As of March 31st, 2019:
--There are only 17 F-35s at Block 2B, all USAF.
--No F-35Bs or F-35C are at Block 2B. They are all 3i or 3F.
--43 Early Lot F-35s are at Block 3F
--That number goes to 106 one year from today
--Six months after that (Sept 31st, 2020) all early Lot F-35s will be Block 3F.

So much for all of that "OMG, 100+ F-35s will be left behind" reporting we saw a couple of years ago.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 04:18
by spazsinbad
:applause: Again 'SWP' many thanks for crunching all that hard stuff to GROK. :applause:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 22:38
by SpudmanWP
The DoD Budget search engine has been updated with the FY2020 docs.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dodinvestment/#/advancedSearch

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 03:48
by spazsinbad
:shock: :twisted: Shanahannahistan - 8) The MAN 8) - DidNa DoIt! THE INDUSTRIAL BASE DID IT! "ALL YOUR BASE ARE MINE" :devil:
Industrial base considerations played role in F-15X decision
22 Mar 2019 Valerie Insinna

"WASHINGTON — When it came time for the U.S. Defense Department to make a decision on which fourth-generation fighter to buy for the Air Force, industrial base considerations — and not acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan — helped tip the scale in favor of Boeing’s F-15X, a senior defense official said Friday. “There were other things on the table” besides the F-15X, said the official, who disclosed that the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office drove the department’s decision to procure new fourth-gen planes to replace the Air Force’s aging F-15C/Ds.

But when [World Wide Wicked Web Wing-ed Warrior] CAPE, the Air Force and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis finally agreed on the broad decision to more fourth-gen fighters, “the conversation then turned to: How are we going to maintain a robust industrial base?” the official [Shanahannastan The Man] said during a briefing with reporters....

...This public acknowledgement of the behind-the-scenes discussions that led to the Air Force’s request for eight F-15Xs in its fiscal 2020 budget comes two days after the Defense Department’s inspector general announced it was investigating Shanahan. The IG is looking into allegations that Shanahan showed favoritism toward his former employer, Boeing, where he was employed for 30 years before being named deputy secretary of defense in 2017.... [Yeah Yeah Yeah - best read it all at the source - I'm sick of it] :roll:

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... -decision/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 07:00
by spazsinbad
ShananananaBAN Ethics Agreement Outlined: Go Figure it out for yeselves.

Shanahan ethics agreement released in wake of department investigation 22 Mar 2019 Aaron Mehta

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... stigation/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 09:44
by spazsinbad
EDITORIAL: Fighter Math [ONE PAGE PDF OF FULL ARTICLE ATTACHED BELOW]
Apr 2019 Tobias Naegele

"...At the dawn of the current fiscal year, the Air Force possessed 2,073 fighters organized into 55 operational squadrons. Those planes average nearly 27 years of age—old and getting older. At the present pace of fighter acquisition—56 planes per year in the 2019 budget and the 2020 request—the fighter fleet will surpass 35 years of age, on average, in less than 10 years. That’s not a force built to deter a peer competitor, let alone win a major war.

The Air Force We Need requires 62 operational fighter squadrons. At 24 jets per squadron, plus jets for test and development, training, and spares, that works out to a requirement for 2,232 fighters.

(62 squadrons x 24 fighters) x 1.5 = 2,232

To sustain that force, the Air Force must buy 72 fighters per year. Doing so would ensure the average age of the fleet declines to 15.5 years and that all jets are retired after 31 years of service—which is still too old, but better than the current path the Air Force is on. This is not rocket science:

2,232 fighters ÷ 72 jets = 31 years service life

Now look at the 2020 budget request. The Air Force is asking for 48 F-35As, down eight from the 56 approved by Congress for 2019. In their place, the budget request includes $1.1 billion to buy the first eight of a planned 144 F-15EX aircraft, which would be purchased over the next 12 years. Here’s what happens when you buy 56 planes a year and try to fulfill a requirement for 2,232 jets:

2,232 fighters ÷ 56 jets = 39.85 years service life

The reason this is a hot topic today is that current F-15Cs will be 44 years old in 2030. They can’t make it that long. But buying the F-15EX—a “new, old airplane”—is hardly the solution. That’s a 30-year fix to a 10-year problem. The wiser course is to buy more F-35s more quickly. Instead of a short-term solution that presents a new long-term liability, accelerating the shift to 5th generation aircraft improves the long-term outlook for the fighter fleet….

...Critics will counter that stealth is expensive and the cost of operating low-observable aircraft remains too high. That’s only true if you look at airplanes as one-for-one replacements. In reality, stealth reduces the number of aircraft needed to accomplish the same mission.

1 F-35A ≠ 1 F-15EX

When one plane can do the job of six or eight or 12—depending on the mission—the cost per desired effect declines precipitously. That single plane, pilot, and maintainer crew will never be as costly as the dozen legacy aircraft and all the people needed to support them.

Air Force Chief of Staff David L. Goldfein knows too well the cost of flying into a sophisticated air defense system. His 4th gen F-16 was shot down over Serbia in 1999. He celebrates his rescue annually. The alternative is not viable. Do we really want to rush into an age of great power competition buying airframes conceived 50 years ago that will stay in our inventory for the next 40 years?...

...Mattis was a fine Marine general, a great leader, and steward as Secretary, but this decision missed the mark. It doesn’t even make economic sense. The F-15EX will cost no less to acquire than the F-35A, which Lockheed says will cost $80 million a copy by 2020. With increasing production, it should grow less expensive. By contrast, F-15s are selling for closer to $100 million each and building just a dozen a year reflects far smaller economies of scale.

...The difference between the Air Force “we have” and the Air Force “we need” boils down to this: The Air Force needs 72 new fighters a year to sustain a lethal, fighting force. Until something better is developed, the F-35 is the best plane for the money. Expressed mathematically, we can say unequivocally:

F-35 > F-15EX

Fortunately, the Pentagon does not get the final word. Congress has a chance to do the right thing: Say, “no” to F-15EX. Say, “yes” to more F-35s."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... -Math.aspx

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 09:52
by spazsinbad
MORE words about purchasing F-15EX if one is interested: 2 page PDF of article attached below
F-15EX: Careful What You Don't Ask For
Apr 2019 John A. Tirpak

"[good summary of what has been said earlier]"

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... k-For.aspx

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 11:50
by spazsinbad
And so the words on F-15extensivewordplay continues....
Shanahan Ethics Agreement Out; How The F-15X Decision Was Made
22 Mar 2019 Colin Clark

"...A senior defense official told reporters today that Shanahan had no role in either the strategic decision to buy a fourth generation aircraft, which was made by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, or the later one made by the office of Cost Assessment and Program (CAPE). Shanahan, the official said, was “excluded” from the F-15X decision and was not involved in the larger strategic decision to tilt toward buying more fourth-gen aircraft.

Today’s press conference was a rare and intriguing look behind the curtain of the Pentagon’s strategic decision making. CAPE deliberations have rarely been discussed in the nine years since the office was created. Its predecessor, the Office of Program Analysis & Evaluation (PA&E) was similarly discreet.

The senior defense official who spoke with us was concise and precise in his description of how the F-15 decision was made. As I noted above, it came in two pieces. First, a report done for Congress in 2017 found that the US military’s tactical air component needed to retain a mix of fourth generation aircraft carrying large bomb and missile loads with the eye-watering stealth, data sharing and analysis that an F-35 brings to the fight. The fourth generation aircraft are needed for base and homeland defense, as well as to serve as standoff aircraft using targeting information from F-35s to strike targets in a hot war. That mix will be needed through 2030.

Cost was also an important element in the decision....

Another factor played a role: the health of the industrial base.

...“As the commander of ACC [Gen. Mike Holmes, head of Air Combat Command], I would like to see us buy more new aircraft — period. We need to address the average age of our fleet,” he said. Holmes also said he did not think the F-15X would constitute a new fleet of planes, which could be an argument against it in budget terms. It’s “more expensive to operate an F-35 than a fourth generation aircraft over time,” Holmes noted. And there you have it."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/sha ... -was-made/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 16:21
by blindpilot
This is "Twilight Zone" stuff.

An equivalent analogy would be. We have a fleet of old 1939 Dodge Pickups, and the mechanics and roads are all set up for them .... except there was a flood, and all the roads washed away and turned to tracks of mud.

But that's okay !!! because we just bought a dozen 2019 4x4 Ford F-250s! And if we purchase a lease fleet batch, the price is actually better than a restored 1939 Dodge! Amazingly! And they can go anywhere in the swamp, and carry 4 times the load per trip, at three times the speed ... and ...

Sooooo ... instead of telling Dodge to build a new 2020 Ram 4x4, we have to purchase 20 1939 pickups that can't even drive on the mud roads, but if they could it takes 4 of them to carry the same load as 1 F250, at 1/3 the speed, so you'd need to have 12 1939 Dodges to replace 1 2019 F-250, if it could actually drive in the mud ... which it can't!

This is so we can use the mechanics and tools at the garage because they fit the 1939's which no one wants, why?

Because it costs a little to train the mechanics and give them new tool kits, which they will need for the next 40 years eventually anyway.

To say this is insane is to completely understate the looney bin craziness ....

Well ... unless you work at the Dodge 1939 restoration garage I guess.

That those in charge, explaining this, do not hear the words of what they are saying is even more frightening than the stupidity of what they are saying.

MHO,
BP

PS Yeah.. but if it isn't raining, and the sun comes out, my old pickup can actually drive on the dried out ruts pretty well! Aargh!!!

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 19:39
by steve2267
110 MacDac Super Duper Hornet's isn't enough to sustain the "industrial" base? You need an "extra" eight Super Duper Eagles?

:bang:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 21:51
by usnvo
blindpilot wrote:This is "Twilight Zone" stuff.

An equivalent analogy would be. We have a fleet of old 1939 Dodge Pickups, and the mechanics and roads are all set up for them .... except there was a flood, and all the roads washed away and turned to tracks of mud.

But that's okay !!! because we just bought a dozen 2019 4x4 Ford F-250s! And if we purchase a lease fleet batch, the price is actually better than a restored 1939 Dodge! Amazingly! And they can go anywhere in the swamp, and carry 4 times the load per trip, at three times the speed ... and ...

Sooooo ... instead of telling Dodge to build a new 2020 Ram 4x4, we have to purchase 20 1939 pickups that can't even drive on the mud roads, but if they could it takes 4 of them to carry the same load as 1 F250, at 1/3 the speed, so you'd need to have 12 1939 Dodges to replace 1 2019 F-250, if it could actually drive in the mud ... which it can't!

This is so we can use the mechanics and tools at the garage because they fit the 1939's which no one wants, why?

Because it costs a little to train the mechanics and give them new tool kits, which they will need for the next 40 years eventually anyway.

To say this is insane is to completely understate the looney bin craziness ....

Well ... unless you work at the Dodge 1939 restoration garage I guess.

That those in charge, explaining this, do not hear the words of what they are saying is even more frightening than the stupidity of what they are saying.

MHO,
BP

PS Yeah.. but if it isn't raining, and the sun comes out, my old pickup can actually drive on the dried out ruts pretty well! Aargh!!!


I don't think it is as crazy as you think, but that doesn't mean I am for it.

There are two factors at work. The balance of the air force and the Penetrating Counter Air program.

There is currently a problem because of the post - Cold War draw down and procurement holiday, the current fighter force is rapidly aging and you are facing block obsolescence. So the simple solution, as outlined by the Air Force Magazine article, is to buy more F-35As and do it faster. The F-35A is better than the F-15C so why not? This is a reasonable option until you add in the "What comes after the F-22 question?".

Before looking at the USAF it is worth looking what the Navy is doing and why. They are buying F-18 Blk IIIs to;
a. address current readiness goals.
b. ease manning issues during the transition and smooth out future procurement. Two squadrons in transition a year forever.
c. protects the industrial base, and not just air frames, look who makes the F414.
d. ensure the F-35C doesn't replace the F-18E/F and hurt the justification for a "real" fighter!
Although I have no direct knowledge of the last point, it is pretty obvious from statements and programming and, along with the first point, is the real driver.

So how does this apply to the USAF;
a. address current readiness issues with the F-15C force by buying new aircraft that are easily and quickly integrated into the force. I have seen estimates of 6 months compared to 2-3 years and that sounds about right. So readiness today is improved. Check.
b. Eases manning issues since fewer squadrons are transitioning to a new aircraft (the F-35A). And, you do not skew the type of aircraft (more on this later) but you still get the effect of reducing the age of the force as well. One Wing a year forever.
c. protects the industrial base. And not just for air frames, they are also switching to the F110 as well even though all other F-15s use the F100. Seems suspicious to me, but what do I know.
d. Ensures the F-35A doesn't replace the F-15C in the air to air role. And this is key, because now you still have a significant force of aircraft to be replaced in the 2030s to justify the Penetrating Counter Air program! Transition to the F-35A will weaken the "not a pound for air to ground" crowds argument for PCA, just like replacing F-18E/Fs will weaken the Navy argument for its next fleet air defense fighter (even though a F-35C is better for this role than a Super Duper. And cover this with the whole "Hypersonic" smokescreen (I mean well reasoned argument, even though a F-15E could carry hypersonic missiles as well).
e. As a side benefit, it helps fend off the "Save the A-10!" morons, I mean people with a well reasoned if totally off-base and wrong view point. You start replacing F-15s and they might be able to make another last ditch effort because F-15Cs are even older than A-10s, why not do them first?

So you are looking at it from a simplistic viewpoint. The USAF has gone through a variety of faces if you will. For the first part of the Cold War it was Bomber Mafia, now it is all about being Fighter Pilots (why else would you call the F-117 a fighter?). Cancel Penetrating Counter Air and you might as well just shoot a significant part of the USAF leadership. Let the F-35A get its nose under the tent and next thing you will hear is "Why do you need PCA, F-35A is good enough (or F-35D or E or whatever), just go straight to UCAVs! This move helps make sure that doesn't happen.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 23:10
by blindpilot
usnvo wrote: .... This move helps make sure that doesn't happen.


I hear what you are saying, but one thing remains. It only makes sense to folks working in the "Dodge restoration garage." It's still a 1939 Pickup and it can't go in the mud ... which is showing up everywhere.

I'd rather they just order some cheap "F"T-X's and upgrade those. Actually as much as "Dodge" is really starting to get under my skin lately, I'd prefer they get "Chevy light trucks" at this point .. but yeah "F"T-X makes some sense, if I calm down about "Dodge."

If it can't drive in the mud it's a useless hood ornament, even if it's a young fleet of ornaments. But hey, you have an ornament industrial base!

MHO,
BP

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 00:09
by blindpilot
For those not familiar, I probably should explain how large defense contractors (Boeing, LM, et al) work.

1. The "industrial base" argument is a joke. (see European "not" F-35 companies). The big contractors don't spend a penny on something without a charge code. If they have charge codes for small gas engines, they have that expertise, and not a penny's worth of "electric" or "diesel" engine knowledge base.

2. If they aren't building "type A" stuff, all the "best" people with that knowledge go and work for the company building "type A's." The losing company will not keep an employee just to maintain knowledge. (no charge code for it)

3. If all they are building is "1939 Dodge Pickups," that's the industrial base that will be preserved. And no one beyond collectors will ever want those again. The industrial base is nothing more than make work for those who couldn't get a job at the "Type A" company. And usually they go laterally to another industry. You don't preserve "additive manufacturing of exotic materials" expertise by making "steel parts with rivets."

This is similar to the problem the Russians face in large ship production. They don't have a ship building industrial base. All they have is "small combat ship" expertise. They couldn't make a carrier if they wanted to. Similarly the Brits intentionally integrated their people into the US Navy while they paused carrier ops. These skills are highly perishable, and if you don't spend dollars on what is coming in the future, you are wasting money on an obsolete base.

DeSoto or Hudson, or ... couldn't make a modern pickup truck if they wanted to, without stealing employees from existing companies. Which is one way an industrial base is preserved. Ask Tesla. But it is NEVER by building 1939 Dodge pickups..

FWIW,
BP

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 00:17
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'BP' - good explanations that even I can follow. Why not give BOING! a grant to learn how to make 5thGen Aircraft?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 01:12
by southernphantom
blindpilot wrote:
usnvo wrote: .... This move helps make sure that doesn't happen.


I hear what you are saying, but one thing remains. It only makes sense to folks working in the "Dodge restoration garage." It's still a 1939 Pickup and it can't go in the mud ... which is showing up everywhere.

I'd rather they just order some cheap "F"T-X's and upgrade those. Actually as much as "Dodge" is really starting to get under my skin lately, I'd prefer they get "Chevy light trucks" at this point .. but yeah "F"T-X makes some sense, if I calm down about "Dodge."

If it can't drive in the mud it's a useless hood ornament, even if it's a young fleet of ornaments. But hey, you have an ornament industrial base!

MHO,
BP


I've wondered about a combat-capable trainer for the ANG. Dual-role the unit for advanced training and air defense alert, with IPs providing the alert aircrew. Many of the active-duty training squadrons and bases could be deactivated, and the air defense force structure damaged by the ANG F-16 drawdown could be rebuilt.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 02:12
by blindpilot
southernphantom wrote: I've wondered about a combat-capable trainer for the ANG. ...


At least the T-X has some advanced industrial concepts, given Boeing decided to go "clean sheet." There is actually a knowledge base there to preserve.

MHO,
BP

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 07:22
by spazsinbad
Pentagon: We’re Buying Boeing F-15s to Keep 2 Fighter Makers in Business
22 Mar 2019 Marcus Weisgerber

"...The decision to buy new Boeing F-15s reflects the Pentagon’s desire to keep two American companies making fighter jets into the next decade — and not the acting defense secretary’s ties to the company, a senior defense official said Friday.... The twin-tailed plane was chosen over Lockheed’s cheaper single-engine F-16 in part to keep a second U.S. manufacturer in the tactical-jet business as the Pentagon begins exploring new technologies for a new generation of warplanes, the official said.

“One of the considerations was the diversity of the industrial base,” the official said. “If we look at something as important as the tactical aircraft industrial base and we look forward into sixth-generation [fighter] production and competition and that kind of stuff,…gaining diversity in that industrial base is going to be critical.” The senior defense official emphasized that Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who formerly worked as a Boeing executive, was not involved in the decision to buy the F-15X. “When it came to any specific platform that involved Boeing, those conversations were held strictly away from him,” the official said....

...the senior defense official said Friday that fourth-generation planes, particularly the F-15 has an essential role in the future battles, signaling out homeland defense a[nd?] protecting U.S. bases in the Pacific. “We can do those other missions with fourth-[generation] planes more affordably,” the official said. “Our fourth-gen inventory as it is right now is aging out and we’re starting to see some capacity shortfalls.” The senior officials said that fourth-generation aircraft will remain useful in counterrorism operations, even as the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy focuses on near-peer fights with Russia and China....

...The first senior defense official said the Pentagon expects the new F-15EX to cost about $90 million per copy. The F-35 is expected to cost about $80 million in 2020.

Lockheed has argued that its F-35 would cost the Pentagon less than new F-15s, and that it could increase production to meet demand.

“Should the U.S. Air Force or any other customer plan to increase their annual procurement rate, we are confident we can meet increased demand — while continuing to deliver an $80 million F-35A by 2020, which is equal to or less cost than legacy aircraft,” Michael Friedman, a company spokesman, said in an email Friday.

Right now, the Air Force plans to buy 240 F-35s between 2020 and 2024.

“Lockheed Martin and our partners have been ramping our manpower, material, methods and machines to ensure we are prepared to deliver the maximum number of aircraft across the three Final Assembly and Checkout facilities for our current and growing customer base,” Friedman said. “With these actions, the F-35 enterprise has capacity to deliver about 430 U.S. Air Force F-35As in that same timeframe, or about 190 more than currently planned.”"

Source: https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... ss/155773/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 09:07
by weasel1962
USAF PB indicates that the total program cost for 80 F-15EX over 5 years will be $7.859 billion or $98.2 million per plane all in. That means from FY 2021-2024, if no change, it will be 48 F-35A and 18 F-15EX or 66 units per year.

The fighter maths is actually 40 planes per fighter sqn. That's why 1,763 = 44 F-35 sqns. That includes training, back-up, attritions etc. That goes up to 83 fighters required per year for 62 plane sqn, if airframe life is 30 years. If airframe life stretches to 40 which is what the F-35 and F-15 can likely achieve, it will only require 62 fighter buy annually.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 11:58
by marsavian
Well at least all the justification arguments are all out in the open and Congress can now modify as required. The major flaw in this industrial base argument is that Boeing is still producing Super Hornet. Maybe a combination of more F-35, less F-15EX, more F-15C SLEP will be the final answer, the horse trading is just beginning ...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 22:36
by spazsinbad
Another WALL OF TEXT justification with ELaboration on the F-15EXciting 'LOCKHEED FATIGUE' CAPE BUTTin Buy UP.
“Lockheed Fatigue,” Need for Affordable Tactical Mix Drove F-15EX Decision
23 Mar 2019 John A. Tirpak

"Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan had little to do [?] with the Pentagon Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office's push to buy new Boeing F-15s in the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget—a move the service ultimately allowed—because of worsening fighter fleet shortfalls, a senior defense official said March 22.

CAPE deemed a mix of fourth- and fifth-generation fighters as an acceptable way to achieve needed capacity, and the F-15 was picked over Lockheed Martin's F-16 in order to nurture the fighter industrial base, he explained at a background briefing with reporters.

The official said he wanted to provide context for the F-15 decision because it has sparked so much interest and raised questions. Many, including a group of Republican senators, believe money spent on new F-15s could instead help buy more fifth-generation F-35s. The Air Force has maintained for nearly 20 years it would not buy any new fourth-generation aircraft because they couldn’t survive against enemy air defenses in the coming decades….

...While the official didn’t mention Lockheed by name, he defended the choice of the F-15 by saying it is “desirable” to have as many qualified sources for future competitions as possible. “If you look at something as important as the tactical aircraft industrial base, and [as] we look forward into sixth-gen production and competition … maintaining diversity in that industrial base is going to be critical,” the official said. Nevertheless, “the DOD remains fully committed to the F-35,” he added. “We need that plane for the future high-end fight.”

“The F-15 is never going to be a stand-in weapon,” the official allowed, but “a stand-in weapon with sensors communicating back to a standoff platform that carries a lot more munitions is a pretty powerful combination.” The F-15 carries more munitions on its racks than the F-35 can internally, but the two are comparable when counting the F-35’s external stations and capacity.

The official said that CAPE worked with “internal cost estimates on the prices” of the F-15 and F-35 in its deliberations. He said he was unaware of any fixed-price offers from Boeing, saying he has not “paid much attention to the acquisition side of the house.” [size=13 0]Other options for the standoff mission exist[/size]... [further explanation]

...The Air Force agrees that the F-35 costs more to operate than the F-15, the official said, and that’s why a mix of the two makes sense. When a reporter asked if the calculus would change if the F-35’s unit cost and sustainment cost falls substantially below that of the F-15 in the coming years, the official simply replied, “we would welcome that programmatic outcome.”

And although the Block 3F is the baseline version of the F-35, “until Block 4 is complete, anything we buy in the interim will have to be retrofitted,” adding further cost, the official asserted. However, from his perspective, there’s no correlation between “concerns over Block 4 [F-35] modernization and the decision to buy the F-15X.”

The F-15s will be “additive” to the Air Force’s budget, he also noted. The service “could not afford” to buy 72 F-35s called for in its “The Force We Need” force-sizing construct that was released last fall.

Even if the F-15X winds up being a two-seat aircraft, the additional manpower costs still make it cost-effective, the official asserted. A source close to the issue said the nomenclature F-15CX would apply to one-seat versions of the new airplane, while F-15EX—as it is called in the Air Force budget—refers to a two-seat model.... [then moronHOW ShanabannaHan was not involved]

...Discussion of the right fourth-gen platform followed quickly after deciding to pursue a mix of capabilities. “The conversation turned to, ‘How are we going to maintain a robust industrial base?’” the official said. “For the future of [the DOD], it’s going to be good to have multiple providers in the [tactical air] portfolio, and that’s what led our way into the F-15X decision.”

It was not a preordained decision, he insisted: “We didn’t look directly at Boeing.” The choice followed Mattis’ approval of the mix idea, he said. Nevertheless, the official said without elaborating that the industrial-base consideration was not the “tipping point” in the decision. Asked if industrial-base concerns will increasingly drive procurement choices, the official said DOD does generally “think about capability development or investment profiles.”

He added he was unaware of any White House involvement during the decision-making process." [huh?]

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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 22:55
by marsavian
If this is all about keeping the F-15 line open then Congress should call their bluff and say no deliveries to the USAF to start until all export orders are done which is years away. By then EPAWSS should be fully integrated into the production line too. Until then more F-15 SLEP and more F-35.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:28
by spazsinbad
INFO about the potential upgrades for the fantastico F-15CX/EXcito doncha know. CHECK THE SERVICE LIFE BRUDDA! :doh:
Saudi Red Flag Involvement Gives USAF Glimpse of Advanced Eagle
22 Mar 2019 Jon Lake

"...In early 2017 the U.S. Air Force approached Boeing, inquiring about the acquisition of a similar F-15 variant, dubbed F-15X. The USAF wanted to boost its shrinking force structure and to reinforce its air defense capabilities, but without disrupting the larger F-35 program. The proposed F-15X for the USAF (known as the F-15CX in single-seat form or as the F-15EX in two-seat form) combines the advanced features of the F-15SA and F-15QA with an AN/APG-82 AESA radar—as used by upgraded F-15E Strike Eagles. The new aircraft would offer a 20,000-hour service life as well as a dramatic reduction in hourly operating costs compared to the legacy F-15 or to the F-35A.

...The budget request for new F-15s is, however, likely to face political headwinds in Congress, where there is opposition to any procurement that diverts funds that could be potentially spent on more F-35s."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... nced-eagle

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:31
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:INFO about the potential upgrades for the fantastico F-15CX/EXcito doncha know. CHECK THE SERVICE LIFE BRUDDA! :doh:
Saudi Red Flag Involvement Gives USAF Glimpse of Advanced Eagle
22 Mar 2019 Jon Lake

"...In early 2017 the U.S. Air Force approached Boeing, inquiring about the acquisition of a similar F-15 variant, dubbed F-15X. The USAF wanted to boost its shrinking force structure and to reinforce its air defense capabilities, but without disrupting the larger F-35 program. The proposed F-15X for the USAF (known as the F-15CX in single-seat form or as the F-15EX in two-seat form) combines the advanced features of the F-15SA and F-15QA with an AN/APG-82 AESA radar—as used by upgraded F-15E Strike Eagles. The new aircraft would offer a 20,000-hour service life as well as a dramatic reduction in hourly operating costs compared to the legacy F-15 or to the F-35A.

...The budget request for new F-15s is, however, likely to face political headwinds in Congress, where there is opposition to any procurement that diverts funds that could be potentially spent on more F-35s."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... nced-eagle



Apples and Oranges.....They could have said the F-35 cost over $100 Million a few years back. Yet, today as production ramps up. It's already under $90 Million and dropping. Honestly, will this spin ever end???

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:35
by weasel1962
marsavian wrote:If this is all about keeping the F-15 line open then Congress should call their bluff and say no deliveries to the USAF to start until all export orders are done which is years away. By then EPAWSS should be fully integrated into the production line too. Until then more F-15 SLEP and more F-35.


Only the 1st 2 will come off existing production line. The expected delivery for the next 6 is 3.5 years from contract. So delivery, if it happens is 2023. The schedule already appears to follow end of export orders.

Qatar delivery is expected from 2021. At 12 a year, delivery should be complete 2023.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qata ... SKCN1NV1AV

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 01:45
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
marsavian wrote:If this is all about keeping the F-15 line open then Congress should call their bluff and say no deliveries to the USAF to start until all export orders are done which is years away. By then EPAWSS should be fully integrated into the production line too. Until then more F-15 SLEP and more F-35.


Only the 1st 2 will come off existing production line. The expected delivery for the next 6 is 3.5 years from contract. So delivery, if it happens is 2023. The schedule already appears to follow end of export orders.

Qatar delivery is expected from 2021. At 12 a year, delivery should be complete 2023.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qata ... SKCN1NV1AV



The whole point the F-15EX is nothing but to keep the Eagle Production Line going.:doh:

Hell, if Boeing had won another F-15 export contract. We likely would never had heard of the F-15EX. :shock:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 02:39
by talkitron
What is the best source on the supposed reliability and cost per hour issues with the F-35?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 03:15
by Corsair1963
Much of the F-35 fleet is earlier block aircraft. So, comparing them today with existing types that have been in production for years if not decades. Is truly "apples and oranges"...

For example the F-35C Fleet is small and the majority are made up from early production blocks. So, numbers from them are hardly "representative" of what the fleet will get.

Plus, for every early block aircraft in the fleet. (A/B/C) It drags down the overall numbers. Yet, funny that the critics have failed to mentioned that in their critiques of the F-35's total cost of ownership???

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 06:24
by beepa
[/quote] The whole point the F-15EX is nothing but to keep the Eagle Production Line going.:doh:

Hell, if Boeing had won another F-15 export contract. We likely would never had heard of the F-15EX. :shock:[/quote]

Next Boeing will claim they have an improved Stealth variant, the F15SEX. :devil: :devil:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 06:27
by spazsinbad
BREAKING: Air Force Budget Proposal Includes F-15EX Buy, Big Plus-Ups for Space, Hypersonics
12 Mar 2019 Stew Magnuson

"...The budget request asks for eight new F-15EX jet fighters, the first of a planned buy of more than 80 over the next five years. The idea to acquire updated versions of the F-15 to replace older C/D models is reportedly not supported by Air Force officials. Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan is a former Boeing executive, which has brought up questions of whether he had a hand in the decision, an allegation he has denied. The proposal drops the number of Lockheed Martin-built F-35As to be acquired from 56 in fiscal year 2019 to 48 in 2020.

Pundits have weighed in on both sides of the issue with critics maintaining that the Air Force should proceed with buying only fifth-generation F-35 joint strike fighters rather than investing in the fourth-generation aircraft. Supporters have said the modernized F-15X would only be for missions such as coastal defense and would free up JSF squadrons for other missions.

Dan Grazier, a military fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, said he finds it curious that at a time when the F-35 is reaching a culmination point in its development, the Pentagon is suddenly buying F-15s. “That kind of tells me that there are some people with the power to make decisions who don’t have full confidence in the F-35 and its abilities,” he said in an interview.

The cost of the two aircraft are now roughly equivalent, he said. The F-15 buy is taking money away from the F-35 program because defense officials are cutting the numbers of the joint strike fighters, he noted. “It just seems like a very odd time to do that. Maybe six years ago, it would have been a different story. But here in 2019, I think that is very telling.”..."

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ypersonics

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 06:43
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:
BREAKING: Air Force Budget Proposal Includes F-15EX Buy, Big Plus-Ups for Space, Hypersonics
12 Mar 2019 Stew Magnuson

"...The budget request asks for eight new F-15EX jet fighters, the first of a planned buy of more than 80 over the next five years. The idea to acquire updated versions of the F-15 to replace older C/D models is reportedly not supported by Air Force officials. Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan is a former Boeing executive, which has brought up questions of whether he had a hand in the decision, an allegation he has denied. The proposal drops the number of Lockheed Martin-built F-35As to be acquired from 56 in fiscal year 2019 to 48 in 2020.

Pundits have weighed in on both sides of the issue with critics maintaining that the Air Force should proceed with buying only fifth-generation F-35 joint strike fighters rather than investing in the fourth-generation aircraft. Supporters have said the modernized F-15X would only be for missions such as coastal defense and would free up JSF squadrons for other missions.

Dan Grazier, a military fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, said he finds it curious that at a time when the F-35 is reaching a culmination point in its development, the Pentagon is suddenly buying F-15s. “That kind of tells me that there are some people with the power to make decisions who don’t have full confidence in the F-35 and its abilities,” he said in an interview.

The cost of the two aircraft are now roughly equivalent, he said. The F-15 buy is taking money away from the F-35 program because defense officials are cutting the numbers of the joint strike fighters, he noted. “It just seems like a very odd time to do that. Maybe six years ago, it would have been a different story. But here in 2019, I think that is very telling.”..."

{b]Source:[/b] http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ypersonics



At current pricing, the Air Force could acquire about 13 F-35s for the same $1.1 billion earmarked for eight F-15s in the 2020 plan......
:shock:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 16:49
by weasel1962
talkitron wrote:What is the best source on the supposed reliability and cost per hour issues with the F-35?


Currently SAR.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 17:27
by spazsinbad
F-35 SAR "FY 2019 President's Budget": download/file.php?id=27020 (.7Mb) 04 Apr 2018 Relevant Pages Op & Sup Cost

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 01:07
by fbw
Credit to “Bring it on” on another forum:

USAF has requested 12 additional F-35A’s in unfunded priorities list delivered to Congress. Would bring total to 60 F-35A for FY2020. FY2021 advanced procurement items for 12 additional F-35A as well.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/ai ... kers-f-35s

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 01:43
by Corsair1963
fbw wrote:Credit to “Bring it on” on another forum:

USAF has requested 12 additional F-35A’s in unfunded priorities list delivered to Congress. Would bring total to 60 F-35A for FY2020. FY2021 advanced procurement items for 12 additional F-35A as well.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/ai ... kers-f-35s


Yes, we knew additional F-35's would be in the budget. Likely, to get some to overlook the order for the F-15EX. Yet, what happens when future budgets are cut back. When the USAF still only has a couple dozen F-15EX's! You can cut back on them as it wouldn't be viable. (not enough aircraft) Then something has to give! What less F-35's??? Hey, maybe a little off the top of ship building! :roll:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 02:24
by marsavian
The F-15EX just adds to the F-15E pool which is over 200, why are you treating it as a separate product for scare effect ? It can be stopped at 8 or be increased to 144, there is nothing sacrosanct about the number as there will be enough F-15E bodies to carry out their specific task for years to come even if no F-15EX are bought. This is about the DoD justifying the purchase of any new EX as a cost saving exercise in increasing the total fighter pool without diminishing its overall potency.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 02:57
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:The F-15EX just adds to the F-15E pool which is over 200, why are you treating it as a separate product for scare effect ? It can be stopped at 8 or be increased to 144, there is nothing sacrosanct about the number as there will be enough F-15E bodies to carry out their specific task for years to come even if no F-15EX are bought. This is about the DoD justifying the purchase of any new EX as a cost saving exercise in increasing the total fighter pool without diminishing its overall potency.


This is nothing but "Corporate Welfare" plain and simple. We need to get F-35 orders up to make the program both affordable and to counter bad actors like China and Russia. Which, are fielding Advance Air Defense Networks and Stealth Fighters. The proposed F-15EX will be no help in that regard........

In addition for the price of the soon to be "obsolete" F-15 is much more than the far more capable F-35. On the order of 13 Lightning's for every 8 Eagles! So, how is that good for the War Fighter or US Taxpayer??? :?

Actually, we've had this debate for over a decade now. With the consensus the only path ahead was to buy as many F-35's as the budget allows. This coming directly from senior USAF Leadership!

QUOTE:
In an exclusive Sept. 5 interview, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said she believes the service needs to expend its precious financial resources on stealthy, fifth-generation platforms — specifically the F-35 — and thus buying even an advanced fourth generation fighter like the so-called F-15X is not in the cards.


"We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth generation aircraft,” she said. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.”


So, when the first order for the F-35 is lost. Who is going to take responsibility for that??? You Marsavian??? and how is that good for the US. Western Alliance, and Free World in general????
:doh:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 03:21
by marsavian
More scare stories, at the current production rate even before the Block 4 increase, F-35 is affordable, well under $100m and it is not about the aircraft price but the sustainment price. If you are going to win the F-35 Vs F-15EX argument in Congress you have to beat the cheaper base/long life/maintenance cost narrative being put out in favor of the F-15EX. You don't have to dumb it down to scare stories for the knowledgeable crowd here.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 03:31
by SpudmanWP
Don't forget the assets the F-15EX (or any 4th Gen needs) to conduct it's ops.

Image

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 03:54
by spazsinbad
USN Unfunnyed Extra Budget Request: "...$240 million for two F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters..." 25 Mar 2019

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/25/navys- ... nce-vessel
ALSO:
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/nav ... on-strike/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 03:55
by marsavian
The F-15EX with its AESA and EPAWSS will do its own jamming, at least to get close enough to release its own standoff weapons but yes these are the sort of details we should be discussing here not tabloid-esque scare stories like OMG F-35 will be cancelled because of F-15EX and because defence budgets might diminish in the future ... please.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 04:07
by SpudmanWP
No other US AESA day can do jamming except for the F-35, yet.

When they eventually get that functionality, check to see what kind of connection that radar makes to its own ESM. In the F-35, the ESM and radar were designed from the ground up to act together and are even connected to each other with a dedicated fiber-optic link.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 04:47
by marsavian
The F-15 AESA can jam too now, EPAWSS will have its own jamming transmitters too giving greater coverage.

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 4F_190.pdf

These development efforts include F-15 Radar Enhancements Electronic Protection (EP) capabilities. The Radar Enhancements (EP) will upgrade the digital Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar capabilities to counter sophisticated electronic threats. Suite 7C introduced EP into the C/D-model fleet. Initial EP capability for APG-82(V)1 equipped E model aircraft took place in Suite 8E. Suite 9 and beyond will add additional EP capability to both the F-15E and F-15C.

FY 2018 Plans:
Continued implementation of EP into S9 and began implementation into S10.

FY 2019 Base Plans:
Continue implementation of EP into S9 and into S10.


https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2009-09-15 ... esignation

Boeing F-15E Radar Modernization Program Receives New Designation

ST. LOUIS, Sept. 15, 2009 -- The Boeing [NYSE: BA] F-15E Radar Modernization Program (RMP) recently received the designation of AN/APG-82(v)1 from the U.S. Air Force. The addition of the Raytheon-built APG-82 radar will incorporate Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) technology into the F-15E strike fighter, increasing radar reliability by almost 20 times as it also improves maintainability, sustainability and performance, and reduces support costs.

The AESA radar, coupled with a new wideband radar radome, will also improve detection capability and tracking of enemy targets.

"The F-15E RMP is one of the most significant modifications to the F-15E since its inception," said Mark Bass, F-15 Program vice president. "The RMP will ensure the F-15E remains supportable and combat-ready well into the future."

Other RMP modifications include the addition of Raytheon's new Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Electronically Scanned Array antenna, which was developed for the F-15C APG-63(v)3 radar system, as well as new Radio Frequency Tunable Filters (RFTF) and an improved Environmental Cooling System (ECS).

The RFTF will enable the radar and the aircraft's Electronic Warfare System to function at the same time, minimizing degradation to either system. The ECS will provide up to an additional 250 percent liquid cooling capacity, which is required for incorporation of the APG-82 radar.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:05
by SpudmanWP
That does not say that the AESA antenna will be doing the attack.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:06
by marsavian
Despite what will be significant jamming capabilities in the F-15EX it would still go a lot further on a lower RCS base so the only way this begins to make any real technical sense is if it is on the Silent Eagle base rather than the F-15QA. Boeing should develop a low RCS version of the Eagle with engine blocker and RAM off its own pocket and then DoD could then buy it as it currently proposes.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:08
by marsavian
SpudmanWP wrote:That does not say that the AESA antenna will be doing the attack.


The first link does.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:25
by SpudmanWP
It's 19 pages. What sentence please.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:29
by marsavian
The text in the quote box.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:30
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:That does not say that the AESA antenna will be doing the attack.


The first link does.


Where? They've been talking about electronic attack for the F-15 in the budget documents for years now with
no discernible progress.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:32
by marsavian
They claimed to have already introduced it with Suite 7C/8E and are now implementing Suite 9 enhancements.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:35
by SpudmanWP
The Radar Enhancements (EP) will upgrade the digital Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar capabilities to counter sophisticated electronic threats.
is not the same as electronic attack. It simply means that enemy jammers don't work well against it. The phrase "Electronic Attack" is well used in the industry and if the APG-82 had it, they would simply say so.

Try some Google Fu

Electronic protection (EP) is the set of technologies and methods that protect against the effects of electronic attack (EA). When an EA system attempts to jam a radar, the radar’s EP technology resists the jamming.


EP ≠ EA

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:42
by marauder2048
And EP is a requirement for EA since ownship jamming could otherwise impair the radar.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:44
by SpudmanWP
Wait, what????

Either it has EA or not.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:50
by marauder2048
Meaning they would not have added EP *after* EA.

Back on topic:

Unfunded priorities list (+ 12 F-35As):

http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/March%202019/Additional-F-35As-KC-46s-Wanted-in-New-Unfunded-Priorities-List.aspx

Spud: can you get your hands on the actual list?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:56
by SpudmanWP
Below is what I could dig up

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 06:41
by spazsinbad
Previous Page Referenced USAF Budget on Page One of 19 pages: "...A fully integrated electronic warfare suite holds the promise of providing survivability as well as expanded electronic attack capability...." https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 4F_190.pdf (0.25Mb)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 06:51
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:More scare stories, at the current production rate even before the Block 4 increase, F-35 is affordable, well under $100m and it is not about the aircraft price but the sustainment price. If you are going to win the F-35 Vs F-15EX argument in Congress you have to beat the cheaper base/long life/maintenance cost narrative being put out in favor of the F-15EX. You don't have to dumb it down to scare stories for the knowledgeable crowd here.



If, your buying 140 F-15EX's you're not buying 140 F-35A's. Hello, you only have so much money! Even the US doesn't have endless supplies of the former. ($$$)

So, don't count on $750 Billion Defense Budgets for year after year..... :doh:

As a matter of fact the "Democrats" are in charge and they're already eyeing Big Defense Cuts. While, spending more on Social Programs. So, spare me on what you think you know about the process.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 06:59
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:USN Unfunnyed Extra Budget Request: "...$240 million for two F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters..." 25 Mar 2019

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/25/navys- ... nce-vessel
ALSO:
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/nav ... on-strike/



Exactly, why every additional order for the F-35 counts. :wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 07:11
by SpudmanWP
spazsinbad wrote:Previous Page Referenced USAF Budget on Page One of 19 pages: "...A fully integrated electronic warfare suite holds the promise of providing survivability as well as expanded electronic attack capability...." https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 4F_190.pdf (0.25Mb)


That's the EPAWSS side of things.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 11:51
by marsavian
Ok, I can see the distinction but I don't naturally assume it doesn't have EA abilities as well but that may have to await further confirmation. The F-35 APG-81 itself is described in this EP terminology too ...

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... 9-exercise

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 12:31
by gc
USAF requesting a dozen more F-35A in their unfunded list. If budgeted will push USAF F-35A procurement up to 60 in 2020.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... -List.aspx

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 12:55
by hornetfinn
Yes, EP is what has also been described as ECCM (electronic counter-countermeasures) and EA has been called ECM (electronic countermeasures). ECM and ECCM seem to be restrictive definitions though and probably why nowadays EP and EA (and EW) are more used.

All military radars have EP/ECCM capabilities and some existed even in the earliest military radars. Electronic Attack on the other hand is something very new as it requires much more from the systems. AESA antenna is pretty much a requirement as MSA or PESA antennas really can't do both radar and ESM/EW/EA functions. Of course the EW system needs to be very tightly integrated with the radar system to be able to use it as EW antenna. That requires very fast and low latency connection between the two as there is a lot of data that needs to be transferred between the two systems. But problem is that radar and EW system are two totally different systems that operate independently from each other. So how would they co-operate without interfering with each other functions? In F-35 the solution was the design totally integrated avionics with centralized processing in sensor fusion engine which could also task and prioritize the sensors and other systems. Naturally this also required very fast internal network in the jet and a lot of computing power and lots of software.

F-15 on the other hand has totally different avionics architecture, just like most 4th gen jets and there is no way it can easily be made equal to F-35 avionics system. That would require to totally redesign the avionics architecture and I really doubt anybody would bother or have money for that kind of development. Maybe if thousand F-15X is acquired or something like that.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 13:47
by weasel1962
As highlighted, other users have already funded the radar-ew improvements eg the apg-63 now -82 is adjusted to operate in conjunction with the tews/dews. -81 has advantage of higher gain because the ew is routed thru the tr modules but the f-15's Apu generates a lot of power.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 17:14
by SpudmanWP
marsavian wrote:Ok, I can see the distinction but I don't naturally assume it doesn't have EA abilities as well but that may have to await further confirmation. The F-35 APG-81 itself is described in this EP terminology too ...

While there is info on the EP capabilities of the APG-81, there are also tons of info on it's EA capabilities too.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 18:30
by quicksilver
“If you are going to win the F-35 Vs F-15EX argument in Congress you have to beat the cheaper base/long life/maintenance cost narrative being put out in favor of the F-15EX.”

This. ^

On other matters, EP is not EA. Nor is EP just an interference blanker for the other stuff that is radiating on a jet.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 19:23
by weasel1962
So what happens if you add a jamming pod eg ngj to the f-15?

How about mald-j launch platform?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 20:03
by SpudmanWP
You make it slower and able to carry less.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 21:42
by bumtish
weasel1962 wrote:So what happens if you add a jamming pod eg ngj to the f-15?



You spend money on integration it on an an additional platform when the F-35 (and SH) will already carry it. You will also spend money on developing doctrine, and get less performance due to barn door rcs of F-15.

Of course, this is probably not accounted for in the CAPE assessment and piled on top of the other upgrades an 'orphan' fleet counting a few hundreds will need out to 2060s. (with those 16-20k hours the refresh fleet will enjoy a life in excess of 25 years past the retirement of active F-15s). Obviously all this will be done on existing infrastructure, no new tools, simulators, etc. will be needed before the X retires closing on the centennial celebration of its first flight of type.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 23:53
by Corsair1963
gc wrote:USAF requesting a dozen more F-35A in their unfunded list. If budgeted will push USAF F-35A procurement up to 60 in 2020.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... -List.aspx



The Air Force wants to buy 12 additional F-35A strike fighters and three more KC-46 tankers as part of its $2.8 billion fiscal 2020 unfunded priorities list, after requesting no aircraft in last year’s version.


On top of the Air Force’s $165.6 billion budget request for 2020, the new slate of unfunded requirements asks Congress for twice as much money as the service did in its 2019 UPL. Readiness tops the list of priorities, followed by cyber-hardening space assets, aircraft procurement, and advanced technology development.


Adding a dozen more F-35As in 2020 would bring the Air Force’s total buy of Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighters that year to 60. Each new F-35A carries a $90.8 million price tag, so the total cost of the 12 fighters would cost $1.1 billion—the same as the eight fourth-generation F-15EX jets the service wants to buy from Boeing starting next year.



It's worth noting the USAF says it needs at least "72" New Fighters per year. Yet, the math of an all F-35 fleet is 72. (60+12=72). While, a mix of F-35A's and F-15EX's come up short! (60+8=68) Of course not to mention the fact the Lightning is vastly more capable than the Eagle to boot.
:wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 00:56
by spazsinbad
The Air Force Wants More F-35s In FY 2020: Congress Needs To Step In [BEST READ AT SOURCE]
26 Mar 2019 Dave Deptula

"The U.S. Air Force is operating a fighter aircraft inventory on the brink of disaster. The vast majority of its fighter aircraft were designed at the conclusion of the Vietnam War, were produced in the 1980s, and are increasingly not capable of meeting future threats. The F-15C’s structural integrity limits mean that fleet’s airworthiness will come to an end in the early/mid-2020s. An immediate change in defense policy and resourcing is required to ensure U.S. air superiority meets the urgent and pragmatic real-world security objectives of the 2018 national defense strategy....

...instead of investing in more modern F-35s, the Pentagon’s 2020 budget request seeks billions of dollars for new-built F-15EXs—an aircraft design whose roots extend back to the late 1960s. As Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson made clear on Feb 28, this was not an Air Force judgment; “Our budget proposal that we initially submitted did not include additional fourth-generation aircraft.” Seemingly oblivious to its own 2018 national defense strategy and reorientation to great-power contests, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) drove this decision.

According to a senior defense official briefing to media on Mar 22, the rationale was based on three major elements:

------The need to rapidly increase Air Force fighter force structure
------Cost
------Industrial base diversity


The first is a no-brainer. Today’s fighter aircraft average 28 years old with that age growing annually. The Air Force Chief of Staff has stated he needs to buy 72 aircraft a year to reverse that trend and eventually bring the average age down to 15 years. Bizarrely, however, the Pentagon’s proposed 2020 budget would deliver just eight F-15EXs in, “3 to 3.5 years after contract award” (Air Force FY 2020 Justification Book Volume 1 of 2 Aircraft Procurement, (I-22)).

Here’s a much better solution: Congress shifts the money from F-15EX to increase F-35A production. Of note, the Air Force’s unfunded priority list for FY 2020 includes an additional 12 F-35As. By increasing F-35 production from 48/yr. to 60/yr. in 2020, then 78-80 beyond 2020, the Air Force could have an additional 108 F-35s by 2023/24 instead of an anemic additional 8 F-15EXs.

Now let’s look at cost. The Office of the Secretary of Defense claims the new F-15EX unit cost will be about $90 million per copy. Today the F-35A runs about $89 million per copy and is expected to decline to about $80 million in 2020. OSD notes, however, that sustainment costs for the F-35A are greater than the F-15EX. That is a questionable assumption as the F-35A program matures, its sustainment costs are headed down to similar levels as F-15s.

More to the point, OSD’s myopic focus on unit and sustainment costs ignores the actual costs necessary to accomplish desired objectives against the priority threats of the national defense strategy. Unlike F-35, the F-15EX will require additional specialized support aircraft to jam radars, defeat enemy fighters, and negate surface-to-air-missile systems. Those assets, which were not part of OSD’s justification analysis, will drive up requirements for pilots and support personnel, along with additional mission support aircraft such as air-to-air refueling tankers. Against peer threats, the cost of achieving a desired effect with F-15EX is dramatically higher than the same effect delivered from an F-35A.... [BEST READ AT SOURCE - believe me]

The Air Force has seen this act before. These are the same circumstances that led to the curtailed F-22 buy, which is the real cause of today’s aging F-15 fleet. Had we purchased the necessary number of F-22s, today’s F-15Cs would be sunning themselves in desert boneyards today. One difference: This time, it would also impact the Navy, Marine Corps, and allied partners who are also buying the F-35.

...The answer to the Air Force’s fighter modernization challenge is clear. The F-35A is specifically designed to meet future combat requirements. The F-15EX is not. The nation must increase F-35 procurement rates and add resources to the next generation air dominance (NGAD) program to supplement a dangerously undersized F-22 fleet. Today’s fighter force mix is imbalanced with 80 percent fourth-generation and only 20 percent fifth-generation aircraft. The Air Force needs to increase the fifth-generation side with the F-35A as fast as possible."

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptul ... o-step-in/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 01:29
by fbw
The Air Force wants to buy 12 additional F-35A strike fighters and three more KC-46 tankers as part of its $2.8 billion fiscal 2020 unfunded priorities list, after requesting no aircraft in last year’s version.



Congress added (16?) total on top of the 77 requested last year.

Yes that’s correct, had to double check, 77 requested and a total of 93 enacted in FY2019.

Edit- breakdown was 8 additional F-35A (56) out of 48 requested. Perhaps adding 12 to unfunded priorities is to reiterate what the USAF position has been. No F-15EX, and more F-35A.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 02:38
by weasel1962
Delays to procurement rate of 60 As has been reflected in the explanatory statements in past defense appropriation bills. Nothing to do with F-15EX. The addition to FY 2019 per the joint explanatory statement is 8 A, 4 C (USN), 2 C (USMC) and 2 B.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 04:59
by Corsair1963
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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 06:31
by spazsinbad
The Hourly Cost Of Operating The U.S. Military's Fighter Fleet [Infographic]
16 Aug 2016 Niall McCarthy

Graphic: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmcc ... ghters.jpg

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccar ... fographic/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 06:37
by SpudmanWP
Those are over 1.5 years old and the F-35 has dropped significantly and those navy numbers are way too low.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 07:21
by spazsinbad
Air Force wish list includes more F-35s, tankers... and some money for advanced tech to confuse Russia & China
26 Mar 2019 Valerie Insinna

"
WASHINGTON — Twelve additional F-35s and three KC-46 tankers rank among the Air Force’s wish list of items it would like to have, but couldn’t afford in its fiscal year 2020 budget. The service’s annual unfunded priorities list, which was obtained by Defense News and first reported by Inside Defense, was sent to Congress this week.

The Air Force places additional F-35s and KC-46s as its third-highest priority on the list — and the most expensive. With an extra $2 billion, the service would seek an increase of 12 F-35A conventional models, three KC-46 tankers, associated spares for both aircraft, and long-lead funding for F-35s in FY21....

...60 F-35As in FY20. The 60 A-models, together with the eight F-15X aircraft requested by the Air Force, would get it within striking distance of its goal of procuring at least 72 fighter jets per year, which Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein has said is needed to ensure the Air Force maintains capacity as it modernizes its combat aircraft inventory.

In the past, lawmakers have been fairly receptive to funding big-ticket items on the services’ wish lists, especially aircraft like the F-35 and the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which garner deeply-entrenched support from the congressional delegations where those platforms are produced...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... and-china/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 07:42
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:Those are over 1.5 years old and the F-35 has dropped significantly and those navy numbers are way too low.


I agree, those numbers seem to be done using very different accounting methods. F-16 costs are also way too low except for maybe direct flight hour costs. I found this which is very interesting, although naturally is also filled with normal GAO bitching and moaning...

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694408.pdf

It seems like F-16, Hornet and Super Hornet have pretty similar operating costs. Too bad there are no F-35 or even F-15 costs here. But AFAIK F-35A figure in that picture is pretty much correct for 2016. Also there are no accurate numbers of flight hours flown during the year, so these must be estimated.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 11:02
by weasel1962
The data based on AFTOC/VAMOSC requests, which can be made by public, should generally be accurate (even the GAO relies on that data). Agree that there are formula differences in calculating operating costs.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 13:27
by mixelflick
You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 14:49
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..

It's not the USAF that wants to buy 4th generation aircraft. How many different times does that need to be pointed out?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 15:13
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..


There is one thing they don't have: a former Boeing executive at the top of their defense department.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 22:35
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Delays to procurement rate of 60 As has been reflected in the explanatory statements in past defense appropriation bills. Nothing to do with F-15EX. The addition to FY 2019 per the joint explanatory statement is 8 A, 4 C (USN), 2 C (USMC) and 2 B.


Joint explanatory statements are non-binding and therefore irrelevant.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 23:48
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..

It's not the USAF that wants to buy 4th generation aircraft. How many different times does that need to be pointed out?


This is far from a done deal and odds are still in favor of it being overturned.

As most in Congress don't like Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, he is still under investigation by the IG, and the Democrats are in control of the HOUSE Armed Services Committee. Which, would like nothing more to oppose Trumps "man".....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 00:42
by spazsinbad
This COST article originally posted here on 27 Feb 2019: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55018&p=412516&hilit=Kerr#p412516
Avalon 2019: Lockheed Martin aims for reduction in cost of F-35 flying hours, lower sustainment costs
26 Feb 2019 Julian Kerr

"Lockheed Martin hopes to reduce the cost per flying hour of the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter from USD35,000 to USD25,000 by 2025, according to Greg Ulmer, vice-president and general manager of the company’s F-35 programme.

Speaking at the Avalon Airshow near Melbourne on 26 February, Ulmer said a further Lockheed Martin objective was reducing F-35A annual costs “per tail” to about USD4.1 million by the late 2030s.

Over the past three years the sustainment costs of an F-35A have been reduced by about 15%, and significant further savings are anticipated. “Think about big data analytics. All the components have electronic files associated with them; we understand their reliability."

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/86857/ava ... ment-costs

THEN a somewhat confusing 'quotes' article from deREUTERS:
Lockheed expects F-35 flying costs will take time to come down: executive
27 Mar 2019 Jamie Freed

"AVALON, Australia (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp expects it will take around 15 to 20 years to bring the cost per flight hour of the F-35 below fourth-generation fighter jets such as the F-16, the head of the F-35 program said on Wednesday....

...Lockheed Martin Vice President and General Manager F-35 Program Greg Ulmer said there was an effort to lower the cost per flight hour to $25,000 by 2025 but further savings would take longer. “Today it is different customer by customer but I think $35,000 per flying hour is a good number,” he told Reuters in an interview at the Australian International Airshow.

“If we project that out based on the initiatives we have in place, we believe as we move out to the 2035-2040 timeframe we can get that cost down to under what a fourth gen is today,” in the range of $20,000-25,000 per flight hour. Initiatives involved in lowering the cost to $25,000 an hour include reducing the number of mechanics needed to support each plane, Ulmer said.... [USAF have a special F-35 expeditionary maintenance team called BOLT] viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55072&p=412936&hilit=BOLT#p412936

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aust ... SKCN1QG0D5

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 00:49
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Delays to procurement rate of 60 As has been reflected in the explanatory statements in past defense appropriation bills. Nothing to do with F-15EX. The addition to FY 2019 per the joint explanatory statement is 8 A, 4 C (USN), 2 C (USMC) and 2 B.


Joint explanatory statements are non-binding and therefore irrelevant.


Explanatory statements attached to acts are part of interpretations law. Its a fundamental aspect of law that evolved from the British (and that includes the US). In layman's terms, that means it reflects the intent of the act.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On a separate note, I was wondering if the USAF secretary's resignation had anything to do with the F-15EX. Her latest statement of support has cleared that up.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... acity-gaps

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 01:19
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Delays to procurement rate of 60 As has been reflected in the explanatory statements in past defense appropriation bills. Nothing to do with F-15EX. The addition to FY 2019 per the joint explanatory statement is 8 A, 4 C (USN), 2 C (USMC) and 2 B.


Joint explanatory statements are non-binding and therefore irrelevant.


Explanatory statements attached to acts are part of interpretations law. Its a fundamental aspect of law that evolved from the British (and that includes the US). In layman's terms, that means it reflects the intent of the act.


No they aren't. They are non-binding and of zero importance for appropriations since
they are typically just two managers' spin on why there had to be reconciliation.


weasel1962 wrote:On a separate note, I was wondering if the USAF secretary's resignation had anything to do with the F-15EX. Her latest statement of support has cleared that ups


A completely unfounded assertion.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 01:35
by weasel1962
I'm not saying that an "explanatory statement" guides decisions. I have merely highlighted it reflects intent. Interpretation law is exactly what it is.

See pg 46/47, if anyone is really interested.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

On Heather Wilson, there is no assertion, just a thought that has been cleared up.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 02:01
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:I'm not saying that an "explanatory statement" guides decisions. I have merely highlighted it reflects intent. Interpretation law is exactly what it is.


This is completely untrue. It reflects the managers' view of why there had to be reconciliation. Nothing more.
It's not voted on and there's no amending process unlike the language in the bill which is binding and overrides
anything in the statement.



weasel1962 wrote:On Heather Wilson, there is no assertion, just a thought that has been cleared up.


Here statement of support consists of "We" as in "we were told what to do" because the explanation
she gives about national defense strategy driving this decision makes no sense since the NDS
was promulgated before the FY19 budget and the Air Force already had its interpretation in place.

That's why you see the F-15C/D Wing SLEP in FY19. It's zero'ed out in FY20.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 02:12
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:This is completely untrue. It reflects the managers' view of why there had to be reconciliation. Nothing more.
It's not voted on and there's no amending process unlike the language in the bill which is binding and overrides
anything in the statement.


What you have stated is incorrect. The explanatory statement is part of the legislation that is voted upon (and in the defense appropriation's bill's case, passed). "Attached" means attached no matter how one tries to spin it. This is part of legislation hence governed and defined by house rules and senate rules.

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/f47fcf1f ... b4557b.pdf

In legal terms, what you are trying to claim is the equivalent of saying the sun is actually the moon.

marauder2048 wrote:Here statement of support consists of "We" as in "we were told what to do" because the explanation
she gives about national defense strategy driving this decision makes no sense since the NDS
was promulgated before the FY19 budget and the Air Force already had its interpretation in place.

That's why you see the F-15C/D Wing SLEP in FY19. It's zero'ed out in FY20.


How you read it and what she said appears to be completely different.

The quote being: “We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.

Literally, "we" means she and the air force.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 02:42
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:
What you have stated is incorrect


It's 100% correct; joint explanatory statements are not voted on. They are not amendable.
Different government agencies give them different weight since they only exist if
the houses disagree: by your bizarre logic agencies wouldn't know how to interpret
the bill if the houses agree!

And of course this is for appropriations where the bottom line is the bottom line. Unlike
say farm regulations....

weasel1962 wrote:
How you read it and what she said appears to be completely different.

The quote being: “We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.

Literally, "we" means she and the air force.


Uh..no. Please listen below. More to the point, if it had been the right thing to do it would have been in
the original submission since the NDS was promulgated before FY19 and led to something very different.

https://soundcloud.com/heritageevents/a-budget-conversation-with-the-secretary-of-the-air-force

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 02:57
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:It's 100% correct; joint explanatory statements are not voted on. They are not amendable.
Different government agencies give them different weight since they only exist if
the houses disagree: by your bizarre logic agencies wouldn't know how to interpret
the bill if the houses agree!


Nope what you have stated is absolute rubbish. Legal 101. An Act stipulates action. It doesn't reflect intent. Reflecting intent is the purpose of an explanatory statement.

Will address the 2nd point separately.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 04:08
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:It's 100% correct; joint explanatory statements are not voted on. They are not amendable.
Different government agencies give them different weight since they only exist if
the houses disagree: by your bizarre logic agencies wouldn't know how to interpret
the bill if the houses agree!


Nope what you have stated is absolute rubbish. Legal 101. An Act stipulates action. It doesn't reflect intent. Reflecting intent is the purpose of an explanatory statement.


Complete nonsense: Defense Spending 101. The NDAA reflects the *intent* to appropriate which
subsequently happens in the actual defense appropriation bills. As a courtesy, DOD will typically
respond to congressional *requests* laid out in joint explanatory statements.

Joint explanatory statements are weak on intent because they only reflect the majority view on the *conferees*
appointed which is a very tiny subset of the defense committees. You can have cases where only like three
representatives are appointed.

And unlike say, conference reports, they can't contain any minority or additional views which relative
to the actual committees might in fact be majority views.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 04:28
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:How you read it and what she said appears to be completely different.

The quote being: “We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.

Literally, "we" means she and the air force.


Uh..no. Please listen below. More to the point, if it had been the right thing to do it would have been in
the original submission since the NDS was promulgated before FY19 and led to something very different.


Firstly, thanks for the link which was informative. Whilst it would be more efficient to point out exactly where the contention lies instead of making everyone sit thru 50 mins, nevertheless I think its useful.

I didn't hear the secretary mention that the F-15EX buy was driven by NDS. Instead, from the 2nd min explanations, it is clear that the NDS couldn't take into account the "air force we need" considerations which was only completed in the fall of 2018. The number of times "Air force we need" was mentioned by the secretary is very revealing.

The key portions was 28-32 mins and the key word was "capacity" as the driver.

The other portions that may interest other themes was:
12min - the talk about how program management works would be relevant for Shanahan's independence issue
40min - operating cost calculation bet F-15EX & F-35 - weasel's note: very clearly a primary factor, in my opinion, is airframe life.
43min - AF no longer looks at platform vs platform.
The budget argument relating to Tyndall vs border wall was a bit awkward but I'm not going to push the issue. Was a sharp qn though.

In conclusion, for avoidance of doubt, there is zero ambiguity about the secretary's support on the F-15EX program.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 04:37
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:Complete nonsense: Defense Spending 101. The NDAA reflects the *intent* to appropriate which
subsequently happens in the actual defense appropriation bills. As a courtesy, DOD will typically
respond to congressional *requests* laid out in joint explanatory statements.


Incorrect. Courtesy is completely irrelevant in law.

marauder2048 wrote:Joint explanatory statements are weak on intent because they only reflect the majority view on the *conferees*
appointed which is a very tiny subset of the defense committees. You can have cases where only like three
representatives are appointed.

And unlike say, conference reports, they can't contain any minority or additional views which relative
to the actual committees might in fact be majority views.


For a bill to be passed does not require 100% approval. The minority vote and view is generally irrelevant because it does not normally reveal the intent of the passing which is by majority.

What is factual is that an explanatory statement is not compulsory. The claim of whether an explanatory statement weak or not is irrevelant because its purpose is to explain the intent. It doesn't mean that an act that has no explanatory note has no intent. However, if an explanatory statement is provided, then what it means is the courts cannot interpret the act differently and must interpret the act with the statement's intent. That legal 101 for interpretation law.

As a suggestion, you should talk to a lawyer before you continue spouting what is clearly BS and something that you have demonstrated no knowledge on.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 05:26
by marauder2048
The minority vote and view is generally irrelevant because it does not normally reveal the intent of the passing which is by majority.


Which is why it appears in conference reports? Please display some basic familiarity with the US defense spending process.

Joint explanation statements explain reconciliations. Nothing more. Inferring intent is something that you are doing
and something that agencies do at their discretion.

The bill language overrides any explanatory statement because in the US system, that's the only thing
that gets voted on. And for appropriations, the intent is in the funding authorized which is why no NDAA
has ever had the appropriations portion tested in court battles.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 05:29
by spazsinbad
Wilson: F-15EX Buy Takes Advantage of Existing Infrastructure, Production Line
27 Mar 2019 Brian Everstine

"...Wilson [Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson], speaking Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., offered a defense of the plan that weeks ago she said was not the Air Force’s wish. Analysis showed that within the next eight to 10 years, the Air Force’s aging F-15C fleet “is not going to make it,” so the Pentagon needed to find a way to keep the service’s capacity high “for the 2030s and beyond, for all the missions we have to cover.”

“That was the nature of the analysis and the decision, as we went through the budget development with the money we have available,” she said, adding the discussion focused on, “How do we keep our capacity and expand our capability?”...

...While the Air Force is still focused on the F-35, Lockheed’s inability to reduce sustainment costs was a key factor in the F-15 decision, Dunford [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford] said. “If you could buy all the F-35s, you might do that. This, again, was looking out, over time, at the resources that would be available. And there’s not much different in the procurement cost,” he said. “But, there’s about a 50 percent difference in the operations and sustainment cost between the F-15 and the F-35. And the F-15 also has a pretty significant shelf life available as well.”"

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... -Line.aspx

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 05:39
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Firstly, thanks for the link which was informative. Whilst it would be more efficient to point out exactly where the contention lies instead of making everyone sit thru 50 mins, nevertheless I think its useful.

I didn't hear the secretary mention that the F-15EX buy was driven by NDS.



Because your listening comprehension is as bad as your reading comprehension.
She states it explicitly beginning at 29:12 and everything from then on is premised on the NDS.

I knew you would miss it and cherry pick what you wanted.

weasel1962 wrote:In conclusion, for avoidance of doubt, there is zero ambiguity about the secretary's support on the F-15EX program.


Please explain why the F-15EX was not in the FY19 and not in the initial FY20 submission?
The NDS was the same then as now. If she strongly supported it she wouldn't be resigning when
she is and would be hanging around until the defense committees finish their markups.

The Air Force *lost* their battle with OSD and she lost her battle with Shanahan. So she's going.
That's how it works in Washington.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 06:45
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
Please explain why the F-15EX was not in the FY19 and not in the initial FY20 submission?
The NDS was the same then as now. If she strongly supported it she wouldn't be resigning when
she is and would be hanging around until the defense committees finish their markups.

The Air Force *lost* their battle with OSD and she lost her battle with Shanahan. So she's going.
That's how it works in Washington.


It would be clear to even a blind man. That Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson didn't support the acquisition of the F-15X/EX or any other 4th Generation Fighter.

Yet, she did work for Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. So, she had little choice but to concede to his wishes. Now if she left because of that. We don't really know at this stage. Yet, likely it had some part to play in her decision.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 06:51
by weasel1962
Transcript 28:43 to 31:43.

Let’s talk a little bit about tactical aircraft. First of all, the airforce is all in on the F-35. It is a complete game changing aircraft and it is not just an aircraft, its an information fusion engine. It is kind of a quarterback of any fight.

We are going to have a mixture of 4th and 5th generation aircraft, well thru the 2030s and beyond potentially. When we looked at what is the National Defense strategy tasked us to do, it’s a variety of missions at the same time. And as you well know, if there is a crisis in the pacific, the first commander we are going to hear from is the commander of pacific command and he is going to…he has a complete operations plan of everything that he needs and we know what that plans entail but as soon as you hang up the phone there, the next person who’s going to call is General O’Shaunessy from northern command says look we’re seeing increase, we’re starting to flow forces to the pacific. I need to increase our homeland defence posture and this is what I need and tankers and fighters and so forth. And then you hang up that phone and this phone is going to ring. And its going to be General John Hyten at Stratcom. Who says we going to heightened level of readiness and there’s a crisis in the pacific. We need to increase our readiness posture in strategic command. And we need to put more bombers on alert and tankers on alert.

And so when you look at the fully burdened global campaigns plans. One of our constraints is capacity. We’re seeing a decline in the number of fighters available, the increase in the average age of those fighters and if we look at the whole system and the whole capacity over the next 10 to 20 years. One of the airframe that’s not going to make it is the F-15C. It probably doesn’t last thru the mid-2020s. And so when people look at what are the alternatives, one of them was to say alright if the F-15C is not going to make it, is there a way to keep our capacity fairly high and benefit from honestly the investments of some of our allies and the fact there is an F-15 line, aircraft line still open. So without any military construction, without any really much down time at all, local check out, no changes in maintainers, minimal change in ground equipment, and so forth, can you replace these F-15C that are not going to make it with F-15EXs so you keep your capacity fairly high thru the 2030s and beyond for all of the missions we have to cover. So that was the nature of the analysis and the decision as we went thru the budget development, with the money that we have available. How do we keep capacity and increase our capability.


Not going to bother to respond to the rest of the rubbish spouted.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 07:49
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Not going to bother to respond to the rest of the rubbish spouted.


And as stated, it all stems from the NDS. That was established before the FY19 budget and
the Air Force plan supported it through the F-15 C/D Wing SLEP.

The same NDS informs the FY20 budget. The same Air Force secretary was in place for both.

But now there's no F-15 C/D Wing SLEP and a new buy of F-15EXs that the Air Force did not request.

We knew the cost analysis for the SLEP; in fact Boeing was defending it as affordable and saying we shouldn't throw
away the investment in the F-15Cs!

We know the new buy estimate. There's no way to justify the latter on cost in the face of the former particularly
with the timelines for inducting the new builds. And the industrial base would be supported with either option.

SLEPs and upgrades have been the Air Force approach up until Dec 2018 and in conformance with the
NDS. The facts have not changed.

And now the Air Force Secretary is resigning before Congress will have time to do the appropriations
that are so crucial to the radically new (as of Dec 2018) and important NDS interpretation.

Please provide us your explanation as to why these facts support your claim that the Air Force secretary
supports this decision.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 07:51
by Corsair1963
The simple fact is the F-15EX is never going to be as cheap or capable as the F-35A. Nor, is there a capacity issue. Which, would support the need for additional production from the Boeing Plant in St Louis, MO. In order to reach the "72" new fighters per year. That the USAF says it needs going forward.


In short there is no compelling case to acquire the F-15EX and countless experts can and have made that clear.


Those are simple and irreversible facts.....


It's not wanted not needed and you can make a compelling case for it. "PERIOD" :roll:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 07:58
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:Please provide us your explanation as to why these facts support your claim that the Air Force secretary
supports this decision.


Not sure what I need to repeat. Because she said so. Transcript 31:17.

We think that it would be the right thing to do

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 08:17
by marauder2048
Which you've now taken out of context because it was:

“We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,”

followed by

"What do we think we can do given the funding available"


The first is premised on the NDS or rather the new interpretation which she doesn't control. As shown
by the transcript.

The other is OSD which she doesn't control.

How is that support?

Hell..it's even unclear if you listen as she hesitates, pauses and gives a rather scripted reply as to
what *it* is.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 09:07
by weasel1962
You're trying to spin it. Most of us read it the same way as below.

Title of the article I posted: JUST IN: Sec. Wilson: F-15EX Needed to Fill Capacity Gaps

Quote from that same article:
“We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 09:19
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:You're trying to spin it. Most of us read it the same way as below.

Title of the article I posted: JUST IN: Sec. Wilson: F-15EX Needed to Fill Capacity Gaps

Quote from that same article:
“We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.




Yet, after this.........


In an exclusive Sept. 5 interview, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said she believes the service needs to expend its precious financial resources on stealthy, fifth-generation platforms — specifically the F-35 — and thus buying even an advanced fourth generation fighter like the so-called F-15X is not in the cards.


"We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth generation aircraft,” she said. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.”


It's also curious that you overlooked the fact. That Secretary Wilson only had a change of "heart" after her boss (OSD) pushed the F-15EX.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 09:29
by Corsair1963
It's without question that the OSD lead by Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. Which, was a 31 year Veteran of Boeing and a Top Executive within the Company. Has pushed the F-15EX on the USAF. After senior Leadership including of the Secretary of the Air Force. Clearly, stated they didn't want or need the aircraft.



It is also true Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan is under investigation by the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General because of allegations he improperly advocated on behalf of his former employer. (i.e. Boeing)



Old saying that often rings true..........Where there's smoke, there's fire. :shock:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 16:21
by spazsinbad
USAF Plans To Fly New F-15 With Empty Back Seat
27 May 2019 Steve Trimble

"Boeing’s two-seat F-15EX aircraft will be flown with an empty back seat by squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs, the U.S. Air Force confirms to Aerospace DAILY. Although derived from an international version of the two-seat F-15E,...

...Boeing designed the F-15EX to operate in both the air superiority role of the single-seat F-15C and the fighter-bomber role of the F-15E. The latter includes a back-seat station for a weapon systems officer to manage the munitions and sensors for land attack while the pilot in the front seat concentrates on flying and air-to-air engagements.

The F-15EX comes with two functional cockpits, but the pilot can manage air-to-air and air-to-ground missions alone in the front seat, the Air Force says. F-15EX aircraft delivered to squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs will not be staffed with an expanded cadre of weapon system officers, which would leave the back seat of the two-seater empty. “Fighter squadrons that receive the F-15EX are projected to retain their current mission and crew composition,” an Air Force spokeswoman says in response to questions by Aerospace DAILY.

Although the role of former F-15C pilots flying F-15EXs would expand under the current plan, the Air Force does not expect an increase in training costs during or after the transition. “There should be no need to expand aircrew training requirements,” the spokeswoman says.

Boeing offered the Air Force a single-seat version of the F-15X for the F-15C replacement, which was designated as the F-15CX concept. The Air Force decided to buy only the two-seat F-15EX, which minimizes nonrecurring engineering costs...."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-p ... -back-seat

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 16:38
by 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.”

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 12:09
by 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..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 04:38
by doge
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 05:40
by usnvo
doge wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 18:54
by 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 ...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 19:14
by 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/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 19:34
by 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 ;).

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 21:21
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote: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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 13:40
by 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...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 15:36
by 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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 17:45
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote: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.

marsavian wrote: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.

marsavian wrote: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.

marsavian wrote: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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 17:55
by quicksilver
What marauder said.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 04:46
by 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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 13:23
by marsavian
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote: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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 15:05
by steve2267
marsavian wrote: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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 15:44
by marsavian
It could but the F-15EX could probably lift a bigger one and with more fuel/range. It's easy to make a case for F-35 against say a F-16 in all scenarios because it would always outrange it but not so with an F-15.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 15:58
by mixelflick
marsavian wrote:It could but the F-15EX could probably lift a bigger one and with more fuel/range. It's easy to make a case for F-35 against say a F-16 in all scenarios because it would always outrange it but not so with an F-15.


I have to question this, given Chip Burke's comments..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTgDTC8_PM0

He says the F-35 can fly significantly longer, performing multiple ingress/egress's without having to hit the tanker. Something the F-15 just can't do. Would like more detail on the loadouts/altitudes, but he's pretty clear - the F-35 handily out-ranges the Eagle...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 16:18
by marsavian
F-15 fuel can vary greatly from just internal to 2 CFTs and 3 EFTs for a near 3 fold increase over the original airframe. Boeing claim 1-2 hours on station at 1000 nm combat radius with full fuel. This is beyond what F-35 can currently do and where would you put any big external hypersonic missile on F-35 ? If on the wings then you couldn't put an EFT there to increase the range.

Image

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 16:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marsavian wrote:F-15 fuel can vary greatly from just internal to 2 CFTs and 3 EFTs for a near 3 fold increase over the original airframe. Boeing claim 1-2 hours on station at 1000 nm combat radius with full fuel. This is beyond what F-35 can currently do and where would you put any big external hypersonic missile on F-35 ? If on the wings then you couldn't put an EFT there to increase the range.

Image

We've seen that graphic, but when I look at the manual it doesn't pass the sniff test. I'll have another look later. Off the cuff, with CFTs and all EFTs the Mudhen is looking at an average specific range in the neighborhood of 0.0.58-0.06nm/lb. Tanker to tanker, 34,000lb of fuel nets ~2,000nm range or 1,000nm radius with no loiter.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 17:57
by marsavian
Boeing have doubled down on that by claiming 1100+ nm combat radius with no loiter. Could the FBW change have helped to increase the range in any way ?

Image

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 18:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marsavian wrote:Boeing have doubled down on that by claiming 1100+ nm combat radius with no loiter. Could the FBW change have helped to increase the range in any way ?

If the new electronics reduces the weight in the front of the aircraft then the FBW would contribute to reduced trim drag. Also IIRC from the HAF F-16 manual the F110 is better cruise burn than the F100 listed in the Mudhen manual. These could combine to allow 1100nm out and back with a basic 8aam load. At least that is something I would not flat out deny without looking deeper into it. What I despise about those infographics is that it indicates that 1100nm happens in the same configuration as 2.5M and 70,000ft. The last two definitely require a clean plane and the last one requires the plane to be almost out of gas too.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 21:14
by XanderCrews
marsavian wrote:I would contend that the F-35/F-15EX question is not a zero sum one


that's extremely naive.

F-35 was specifically meant to replace A-10


False

but never was specifically meant to replace the F-15.


I would argue the F-35 will have an easier time replacing the F-15 than it does the A-10.


The A-10 prolongation has not reduced the F-35 total as neither in all likelihood will the F-15EX.


When was anyone proposing an A-10X to be built concurrently?

The idea was making cuts because we were winding down in the Mid East to focus on china. The budget came out and the USAF had to reduce. seeing as Iraqistans were supposed to be over, and an A-10 won't survive in China the A-10 was put on the chopping block. Other aircraft would take over the A-10s mission, not specifically the F-35 necessarily either. A series of politics (McCain in the lead) and the middle east flaring up (ISIS, Syria), along with Obama failing to ever really extract us out of there lead to the A-10 getting a stay of execution essentially. its one thing to keep what you have running, buying new airframes is a whole different animal, as we have seen countless times.


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.


what?

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.


its an incredibly stupid decision and could prove to be a serious mistake

mixelflick wrote: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...


They've agreed on a distressing amount of things actually, like permanent big government/security state and endless foreign wars while adding to the national debt. But they disagree on how Trump was elected exactly, so thats good I guess??

Without getting off topic, with the above I'll put it another way. A part of being a grown up is making hard choices. Its A or B, not both. The US Government is frequently coming together to vote "both, just add to the debt!" and I think thats "bad" The F-35 should replace as many teen fighters as possible. Thats why we created it. Thats how you realize the cost savings. Thats was whole bloody point of the endeavor remember everyone? To reduce types and thus save money?

So the F-35 which was designed to replace 3 types primarily (F-16, F-18, AV-8) has instead netted us 3 types: F-35, F-15X, and F-18E/F??


:doh: :doh: :doh: I know thats a slight oversimplification but its still a problem. We aren't going to make grown up decisions. meaning the savings potential will never be fully realized, which I guess is fine, but we could have saved a lot of time and money if this was going to be the end result anyway.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 22:33
by spazsinbad
US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
04 Apr 2019 Joe Gould

"WASHINGTON — U.S. Air Force officials on Thursday defended their reversal to pursue Boeing’s F-15X, a fourth-generation fighter jet, saying it will not derail plans to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35, a fifth-generation fighter jet.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned. [which plan?] They pitched the move as the most cost-effective way to replace the retiring F-15C Eagle, using the same hangers, equipment and maintainers. “We absolutely [are] adamant that the F-35 program, the program of record, absolutely stays on track and we don’t take a dime out of the F-35,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein, calling the jet the “quarterback of the joint penetrating team.”

Goldfein also reassured lawmakers who recalled the cancellation of Lockheed’s fifth-generation F-22 Raptor that there would be no repeat. The plan is still for its fleet to be made up of 80% fifth-generation aircraft by the 2040s, he said...."
[MORE at the URL]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... hofe-reed/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 22:40
by spazsinbad
cc

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 22:41
by SpudmanWP
Likely the "original plan"

Here is a graph that shows how the original production ramp has been consistently pushed to the right, year after year.

Image

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 22:55
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Here's a thought. What if Congress just bought them at the volume the military needed them?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 23:25
by SpudmanWP
When you are the largest military project in history, you are always the target of people wanting to shave off "just a bit" in order to fund their own pet program.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 04:50
by spazsinbad
The MARINES are being NICE to the USN.
Marines Accelerating F-35C Procurement to Support Carrier Deployments; F-35B Buys Would Slow
04 Apr 2019 Megan Eckstein

"CAPITOL HILL – The Marine Corps is accelerating its F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter procurement and slowing its F-35B vertical landing variant to support Navy deployment requirements, the Marines’ top aviator told lawmakers today.

In its Fiscal Year 2020 budget request the Marines asked for 10 fewer F-35Bs; in the budget’s projection for outyears, the service dropped its planned F-35B buys by five F-35Bs in 2021 and three in FY 2022. For the F-35C, though, the service increased its request by nine planes in the five-year Future Years Defense Program. Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder, deputy commandant of the Marine Corps for aviation, told the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee that those changes were meant to support upcoming deployments.

With the Marine Corps on the hook for some of the planned F-35C carrier strike group deployments, “we rebalanced this year with more Cs – just really more to catch up. Now that we have begun training our first F-35C squadron up in Lemoore, we will be the second carrier deployment with the United States Navy with our F-35Cs,” Rudder said.

The Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 147 will conduct the first deployment with the F-35C integrated into the carrier air wing, and Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 314 will conduct the second F-35C carrier deployment https://news.usni.org/2019/03/01/f-35c- ... s-squadron ]….

...The Marine Corps hasn’t changed how many of each variant it plans to buy, but the new emphasis on F-35Cs and a slowing of F-35Bs will allow the small service to keep up with the latest squadron transition and deployment plans....

…[The] balance of models still heavily favors the F-35B that will operate from amphibious assault ships, but Rudder said the commonality between the B and C will give the service flexibility to move pilots and maintainers between B and C squadrons and will reduce the training and maintenance burden....

...“What that means is, for our small 18 squadrons … we’ll be able to mix pilots back and forth between the B and C; one simulator. One maintainer, one supply account. And that creates efficiency for us,” Rudder said. “For us to stay with the fourth-gen, we’ve got to keep a whole other institution for our fourth-gen fighters. For fifth-gen for us, for the business model, one type aircraft is efficient and affordable.”...

...Whether his Marines are on amphibs in the F-35B or on carriers in the F-35C, Rudder stressed the importance of the Joint Strike Fighter for potential future fights. “As we look at, for us, the Marine Corps being an inside force and we are deployed forward … I think if you look at the competition from 2025 into 2030, fifth-gen for us as an inside force will be required to win.”"

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/04/04/marine ... -buys-slow

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 06:03
by marauder2048
If the new electronics reduces the weight in the front of the aircraft


Even the new passive attack displays are coming in overweight...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 06:08
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote:
US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
04 Apr 2019 Joe Gould


After the hearing, Inhofe told reporters that Air Force officials were defending an approach they did not agree with. “They didn’t like it any better than I like it. You don’t expand your force by going from a fifth generation to the fourth generation, which is essentially what your doing,” Inhofe said.


If the SASC chairman gets it there's hope.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 09:50
by quicksilver
marauder2048 wrote:
If the new electronics reduces the weight in the front of the aircraft


Even the new passive attack displays are coming in overweight...


What is a “passive attack display”?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 11:43
by basher54321

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 15:39
by quicksilver
Thx.

Didn’t know there was such a thing. A bit of a contradiction in terms...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 16:07
by aussiebloke
quicksilver wrote:Didn’t know there was such a thing. A bit of a contradiction in terms...


This might explain the passive aspect better:
Passive Attack Sensor System (PASS) provides long range and night visual identification in contested and non contested airspace. The program integrates the Sniper Advanced Tareting Pod (ATP) on the F-15C to provide visual identification using the Sniper pod's infrared spectrum capbilities.
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2014 ... B_2014.pdf

That PASS and PAD (Passive Attack Display) and part and parcel of the same system:
The government anticipates soliciting for a new repair contract for the F-15C/D Passive Attack Sensor System's (PASS) Passive Attack Display (PAD).

https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federa ... 50516q0004

The F-15C has a 10.4 inch PAD. I think, judging by F-15X images it will have a much bigger display:
https://www.ieeinc.com/iee-upgrading-pa ... pad-f-15cd
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... ckpit.html

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 03:08
by spazsinbad
Navy Fighter Readiness Nearing 80 Percent Mission Capable Target
05 Apr 2019 Ben Werner

"CAPITOL HILL – The Navy now boasts its Super Hornet fleet is routinely 63 to 75 percent mission capable, a significant jump from the fall when the Navy struggled to keep half of its F-18s ready to fly....

...[US] lawmakers remain concerned the Navy is still taking risks in the way it manages strike fighter readiness, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, said in her opening statement Thursday. “[The Navy] has an identified shortfall of 54 aircraft, which amounts to one carrier air wing,” Hartzler said. “We need to better understand what impacts this has to overall readiness and what we can we do to improve the situation from a modernization standpoint,” Hartzler said.

The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program – which the Navy and Marine Corps are still in the early stages of incorporating into the fleet – has a high readiness rate for all three fighter variants, Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the F-35 program executive officer, said during Thursday’s hearing. “We’re on a trajectory to reach 80-percent capability by the end of the year,” Winter said.

Currently, the F-35A variant used by the Air Force has an availability rate of 61 percent, the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant has an availability rate of 64 percent, and the F-35C carrier variant has an availability rate of 84 percent, Winter said.

When F-35 squadrons deploy, Winter said they now bring spare parts packages with them. With those packages, Winter said, “those mission capability rates average between 65 and 85 percent.”

Winter’s office has worked with to suppliers to build up spare part inventories at depots and on the flight line, Winter said. Now maintainers have the right parts on hand, so they don’t have to keep going back to the manufacturer to order more parts. The F-35 program is doing a better job of keeping maintainers stocked with parts such as canopies, blade shields and wingtips. And when possible, Winter said, flight line maintainers now have the authority to fix parts.

“We can get spare parts to maintainers one of two ways – get new parts to flight lines, but also giving the authorities for maintainers to fix parts on the flight line,” Winter said.

Plus, as the program has matured and is nearing full-rate production, Winter said the production line ironed out many of the problems that caused the first F-35s to require more maintenance. “The aircraft itself, lot over lot over lot, is getting more reliable,” Winter said. “Therefore, it doesn’t break as often, so therefore it’s more ready.”"

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/04/05/42436

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 06:20
by doge
spazsinbad wrote:
F-35C carrier variant has an availability rate of 84 percent,

I'm really very surprised at this % rate. Seriously. :shock: ; Because, on the web, I saw many claims that the C model's % rate is low.
But in fact it was different... In reality it was very very high. 84%!! :applause: Excellent!!

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 07:47
by marsavian
https://www.defensedaily.com/lawmakers- ... air-force/

The Air Force proposes to procure 80 F-15EX aircraft over the five-year future years defense program (FYDP), while cutting 24 F-35As and reducing its planned budget for Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) by $4 billion, according to FY ’20 documents.

Expect the initial indications of true congressional approval or disapproval to emerge during the House and Senate Armed Services Committee markups, said Roman Schweizer of the Cowen Washington Research Group in a March 28 email to investors.

“To us, it would appear that the Air Force is constraining or reducing fifth- and sixth-gen fighter production and development in favor of continuing fourth-gen production,” Schweizer said. He noted that Pentagon officials have suggested the decision was made at least in part to maintain a strong fighter jet industrial base, while replacing the F-15C with a similar airframe (Defense Daily, March 22).

“Based on recent Boeing foreign and U.S. orders for F-15 (Qatar), F/A-18E/F (Navy) and T-X (Air Force), we assume stable and/or healthy production at Boeing’s St. Louis facility even without the new F-15EX purchases,” Schweizer said. “We find it surprising that looking forward to future fighter programs, the Pentagon would reduce NGAD spending that could help U.S. aerospace primes employ their engineering staff on developing new high-end advanced aircraft.”

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 12:55
by mixelflick
So much for the F-15EX won't "take away from the F-35".

In fact, it's even worse from that. In addition to lowering the F-35 buy, it's eating into Next Generation Air Dominance. Shanahan's antics are poised to eclipse Gate's own stupidity, which the USAF is paying for dearly now. If Shanahan gets his way, we'll be paying for it for decades more to come.

How did things get so bad? I'll tell you how.. It was when people started assuming air superiority was a given. We started to feel like it was our birthright. And because of that, men may end up dying (in the air and on the ground).

Absolutely despicable..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 14:35
by marsavian
I was not aware of the NGAD spending being reduced but if true then the F-15 sustainment concept has gone too far if it's actually reducing spending on new cutting edge technology beyond the F-35. It's F-15C now but after they have all been replaced what's to stop a future Boeing crony repeating the same argument for a one for one replacement for the original F-15E too ? Congress needs to assert itself strongly and go back to USAF Plan A for the F-15C, wing SLEP which of course could also repeated for the F-15E down the line.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 19:53
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:So much for the F-15EX won't "take away from the F-35".

In fact, it's even worse from that. In addition to lowering the F-35 buy, it's eating into Next Generation Air Dominance. Shanahan's antics are poised to eclipse Gate's own stupidity, which the USAF is paying for dearly now. If Shanahan gets his way, we'll be paying for it for decades more to come.

How did things get so bad? I'll tell you how.. It was when people started assuming air superiority was a given. We started to feel like it was our birthright. And because of that, men may end up dying (in the air and on the ground).

Absolutely despicable..


And let's not forget Shanahan is a former Boeing exec. Maker of the F-15 if anybody didn't know that. I doubt it has anything to do with his ignorance of air superiority.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 20:08
by marsavian
and no doubt he would be suitably rewarded again by them in the future if he brought billions more business their way which is why he looks so uncomfortable under hard questioning, he can see those future mega dollars disappearing if they don't buy his subordinates story ;).

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 02:57
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:
US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
04 Apr 2019 Joe Gould

"WASHINGTON — U.S. Air Force officials on Thursday defended their reversal to pursue Boeing’s F-15X, a fourth-generation fighter jet, saying it will not derail plans to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35, a fifth-generation fighter jet.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned. [which plan?] They pitched the move as the most cost-effective way to replace the retiring F-15C Eagle, using the same hangers, equipment and maintainers. “We absolutely [are] adamant that the F-35 program, the program of record, absolutely stays on track and we don’t take a dime out of the F-35,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein, calling the jet the “quarterback of the joint penetrating team.”

Goldfein also reassured lawmakers who recalled the cancellation of Lockheed’s fifth-generation F-22 Raptor that there would be no repeat. The plan is still for its fleet to be made up of 80% fifth-generation aircraft by the 2040s, he said...."
[MORE at the URL]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... hofe-reed/



Honestly, this sounds more and more like a ploy to just acquire more F-35's. :wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 03:00
by Corsair1963
The F-15EX sounds pretty dead to me....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 09:50
by marsavian
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX sounds pretty dead to me....


We don't know how much Trump himself is pushing it.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 10:43
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX sounds pretty dead to me....


We don't know how much Trump himself is pushing it.



Trump isn't involved......

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 10:44
by marsavian
He is a Boeing fan, remember him pushing the Super Hornet by name ? For all we know the Shanahan appointment may have been Trump and Boeing's combined idea. Who's really behind it all ?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 10:56
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX sounds pretty dead to me....


On a logical basis, sure. But not when the AIr Force's top uniformed officer is spinning fairy tales about how buying the F-15EX "won't take away from the F-35 buy".

PLEASE.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 00:12
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX sounds pretty dead to me....


On a logical basis, sure. But not when the AIr Force's top uniformed officer is spinning fairy tales about how buying the F-15EX "won't take away from the F-35 buy".

PLEASE.


Anything is possible but not looking so good for the F-15EX. As it has little support on Capital Hill. While, the USAF Leadership is hardly enthusiastic about it either. Not to mention the fact that the Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan is under investigation by the IG for his ties to Boeing.
:shock:

The odds are 60/40 against that this stage....(and growing)

"IMHO"

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 04:25
by weasel1962
F-35 program status (US only excl intl) as at today per budget. Yellow = projected.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 08:49
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:F-35 program status (US only excl intl) as at today per budget. Yellow = projected.



In the case of the F-35C. That would come out to ~ 20-30 per year thru 2031. Which, would easily support the 2-Squadrons per CVW for "11" Aircraft Carriers.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 09:50
by weasel1962
Super hornet program status as at today. Last column refers to Super hornets only, not necessarily EA-18G although there was significant overlap.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 10:39
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Super hornet program status as at today. Last column refers to Super hornets only, not necessarily EA-18G although there was significant overlap.




I see Boeing is already getting Corporate Welfare. Even without the F-15EX........ :?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 04:28
by weasel1962
Decided to address some of the fake news with the below extract from FY 2020 budget.

"The F-15C/D Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the Longeron addresses a potential safety of flight issue and is required to support the fleet required service life to 2045....Program procuring 234 Longeron Kits."

US$143m program cost for 234 kits = $611k per kit. Together with $24m FY 2020 budget request, if approved, will fund ~60 thru 2020. Looks like program would complete FY 2023.

Extract from page 234 of the link below.
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... 152848-747

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 21:59
by spazsinbad
Re READINESS post previous page 19 this thread: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=55106&p=416094&hilit=Werner#p416094
F-35C Readiness Rises, Navy Fighter Shortfall Fades [LLOOOOOOONNG Article BEST READ at SOURCE]
10 Apr 2019 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...On Navy and Marine Corps F-35s, “we are seeing readiness rates increase, commensurate to what we’re seeing on other aviation platforms,” Geurts [acquisition chief {of what?}] told reporters after an upbeat hearing with the Senate seapower subcommittee. “Our mission readiness rates when deployed … have been very good.”

Specifically for the Navy’s first squadron of carrier-based F-35Cs, VFA-147 (the Argonauts), “we’ve seen anywhere from 60 percent MC [mission capable] to 80 percent MC, depending on the day,” testified Rear Adm. Scott Conn, director of Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) on the Navy’s Pentagon staff. Now, that’s with just seven airplanes, Conn cautioned, which means one plane doing unusually well or poorly can have an outsize impact on the overall figure.

For comparison, the overall F-35 fleet, most of it Air Force, is hovering around 60 percent availability (not exactly the same measuring as Mission Capable). But F-35s at the Red Flag wargames were able to hit 90 percent. So getting a specific high-priority unit to high readiness is not the problem: It’s scaling up such small-scale successes to the fleet as a whole — even as that fleet is growing.

“We know the aircraft can be reliable and can be maintained, and maintained in an austere environment,” Geurts told reporters. “We’ve just got to be able to continue to do that at scale across the entire fleet as the fleet grows.”

So, I asked, are these just the kind of teething troubles typical for any new aircraft? It’s more complicated than that, Geurts said, because of the sheer scale and complexity of the F-35 program.

“The unique challenge to F-35 is [we’re] ramping up very quickly in production,” Geurts said. With three US services and 11 foreign partners — no longer counting Turkey — “the good news is demand is high for the aircraft and folks are flying the aircraft with lots of hours,” he went on. “The challenge for the enterprise is to be able grow production rates and be able to sustain the growing fleet, simultaneously.” That requires growing the supply system to match, he said, as well as “making some adjustments to ALIS.”

Compare those comments with Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson’s publicly savaging the Autonomic Logistics Information System as “so frustrating to use, maintainers said they were wasting 10-15 hours a week fighting with it … and looking for ways to bypass it to try to make F-35s mission capable.”

Why’s the Navy so much calmer about these problems? In part, because they haven’t bet the farm on F-35. The Air Force basically stopped buying fighters in the 1990s to wait for so-called fifth generation aircraft that, unlike the “wobblin’ goblin” F-117, combined stealth with high performance: first the F-22, cut from 381 planes to 179, and then the F-35A, of which the Air Force plans to buy 1,763. The Marines, similarly, decided to keep their old AV-8 Harriers and F-18 Hornets until the F-35B jump jet model came along. But the Navy developed a new non-stealthy aircraft, a radically upgraded F-18 known as the Super Hornet, and they’ve kept buying new ones ever since.

With the Pentagon now forcing the Air Force to buy an upgraded version of the non-stealthy F-15 Eagle, the Navy’s looking pretty smart....



Source:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 22:46
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Decided to address some of the fake news with the below extract from FY 2020 budget.

"The F-15C/D Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the Longeron addresses a potential safety of flight issue and is required to support the fleet required service life to 2045....Program procuring 234 Longeron Kits."


What fake news does that refute? The F-15 C/D longerons were a new start in the FY18 budget.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 16:03
by spazsinbad
F-15EX vs. F-35A [Four Pages with this entire article including graphic from May Magazine is attached below]
May 2019 John A. Tirpak

"Two jets from different eras, with different missions, strengths, and weaknesses, face off in a battle for today’s funds.

The F-35 Lightning has been the Air Force’s sole new fighter program since 2009, when the F-22 Raptor program was prematurely terminated. While behind schedule, the program has been a top Air Force priority for more than a decade and until recently, was expected to remain USAF’s only fighter program until a future capability, still undefined, comes online.

Now the F-35 faces a new challenge from an old jet design, a variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle; an airplane from an earlier era, built for a different mission. Though the Air Force denies it, the two jets are competing for inevitably limited dollars within the service’s fighter portfolio....

...While the Air Force has maintained since 2001 that it will not buy any “new old” fighters, and that it needs to transition as quickly as possible to an all-5th-gen force, proponents argue that buying F-15s and F-35s concurrently would fill gaps in the fighter fleet more rapidly. Moreover, USAF leaders, defending the new F-15 buy, have said that the F-35 still hasn’t proven it can be maintained at the advertised cost (comparable to the F-16, at about $20,000 per hour) and the service prefers to wait to make large bulk buys of the airplane after the Block 4 version starts rolling off the assembly line in the mid-2020s. This approach, they say, will also avoid spending large amounts of money to update earlier versions of the F-35 to the Block 4 configuration.

...the F-15EX requires almost no new development, would be able to execute a test program very quickly, and requires minimal additional development.

Air Force officials say one potential mission for the F-15EX would be carrying “outsize” munitions, such as hypersonic missiles, and as a possible standoff weapons magazine working in conjunction with the F-22.

The F-35 and F-15EX were designed in different eras for different missions.

The F-15C was designed for air superiority in the pre-stealth era; the F-35 to be the battlefield “quarterback,” gathering vast amounts of information from behind enemy lines while executing stealthy strikes and picking off enemy fighters. Yet, as Congress decides how to invest in future aircraft, comparisons are necessary as the two planes compete for resources...."

Graphic: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... al.v30.pdf

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... -35A-.aspx

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 17:44
by doge
spazsinbad wrote:
F-15EX vs. F-35A

3.8mm!! :shock: !? 8)wow

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 13:55
by mixelflick
What "hypersonic" weapons will the F-15 be carrying?

None that I can see. They'd be better "slung" by the F-35 anyway..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 16:03
by ricnunes
doge wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
F-15EX vs. F-35A

3.8mm!! :shock: !? 8)wow


:D

Moreover,
- F-35 detection range versus S-400 --> 21 Miles
- F-15EX detection range versus S-400 --> 195 to 215 Miles

I guess that the USAF may/could have another role for the F-15EX -> S-400 bait! :roll:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 16:34
by spazsinbad

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 16:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The F-15 RCS is a bold faced lie as well. 42.8 ft is just under 4m^2. Doubly misleading is indicating that RCS is for a Beast Mode F-15. Plenty of reports have shown that F-15s are on the order of 25m^2 clean. Beast mode would be closer to 42.8m^2 than 42.8ft^2.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 17:12
by usnvo
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The F-15 RCS is a bold faced lie as well. 42.8 ft is just under 4m^2. Doubly misleading is indicating that RCS is for a Beast Mode F-15. Plenty of reports have shown that F-15s are on the order of 25m^2 clean. Beast mode would be closer to 42.8m^2 than 42.8ft^2.


"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Razor. I doubt it is a lie, or at least not on the part of USAF Magazine, merely incompetence.

Look at the graph, obviously generated by someone with no familiarity in the topic. Beyond mixing units of measurement in their RCS comparison (metric and standard), they also use a linear measurement instead of an area measurement as would be required for RCS. So right off the bat they have no credibility. But beyond that, which is pretty damning, they also show combat radius without any qualifiers but it is clear they are talking about different missions, provide dollar figures that don't match the budget books (including that they are only estimates and don't include engines or GFM in the case of the F-15X), and show different missions for the aircraft although if the F-35A was to replace the F-15C instead of a F-15X, it would perform the exact same mission.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 17:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
usnvo wrote:"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Razor. I doubt it is a lie, or at least not on the part of USAF Magazine, merely incompetence.

Fair enough. As you pointed out there are a LOT of errors and inconsistencies.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 17:26
by spazsinbad
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
usnvo wrote:"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Razor. I doubt it is a lie, or at least not on the part of USAF Magazine, merely incompetence.

Fair enough. As you pointed out there are a LOT of errors and inconsistencies.

:twisted: :devil: Ya just gotta luv the interbabble. :doh: :roll:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 19:21
by marsavian
The future viability of F-15EX against serious opposition rests entirely on how effective EPAWSS can be in protecting it from radar. From my understanding it will be spherical in its coverage and will send deception jamming back on receiving radar pings. How effective that will be remains to be seen.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 20:10
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:The future viability of F-15EX against serious opposition rests entirely on how effective EPAWSS can be in protecting it from radar. From my understanding it will be spherical in its coverage and will send deception jamming back on receiving radar pings. How effective that will be remains to be seen.


Which explains why the F-15EX was requested before EPAWSS even flew...

And that does nothing for the IR spectrum where the F-15 is a big, hot target.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 01:39
by weasel1962
Good to know the Niratam difference is that high. Explains all the F-15s lost to IR missiles over the past few decades.

Also good to know that an engine that has a 3600 deg TIT has a smaller IR signature than engine that has a <2500 deg TIT. Astounding US only physics.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 01:50
by Corsair1963
deleted

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 01:58
by spazsinbad
Am I dreamin' or was above posted previous page: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=55106&p=417227&hilit=Tirpak#p417227

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 02:18
by Corsair1963
As usual much of the information is inaccurate or at very least "misleading"! Especially, in regards to Range, Payload, and Top Speed.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... al.v30.pdf

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 02:23
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Good to know the Niratam difference is that high. Explains all the F-15s lost to IR missiles over the past few decades.

Also good to know that an engine that has a 3600 deg TIT has a smaller IR signature than engine that has a <2500 deg TIT. Astounding US only physics.


You've had at least two instances of friendly IR AAMs damaging or destroying F-15s.
The F-15S hit by the IIR AAM-as-SAM over Yemen looks like a hull loss.

More to the point, radiation intensity is radiance * projected area which is why aircraft skin temperatures
due to aero-heating will dominate (for most of the threat viewing angles and most engine power settings)
over the engine casing even though the latter is hotter.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 03:58
by weasel1962
For the rest of us that live in the real world, the biggest IR signature comes from the engine. How many of those "numerous" F-15 losses have not come in the direction of the tailpipe?

A higher bypass ratio might help to cool down the engine. Engine deflectors like those on the f-22 helps significantly. However the F-35 has an engine that is way hotter (for a simple fact to generate more thrust) and has a lower bypass ratio than the F-110 which means the F-110 can cool better. Its very easy to ignore fact when trying to demonise anything but demonising a plane that is served with pride as a primary interceptor sounds ridiculous.

And of course, fact doesn't count with magic planes. Might as well argue the magic plane does not emit any engine plumes.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 04:10
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:For the rest of us that live in the real world, the biggest IR signature comes from the engine. How many of those "numerous" F-15 losses have not come in the direction of the tailpipe?

A higher bypass ratio might help to cool down the engine. Engine deflectors like those on the f-22 helps significantly. However the F-35 has an engine that is way hotter (for a simple fact to generate more thrust) and has a lower bypass ratio than the F-110 which means the F-110 can cool better. Its very easy to ignore fact when trying to demonise anything but demonising a plane that is served with pride as a primary interceptor sounds ridiculous.

And of course, fact doesn't count with magic planes. Might as well argue the magic plane does not emit any engine plumes.

More thrust doesn't automatically = higher IR signature.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 04:20
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:For the rest of us that live in the real world, the biggest IR signature comes from the engine.


Those of us who care about all-aspect threats, you know like practically every IR threat since the late 70's
worry about those other signatures.

weasel1962 wrote: How many of those "numerous" F-15 losses have not come in the direction of the tailpipe?


Irrelevant since the two hit by friendly air-to-air IR were hit by all-aspects IR missiles. So was the F-15S over Yemen.

weasel1962 wrote:A higher bypass ratio might help to cool down the engine. Engine deflectors like those on the f-22 helps significantly. However the F-35 has an engine that is way hotter (for a simple fact to generate more thrust) and has a lower bypass ratio than the F-110 which means the F-110 can cool better.


Displays a complete lack of understanding about how plume signature reduction is achieved on the F-35.

weasel1962 wrote:Its very easy to ignore fact when trying to demonise anything but demonising a plane that is served with pride as a primary interceptor sounds ridiculous.


If it's primary role is claimed to be that of an interceptor then frontal IR signature is even more important
than plume reduction.

weasel1962 wrote:And of course, fact doesn't count with magic planes. Might as well argue the magic plane does not emit any engine plumes.


One was the beneficiary of a massive effort to reduce plume signature. One wasn't. Which is going to be more useful?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 06:31
by weasel1962
The F-135 is a much hotter engine with a lower bypass ratio no matter how somebody tries to spin it.

F-15 today hasn't benefited at all? Same engines today as 1970? lol.

The fact is that the USAF and USN still has 2000 of these legacy big hot targets in service. All doomed based on IR according to a junior LM marketeer.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 07:33
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:The F-135 is a much hotter engine with a lower bypass ratio no matter how somebody tries to spin it. A lot of other cr*p doesn't change that fact.


You can't summarily reject other techniques just because you aren't conversant with them.

weasel1962 wrote:F-15 today hasn't benefited at all? Same engines today as 1970? lol.


Even the F-15SE wasn't claiming any meaningful infrared signature reduction.

weasel1962 wrote:The fact is that the USAF and USN still has 2000 of these legacy big hot targets in service. All doomed based on IR according to junior LM marketeer wannabe.


Hence the investment in standoff weapons for those platforms. As events over Yemen have shown,
there's plenty of ersatz IR SAMs and FLIR out there that are real threats to aircraft that don't posses
meaningful IR signature reduction.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:05
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:You can't summarily reject other techniques just because you aren't conversant with them.


Not really. I'm just doing what you are doing. Ignoring the rest except in your case, you're ignoring the most plain & obvious thing.

marauder2048 wrote:Even the F-15SE wasn't claiming any meaningful infrared signature reduction.


Not sure why would the F-15 want to do so when its engines are already significantly less hot. Its like saying the A-10 should claim no 1 for IR signature because of its turbofan engines. Everyone already knows that as a fact except maybe the magic plane rah rah band. On the rest of the plane, why can't legacies use low-E paint?

Of course the F-35 needs brilliant thermal IR signature management. Its running the hottest engine out there. If they didn't do anything, the plane would be more of a lighthouse than it already is.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:18
by weasel1962
What should be 101 since 1985.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a620840.pdf

Except for molecular emissions of the exhaust plume and emissions from hot metal parts related to the engine, radiation emitted and scattered by the airframe is the dominant part of the aircraft IR signature. The magnitudes of the airframe components are largely governed by the emissive-reflective properties of the surface coatings, i.e., paints.


Example.
https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites/de ... _Hires.pdf

Of course an F-15 has a higher niratam rating than a magic plane. But not clear why the niratam rating for an F-15 would be higher than an F-35....

P.s. waiting for someone to say because it has 2 plumes.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:23
by spazsinbad
I'm jumping in late not having read all the previous 'hot engine' IR posts (because this is the F2020 DoD Budget thread) to point to this thread with probably good info especially from you guessed it 'hornetfinn', 'TEG' & other good contributors:

Infrared Signature of the F135 engine? http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=28509

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:56
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Not really. I'm just doing what you are doing. Ignoring the rest except in your case, you're ignoring the most plain & obvious thing.


Because it's been the focus of signature reduction efforts datings back to at least the SR-71 since
that's the only infrared signature that the detectors of the period leading up to the late-70's could see.

All-aspect has been the focus for the last 30 years. Because that's where the threats are.


weasel1962 wrote:Not sure why would the F-15 want to do so when its engines are already significantly less hot.


Which is why both GE and P&W offered LOAN as a backfit to the F110s.

The reason you haven't seen a concerted effort to reduce the exhaust signature is that
the rest of the aircraft would still be awful. It's a function of projected area and a
lack of a plausible cooling scheme for surfaces.


marauder2048 wrote:Its like saying the A-10 should claim no 1 for IR signature because of its turbofan engines.


That was in fact the claim that high-bypass turbofans would reduce IR signature for the A-10.


marauder2048 wrote:On the rest of the plane, why can't legacies use low-E paint?


Why can't legacies use active cooling of surfaces?

marauder2048 wrote:Of course the F-35 needs brilliant thermal IR signature management


Because it's trying to survive in a high-end threat environment

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:57
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:What should be 101 since 1985.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a620840.pdf

Except for molecular emissions of the exhaust plume and emissions from hot metal parts related to the engine, radiation emitted and scattered by the airframe is the dominant part of the aircraft IR signature. The magnitudes of the airframe components are largely governed by the emissive-reflective properties of the surface coatings, i.e., paints.


Example.
https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites/de ... _Hires.pdf

Of course an F-15 has a higher niratam rating than a magic plane. But not clear why the niratam rating for an F-15 would be higher than an F-35....

P.s. waiting for someone to say because it has 2 plumes.



"F-35 and F-22 engines have both pretty well buried hot parts. For example F135 has unusually long exhaust pipe which narrows down the viewing angles where hot parts are visible. AFAIK, both have active cooling measures for airframe and exhaust nozzle and also exhaust gases. As seen in those pictures, both also have exhaust nozzle and also hottest part of exhaust gases well hidden behind tail components from most viewing angles. Of course all jet fighters can be easily seen by IR sensors from behind due to massive amount of heat generated by the engine. However the most important part is frontal and beam aspect angles. One important thing is solar reflections from canopy and airframe which are large contributors in IR signature of regular aircraft. Both F-22 and F-35 likely have very well suppressed solar reflections due to coatings used."

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 09:23
by garrya
weasel1962 wrote:For the rest of us that live in the real world, the biggest IR signature comes from the engine. How many of those "numerous" F-15 losses have not come in the direction of the tailpipe?

A higher bypass ratio might help to cool down the engine. Engine deflectors like those on the f-22 helps significantly. However the F-35 has an engine that is way hotter (for a simple fact to generate more thrust) and has a lower bypass ratio than the F-110 which means the F-110 can cool better. Its very easy to ignore fact when trying to demonise anything but demonising a plane that is served with pride as a primary interceptor sounds ridiculous

I agree F-110 plume is cooler than F-135 since the higher bypass ratio and lower thrust
However, while the jet plume is the hottest part, depend on the aspect of the aircraft with IR sensor it is irrelevant to IR detection distance, in simple words, in many aspects, the engine nozzle and the jet plumes are blocked from the sensor view and therefore they do not contribute a great part to total IR signature in these cases
For example:
infrared-percentages.png


that simple diagram not necessarily applied to F-35 vs F-15 case, but i am sure youcan get the idea
IMHO, F-35 is extremely good at hiding its engine nozzle from most directions
videoblocks-f-22-f-35-side-by-side_h0bww0xrz_thumbnail-full01.png

35.png


So unless they are in afterburner the factor that determines IR sensor detection range will be the airframe size, F-15 is obviously bigger, that is not an advantage against an optical sensor
F-16, F-35, F-15, F-22 lineup (1024).png


Furthermore, F-35 has 2 big vents for nacelle bay ventilation by ambient air, that is a good way to reduce skin heating from engine
f-35 ventillation.png

4iya3rk.jpg

f-35-nozzle.png

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 09:44
by garrya
It is a great mistake to talk about F-35 IR reduction measure and not mention the design of F-135 nozzle.
The naccel bay ventilation air is used to cool down the nozzle flaps
1.PNG

2.PNG

us06398129-20020604-d00002.png

iwakuni-019.jpg


The engine blocked is also cooled
4.PNG


Finally, testing has shown, a serrated nozzle will reduce exhaust plumes length
nozzles.png

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 10:05
by marsavian
Garrya, thanks for all that impressive detail which shows conclusively that IR emission reduction was an important part of the F-35 design too as I previously worried about that issue. They really did think of everything ! ;)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 10:20
by weasel1962
Plume size also is dependent on engine thrust. Higher thrust = bigger plume. If one sees how big a plume can get, one would understand the extent of usefulness are the IR blockers.

Air-frame size again generates aerodynamic heat, the faster the plane goes. A low subsonic low altitude speed is not going to have a significant difference. More importantly, is the surface area from the front really dramatically different between the planes.

I'm not questioning the F-35's IR signature. It need to reduce what is clearly a much higher TIT. Granted, the F-15 has a massive RCS. That part of the science is clear, no arguments there. However if someone makes a claim that the F-15 has a massive IR signature, the onus is on those people to prove it.

P.s. Wasn't LOAN tested on the F110-GE-129?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 10:28
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Plume size also is dependent on engine thrust. Higher thrust = bigger plume. If one sees how big a plume can get, one would understand the extent of usefulness are the IR blockers.

Air-frame size again generates aerodynamic heat, the faster the plane goes. A low subsonic low altitude speed is not going to have a significant difference. More importantly, is the surface area from the front really dramatically different between the planes.

I'm not questioning the F-35's IR signature. It need to reduce what is clearly a much higher TIT. Granted, the F-15 has a massive RCS. That part of the science is clear, no arguments there. However if someone makes a claim that the F-15 has a massive IR signature, the onus is on those people to prove it.

P.s. Wasn't LOAN tested on the F110-GE-129?


F100-PW-200

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 11:28
by spazsinbad
Free LM PDF: F-35 Air Vehicle Technology Overview https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... erview.pdf (3.1Mb) 4 Page extract below LOAN & Heat management full PDF is the go.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 11:41
by garrya
weasel1962 wrote:Plume size also is dependent on engine thrust. Higher thrust = bigger plume. If one sees how big a plume can get, one would understand the extent of usefulness are the IR blockers.

F135 hot part is better buried than F-110 and F-100, i guess partly because F-135 has fewer compressor stages ( 3-stage fan, 6-stage high-pressure compressor) compared to F-110 (3 fan and 9 high pressure compressor stages) and F-100 (3 fan and 10 compressor stages). Thus, the exhaust plumes have to move a longer distance before it is shown outside the nozzle.
1.PNG

Hence, while F-135 has higher thrust, its plumes is not necessary longer outside the nozzle and imho, 1 plume is smaller than 2 plumes
Without any doubt, at full thrust, plumes can get very big and extend far further than the engine nozzle, but then once you are at max AB then you are as bright as a forest fire
maxresdefault.jpg

rZynd1e.jpg


weasel1962 wrote:Air-frame size again generates aerodynamic heat, the faster the plane goes. A low subsonic low altitude speed is not going to have a significant difference

I don't think both planes will fly at low subsonic all the time, especially for F-15 due to the massive RCS, it will be engaged by SAM and interceptor from further and more often, thus it must attack enemy from longer range, to do that you probably need to climb and accelerate, in short, flying slow is easier to follow in an F-35

weasel1962 wrote:More importantly, is the surface area from the front really dramatically different between the planes.

Not very dramatic but F-35 has others IR signature reduction measures such as cooled engine blocker, cooled nozzle, serrated nozzle, big scopes for nacelle bay ventilation, somewhat better nozzle shielding
an-air-to-air-left-side-view-of-an-f-15-eagle-aircraft-carrying-tow-aim-9-sidewinder-1e0b95-1600.jpg

lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii-view-from-a-side-51202-2560x1600.jpg

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 11:54
by garrya
marsavian wrote:Garrya, thanks for all that impressive detail which shows conclusively that IR emission reduction was an important part of the F-35 design too as I previously worried about that issue. They really did think of everything ! ;)

You are welcome :wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 18:19
by wrightwing
The mistake being made here is the use of the "all else being equal," mindset. When comparing the F-15/F-100/F-110 vs an F-35/F-135, all else is not even remotely equal. There's no metric or spectrum, where an F-15 is less visible (or has superior IR characteristics) than an F-35. As has been stated repeatedly, the engine/nozzle/airframe design, location, and techniques used on the F-35, result in a much smaller signature, from any viewing angle.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 19:38
by f119doctor
Higher engine TIT does not necessarily result in a higher temperature exhaust plume, especially if accompanied by higher engine overall pressure ratio. That high TIT goes down as the turbines extract work to drive the compressors, and expansion through the exhaust nozzle all lower the plume temperature before it exits the aircraft. Higher TIT and OPR together increase the thermodynamic cycle efficiency of the engine, everything else being equal (which they never are). Obviously, bypass ratio and nozzle pressure ratio all play into the exhaust plume temperature.

As noted in previous posts, turbine exhaust case, augmenter liner, and nozzle liner cooling are all used to reduce the visible thermal signature of the exhaust system components.

Also, remember that these aircraft do not spend all of their time at Intermediate or Max AB. During much of the mission, the engines are throttled back to cruise power, with lower plume and exhaust hardware temperatures. Throttle settings can be part of the pilot's signature management throughout the mission.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 04:10
by doge
From Beaufort. 8)
https://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/op ... 73179.html
MCAS Beaufort Air Show stars F-35’s might. So why is Pentagon pushing F-15 for USAF?
BY SHANNON ERICKSON SPECIAL TO THE BEAUFORT GAZETTE AND THE ISLAND PACKET
APRIL 23, 2019 10:15 AM,
With the Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station Air Show this weekend, we have the opportunity to see the world’s most advanced fighter jet — the F-35 Lightning II — up close and learn more about its contributions to the Palmetto State’s economy and role in keeping America safe.

The F-35 is as stealthy as a shadow, using advanced computer engineering and extraordinary power to protect our pilots and our country.

Beaufort is the most important training base for the U.S. Marine Corps’ version of the fighter jet, the F-35B. Pilots from the U.S. and the U.K. and Italy have trained in our hometown, and some of these pilots have already used the F-35 in combat.

Last year, companies producing components of the F-35 aircraft supported almost 500 direct and indirect jobs across the state, providing almost $34 million in economic impact.

Many of these suppliers are small businesses, but even more important to Beaufort is the economic impact from the Pilot Training Center and the Marines and their families coming to Beaufort for training, and spending money on rent, restaurants, clothes and cars at local business. The people strengthen our community as their expenditures boost our economy.

Looking well beyond our local borders, we see China and Russia striving to compete with this example of American ingenuity. We must respond to this reality, but the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the jet, are fighting to make sure American taxpayers get the most for their money.

The cost for some F-35s will fall below $80 million next year, in large part because the jet is being developed and upgraded at the same time. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will all fly similar jets but with different capabilities, meaning that there are lower development costs, and selling the jet to America’s allies helps the F-35 program reach economies of scale to lower costs.

You can imagine my surprise when I read that the Pentagon brass is trying to push the Air Force to buy F-15s instead of F-35s. The F-15 has been in production since 1976, and production of this fourth-generation airplane is due to end in 2022.

The F-35 capabilities can never be added to an old F-15 aircraft, because what makes the F-35 a fifth-generation fighter is built into its stealthy structure, advanced avionics, and helmet with a 365-degree view.

The first time I saw an F-35B fly, I was amazed at its power, but when I had the chance to fly the cockpit demonstrator, the power and advanced capabilities became real to me. Our men and women in uniform need these capabilities to stay safe in our uncertain world.

Would you want your son or daughter to go to war with less protection than was available because someone in the Pentagon thought that 45-year-old airplane was good enough? Those of us living in the area — and truly across the Palmetto State — are proud, as the F-35 sound of freedom protects our country and makes our world safer.

Our Beaufort Marines know that their F-35 planes are on the front lines of fighting tyranny. From North Korea to Syria, both American and international F-35 pilots are showing the vital difference made by the only fifth-generation fighter jet so far operating in the world.

As you watch the amazing capabilities of the F-35 at the Beaufort air show this weekend, realize that you are watching a fighter that the world envies and that is contributing to the economy of our state, safety of our men and women in uniform, and protecting America.

Shannon Erickson of Beaufort represents District 124 in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 06:06
by Corsair1963
If, the OSD/USAF go thru with buying the F-15EX. That decision will be attacked and ridiculed for years to come. As a "colossal mistake"......

:shock:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 13:38
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:If, the OSD/USAF go thru with buying the F-15EX. That decision will be attacked and ridiculed for years to come. As a "colossal mistake"......

:shock:


Didn't stop Gates from going stupid on the F-22...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 22:21
by spazsinbad
Air Force secretary raised ethical concerns about Shanahan
25 Apr 2019 Aaron Mehta

"...a new inspector general investigation into the acting secretary of defense — released Thursday, and clearing him of any wrongdoing in regards to pushing products from his previous employer, Boeing — shows the tensions existed at a different level than previously reported. Of the 33 witnesses interviewed by the IG’s office, including former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, the joint chiefs, and other top Pentagon officials, Wilson was the only one to raise red flags about Shanahan’s behavior.

“None of the other witnesses told us that they had any concerns regarding his adherence to his ethical obligations. Many reported that Mr. Shanahan was attentive to his ethical obligations,” the IG wrote. While Wilson raised concerns about Shanahan’s actions, others in the Pentagon interviewed by the IG noted that the former executive was preemptive in avoiding what may be conflicts of interest....

...Wilson’s concerns came from three areas. The first, Shanahan’s potential role in a decision to accept the KC-46 tanker despite ongoing issues from manufacturer Boeing; second, a December meeting between Shanahan and Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX; and third, whether the former executive shared classified information from Boeing programs improperly....

...Despite these three concern areas, Wilson did tell the IG she felt Shanahan mostly acted properly when talking about his past with Boeing.... ...Wilson also stated that Shanahan may have said, “’We would never have done it this way. Or we wouldn’t do it this way,’” adding: “It was more comparing his experience and criticizing a contractor that he felt wasn’t getting the supply chain right.” She later told the IG that she never had a discussion with Shanahan about buying the F-15X, a Boeing-made jet…."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... -shanahan/

Shanahan Cleared of Wrongdoing by Pentagon IG, Setting Stage for Nomination
25 Apr 2019 Brian Everstine

"The Defense Department Inspector General on Thursday cleared Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan of allegations that he violated an ethics agreement and promoted his former employer, paving the way for a possible nomination to take the job permanently. The IG opened the investigation in early March after reports that he criticized Lockheed Martin over the performance of the F-35 program. Watchdog organizations and anonymous individuals claimed this was a violation of an ethics agreement he has in the Defense Department that forces him to recuse himself from Boeing-related matters. Shanahan has said he welcomed the investigation.

“We did not substantiate any of the allegations,” the IG states. “We determined that Mr. Shanahan fully complied with his ethics agreements and his ethical obligations regarding Boeing and its competitors.”

...The IG said the complaints against Shanahan also included pressure on Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein to buy the Boeing F-15EX, and to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller to buy more Boeing F/A-18s. A Senate Armed Services Committee attorney and member of the staff of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) forwarded allegations, along with a complaint from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington....

...Additionally, there “was no evidence that he made any comments pressuring General Neller, General Goldfein, or anyone else, about purchasing F-15 or F/A-18 aircraft as alleged,” states the report....

...The investigation focused on the decision to buy the F-15EX, which originated from the DOD’s. Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office. During these discussions, CAPE spoke only in general mission capabilities with Shanahan and not specifically about individual aircraft. Mattis made the ultimate decision, and “Shanahan did not participate in these discussions or decisions, and he did not provide any guidance or direction on this subject.” Goldfein told the IG that in his experience with Shanahan, “he’s been very disciplined about adhering to the recusal.”...

...Wilson told investigators that Shanahan wouldn’t tout Boeing. While he would make references to his experience in programs like the Dreamliner, she never took it as an ethical problem. Wilson said that while Shanahan may have said, “We would never have done it this way, or we wouldn’t do it this way. … It was more comparing his experience and criticizing a contract that felt he wasn’t getting the supply chain right.”


However, Wilson said elsewhere in the report that at times, specifically related to the meeting with Musk, meetings on the KC-46, and in a separate classified matter that “at least on one occasion, I felt uncomfortable.” This was the only concern brought up in the interviews, according to the report. Other witnesses spoke highly of Shanahan, with Mattis saying he was “my ethical standard bearer the way he carried out his duties on a whole host of issues.”

With the investigation over, Shanahan has cleared a major hurdle to being nominated to be the Defense Secretary permanently, a step he said he wants.

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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 23:14
by marauder2048
So CAPE's report on 4th/5th gen mix is finalized in June of 2017.

But No new builds show up in the AF's FY19 or initial FY20 budget. But what you do have
in the FY19 budget is the first appearance of F-15 C/D Wing Replacement.

So what's actually in that report?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 23:24
by spazsinbad
DoDIG Completely Clears Shanahan Of Ethics Charges
25 Apr 2019 Colin Clark

"Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan did not abuse his office, the DoD Inspector General found.

...The investigators combed through more than 5,600 pages of unclassified and about 1,700 pages of classified documents “related to the allegations and the relevant major defense acquisition systems.” The bottom line was stark and clear: “We did not substantiate any of the allegations. We determined that Mr. Shanahan fully complied with his ethics agreements and his ethical obligations regarding Boeing and its competitors.” The investigation started on the Ides of March, not necessarily an auspicious day. Few senior officials I’d spoken with believed Shanahan had violated any ethics agreements, but the day clearing him of the allegations is auspicious for all involved....

...Shanahan did not abuse his office, the IG found."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/sha ... by-dod-ig/

IG Report: Shanahan Called F-35 Program, Not Plane, 'F-----d Up'
25 Apr 2019 Gina Harkins

"...Shanahan allegedly called the F-35 Lightning II program "f---ed up," according to the report. Witnesses said he was critical of how Lockheed Martin and the DoD Joint Program Office managed the F-35, but all but one said he didn't "repeatedly dump" on the aircraft.

The acting defense secretary told investigators the F-35 aircraft itself is "awesome," but that the program is "f---ed up." There are too many expensive retrofits, he said, and the planes are too often on the ground awaiting those fixes. But that sentiment appears to be widespread among Pentagon leaders. Witnesses said his comments about the F-35 program are consistent with those made by other defense leaders, the report states.

"Many people criticized the F-35 program," Air Force Gen. John Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, told investigators. "I've criticized the F-35 program in public." Robert Daigle, director of the Defense Department's cost-assessment and program evaluation, said, "Most of the people in the [Pentagon]" have said critical things about the F-35 program.

Mattis tasked Shanahan with reviewing the F-35 program last spring. While Mattis said Shanahan did make comments about the program that some might have considered disparaging, the former defense secretary wanted him to be honest. "He's doing his job, as far as I'm concerned," Mattis said. "I didn't pay him to be a shrinking violet when it came to saving the government money."...

...Investigators did not substantiate claims that Shanahan had made disparaging remarks about Lockheed Martin's chief executive officer. None of the witnesses said they'd heard Shanahan speak negatively about Lockheed Martin as a company or its CEO, the report states.

When asked about those allegations, Shanahan said that, whenever he spoke about Lockheed, it was always in connection to the F-35 program. "He said he was 'disappointed and frustrated' that Lockheed Martin was not supporting its customer, the DoD, properly, and was not taking the initiative to give the government a plan for improving its F-35 program," the report states...." [long article BEST READ AT SOURCE]

Source: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... e-f-d.html

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 23:40
by marsavian
One can't help but feel that if there had been an existing plan to replace ANG F-15C with F-35 then this would not have left a vacuum for the F-15X concept to be born.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 00:39
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:One can't help but feel that if there had been an existing plan to replace ANG F-15C with F-35 then this would not have left a vacuum for the F-15X concept to be born.


The previous plans were premised on cost-effectiveness and involved SLEPs.

A. SLEP'ed F-16s + AESA from units that had converted to F-35

or

B. SLEP'ed F-15C/Ds (longeron + wing replacement) + maybe EPAWSS according to DODIG

Option B was in FY19 and I'm guessing in the original FY20 submission since Option B lets
you grow capacity provided you do the SLEP part of Option A for which they were targeting $2.4 million per F-16.

So even all of A + B is substantially cheaper for two SLEP'ed aircraft than an F-35 or F-15 new build.

So the question again is: what was in the report?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 06:33
by weasel1962
Looks like somebody wasn't a Boeing Marketeer. No one gets a warning for suggesting that. Only applies to suggesting LM marketeers apparently.

https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/25/2 ... 19-082.PDF

3. Alleged Threats Regarding the Purchase of F- 15X Aircraft

CAPE had a meeting with Secretary Mattis, Ms. Wilson, and General Goldfein regarding the 4th and 5th generation mix. Mr. Daigle told us that during this meeting, Ms. Wilson and General Goldfein told Secretary Mattis that the Air Force agreed with the CAPE recommendation.


Fact: Wilson, Goldfein and Airforce already agreed to the F-15X before year 2019.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 13:54
by marsavian
So if Congress goes against the F-15EX they will have to provide a viable alternative to the requirements that CAPE used to justify it as they can't use alleged ethics issues to deny it. Frankly I see it surviving along with more F-35 top-ups to placate the F-35 caucus. Despite their old vulnerable designs one thing I like about both the F-15/F-18 products is the sheer amount of fuel they can both carry when fully laden with CFT/EFT, well over 30 klbs, which as platforms will give them great range and endurance. Sure, not stealthy, but very far out they might be the only fighter platform at least until PCA comes onboard.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 17:57
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Mr. Daigle told us that during this meeting, Ms. Wilson and General Goldfein told Secretary Mattis that the Air Force agreed with the CAPE recommendation.


That's what's called hearsay. You won't find any evidence of in that document of Goldfein endorsing it.
Plus, if OSD directs you to do something there's no recourse but to agree. If you don't in reality, you
vote with your feet and resign which is what Wilson is doing.

weasel1962 wrote:Fact: Wilson, Goldfein and Airforce already agreed to the F-15X before year 2019.


Then why wasn't it in the FY19 or the initial FY20 budget? CAPE's report had been out for two budget cycles.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 18:32
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:So if Congress goes against the F-15EX they will have to provide a viable alternative to the requirements that CAPE used


Just call Daigle to testify as to the impossibility of new builds being cheaper than the SLEP.
A simple: "what happened to the F-15 C/D Wing replacement funds that had the benefit of CAPE's CY2017 analysis?"
would answer a lot of questions.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 00:38
by marsavian
Well then it shouldn't be that difficult for Congress to reinstate these wing SLEP funds and cancel the F-15EX if they so desire and the political will is there.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 12:51
by optimist
Was there any concerned that he wouldn't pass the ethics committee. It's not a very high bar after all

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2019, 11:31
by spazsinbad
My brain hurts attempting to follow US Budgets - everyone has one and no one can decide on a final one until - ONE DAY.
Here is all the firepower the Pentagon is asking for in its $718 billion [FY2020] budget
26 Apr 2019 Amanda Macias

"Key Points
The Defense Department is asking Congress for $718 billion in its fiscal 2020 budget, an increase of $33 billion or about 5% over what Congress enacted for fiscal 2019.

The Navy and Marine Corps request $205.6 billion, up $9.9 billion from fiscal 2019; the Air Force calls for $204.8 billion, up $11.8 billion from the last request... from fiscal 2019....

• 78 F-35 fighters: $11.2 billion

• 24 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters: $2 billion

• 8 F-15EX fighters: $1.1 billion..."

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/26/breakdo ... quest.html

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2019, 15:00
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:My brain hurts attempting to follow US Budgets - everyone has one and no one can decide on a final one until - ONE DAY.


Here is how us Yanks start learning this stuff in pre-school.
Warning! This is just for generic laws. Budgets are much more complicated!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag

FWIW,
BP

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2019, 01:05
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:My brain hurts attempting to follow US Budgets - everyone has one and no one can decide on a final one until - ONE DAY.
Here is all the firepower the Pentagon is asking for in its $718 billion [FY2020] budget
26 Apr 2019 Amanda Macias

"Key Points
The Defense Department is asking Congress for $718 billion in its fiscal 2020 budget, an increase of $33 billion or about 5% over what Congress enacted for fiscal 2019.

The Navy and Marine Corps request $205.6 billion, up $9.9 billion from fiscal 2019; the Air Force calls for $204.8 billion, up $11.8 billion from the last request... from fiscal 2019....

• 78 F-35 fighters: $11.2 billion

• 24 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters: $2 billion

• 8 F-15EX fighters: $1.1 billion..."

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/26/breakdo ... quest.html


Keyword is "request" as the budget is months away from being "finalized". Trust me a lot of negotiating going on behind the scenes. Between three principals.....(OSD, USAF, and Congress)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2019, 01:10
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:If, the OSD/USAF go thru with buying the F-15EX. That decision will be attacked and ridiculed for years to come. As a "colossal mistake"......

:shock:


Didn't stop Gates from going stupid on the F-22...



This would be far bigger..... :shock:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2019, 14:53
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:If, the OSD/USAF go thru with buying the F-15EX. That decision will be attacked and ridiculed for years to come. As a "colossal mistake"......

:shock:


Didn't stop Gates from going stupid on the F-22...



This would be far bigger..... :shock:


Dunno about that. Cancelling the F-22 set this whole sh!tshow in motion. With not enough Raptors to go around, the F-15C got tapped for double duty. Already an ancient airframe, just maintaining them has become a nightmare. That, according to a mechanic I spoke with from the 104th fighter wing here in MA.

Next, Gates decided to "accelerate" the F-35 program. Then the developmental difficulties started, leading to a delayed service entry date. Since the F-35 isn't perceived as holding an overwhelming advantage air to air like the F-22, it hasn't been pushed into the air to air role. Instead, thinking shifted back to the F-15 and F-16, with the F-15 taking center stage. They know the F-15C isn't going to cut it post 2020, so they elect new build airframes. Now it's eating into the F-35 buy, and nobody has the stones to say enough is enough: Give us more F-35's, it's the best we can do.

They build this thing and it'll have ramifications for around a decade, until PCA gets here. Cancelling the F-22 will be haunting us far longer, and has in fact put US air superiority in jeopardy for the first time since the 1950's. Gates should lose his pension, and be held up as an example of what 1 bad decision can do to not just the branch, but our country as a whole.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2019, 20:07
by marauder2048
According to the arguments being advanced for the F-15X, any extended F-22 buy would not have
addressed the major problems since their argument is that you shouldn't employ 5th gen in the sort of NORAD,
air policing, standoff-for-non-existent weapons, unproven-arsenal plan concepts that they are envisioning.

The argument goes that there would still have been wear-and-tear on the F-22 fleet @ higher operating cost
and that you would still want to preserve those aircraft for the high-end fight.

The F-22's continued production would have solved at least one major problem: keeping Boeing credible as a
producer of fighters capable of operating in the high-end threat environment.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 00:37
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Dunno about that. Cancelling the F-22 set this whole sh!tshow in motion. With not enough Raptors to go around, the F-15C got tapped for double duty. Already an ancient airframe, just maintaining them has become a nightmare. That, according to a mechanic I spoke with from the 104th fighter wing here in MA.

Next, Gates decided to "accelerate" the F-35 program. Then the developmental difficulties started, leading to a delayed service entry date. Since the F-35 isn't perceived as holding an overwhelming advantage air to air like the F-22, it hasn't been pushed into the air to air role. Instead, thinking shifted back to the F-15 and F-16, with the F-15 taking center stage. They know the F-15C isn't going to cut it post 2020, so they elect new build airframes. Now it's eating into the F-35 buy, and nobody has the stones to say enough is enough: Give us more F-35's, it's the best we can do.

They build this thing and it'll have ramifications for around a decade, until PCA gets here. Cancelling the F-22 will be haunting us far longer, and has in fact put US air superiority in jeopardy for the first time since the 1950's. Gates should lose his pension, and be held up as an example of what 1 bad decision can do to not just the branch, but our country as a whole.


The cornerstone of tactical aviation is the Strike Fighter. As dedicated "Air Superiority" is only a small part of the equation. This while the F-35 is more than capable of doing that role. In short if you had to choose between the two (F-22 and F-35) the choice is obvious....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 01:35
by crosshairs
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Dunno about that. Cancelling the F-22 set this whole sh!tshow in motion. With not enough Raptors to go around, the F-15C got tapped for double duty. Already an ancient airframe, just maintaining them has become a nightmare. That, according to a mechanic I spoke with from the 104th fighter wing here in MA.

Next, Gates decided to "accelerate" the F-35 program. Then the developmental difficulties started, leading to a delayed service entry date. Since the F-35 isn't perceived as holding an overwhelming advantage air to air like the F-22, it hasn't been pushed into the air to air role. Instead, thinking shifted back to the F-15 and F-16, with the F-15 taking center stage. They know the F-15C isn't going to cut it post 2020, so they elect new build airframes. Now it's eating into the F-35 buy, and nobody has the stones to say enough is enough: Give us more F-35's, it's the best we can do.

They build this thing and it'll have ramifications for around a decade, until PCA gets here. Cancelling the F-22 will be haunting us far longer, and has in fact put US air superiority in jeopardy for the first time since the 1950's. Gates should lose his pension, and be held up as an example of what 1 bad decision can do to not just the branch, but our country as a whole.


The cornerstone of tactical aviation is the Strike Fighter. As dedicated "Air Superiority" is only a small part of the equation. This while the F-35 is more than capable of doing that role. In short if you had to choose between the two (F-22 and F-35) the choice is obvious....


I'll say the choice is or was obvious: 800 F-22A/B/C and 0 F-35A and 220 to 240 FB-22 along with at least 90 B-2A. Stocking up the USAF with nothing but a jack of all trades and master of nothing strike fighter who had to have the knematics requirement rewritten because of its sluggishness is the biggest blunder I hope I ever live to see. An air force not built to win air superiority first and foremost isn't much of an air force - its a mistake. Navair is now living that reality.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 02:10
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
I'll say the choice is or was obvious: 800 F-22A/B/C and 0 F-35A and 220 to 240 FB-22 along with at least 90 B-2A. Stocking up the USAF with nothing but a jack of all trades and master of nothing strike fighter who had to have the knematics requirement rewritten because of its sluggishness is the biggest blunder I hope I ever live to see. An air force not built to win air superiority first and foremost isn't much of an air force - its a mistake. Navair is now living that reality.



As been discussed many times over. You can't make the F-22 into a Strike Fighter similar to the F-35. Unless, it was designed that way from the start. Plus, even if you could it would be far more expensive than a similar number of F-35's.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 03:51
by quicksilver
Hmmm...that makes how many combat coded jets? What is it now? Just over 1900? That makes it the incredible shrinking Air Force.

Wrt air super’ty, seems everything not named F-22 dies when it fights F-35. So much for giving up air superiority...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 15:00
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:Hmmm...that makes how many combat coded jets? What is it now? Just over 1900? That makes it the incredible shrinking Air Force.

Wrt air super’ty, seems everything not named F-22 dies when it fights F-35. So much for giving up air superiority...


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 15:03
by spazsinbad
Please list your 'unanswered questions' for our delectation.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 16:32
by SpudmanWP
Were F-22's assisting?

How do you think they could help an F-35 obtain an A2A kill?

The target is not going to see the F-35 or F-22.
The F-22 cannot spot the target without alerting the enemy when he calls out the bogey over the radio (unless there was a BACN nearby).
The F-22 cannot shoot down the target and give the F-35 the kill.
The F-22 cannot jam the enemy's radar.

If anything the F-35 would help the F-22s as it is not limited by the above constraints.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 18:29
by quicksilver
“Too many unanswered questions.”

And for interweb warriors, those questions will forever remain so.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 18:45
by mixelflick
SpudmanWP wrote:
Were F-22's assisting?

How do you think they could help an F-35 obtain an A2A kill?

The target is not going to see the F-35 or F-22.
The F-22 cannot spot the target without alerting the enemy when he calls out the bogey over the radio (unless there was a BACN nearby).
The F-22 cannot shoot down the target and give the F-35 the kill.
The F-22 cannot jam the enemy's radar.

If anything the F-35 would help the F-22s as it is not limited by the above constraints.


Everybody calm down. Jesus, its as if I just attacked you or your family. Not everyone is as convinced as you are, that's all I'm saying. The F-22 can't jam the enemy's radar? If that's true, someone really screwed up.

So why are the Japanese pursuing a higher end air superiority fighter vs. the F-35? The Brits? They both have F-35's, and no small numbers of them. And for that matter, why aren't we retiring F-22's for more F-35's? It isn't exactly cheap to operate...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 19:03
by SpudmanWP
My bad, EA was added to the last F-22 update (3.1).

The rest of my points still stand.

Japan is talking about an indigenous stealth fighter primarily due to pride and the desire to bolster it's own indigenous fighter industry. IT's the same reason why they built the F-2.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 20:13
by castlebravo
The real issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-22's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind it's performance in various exercises. We also have all the reports of Hornets, Eurofighters, Rafales, and even T-38s spanking it in BFM. Nobody questions the Eagle's prowess, because its actual combat record carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 new Eagles would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-22's? That picture isn't as clear.</sarcasm>

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 23:14
by marauder2048
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:So if Congress goes against the F-15EX they will have to provide a viable alternative to the requirements that CAPE used


Just call Daigle to testify as to the impossibility of new builds being cheaper than the SLEP.
A simple: "what happened to the F-15 C/D Wing replacement funds that had the benefit of CAPE's CY2017 analysis?"
would answer a lot of questions.


I'm sure my suggestion scared him off :)

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/04/30/daigle-to-exit-as-cape-head-leaving-another-pentagon-vacancy/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2019, 00:06
by Corsair1963
Trump administration reverses course on decision to decommission carrier Truman


WASHINGTON — The White House has canceled plans to decommission an aircraft carrier 25 years early as a cost savings measure, a plan that was largely opposed on Capitol Hill.


Vice President Mike Pence made the announcement to sailors on board the carrier Harry S. Truman, which was to be decommissioned instead of going into its midlife refueling, according to video posted by a Hampton Roads local news reporter on Twitter.



The proposal was met with a wave of skepticism from lawmakers. The proposal also came before the Navy had completed a force-structure assessment due out by the end of the year as well as an ongoing needs assessment from the geographic combatant commanders, leading to questions as to why the service would propose the move without the benefit of those studies.


The decision also coincides with news that Robert Daigle, the head of the Pentagon’s powerful Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, will step down in mid-May. Daigle played a key role in the decision to decommission Truman in favor of investments in long-range fires and unmanned technologies.


The proposal to decommission Truman kicked off a public debate about the utility of aircraft carriers, which took center stage in Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for the incoming chief of naval operations, Adm. Bill Moran.


Faced with questions about the aircraft carrier’s relevance in light of Chinese and Russian long-range anti-ship missiles, Moran gave a forceful defense of the platform.


Moran responded to a question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., saying the Navy is conducting a force structure assessment to identify the right capabilities to field. But he notably added that the carrier is still relevant


“We have for years evaluated the threats to our aircraft carriers and the other ships in the strike group to be able to deal with those [threats],” Moran said. “The aircraft carrier is the most survivable airfield that we have today — anywhere. And we project it will remain that way well into the future.”


Later during the hearing, Moran offered a “highly classified” briefing to congressional staffers to discuss the Navy’s investments in the carrier to make it more survivable.


But Blumenthal’s was just one of several questions from senators regarding the aircraft carrier, a conversation spurred by the Navy’s now-defunct decision to propose decommissioning the Truman to avoid paying for its midlife refueling.


“As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have pushed hard against the Administration’s plans to mothball the Truman at the midpoint of its working life,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement praising the decision. “I am gratified that the Administration listened and is now committed to the refueling. This is the right call for our national security.”


Moran defended the Truman proposal as necessary to free up money for investments in new technologies and experimentation. Later, he said he is comfortable with an air wing of E-2Ds, Growlers, Hornets and F-35s, but that the weapons needed to be addressed.


“The combat lethality of the air wing extends from the air wing,” Moran said. “Where we are trying to regain our superiority is in the weapons that are carried by that air wing: longer range, more networked, all the things that will make us more effective against a tough adversary at the high end.”


Moran is expected to sail through confirmation. He will be the first naval aviator to serve as CNO since Adm. Jay Johnson retired in 2000.


https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... er-truman/

Could the F-15EX be next???? :|

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2019, 00:13
by marsavian
mixelflick wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Hmmm...that makes how many combat coded jets? What is it now? Just over 1900? That makes it the incredible shrinking Air Force.

Wrt air super’ty, seems everything not named F-22 dies when it fights F-35. So much for giving up air superiority...


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.


F-22 actually has a disadvantage in having no IRST sensor which even teen aircraft have now with IRST21 pods. Since the dawn of air combat the most important factor in success has been surprise, the F-35 probably is more capable of generating that surprise then even the F-22. It can also guide its AMRAAMs all the way to the target using either Radar or EOTS despite any jamming so pK will be high. Even out of missiles it can turn as well as other fighters while cutting corners like a TVC jet but without falling out of the sky. The F-35 will become the F-16 of its day, cheap enough to be produced in volume for everyone but potent enough in all its multi-roles to make that volume count. F-22 was too expensive and too specialized to have a long production life always leaving it vulnerable to fickle politics but its genes live on in F-35 and probably PCA too which will be its true twin engined successor.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2019, 00:46
by Corsair1963
castlebravo wrote:The real issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-22's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind it's performance in various exercises. We also have all the reports of Hornets, Eurofighters, Rafales, and even T-38s spanking it in BFM. Nobody questions the Eagle's prowess, because its actual combat record carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 new Eagles would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-22's? That picture isn't as clear.</sarcasm>



The only one's not convinced are Bloggers and Arm Chair Generals. As anybody with any real knowledge of the F-35's capabilities don't have doubts.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2019, 04:24
by Corsair1963
Lockheed’s ‘Mad Al’ Rallies Retired Navy Admirals for F-35 Bid

By Anthony Capaccio

Citing the threat of cuts by the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin Corp. officials are pressing retired Navy admirals and Air Force generals to sign letters of support asking lawmakers to add more F-35 jets to the Trump administration’s 2020 budget proposal.

“Right now, DOD is slowing F-35 production at the very time it should be accelerating the program,” Allen Myers, Lockheed’s vice president for Navy and Coast Guard programs, wrote in an April 22 email to a group of retired admirals.

While it’s a common tactic in Washington for advocates of a particular issue, especially in the national security world, to release letters of support signed by retired generals or admirals, it’s less common to see the behind-the-scenes solicitations for that support. Using a nickname from his days as a naval aviator, Myers, himself a retired admiral, signed the message with “Fight to Fly, Mad Al.”

“Congress is fully supportive of the program and poised to push up procurement,” Myers added. “Please help me show them they are doing the right thing for our Nation.”


2020 Budget

The call for help comes after President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget requested 78 of the next-generation stealth fighters, six less than originally planned. Myers said it’s a mistake to pull back on the Pentagon’s largest weapons program.


“Costs are dramatically dropping with procurement costs falling BELOW $80 million for the F-35A and flying hour costs nearly on par with 4th generation aircraft and a pathway to even lower costs,” he wrote. “Despite the bright state of the program,” the Pentagon is limiting Navy Department purchases to “30 F-35Bs/F-35Cs a year, and USAF to 48 F-35As a year,” wrote Myers, citing different versions of the jet built for U.S. and allied forces.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-f-35-bid

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 00:17
by marauder2048
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:So if Congress goes against the F-15EX they will have to provide a viable alternative to the requirements that CAPE used


Just call Daigle to testify as to the impossibility of new builds being cheaper than the SLEP.
A simple: "what happened to the F-15 C/D Wing replacement funds that had the benefit of CAPE's CY2017 analysis?"
would answer a lot of questions.


No wonder Daigle is resigning; it came out in testimony that the Air Force had estimated a longeron replacement +
fuselage SLEP + wing replacement would be all of $10 million/aircraft.

That's the lowest number that's ever been connected with the SLEP; previously it was in the $20 - $40 million range.

New builds justified on a cost-basis look insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2860&v=7du-vfIWl2A

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 00:35
by SpudmanWP
The cheaper SLEP is for something like 2030 and the more expensive one is to keep them flying to something like 2040.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 01:20
by marauder2048
SpudmanWP wrote:The cheaper SLEP is for something like 2030 and the more expensive one is to keep them flying to something like 2040.



Right. The cheaper SLEP is just the longeron replacement which was ~ $1 million/aircraft. IIRC, that's still in the budget.
It was the longeron + the wing replacement + fuselage SLEP that was previously quoted as ~ $30 million/aircraft.

Holmes is now testifying that they could get the latter, more comprehensive SLEP down to $10 million/aircraft.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 01:33
by wrightwing
castlebravo wrote:The real issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-22's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind it's performance in various exercises. We also have all the reports of Hornets, Eurofighters, Rafales, and even T-38s spanking it in BFM.


No we haven't. There have been no such reports. An occasional WVR kill (especially when violating ROE) hardly constitutes a spanking.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 01:37
by wrightwing
SpudmanWP wrote:The cheaper SLEP is for something like 2030 and the more expensive one is to keep them flying to something like 2040.

The more expensive SLEP is a zero hour airframe, and would keep them flying another 40+ years. The $1 million/airframe upgrade would keep them airworthy till the 2040s.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 01:47
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.


Everyone whose opinion matters, is convinced of the overwhelming superiority of the F-35. The Red Flag ratios were against aircraft with IRST, DRFM jammers, HOBS missiles/helmet sights, while having a 3:1 numerical advantage and the ability to respawn 4x (or more.) The >20:1 ratio was as a result of 145 kills and 7 losses, by F-35s. The losses were due to confusion during respawning, where previously dead aircraft came back into play, while already WVR of F-35s. When F-35s have flown against AESA equipped F-15/18s the results have been the same. There have been exercises with 27:0 kill ratios. Now add in double digit SAM threats, cyberwarfare/extreme jamming, on top of numerical advantages. There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. Read the f'n pilot anecdotes, which include WVR and BVR.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 03:31
by Dragon029
You missed castlebravo's "/sarcasm" at the end.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 07:14
by doge
128 people!?!? :shock: !! :shock:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/retire ... -f-35-jets
Retired military leaders to lawmakers: Don't ‘sacrifice funds’ for F-35 jets
Talia Kaplan By Talia Kaplan | Fox News Flash top headlines for May 1
More than 100 retired military leaders sent a letter to members of Congress on Tuesday urging them not to “sacrifice funds from the F-35 program,” adding that the F-35, the military’s newest fighter jet, is “essential to countering emerging threats.”

The letter included 128 signatures from retired admirals and generals, including four former Air Force chiefs of staff and a former chief of naval operations.

It was sent on the same day that the Air Force announced it had used its variant of the F-35 aircraft in combat for the first time, taking out an Islamic State (ISIS) tunnel network and weapons cache in Iraq.

Defense News reported that according to Air Forces Central Command, Tuesday’s airstrike occurred at Wadi Ashai, in northeast Iraq. A news release from U.S. Central Command six days before said ISIS fighters “have been attempting to move munitions, equipment and personnel” to the area in order to “set conditions for their resurgence,” prompting a counteroffensive by Iraqi Security Forces.

The website reported that more information about the event, including whether the strikes were successful, was not immediately available.

The letter, sent to members of the House and Senate, said, “As former U.S. Flag Officers who have served in times of sequestration and military conflicts, we know the impact cutting costs from vital programs has on defense readiness.

“With China and Russia aggressively ramping up efforts to improve and modernize weapons, maintaining air superiority is essential to countering emerging threats both at home and abroad.”

The letter said the U.S. must “advance both capacity and capability of our fighter force with continued procurement of the world’s most advanced fighter, the F-35 Lightning II,” in order to maintain “a competitive edge in the skies.”

According to Defense News, the F-35 program has been threatened by cost and schedule overruns since its start about two decades ago, and the Government Accountability Office estimates that the program will cost more than $1 trillion.

The retired admirals and generals sent the letter to the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees as well as the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense, to stress the importance of these fighter jets.

“As the only 5th-generation aircraft in production, the F-35 ensures air advantage over emerging peer adversaries through cutting-edge technologies,” the letter said.

“It is with the nation’s security interest in mind that we join the nearly 130 U.S. House and Senate Congressional members to request that the Congress increase the procurement rate of the F-35 within the Fiscal Year 2020 defense authorization and appropriations.”

The letter went on to say, “It is essential that our Congress does not sacrifice funds from the F-35 program in favor of new 4th generation, legacy fighter programs with little operational relevance in a near peer conflict.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., “has been and continues to be very supportive of the F-35 program. As he’s said before, he’d like to see the U.S. military increase the number of fifth-generation aircraft in our fleet, including nearly tripling the number of F-35s by 2024, to maintain our air superiority,” a spokesperson told Fox News.

Neither the House Armed Services Committee nor the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense responded to Fox News' requests for comment.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 07:53
by marsavian
marauder2048 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:So if Congress goes against the F-15EX they will have to provide a viable alternative to the requirements that CAPE used


Just call Daigle to testify as to the impossibility of new builds being cheaper than the SLEP.
A simple: "what happened to the F-15 C/D Wing replacement funds that had the benefit of CAPE's CY2017 analysis?"
would answer a lot of questions.


No wonder Daigle is resigning; it came out in testimony that the Air Force had estimated a longeron replacement +
fuselage SLEP + wing replacement would be all of $10 million/aircraft.

That's the lowest number that's ever been connected with the SLEP; previously it was in the $20 - $40 million range.

New builds justified on a cost-basis look insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2860&v=7du-vfIWl2A


Agree, full SLEP for $10m is a steal. Authorize it and have only new build F-35 and PCA going forward. F-35 can eventually replace the F-15C and PCA can replace the F-15E. Anything else is a retrograde detour.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 13:07
by mixelflick
wrightwing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.


Everyone whose opinion matters, is convinced of the overwhelming superiority of the F-35. The Red Flag ratios were against aircraft with IRST, DRFM jammers, HOBS missiles/helmet sights, while having a 3:1 numerical advantage and the ability to respawn 4x (or more.) The >20:1 ratio was as a result of 145 kills and 7 losses, by F-35s. The losses were due to confusion during respawning, where previously dead aircraft came back into play, while already WVR of F-35s. When F-35s have flown against AESA equipped F-15/18s the results have been the same. There have been exercises with 27:0 kill ratios. Now add in double digit SAM threats, cyberwarfare/extreme jamming, on top of numerical advantages. There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. Read the f'n pilot anecdotes, which include WVR and BVR.


Here we have another temper tantrum thrown because something contrary to his way of thinking was proposed. These people are worse than Gripen fanboys, can't even entertain an opposing viewpoint.

I enjoyed raising your blood pressure though. Thanks again..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 14:02
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.


Everyone whose opinion matters, is convinced of the overwhelming superiority of the F-35. The Red Flag ratios were against aircraft with IRST, DRFM jammers, HOBS missiles/helmet sights, while having a 3:1 numerical advantage and the ability to respawn 4x (or more.) The >20:1 ratio was as a result of 145 kills and 7 losses, by F-35s. The losses were due to confusion during respawning, where previously dead aircraft came back into play, while already WVR of F-35s. When F-35s have flown against AESA equipped F-15/18s the results have been the same. There have been exercises with 27:0 kill ratios. Now add in double digit SAM threats, cyberwarfare/extreme jamming, on top of numerical advantages. There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. Read the f'n pilot anecdotes, which include WVR and BVR.


Here we have another temper tantrum thrown because something contrary to his way of thinking was proposed. These people are worse than Gripen fanboys, can't even entertain an opposing viewpoint.

I enjoyed raising your blood pressure though. Thanks again..



You've been on this forum how many years, and seen how many links/anecdotes, as well as insightful commentary from other posters, reinforcing what I just said. It gets tiresome, to have to revisit previously addressed topics (especially with overwhelming supporting data.)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 20:08
by marsavian
I didn't detect any love for the F-15EX in the House during that Hearing more like WTH are you springing this on us without advance warning or debate ?!! Going by that hearing I would rate its authorization chances at 20-30%. Plenty of love for the F-35 and A-10 though. ;)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 22:14
by loke
WASHINGTON — Hurricane relief efforts at Tyndall Air Force Base will begin lapsing Wednesday due to a lack of funds, preventing the start of all new work and deferring more than 120 projects planned to begin after May 1.

But that’s just the start of the Air Force’s money problems, which have resulted in a shortfall of more than $4 billion in fiscal 2019.

If the Air Force doesn’t get that funding, it will be forced to ground combat aircraft, defer at least 61 facility repair projects at various bases and halt certain aircraft maintenance actions. Key weapons programs — like hypersonic weapons development — would be slowed down and become more costly, and non-deploying squadrons may have their flying hours stripped away, warned Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson in a March 6 memo obtained by Defense News.


Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the need at Tyndall and Offutt — as well as the Marine Corps’ requirement for hurricane relief at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina — "underscores the wrong priorities of the administration" after it reprogrammed roughly $1 billion in excess Army funds toward barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.

"They could have easily moved some of that to Tyndall and Camp Lejeune and kept some of the construction projects going," Reed said. "Why are we taking $1 billion out of reprogramming and putting it at a project where the NORTHCOM commander said there's no military threat at the border? Yet we're ignoring serious storm damage at Tyndall, Offutt and Lejeune."

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/04 ... -disaster/

Oh well.

I wonder when they will cut F-35 and start re-investing in the older platforms instead...? Gotta build that wall, gotta build that wall...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 22:54
by SpudmanWP
Trump won't cut Military Funding to pay for the wall.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 07:43
by loke
SpudmanWP wrote:Trump won't cut Military Funding to pay for the wall.

That is what I have read in different places -- but it may not be true of course. There is so much fake news these days...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 13:08
by mixelflick
[/quote]

Everyone whose opinion matters, is convinced of the overwhelming superiority of the F-35. The Red Flag ratios were against aircraft with IRST, DRFM jammers, HOBS missiles/helmet sights, while having a 3:1 numerical advantage and the ability to respawn 4x (or more.) The >20:1 ratio was as a result of 145 kills and 7 losses, by F-35s. The losses were due to confusion during respawning, where previously dead aircraft came back into play, while already WVR of F-35s. When F-35s have flown against AESA equipped F-15/18s the results have been the same. There have been exercises with 27:0 kill ratios. Now add in double digit SAM threats, cyberwarfare/extreme jamming, on top of numerical advantages. There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. Read the f'n pilot anecdotes, which include WVR and BVR.[/quote]

Here we have another temper tantrum thrown because something contrary to his way of thinking was proposed. These people are worse than Gripen fanboys, can't even entertain an opposing viewpoint.

I enjoyed raising your blood pressure though. Thanks again..[/quote]


You've been on this forum how many years, and seen how many links/anecdotes, as well as insightful commentary from other posters, reinforcing what I just said. It gets tiresome, to have to revisit previously addressed topics (especially with overwhelming supporting data.)[/quote]

Nobody asked you to compile a list of facts and figures. You took that upon yourself, then finished with a snide comment about "listen to what the f'n pilots have to say". I've heard what they have to say, and am well aware of most of the points that you made.

But because my opinion may have differed from yours, you went apesh!t. That says more about you than it does about me...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 03:15
by SpudmanWP
:doh:

I really wish people would view their posts after hitting "Submit".

It's really a pain to try and figure out the intention of what is being quoted, underlines, bolded, etc.

I'd be nice if the Submit button would not work if there are malformed BBCode tags in play.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 03:40
by optimist
mixelflick wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Hmmm...that makes how many combat coded jets? What is it now? Just over 1900? That makes it the incredible shrinking Air Force.

Wrt air super’ty, seems everything not named F-22 dies when it fights F-35. So much for giving up air superiority...


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.

We can speculate all day. I don't know who everyone is and I doubt that everyone will ever be convinced. Red flag is valuable but they go to the sims for the hard stuff.
The statement from those that have all the classified stuff. As you know, you need to be up the chain to get access to all of it.
https://sldinfo.com/2016/09/becoming-an ... t-aviator/
In a recent interview 1st Fighter Wing Commander, Colonel Pete Fesler paraphrased comments made by the Commander of Air Combat Command, General Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle; “The F-35 is the best air to air (A2A) platform in the world, except for the F-22. The F-22 is the best air to ground (A2G) platform in the world, except for the F-35.”

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 17:30
by wrightwing
The point is reading comprehension, and selective memory. We can stop with the hand wringing about whether the F-35 is any good at A2A. There is no need to ever ponder this question again, as it's been well established by countless pilot anecdotes, not to mention exercise results (28:1 in the most recent Red Flag.) We can safely assume that when such statistics become available, all of the variables have already been factored in.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 18:10
by quicksilver
wrightwing wrote:The point is reading comprehension, and selective memory. We can stop with the hand wringing about whether the F-35 is any good at A2A. There is no need to ever ponder this question again, as it's been well established by countless pilot anecdotes, not to mention exercise results (28:1 in the most recent Red Flag.) We can safely assume that when such statistics become available, all of the variables have already been factored in.


X2

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 18:24
by loke
Even Loke understands and knows that F-35 is far above and beyond everything else (apart from the F-22 perhaps) in the a2a field.

Anybody who understands the importance and implications of: stealth; sensors; sensor fusion will realize this. I don't even need to resort to red flag quotes. It is enough to know that the F-35 meet or exceed its requirements.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 04:26
by Corsair1963
loke wrote:Even Loke understands and knows that F-35 is far above and beyond everything else (apart from the F-22 perhaps) in the a2a field.

Anybody who understands the importance and implications of: stealth; sensors; sensor fusion will realize this. I don't even need to resort to red flag quotes. It is enough to know that the F-35 meet or exceed its requirements.



Some "still" believe many of the F-35 misconceptions even after all of this time! So, if the OSD really wants the F-15EX. Then hold a side by side fighter competition. In order to put those misconception to bed once and for all...(as it is getting old)
:roll:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 17:37
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
loke wrote:Even Loke understands and knows that F-35 is far above and beyond everything else (apart from the F-22 perhaps) in the a2a field.

Anybody who understands the importance and implications of: stealth; sensors; sensor fusion will realize this. I don't even need to resort to red flag quotes. It is enough to know that the F-35 meet or exceed its requirements.



Some "still" believe many of the F-35 misconceptions even after all of this time! So, if the OSD really wants the F-15EX. Then hold a side by side fighter competition. In order to put those misconception to bed once and for all...(as it is getting old)
:roll:


Agree 100% with this, and while we're at it - throw the F-22 in as well (either F-22 vs F-35 or F-15EX + F-22 vs F-35). Then layer in the S 400/S 500 threat. That would cover threats such as the SU-35, SU-57/J-20 and/or SU-35 + SU-57/J-20 (plus S-400/500). That's an extreme example of what the F-35 would face in the future, but that's what's needed IMO to properly flush this thing out.

If they're already done this, I'm all ears.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 23:53
by marsavian
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4342 ... agon-chief

President Trump is nominating Patrick Shanahan to be his second secretary of Defense, a position the former Boeing executive has held on an interim basis since December.

The move, announced Thursday, comes as the Trump administration grapples with rising tensions in a number of high-profile hot spots around the globe, from Iran to Venezuela to China.

“Based upon his outstanding service to the Country and his demonstrated ability to lead, President Trump intends to nominate Patrick M. Shanahan to be the Secretary of Defense,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.

"Acting Secretary Shanahan has served in high profile positions, including the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Vice President of Supply Chain and Operations at Boeing ... he has proven over the last several months that he is beyond qualified to lead the Department of Defense, and he will continue to do an excellent job," she said.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2019, 19:05
by SpudmanWP
Congress wants to improve the parts issue by.. withholding half the funds  :doh:

The House panel that approves defense spending intends to withhold half of next year’s funding for F-35 spare parts until the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Corp. agree on the sale of technical data for spare parts to improve the tracking of items and allow purchases from other suppliers.


​​​​​​​More at the JUMP
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ata-rights

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2019, 08:15
by spazsinbad
House Appropriators Scrutinize Air Force Fighter Plans [BEST READ ALL TEXT at SOURCE - THIS IS COMPLICATED!]
20 May 2019 Rachel S. Cohen

"House appropriators this week are using the 2020 budget cycle to weigh in on the Air Force’s future force plans, calling into question the service’s fighter procurement strategy and arguing Congress needs a bigger say in the process....

...Buying seven fifth-generation fighter jets for every one fourth-gen fighter strikes a “reasonable balance” between pursuing more capable aircraft and maintaining the size of the F-15 fleet, they added. While an “unanticipated” request, recapitalizing the F-15C/D fleets with F-15EX would preserve Air National Guard units in California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon, and would make “critical contributions” to carrying out the NDS [National Defense Strategy], lawmakers wrote.

The HAC bill, released May 20, recommends the Air Force purchase 68 new fighters in 2020, including eight F-15EXs from Boeing for $985.5 million and 60 F-35As from Lockheed Martin for $5.1 billion. The Air Force asked for 48 Joint Strike Fighters in its budget request—plus another 12 in an unfunded priorities list—and eight F-15EXs....

“The Department of Defense, and the Air Force in particular, have sent conflicting and confusing signals with respect to the F-35 program,” appropriators continued. “The fiscal year 2020 request repeats a pattern of shifting aircraft quantities to future years, reducing the planned procurement from 84 to 78. Further, the Air Force submitted a fiscal year 2020 budget request that flattens F-35A procurement at 48 aircraft per year through the future years defense program despite the F-35A program of record remaining stable at 1,763 aircraft.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in February the service can’t afford its 72-jet goal. Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper also noted in early May the F-35 buy plan shrinks over the next few years “in order to align the procurement timeline with capability development and reduce retrofit costs.”

The bill agrees to fully fund a $728.7 million request for spare parts for Navy and Air Force F-35s, even though lawmakers say they aren’t convinced the military will use the money or the parts efficiently.

DOD is still waiting on a proposal from Lockheed Martin that specifies which data is needed to run an organic supply chain and track all F-35 parts in the Pentagon’s inventory, as well as how much it would cost to own that information, according to appropriators. Getting the cost and technical data for spare parts is a crucial piece of improving supply issues. “Currently the F-35 enterprise is unable to comprehensively and accurately inventory parts, efficiently move parts between locations, accurately match deployable spares packages to deploying units, or capture cost information for all the parts that are procured,” the report noted....

...And while lawmakers acknowledge Pentagon officials’ concerns about long-term operation and sustainment costs, the committee wants to add 12 F-35As on top of the Air Force’s request as well as fully funded Block 4 development, spares procurement increases, and depot activation.

Half of F-35 funding in 2020 will be unavailable until 15 days after the head of the F-35 Joint Program Office certifies to Congress that Lockheed submitted its cost proposal for obtaining supply chain data...."

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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2019, 09:57
by doge
https://larson.house.gov/media-center/p ... ng-90-f-35
Larson on Statement on Funding for 90 F-35
May 20, 2019 Press Release
Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. John B. Larson (CT-01) released a statement on the approval of funding from the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the Fiscal Year 2020.

“The F-35’s importance to our national security cannot be ignored as global threats continue to increase. In spite of the President’s request for only 78 F-35s in the upcoming fiscal year, I am pleased the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was able to fully fund my request for 60 F-35As, totaling 90 fighters. The Subcommittee also provided full modernization funding to ensure the program will keep pace with the evolving threats for years to come. This funding will ensure that our men and women protecting our country have access to the best technology available, and will support thousands of high-skilled manufacturing jobs throughout the country and in Connecticut,” said Larson.

In April, Larson led the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus letter requesting 102 F-35s (60 F-35As, 22 F-35Bs, and 20 F-35Cs) for the FY2020 . His request received overwhelming bipartisan support from 103 Members of Congress.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2019, 03:14
by weasel1962
Senate Armed Services Committee authorizes 94 F-35 + 8 F-15EX for budget 2020.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/i ... ummary.pdf

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2019, 03:21
by weasel1962
House defense appropriations subcommittee also recommends procurement of 8 F-15EX in addition to the 90 F-35s mentioned earlier. See page 7.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00 ... -SD002.pdf

Looks like congress (both house and senate) has no issue with funding the F-15EX.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2019, 09:28
by marsavian
From the House document ...

SUPPORTING ‘‘THE AIR FORCE WE NEED’’

The Committee has considered the Air Force budget request in conjunction with the analysis produced by the Air Force in response to section 1064 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This analysis, publicly referred to by Air Force leadership as ‘‘The Air Force We Need,’’ indicates that the Service is too small to fulfill the demands of the 2018 National Defense Strategy at a ‘‘low-moderate’’ level of risk. To fill this gap, the Air Force indicates a need to grow to 386 operational squadrons from the current 312 squadrons, including the addition of seven fighter squadrons. Based on this notional growth in fighter squadrons, the Air Force has identified the need to annually procure 72 new fighter aircraft. The Committee notes that the resources to initiate and sustain such growth simply do not exist within the fiscal year 2020 budget request or future years defense program, nor does the Air Force’s five-year plan for fighter procurement achieve 72 new aircraft within any year. The plan that has been submitted to the Committee requests 48 F–35A aircraft in fiscal year 2020 and every year thereafter through 2024, a reduction of 30 aircraft compared to the 2017 Selected Acquisition Report profile for the F–35 program. In addition, the request includes funding for the procurement of eight new F–15 aircraft to begin recapitalization of the
F-15C/D fleet. In this plan, F–15 procurement would grow to 18 aircraft in fiscal years 2021–2024, achieving a total fighter aircraft procurement rate of 66 during the same period.

The Committee does not view the ‘‘Air Force We Need’’ analysis as a definitive solution to the Air Force’s requirements under the National Defense Strategy, or as a firm goal to guide immediate resourcing decisions, but rather as the first step of an iterative analytical, programming, and budgeting process to be undertaken in
dialogue with the congressional defense committees. The Committee believes that the demands of the National Defense Strategy must be met with a balance of increased capacity in existing systems and the development and fielding of new capabilities, subject
to fiscal constraints—which the Air Force was not required to consider in response to the section 1064 mandate. To address concerns about capacity, including the fighter fleet that has been emphasized by Air Force leadership, the Committee recommendation includes a total of 68 new fighter aircraft. This includes the eight new-build F–15 aircraft requested and 60 F–35A aircraft, an increase of 12 aircraft above the request. The F–35A
quantity of 60 is an increase of four aircraft above the
fiscal year 2019 enacted level. The Committee notes that this recommendation procures more than seven ‘‘fifth generation’’ fighters for every single new ‘‘fourth generation’’ fighter. The Committee recommends this as a reasonable balance between advanced capability and near-term capacity concerns. The Committee finds that the Air Force’s requested investments in the development of future capability generally are consistent with the requirements identified in the ‘‘Air Force We Need’’ analysis and considerations of affordability.

The Committee’s recommendations with respect to the Air Force’s request include: full funding of the request for the F–35 continuous capability development and delivery program, also known as Block 4; full funding of the request for the B–21 bomber program; full funding of the request for the Stand-in Attack Weapon program; full funding of the request for hypersonic weapons (including the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon and Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon prototyping efforts); an additional $20,000,000 above the request for directed energy prototyping; full funding of the request for advanced engine development (which has the potential to provide increased capability and lower fuel consumption costs for the F–35 and potential future aircraft); an additional $75,000,000 to accelerate active electronically scanned array radar upgrades for the F-16; an additional $50,000,000 for the Low Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology program; and $500,000,000 for the Next Generation Air Dominance program.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2019, 13:06
by mixelflick
$500,000,000 for the Next Generation Air Dominance program.

Sh!t is starting to get real.

Can't wait to see the prototypes, or even an artist rendition of Boeing, Lockheed's proposals. Yeah, there are some out there already but it's clear they're far from what'll emerge hardware wise. Given how they've positioned it, it's going to be interesting to see what a "fighter" looks like for the 2030-50 timeframe...

I was happy to see hypersonics were fully funded. Not sure how I feel about lasers as of yet, but they apparently got the $ they wanted for that too. The next 10 years is going to be wild with the B-21, PCA, F/A-XX and others taking to the skies..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 01:42
by weasel1962
This makes 3 of 4 committees passing the F-15EX program but the HASC has imposed the toughest conditions yet but not major obstacles. Actually imho logical oversight.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/ ... y-in-2020/

Full committee mark-up.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25 ... Forces.pdf

require the Secretary of Defense to designate the F15EX program as a major subprogram and subject it to relevant reporting requirements and criteria pertinent to a major subprogram....

allow the Secretary of the Air Force to procure two F-15EX aircraft for prototype development but would prohibit the procurement of any additional aircraft until 30 days after the Secretary submits F-15EX program plans for development, acquisition, and fielding to the congressional defense committees....

13 submits to the congressional defense committees the fol-
14 lowing documentation relating to the F–15EX program:
15 (1) A program acquisition strategy.
16 (2) An acquisition program baseline.
17 (3) A test and evaluation master plan.
18 (4) A life-cycle sustainment plan.
19 (5) A post-production fielding strategy.


In contrast, the F-35 block 4 program requirements (which like the above is also to be classed as a major subprogram) appears more onerous...

All eyes are now on the Senate defense appropriations committee.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 04:36
by marauder2048
The one committee to whom the Air Force has given detailed testimony on tacair modernization plans
responded by ring-fencing procurement for the F-15EX and punishing the F-35 Block 4 effort with
major subprogram status.

It's a fairly disastrous outcome.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 05:13
by Corsair1963
I consider it a plus. As the USAF will have to come with a very specific plan. In order to make the case for the F-15EX.


Which, has been lacking from the start. :?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 10:17
by weasel1962
Under existing DoD acquisition rules, the F-15EX would have been required to be designated as a MDAP even if HASC did not legislate. ACAT 1 status would be achieved if budget exceeds $2.79b. The mandatory procedures of the MDAP appears to be the same as the HASC requirements.

http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisition ... on-program
http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD ... -R-new.pdf

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 11:30
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Under existing DoD acquisition rules, the F-15EX would have been required to be designated as a MDAP even if HASC did not legislate. ACAT 1 status would be achieved if budget exceeds $2.79b.


Section 804 "rapid fielding" would let the Air Force circumvent this requirement
making the F-15EX non-ACAT akin to what the Air Force was looking to do with Light Attack.

By ring fencing procurement funds, labeling it a major subprogram and only permitting immediate
procurement for "prototype development" that path is effectively closed.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 15:53
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:House defense appropriations subcommittee also recommends procurement of 8 F-15EX in addition to the 90 F-35s mentioned earlier. See page 7.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00 ... -SD002.pdf

Looks like congress (both house and senate) has no issue with funding the F-15EX.



Just one more step closer to reality. For the record, I think this is a mistake. We should take that money and put it towards additional F-35's. But if this thing goes through.... let's build the penultimate F-15 there ever was. Tricked out with everything it needs to lay waste to Mig-35's, SU-35's and perhaps even the SU-57.

The F-15EX could very well further the legend of the F-15. How on earth though, do you "improve" on a 104-0 record? I know, I know... 105. But really, they're tempting fate here as even the F-15EX gives up some important capabilities to the competition. Oh well. my son might very well see its finest hour.

I hope I'm there to share it with him..

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 16:18
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Under existing DoD acquisition rules, the F-15EX would have been required to be designated as a MDAP even if HASC did not legislate. ACAT 1 status would be achieved if budget exceeds $2.79b.


Section 804 "rapid fielding" would let the Air Force circumvent this requirement
making the F-15EX non-ACAT akin to what the Air Force was looking to do with Light Attack.

By ring fencing procurement funds, labeling it a major subprogram and only permitting immediate
procurement for "prototype development" that path is effectively closed.


Had the impression section 804 expires this year but it's still appropriate oversight on HASC's behalf.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 21:17
by spazsinbad
More jargon and committees to digest for us non'mericans. Just the F-35 bits excerpted below.
House Armed Services Scrutinizes F-35 Costs, ABMS, Army Modernization
03 Jun 2019 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"CAPITOL HILL: A key congressional committee is demanding more information from the Pentagon on an array of weapons. The biggest ask: an independent cost estimate on the massive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to compare against official figures from the Joint Program Office.

“It’s been a while since we’ve seen an independent cost estimate from the services” — the Air Force, Navy, and Marines all use F-35 variants — as well as the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation office (CAPE), a House Armed Services Committee staffer told reporters this afternoon. The committee’s draft of the annual National Defense Authorization Act also seeks details on how the Pentagon plans to control the long-term operations, maintenance, and sustainment costs of the stealth fighter, a timeline to both patch and rebuild the troubled ALIS maintenance system, and more information on the plane’s critical upgrade Block IV software upgrade. The HASC did reject suggestions to break out Block IV as a separate Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP), saying that wasn’t necessary to improve oversight.

That doesn’t mean the committee wants to cut the F-35 buy. Far from it: While today’s briefings and releases gave no monetary details — those will come out later in June — the draft bill does call for buying at least “an economic order quantity” of fighters to get efficiencies of scale. It also authorizes the program to “buy to budget,” meaning that if it negotiates for a lower price per plane than the budget figure was based on, the military can buy more F-35s rather than returning the savings to the Treasury...."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/06/hou ... rnization/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 23:35
by usnvo
marauder2048 wrote:By ring fencing procurement funds, labeling it a major subprogram and only permitting immediate
procurement for "prototype development" that path is effectively closed.


It also requires the program to jump through all the hoops just like say the C-130J. So they will be required to develop all the minimum requirements and then test them to show that they meet them. Pointless, kind of like a self-licking ice cream cone, but it keeps DOT&E in business,

I only mention the C-130J because the USAF developed the requirements from the actual C-130J after Congress had already bought them for DoD, and then were dinged by DOT&E because during testing the C-130J did not meet the requirements that the USAF had developed.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, I can see the F-15EX following the same route.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 00:08
by steve2267
usnvo wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:I only mention the C-130J because the USAF developed the requirements from the actual C-130J after Congress had already bought them for DoD, and then were dinged by DOT&E because during testing the C-130J did not meet the requirements that the USAF had developed.


So... they had incompetent requirements writers? Or they rounded requirements numbers the wrong way??? :doh:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 02:05
by Corsair1963
Even if they do approve 2-8 F-15EX's in the next Defense Budget. They may never acquire anymore....As Trumps odds of winning in 2020 aren't looking to good. So, with the Democrats in control of the White House and the House of Representatives and maybe even the Senate. The F-15EX is pretty much dead....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 04:24
by usnvo
steve2267 wrote:So... they had incompetent requirements writers? Or they rounded requirements numbers the wrong way??? :doh:


Probably a little of both. There was probably a little reading "or" as "and" or ignoring important caveats. Since Congress had already bought the planes, and as I recall several were already delivered, it was largely a paperwork drill so it was probably foisted off to some poor C-130 staff type who had never done that kind of work before. The funny thing is that it didn't matter. The USAF got dinged by DOT&E but they didn't change the planes, Congress kept buying the planes, and eventually the whole thing went away. A similar thing would be the APG-79 Operationally Suitability declaration. It doesn't matter, the Navy bought the APG-79 and regardless of it still not being considered "Operationally Suitable", they continue to buy it and use it. Besides keeping bureaucrats in business, continuing to play the paperwork game like it means something (as opposed to fixing the problems) serves no purpose.

But, I am sure the USAF would write performance requirements for the F-15EX even if it is an off the shelf purchase. DOT&E will report on it in all seriousness as if it means something, and without question there will be issues. All of which means exactly nothing and is a waste of both time and manpower.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 04:29
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:As Trumps odds of winning in 2020 aren't looking to good.


What are you smoking?


Trump lost the "popular" vote during the last election. Then add the constants stories of corruption and controversy on a nearly daily basis. Oh, and the Republicans lost control of the US House of Representatives last year......

Nonetheless, not saying he couldn't be re-elected. Just pointing out his odds aren't so good. (easily supportable)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 05:05
by madrat
Trump lost the jerrymandered voting blocks, yes. But the democrats are focusing on generational voters to appeal to the lowest denominator. Not an effective way to win the presidential election.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 05:06
by SpudmanWP
But now all of the Reps in Blue states will actually come out and swing the pop back in his favor...

The party in power almost always loses the house in off years, it's the norm.

Besides, it's not the pop that he needs to win.

Also, his chances get better the more the left fragments and bows at the feet of the fringe-left.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 06:13
by marauder2048
Or it's just reduced to a trickle.

The Air Force light attack effort (OA-X, AT-X, LAS) will have six aircraft (two different types)
to show for it after three administrations one of which was in office for eight years.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 06:18
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:But now all of the Reps in Blue states will actually come out and swing the pop back in his favor...

The party in power almost always loses the house in off years, it's the norm.

Besides, it's not the pop that he needs to win.

Also, his chances get better the more the left fragments and bows at the feet of the fringe-left.



To early to say many many factors. Including who the Democrats select to challenge Trump??? Yet, I still do like his odds....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 12:06
by madrat
Buttgigger will upset Biden. It's going to be Michael Dukakis 2.0 for the dems. Dumpy short sucker versus the reigning moderate champion. Biden support will unravel two weeks before the primary.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 02:40
by weasel1962
Well all parties have now passed their versions of the NDAA with the F-15EX intact. The only question now is when the reconciliation of the versions will happen. F-15EX is now almost certain to be a reality.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ith-house/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 11:49
by marsavian
How much backbone support will F-15EX now have now that no-one has to impress Shanahan with it ? I can see an extensive SLEP making a comeback in the future and less overall F-15EX.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 12:30
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:How much backbone support will F-15EX now have now that no-one has to impress Shanahan with it ? I can see an extensive SLEP making a comeback in the future and less overall F-15EX.


With the former Boeing exec gone hopefully this turd will get flushed.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 15:05
by quicksilver
“...with the F-15EX intact.”

In this context, what constitutes ‘intact’? (Serious question. I haven’t read any of the committee language).

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 15:59
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:But now all of the Reps in Blue states will actually come out and swing the pop back in his favor...

The party in power almost always loses the house in off years, it's the norm.

Besides, it's not the pop that he needs to win.

Also, his chances get better the more the left fragments and bows at the feet of the fringe-left.



To early to say many many factors. Including who the Democrats select to challenge Trump??? Yet, I still do like his odds....


I agree with this.

People vote with their wallets, and the economy is unquestionably strong. Arguably the strongest in decades. Only Sanders has any real chance, as he echoes the same "the system is rigged against you" message that Trump ran on. Bernie takes that a step further however, with "free" everything.

Bernie would be a much, much better candidate than the rest. He is the only one who comes across as genuine, and really believes in his ideas/message. They're not my politics, but I have to hand it to him - he believes in what he's saying.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 23:49
by marauder2048
It's a sad story.

The CAPE creature who instigated it (Daigle) in gone.
Shanahan is gone.

And the AF Seceretary who had the misfortune to be embroiled in it has resigned.

But there's still collateral damage which hopefully that committees that ring-fenced
funding until the Air Force provides some coherent and consistent reasoning
(not at all in evidence at the hearings) will clean up.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2019, 06:28
by spazsinbad
Bipartisan Support for Buying More Fighter Jets
03 Jul 2019 Jon Harper

"...The fiscal year 2020 national defense authorization bill approved June 27 by the GOP-controlled Senate would authorize $10 billion to procure 94 F-35 joint strike fighters, 16 more than the Trump administration requested.

The legislation “prioritizes investments that ensure the U.S. military sustains or regains our comparative combat advantage in the current climate of great-power competition, … enabling the forces to modernize and equip themselves with the most advanced and capable fifth-generation aircraft,” a summary of the bill said.

It would also authorize the purchase of a number of fourth-generation aircraft including 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and eight of the controversial F-15EX fighters that the Trump administration requested.

The House Armed Services Committee's version of the 2020 NDAA would authorize funding for 12 additional F-35As above the administration's request, as well as eight F-15EXs and 24 F/A-18E/Fs.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill in May that would provide $8.7 billion for 90 F-35s, 12 more than the Trump administration requested. It would also provide $1.7 billion for the procurement of 24 Super Hornets and $986 million for eight F-15EXs to recapitalize the F-15C/D fleet...."

Source: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... ghter-jets

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2019, 07:02
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:
Bipartisan Support for Buying More Fighter Jets
03 Jul 2019 Jon Harper

"...The fiscal year 2020 national defense authorization bill approved June 27 by the GOP-controlled Senate would authorize $10 billion to procure 94 F-35 joint strike fighters, 16 more than the Trump administration requested.

The legislation “prioritizes investments that ensure the U.S. military sustains or regains our comparative combat advantage in the current climate of great-power competition, … enabling the forces to modernize and equip themselves with the most advanced and capable fifth-generation aircraft,” a summary of the bill said.

It would also authorize the purchase of a number of fourth-generation aircraft including 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and eight of the controversial F-15EX fighters that the Trump administration requested.

The House Armed Services Committee's version of the 2020 NDAA would authorize funding for 12 additional F-35As above the administration's request, as well as eight F-15EXs and 24 F/A-18E/Fs.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill in May that would provide $8.7 billion for 90 F-35s, 12 more than the Trump administration requested. It would also provide $1.7 billion for the procurement of 24 Super Hornets and $986 million for eight F-15EXs to recapitalize the F-15C/D fleet...."

Source: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... ghter-jets


Disappointing that the eight F-15EX's are in both budgets. Which, means the odds are pretty good that the USAF will get them like it or not. Yet, not unexpected either...

Still some hope they could be cut in the end. Won't know until the compromise between the Senate and House Bills are complete....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2019, 14:34
by mixelflick
If they do buy 8 F-15EX's, what are the odds they stop there?

Surely, someone is going to come to their senses. The USAF is going to look pretty silly with 8 F-15EX's on hand. Maybe they'll just roll them into the Strike Eagle fleet and call it a day.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 01:19
by weasel1962
The F-15 buy is a jobs program and a jobs program is not normally a 1 year program. 80 is the interim number over 5 years (8 + 18x4) and 144 is the total program as is (8 years). Presumably this will be followed by the PCA comp.

FY20 budget strategy clearly worked with now at least 122 fighters being funded. FY21 budget will be easier using the mixelflick argument that 8 is really too few and at least a sqn should be bought (which means at least 24+2 attrition reserve). Then the 3 year kicks in with a multi-year buy sweetener where the cost drops if the remaining 3 years are bought at a go by which time, there's enough economies of scale to go with a 2nd 3 year buy. Smart!

The selection of the EX instead of the CX makes it clear this is will be the day 3 tactical bomber fleet, which can free up the F-35 for A2A. I suspect eventually the 2nd seat will be used (e.g. a place to transfer excess pilots from other sqns).

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 01:37
by SpudmanWP
What happens when Boing losses F/A-XX and PCA?

Do we keep buying the F-15 & F-18 till they eventually win a fighter contract?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 01:39
by spazsinbad
"...I suspect eventually the 2nd seat will be used (e.g. a place to transfer excess pilots from other sqns)." From what I have read over the last several years the USAF does not have enough pilots nor does it retain enough experienced pilots.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 02:17
by weasel1962
spazsinbad wrote:"...I suspect eventually the 2nd seat will be used (e.g. a place to transfer excess pilots from other sqns)." From what I have read over the last several years the USAF does not have enough pilots nor does it retain enough experienced pilots.


Agreed. Its a current problem. Doomsayers will say this will continue on. However from what I've read, the solutions have already been implemented.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 02:32
by spazsinbad
Manipulation goes on I guess so how hard is it to discourage less useful USAF pilots to stay or whatever - for the numbers.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 02:37
by optimist
"Meanwhile, the Democrat-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill in May that would provide $8.7 billion for 90 F-35s, 12 more than the Trump administration requested. It would also provide $1.7 billion for the procurement of 24 Super Hornets and $986 million for eight F-15EXs to recapitalize the F-15C/D fleet"

curiosity got me.

The FA-18 came out at 1.7b/24 = $70.8m

The f-35 came out to 8.7b/90 = $96.6m

The F-15ex came out to 0.986b/8 = $123.2m

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 05:59
by weasel1962
The unit cost for FY 20 F-35A is $83.974m but which strangely comes up to $3.982b for 48. Add $381m for non-recurring costs e.g. ancillary equipment + $489m support costs e.g. depot standup.

Its $109.58m for each F-35B (total 10 = $1.096b) + $119m non-recurring costs + $447m support costs.
Its $101.8m for each F-35C (total 20 = $2.036b) + $196m non-recurring costs + $246m support costs.

Total = $8.992B for the F-35. Non-recurring program cost to date is already in excess of $9.1b ($4b for A, $3.5b for C, $1.6b for B).

The unit cost for FY 20 F-15EX is $80.3m (8 units = $642.4m) with a non-recurring cost of $407m (cut by $64m in the house bill due to "excessive engineering costs") and zero support costs which is what the USAF is arguing is the real cost savings but will likely creep up later imho.

The unit cost for FY 20 F-18E/F is $65.39m (24 units = $1.588b) with $18m non-recurring costs and $215m support costs. Non-recurring program cost to date is already in excess of $5b.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2019, 00:45
by usnvo
weasel1962 wrote:The unit cost for FY 20 F-15EX is $80.3m (8 units = $642.4m) with a non-recurring cost of $407m (cut by $64m in the house bill due to "excessive engineering costs") and zero support costs which is what the USAF is arguing is the real cost savings but will likely creep up later imho.


It is hard to tell how much the F-15EX will cost because the budget book is almost completely blank. While it lists the airframe cost at $80 million, it specifically indicates that is only an estimate and it will probably change.

This little gem is found at the bottom of page 1 "All numbers are based on initial program office estimate and will be refined after acquisition program baseline is established". In other words you have to buy it to know how expensive it will be.

And while all other fighters breakdown airframe/CFM, GFM, and engines separately, there is no mention of any of these in the F-15EX budget book, just the airframe which may or may not include same.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2019, 05:33
by weasel1962
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2019, 11:44
by mixelflick
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.


Good find...

It will be interesting to see if Boeing lives up to that estimate, I'm thinking somehow no. Be that as it may though, sounds like the Super Eagle is comng our way. Will make an interesting comparison to the SU-35 and other up rated Flankers...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2019, 12:51
by ricnunes
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)?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2019, 21:37
by fidgetspinner
"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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2019, 22:29
by usnvo
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 05:29
by weasel1962
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 10:26
by spazsinbad
AFAIK the two seater may not be the seater of USAF choice. Then what? What is incentive for a pilot to become a WIZO?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 13:48
by ricnunes
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)!

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 16:04
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 16:51
by fidgetspinner
@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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 19:54
by wrightwing
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 23:25
by Corsair1963
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....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 00:38
by wrightwing
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 00:56
by usnvo
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.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 02:57
by Corsair1963
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... :|

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 03:43
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 04:07
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 10:42
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote: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... :|


I wouldn't say that having static mocks/models (albeit "full-scale") is "moving right/along".

When I see any or both of those fighters (Tempest or NGF) flying for the first time then it will be the day say that I'll say that they are "moving right/along".

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 01:51
by marauder2048
usnvo wrote: Since the missiles themselves will be extremely expensive, how many do you plan to fire? 20? 100? 200?


There's also no POR for any of the air-launched hypersonic weapons. There are some rapid prototyping,
rapid fielding efforts which will produce some small war reserve LRIP quantities.

And the use of a still very expensive F-15EX is going to be weighed against the Army's TELs for the same BGV.
The TELs are much cheaper to own and operate. So then it's a question of the cost of a two-stage booster stack for the Army/Navy version vs a single stage booster that has to survive in the airborne launch environment (unless they intend to have a common stage).

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 02:20
by Corsair1963
ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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... :|


I wouldn't say that having static mocks/models (albeit "full-scale") is "moving right/along".

When I see any or both of those fighters (Tempest or NGF) flying for the first time then it will be the day say that I'll say that they are "moving right/along".


They are in development and being funded....That sounds like "moving right along to me". :|

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 10:24
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:They are in development and being funded....That sounds like "moving right along to me". :|


This one was also in development and being funded:

Image

and yet and fast-forwarding to today (2019)...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 16:36
by doge
:doh:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... R-2500.pdf
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 9, 2019
F-15EX Aircraft Program (Section 123).
The Administration objects to section 123, which would designate the F-15EX as a major subprogram of the F-15.

The designation as a major subprogram would needlessly delay the fielding of the F-15EX by an estimated two years while providing only marginal decision-making value to the Milestone Decision Authority given the F15EX high level of technology readiness.

The delays would exacerbate capacity issues within the tactical aircraft portfolio, prevent the execution of key nonrecurring engineering and manufacturing activities, and require operating the less capable F-15C/D longer with its significant structural issues and high cost.

The Administration objects to the proposed limitation on procuring only two F-15EX prototypes, and requests full funding for the first eight F-15EX aircraft.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 00:39
by Corsair1963
doge wrote::doh:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... R-2500.pdf
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 9, 2019
F-15EX Aircraft Program (Section 123).
The Administration objects to section 123, which would designate the F-15EX as a major subprogram of the F-15.

The designation as a major subprogram would needlessly delay the fielding of the F-15EX by an estimated two years while providing only marginal decision-making value to the Milestone Decision Authority given the F15EX high level of technology readiness.

The delays would exacerbate capacity issues within the tactical aircraft portfolio, prevent the execution of key nonrecurring engineering and manufacturing activities, and require operating the less capable F-15C/D longer with its significant structural issues and high cost.

The Administration objects to the proposed limitation on procuring only two F-15EX prototypes, and requests full funding for the first eight F-15EX aircraft.



Clear attempt by the Democrats to kill the F-15EX one way or another......... :wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 11:38
by doge
Additional news. :doh: :doh:
https://www.defensedaily.com/white-hous ... air-force/
White House ‘Strongly Objects’ to HASC NDAA Funding Cuts for F-15EX, Next-Gen Air Dominance
By Vivienne Machi |@VivienneMachi 12 hours ago |07/10/2019
The White House critiqued the House Armed Services Committee’s (HASC) mark of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act to be debated on the House floor this week, in part for a $500 million reduction in funds to develop the Air Force’s future…


Relation. :doh:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/om ... hree-years
OMB: House's proposed NGAD cut would delay program by three years
By Courtney Albon July 10, 2019 at 3:51 PM
As part of a scathing review of the House's proposed fiscal year 2020 defense policy bill, the White House Office of Management and Budget told House lawmakers this week a proposed $500 million cut to the Next-Generation Air Dominance program would delay the program by three years. The cut would reduce the Air Force’s FY-20 NGAD request by about one half. "Full funding for NGAD is essential to maintaining a strong United States industrial base capable of building the world’s...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 15:27
by mixelflick
Here we go...

We have $ for a 50 year old teen series fighter new build, and already NGAD is being pushed to the right. How our "leaders" can't see the futility of this situation I do not know. Corporate welfare has to be the only explanation. I say if Boeing wants to be in the fighter business, then win either PCA or F/A-XX. Those are 2 opportunities, and it's not like they don't already have experience building fighters.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 02:13
by weasel1962
What I like about Trump is his natural instinct to bite back at every opportunity. The downside is a disregard of whether it presnts opponents a bigger target. In this case, the easiest counter is to ask why Trump/DoD doesn't want oversight? Why a 2 year delay is an issue when the delivery are meant to be 2022 anyways (weak case)...however, I'm not exactly impressed by the quality of the dems. No "fighters".

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 14:51
by doge
The very very too long articles. :doh: (I decided to quote only the part of F-15EX and NGAD.)
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... power.aspx
The Case for Fifth-Generation and NGAD Airpower
JULY 2019 LT. GEN. DAVID A. DEPTULA, MAJ. GEN. LAWRENCE A. STUTZREIM, AND HEATHER PENNEY
The case for 5th generation fighters is built on all-aspect stealth; superior aerodynamic performance; advanced automated sensors; and the power of automated information fusion.

Delayed F-35 production has also meant extending fourth-generation F-16s and A-10 airframes. The average age of the Air Force’s fourth-generation jets now exceeds 25 years. While they remain flyable (albeit with significant structural limitations), they are not survivable in an advanced threat scenario such as a great power competition.

What was once “tomorrow’s threat” is now today’s reality.  

With only 186 F-22s and about 200 F-35s to complement its aging fourth-generation fighters, the Air Force has too few fighters to defend the United States in a modern security environment including a potential North Korean conflict occurring simultaneously with a requirement to check Russian revanchist actions in Europe, or Chinese aggression in East Asia.

Yet instead of increasing the buy rate for more low-observable F-35s to support the goals of the new defense strategy, the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal 2020 budget request seeks to purchase eight F-15EX fighters—aircraft based on a design that dates back to the late 1960s.  Even as new-build with upgraded capabilities, these fourth-generation F-15EXs will lack key attributes necessary to survive and operate in the priority advanced threat environments identified in the National Defense Strategy. Low observability, commonly known as stealth, and sensor fusion are not bolt-on capabilities and cannot be retrofitted or modified: They must be designed into an aircraft from Day 1. 

Air superiority is a prerequisite to joint operations. Without Air Force contributions, other military services’ capabilities cannot be realized. Ships, ground forces, space and cyber facilities, logistics nodes, and support aircraft are all exceedingly vulnerable to attack from modern weapons. Failure to modernize our air forces with relevant, capable, and survivable aircraft will result in crippling losses in a conflict with a rival such as China or Russia. Recapitalizing the Air Force fighter force with fifth-generation aircraft is fundamental to fielding viable US military power around the globe. 

Given those stakes, it is crucial to prioritize the production of fifth-generation fighter aircraft. The US should increase F-35 procurement rates and accelerate investment in the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to make up for its undersized F-22 fleet. Today’s fighter force consists of 82 percent fourth-generation and only 18 percent fifth-generation aircraft. Reversing that balance is the only way to ensure America’s sons and daughters strap into aircraft that can successfully execute their missions against the world’s most challenging threats—and return home safely.

Because fourth-generation fighters have been dubbed “good enough” for the last 30 years, the vast improvements provided by fifth-generation technologies are not sufficiently understood by policymakers. Modernization has incrementally increased the capabilities of fourth-generation aircraft through improvements in sensors, displays, pods, and increased processing. Yet, fourth- generation aircraft, even with advanced avionics modifications like those on the F-15EX, are simply not survivable against modern threats.

These airplanes lack three critical attributes:
    ・All-aspect stealth and superior aerodynamic performance.
    ・Advanced automated sensors and information fusion.
    ・The synergy of stealth, fused information, and integrated automated processing. 

Air Force written testimony to Congress makes that point plainly, stating “to meet emerging worldwide threats across the spectrum of conflict … the cornerstone of the Air Force [must be a] shift from 4th/5th-generation to a 5th/6th-generation fleet.” Increasing the procurement rate of fifth-generation aircraft and accelerating NGAD development are the paths necessary to ensure this goal is met.

While some defense observers suggest that the F-15EX program will come from additive funds, history suggests otherwise over the long haul. Budget plus-ups of this sort disappear when defense budgets decline, but the mandate to pay the bill remains. Given today’s ballooning federal deficits, economic uncertainty, and mounting pressure from mandatory federal spending accounts, it is unlikely that current spending levels can be sustained. Further looming over the budget is a sharply divided and gridlocked Congress, with the growing possibility of a return to sequester-level spending. Either path could lead to a competition between the F-35 and F-15EX for funding, with severe ramifications for the F-35.

If the F-15EX becomes a program of record and funds are appropriated for production, it is likely that any future budget trade-offs could come out of planned F-35 purchases. This would reduce F-35 production rates, pushing up the cost per plane. If that happens, new doubts will emerge about F-35 program sustainability and affordability, yielding further cuts and further price hikes. This is what Washington calls a “death spiral,” a self-reinforcing dynamic that leads to an inevitable early end to expensive programs.

Recently departed Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson pushed back against the trade-off of F-35 for F-15EX, prudently explaining: “If the budget gets crunched in the out years, you can’t start trading off and saying we’re going to keep open an F-15 line. … We’re not going to trade off fifth-generation for fourth-generation.” In reality, however, once the F-15EX becomes a line item in the budget, that decision will not be in the hands of the Air Force. Congress will make that call, with local politics, not prudent planning, the foremost driver in the debate. 

It is ironic that it is because the F-22—itself a victim of the death spiral—was prematurely canceled that an F-15EX is even being considered. The only difference this time is that dramatic reductions to the Air Force F-35 program would also impact the US Navy, the US Marine Corps, and a host of allied militaries also buying the F-35.

While each military service will need new capabilities and capacities to fulfill their obligations, none of those investments will matter if the Air Force is unable to provide the airpower foundation upon which joint combat operations depend. America must now have the resolve to rebuild its Air Force to be able to defeat advanced adversaries as outlined in the National Defense Strategy. The following actions are prudent means to accomplish this objective:  
    ・Ensure fifth-generation aircraft and NGAD receive top priority for finite budget resources. Procuring F-15EXs cannot come at the cost of these essential modernization programs.
    ・Increase the F-35A production rate to 80 aircraft per year beginning in fiscal year 2021.
    ・Reduce the ratio of fourth- to fifth-generation fighters from 82/18 to 50/50 as rapidly as possible.
    ・Encourage allies to buy fifth-generation aircraft.
    ・Eliminate “aircraft unit cost” as a decision metric on programs and replace it with a “cost-per-effect” model.
    ・Replace the simplistic cost-per-flying-hour metric with the more holistic metric of total annual cost per aircraft. 
America’s sons and daughters will fly into harm’s way in whatever combat aircraft their nation procures. We must do everything in our power to ensure those aircraft can get the job done in the face of an increasingly challenging threat, while also ensuring the airmen inside will return home safely from their missions. That requires investing in modern, capable, and relevant advanced aircraft designs and technology.

From that too long article, I can feel the Confused or Baffled or Perplexe of the Gen. members who wrote the article... :doh:
--------------------
[Postscript. Edit.]
Apparently, This article seems to have been written based on the Mitchell Institute PDF. :doh:
http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_66 ... 7d1cf2.pdf
(I jumped into a conclusion(?) I have not confirmed everything... This PDF is also long!)
Sorry to bother you... :notworthy:

In PDF, there was such a figure.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 17:53
by spazsinbad
By buying F-15 jets, Pentagon leaders are repeating past mistakes
12 Jul 2019 Gen. John D.W. Corley (ret.)

"...Pentagon leaders are repeating mistakes of the past. Rather than reestablishing the planned acceleration of F-35 production capacity after years of sequestration caps, the Department of Defense is requesting numbers far lower than needed in order to fund an F-15EX.

With Patrick Shanahan withdrawing as the defense secretary nominee, Pentagon leaders have the opportunity to set the record right. New leaders must signal that continuing to invest in aircraft lacking the capability to survive in the 21st century is repeating an egregious mistake and is cannibalizing the F-35 production capacity already in place.

Congress must increase its funding of the free world’s one and only fifth-generation fighter jet in production today to allow the United States to remain ahead of its adversaries. Anything short of that is a potentially deadly mistake that we cannot afford to make."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... -mistakes/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2019, 04:40
by spazsinbad
Back to the BUD GET. "...The next step is for members of the House and Senate to meet in a conference committee to iron out differences between the two versions of the FY 2020 NDAA...." Seems there ain't no buds in the US Congress. :?
House Passes Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act on Party Lines
12 Jul 2019 Ben Werner

"The full House of Representatives passed its version of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act on a strict party-line vote. The policy bill, which provides lawmakers a means for detailing their defense-related priorities, provides funding and regulatory guidance to the Pentagon. The bill passed on a 220-197 vote, with no Republicans supporting the measure....

...The next step is for members of the House and Senate to meet in a conference committee to iron out differences between the two versions of the FY 2020 NDAA.

“As we now move to conference with our colleagues in the Senate, I am hopeful that our work can return to the bipartisan tradition that distinguishes the Armed Services Committees,” Smith said in his statement. “I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue to refine this legislation so that it not only honors our oath to protect and defend, but it also – and most importantly – continues to takes care of the single most valuable asset in our national defense strategy: our service members.”..."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/07/12/house- ... arty-lines

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2019, 02:08
by weasel1962
Final deal struck on FY 2020 defense budget at $738b. This increases the house budget by $5b but is lower than the $750b requested by Trump and approved by the senate.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/budget/2 ... ding-deal/

Weasel's note: Looks like the F-15 budget has crossed the final budget hurdle at least for FY 2020. It would be interesting to see what happens in FY 2021 since the budget is now agreed to be capped at $740.5b of which the increases are probably to fund pay increases.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2019, 06:09
by Corsair1963
As I've said over and over. Future US Defense Budgets are very likely to decrease in the coming years. Which, will make the case for the F-15EX harder and harder...

:?

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 12:19
by weasel1962
Looks to me like night court redux to push more money for key FY 21 programs.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/esp ... next-year/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 20:31
by marauder2048
Even the Army version of "night court" was limited by the fact that Congress, after praising the process,
merely, in several cases, re-re-aligned the funds.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 03:30
by weasel1962
Reading the budget deal below. It would appear that the house appropriations version has passed and is now pending senate confirmation.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... /3877/text

It appears also, the senate will have to pass this week without changing it.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2019 ... ts/158711/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 05:13
by Corsair1963
Writing is on the wall.......(for better or worse)

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 07:29
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:As I've said over and over. Future US Defense Budgets are very likely to decrease in the coming years. Which, will make the case for the F-15EX harder and harder...

:?

They didn't decrease during the 8 years of the Obama administration, and financial crisis. If anything, the rate of growth will be slower or faster, but real cuts aren't likely.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 19:29
by marauder2048
wrightwing wrote:They didn't decrease during the 8 years of the Obama administration, and financial crisis.


I guess that depends on whose inflation indices you believe; NAVAIR's inflation indices (close to
what JPO uses for the F-35) for the Obama period were almost always higher (sometimes by 2x)
than the directives coming out of the Obama administration.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2019, 00:55
by weasel1962
FY 2020 and 2021 budget passed by Senate with a veto-proof majority. Trump was going to sign anyway. Now the politicians can focus on elections.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ary-boost/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2019, 05:20
by wrightwing
marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:They didn't decrease during the 8 years of the Obama administration, and financial crisis.


I guess that depends on whose inflation indices you believe; NAVAIR's inflation indices (close to
what JPO uses for the F-35) for the Obama period were almost always higher (sometimes by 2x)
than the directives coming out of the Obama administration.

The rate of growth decreased, but there was stil growth .

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2019, 07:07
by marauder2048
wrightwing wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:They didn't decrease during the 8 years of the Obama administration, and financial crisis.


I guess that depends on whose inflation indices you believe; NAVAIR's inflation indices (close to
what JPO uses for the F-35) for the Obama period were almost always higher (sometimes by 2x)
than the directives coming out of the Obama administration.

The rate of growth decreased, but there was stil growth .


Not to dwell on this but:

Even NAVAIR's figures, which aren't typically released publicly, understated fighter cost
growth during the period IDA analyzed. Full CER is the best fit for actual costs; OMB used GDP.


price-index-comparison-fighters.png


Unfortunately, I didn't see IDA's promised extension of their methodology to missiles,
ground vehicles, and submarines and they didn't extend fighter analysis to the late Obama
period.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2019, 10:29
by Corsair1963
Night court comes to the Pentagon


WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Tuesday confirmed his department wide review won’t be limited to finding savings from “fourth estate” agencies, but will potentially involve cutting legacy programs that are diverting money away from next-generation projects needed to combat China and Russia.


Speaking at the SENEDIA industry conference in Rhode Island on Tuesday, Esper touted the forthcoming review by saying he was open to “divesting of legacy capabilities that simply aren’t suited” for future battlefields.


“My commitment is to look throughout the DoD enterprise, beginning with the fourth estate, and look for ways to find money to invest in those technologies,” he said.


Asked by reporters on his way back to Washington if he was willing to cut legacy programs loose to fund future capabilities, Esper said, “I’m looking for programs that don’t have as much value relative to another critical war-fighting capability, absolutely.”

“I’ve already found money, and it’s just going to be a long process," he added. “I have a dollar amount in mind but I want to make sure I can refine it a little better before I can release anything.”

etc. etc. etc.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... ium=social

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2019, 23:12
by Corsair1963
Doesn't this sound like the F-15EX???


:|

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2019, 23:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Maybe it means finally axing the A-10 and F-15C

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 00:01
by Corsair1963
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Maybe it means finally axing the A-10 and F-15C


Honestly, hard to cut either unless they replace them with another type. As Congress is not likely to go along with lost jobs at Air Bases. (all politics is local)

My guess is the F-15EX's would just be replaced with New F-35's. While, they will just hold on to the A-10 for another decade or so....

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 02:09
by marauder2048
Not sure the Air Force can really retire much of anything if it hopes to hit the NDS mandated number of squadrons.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 02:32
by element1loop
... but will potentially involve cutting legacy programs that are diverting money away from next-generation projects needed to combat China and Russia. ...


This is so overdue, I hope it finally happens. In the end the US has to accept the need to shrink in order to grow new capabilities then expand their numbers. As those new capabilities are so much more effective at the high-end (as are high-end weapons and enabling of new tankers) it seems to me this is not being taken into proper consideration. What's the good of having A-10s or old F-15C air superiority squadrons (and their wasteful burgeoning maintenance and logistics drain) to make up the numbers in service if you can't use them in useful ways in the first few days of a high-end fight, and have them survive? The dead wood needs to be cleared away for new growth.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 02:43
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:Not sure the Air Force can really retire much of anything if it hopes to hit the NDS mandated number of squadrons.



Sure could buy additional F-35A's to replace the F-15C's. At the same rate as the planned F-15EX.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 22:16
by marauder2048
Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Not sure the Air Force can really retire much of anything if it hopes to hit the NDS mandated number of squadrons.



At the same rate as the planned F-15EX.



From the article (my emphasis):

And for Esper to be effective at making consequential and forward-looking changes, he will have to do what he did as Army secretary and personally lead the process, not delegate to a deputy or, say, the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation , Brose warned.


Those are encouraging words of advice.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 01:50
by Corsair1963
Pentagon

Why program cuts from Esper’s Pentagon-wide review could come sooner than expected
By: Aaron Mehta


WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper intends to implement changes from his review of Defense Department organizations on a rolling basis, rather than waiting until the review process is completely finished, according to the department’s top spokesman.


Jonathan Rath Hoffman, assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs, said Monday that there’s “no interest” from Esper to wait until the review is fully done or the start of the next fiscal year to start implementing program changes, including potential cuts.


“It’s going to be an ongoing process. If he makes a decision, it’s not going to be ‘I have to look through everything and then make some decisions.’ If he sees a program that needs to end or be moved, he’ll make that decision as quickly as he can,” Hoffman told reporters. “He’s going to make changes as we move forward. If he identifies changes that would save money, there’s no interest in waiting until next year to start saving money.”


An Aug. 2 memo kicked off a departmentwide review of programs ahead of the development for the fiscal 2021 budget request. The goal is to find savings and drive a “longer-term focus on structural reform, ensuring all [defensewide] activities are aligned to the National Defense Strategy while evaluating the division of functions between defense-wide organizations and the military departments," per the document.


The so-called fourth estate of the department includes 27 agencies, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Information Systems Agency and the Missile Defense Agency. A September 2018 report from the Government Accountability Office estimated those agencies collectively have an annual budget of at least $106 billion.

Esper has acknowledged the review sounds a lot like the “night court” process the Army used to find roughly $25 billion in savings that could then be reinvested into new capabilities. But he has so far declined to offer a target dollar figure for savings.

"It’s a long road. I’m spending two hours a week, 90 minutes to two hours a week on this in formal session, so we’re just going to work our way through it week after week after week,” the secretary said Aug 27. “I’m looking for programs that don’t have as much value relative to another critical war-fighting capability, absolutely.”


Hoffman described the process as starting with internal reviews inside the various offices, looking at what projects are ongoing. Those are cross-checked with assessments from others in the department that are looking to find cost-sharing or cost-saving options. Those are collectively provided up to the deputy secretary of defense before being presented at regular meetings with Esper.


Esper then “holds a review with all the parties that may have equities and go through it. I sat through one of these last week. He really digs into what are the appropriate roles, what are the appropriate missions, is there someone better or capable to hold this than the equity that has it now, is there better cost savings,” Hoffman said.


Some have questioned whether Esper’s plans will run into roadblocks in Congress. On Monday, Hoffman stressed that the department has been keeping Congress in the loop.

“The secretary has been very adamant he wants to make sure Congress is fully informed,” he said.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... -expected/

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 03:09
by Corsair1963
Hoping the F-15EX wouldn't make the latest round of cuts. Yet, it appears it did at least for 2020..... :shock:

That said, not over until the "Fat Lady Sings". Still has the House and President signature. Yet, the latter is a given.... :?

Senate Appropriators Back F-15EX, Add Space Initiatives
9/10/2019
​—Rachel S. Cohen

Members of the Senate’s defense appropriations subcommittee on Sept. 10 endorsed the Air Force’s plan to buy the F-15EX from Boeing, signaling authorizers and appropriators in the House and Senate will all back the idea in the final defense policy and spending bills.


The panel’s version of the 2020 defense spending bill includes nearly $1 billion for eight of the new fighter jets, two of which will be used as test aircraft, according to a summary of the bill. Earlier this year, the Senate and House Armed Services committees as well as the House Appropriations Committee included eight F-15EXs in their own legislation, and lawmakers in both chambers must now agree on how much money to offer the program.


Senate appropriators also offer nearly $1.9 billion to plus up the Pentagon’s request for F-35s, bringing total Joint Strike Fighter procurement to 96 airframes in 2020. That includes an extra 12 F-35As for the Air Force and 60 overall for the service. The summary also notes an additional $156 million to jumpstart F-35A procurement in fiscal 2021.

On space, the subcommittee endorsed creation of a Space Force and fully funded the $1.2 billion National Security Space Launch program. The bill “includes a general provision to protect the Air Force launch development and launch service procurement schedules,” the summary states. Senate authorizers similarly blocked changes to NSSL’s second procurement phase amid complaints from industry.


Lawmakers also created a new research spending line for “Tactically Responsive Launch,” a program intended “to ensure the Air Force devotes adequate resources to venture-class launch services,” according to the summary.


NASA sent its first satellites of the venture-class program into space in December 2018. The initiative “aims to provide a dedicated launch capability for smaller payloads such as cubesats on smaller rockets,” the agency said. The Air Force declined to comment on pending legislation.


The Air Force’s major nuclear programs fared well despite an ongoing congressional feud about which weapons to fund: The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent would receive an extra $65 million on top of the original $570.4 request, and the Long-Range Standoff Weapon would get full funding as well. The B-21 bomber would receive nearly the full request at $2.9 billion.


Topline spending covers about $695 billion for the Pentagon, or $20.5 billion more than was enacted in fiscal 2019. That includes $622.5 billion in the base budget and $70.7 billion for the overseas contingency operations account, according to the committee’s Republican majority.


If enacted, the legislation would provide $1.7 billion to bases like Tyndall AFB, Fla., and Offutt AFB, Neb., for emergency disaster aid following Hurricanes Michael and Florence as well as flooding and earthquakes that occurred in fiscal 2019.


According to the summary, the bill also includes:

•$2.1 billion to buy 12 KC-46 tankers, $700 million and three aircraft fewer than Senate authorizers offered, as well as an additional $35 million for development;
•A $536 million plus-up for the Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared program;
•$210 million to buy six light-attack aircraft;
•Full funding for the new Air Force One;
•$17.6 billion to buy missiles and ammunition;
•Backing of directed-energy and hypersonics research;
•An additional $91 million for weapon system sustainment; and
•Funding for flying hours.


The subcommittee sent its bill to the full panel on Sept. 10, and the Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up the legislation Sept. 12.

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

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 20:29
by afjag
Does anyone know whether DoD and LM are close to finalizing the multiyear F-35 buy? Last I heard was that the goal was to finalize it by the end of August, which obviously did not happen.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 21:36
by marsavian
F-15EX has a momentum of its own now despite all its original protagonists departing. Will take a new administration with a different outlook to reverse this now.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2019, 05:43
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:F-15EX has a momentum of its own now despite all its original protagonists departing. Will take a new administration with a different outlook to reverse this now.



Actually, it could die quickly as future US Defense Budgets will decline in the coming years.


In addition even if approved. The first batch is just "8" aircraft and 2 of them are for testing. So, considering the small numbered planned to acquire each year. It will be "years" before the first Squadron of F-15EX's ever reaches IOC!



The F-15EX is going to look pretty old by the late 2020's and early 2030's!


That said, if the program is canceled over the next few years. The existing F-15E Squadrons will just absorb them... :wink:

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2019, 16:09
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:In addition even if approved. The first batch is just "8" aircraft and 2 of them are for testing. So, considering the small numbered planned to acquire each year. It will be "years" before the first Squadron of F-15EX's ever reaches IOC!

The F-15EX is going to look pretty old by the late 2020's and early 2030's!

That said, if the program is canceled over the next few years. The existing F-15E Squadrons will just absorb them... :wink:


Or translated to "simple English" this is only to keep Boeing laboring at the St. Louis plant, or resuming to keep the production line at St. Louis open.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2019, 04:38
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:F-15EX has a momentum of its own now despite all its original protagonists departing. Will take a new administration with a different outlook to reverse this now.


Or a Congress that's rightly skeptical

Senate appropriators question F-15EX acquisition strategy
By Courtney Albon
September 12, 2019 at 1:44 PM
Senate appropriators want more details about the Air Force's F-15EX procurement plan, including its reasoning for pursuing a sole-source buy of Boeing-made jets. The Senate Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2020 defense spending bill, which the committee approved today, would bar the Air Force from spending more than $37.2 million on long-lead materials until the service approves an F-15EX acquisition strategy and program baseline as well as a test and evaluation master plan, life-cycle sustainment plan, a post-production fielding strategy and...

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 08:48
by weasel1962
Too much speculation. What is fact is that the 1st 2 F-15EX is approved in FY 2020 + 50% of non-recurring engineering spend. F-15EX would be delivered in 2022 (although Boeing keeps claiming they can deliver in 2020). Remaining 6 requires a report.

Actual legislation & report.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/n ... nding-bill

The fiscal year 2020 President’s budget requests $1,050,000,000 for 8 F–15EX fighters, the first new fighter jet procured by the Air Force in more than a decade. While the Committee understands the Air Force’s need to maintain fighter capacity and mitigate problems associated with legacy F–15C/D aircraft that are approaching the end of their service life, the Committee continues to have questions about the sole-source acquisition strategy and program baseline for F–15EX. Further, the Committee understands that the first two aircraft will deliver in fiscal year 2022 and be used to integrate and test U.S-only communications and electronic warfare software and hardware. Accordingly, the Committee recommends transferring $364,400,000 from Aircraft Procurement, Air Force to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force for the procurement of two test aircraft and half of the requested amount for non-recurring engineering. The Committee understands that the last six aircraft are not scheduled to deliver until the end of fiscal year 2023. Further, the Committee was provided different rationale and justifications from Air Force leadership, the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, and the F–15 program office on the inclusion of F–15EX in the fiscal year 2020 President’s budget request. Therefore, the Committee directs that of the funds provided in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the remaining F–15EX aircraft, no more than $37,200,000 for long-lead materials may be obligated until the Secretary of the Air Force provides to the congressional defense committees a report detailing: a comprehensive review of options to address the Air Force fighter capacity shortfall; an approved program acquisition strategy; an acquisition program baseline; a test and evaluation master plan; a life-cycle sustainment plan; and a post-production fielding strategy.

Re: FY2020 DoD Budget

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 02:20
by Corsair1963
Goldfein Forecasts B-1 Cuts, More B-21s
9/17/2019
​—John A. Tirpak

The Air Force is considering reducing the B-1 bomber fleet and using the savings to pay for a range of bomber fleet improvements, including a speed-up in the pace of B-21 bomber buys, and more long-range weapons, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told reporters Sept. 17, giving a limited peek ahead at the fiscal 2021 budget request. He said he could not “lean forward” with many details because the budget is not yet approved.


“Bomber aviation is in high demand” given the China threat, the long distances of operating over the Pacific, and the fact no other ally has a bomber fleet, Goldfein told reporters at a press conference for AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. There have been “a number of studies” that more bombers—particularly the new B-21—are needed, and Goldfein said “I’m 100 percent in lockstep with that.” Bottom line, Goldfein said, in bombers as well as other categories: “We need to grow.”


The B-1 fleet was hard used in the Middle East for the last 18 years; often the aircraft of choice in Afghanistan because it could loiter, carry a big payload, and quickly get “where we needed it to go” to come to the aid of troops in contact, Goldfein said.


But flying the B-1 in this way—slow, medium altitude, wings forward, instead of its design concept of fast, low-altitude penetration with wings swept back—has worn the B-1 fleet down, Goldfein said.


“We put stresses on the aircraft that we did not anticipate,” he said, and in depot, “we’re seeing significant structural issues with the B-1.” The Air Force leadership is reviewing whether it would be “cost prohibitive” to restore the existing fleet to “code one” status, meaning that it is ready to go and not hobbled by various technical issues.


Gen. Arnold Bunch, head of Air Force Materiel Command, later told reporters that a structural stress test of the B-1, which was started several years ago, was halted as various serious issues popped up requiring maintenance alerts to the fleet. That testing has resumed, Bunch said, but he couldn’t say when a final answer on the B-1’s likely service life might be available.


Goldfein said USAF leaders are exploring whether to retire some of the most stressed B-1s “and then flow that money into doing some key things within the bomber portfolio.” Those would include “long-range strategic precision weapons; B-52 re-engining—which not only keeps the B-52 viable, it also decreases our tanker requirement and can I buy B-21s faster,” Goldfein said.


While he doubted that the B-21 development program could be sped up, “I’m hoping we can accelerate in numbers,” meaning buy the bomber more rapidly than is now planned, to build mass more rapidly, Goldfein said. The Air Force has said the B-21 is slated to start entering series production in “the mid-2020s” and deliver through around 2032. If only 100 are bought, that would translate to a buy rate of about 10-15 per year, or about the same rate as the KC-46 tanker.


Global Strike Command chief Gen. Timothy Ray said Monday he believes a force of 225 bombers is the minimum needed to carry out the National Defense Strategy.


Goldfein said the B-21 is the best-performing program on the books.


“Of all the programs we’re tracking…the B-21, in terms of the performance of the contractor, is at the very top of the list in terms of what I’m seeing out of the production,” Goldfein said. Northrop Grumman is developing the B-21.


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