F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1110
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 03:21

zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So to get volume support, you need low tier assets for low tier missions


So to get volume support, you need more expensive low tier assets for low tier missions


FIFY
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7951
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 04:23

weasel1962 wrote:If the Navy had waited like the air force for the F-35C instead of SH buys, the carrier fleet would be in serious trouble today no matter how much better the F-35C is compared to SH.


Bravo Sierra, to put it politely.

The F-35C was to replace the Classic F-18 and not the SH. The USN chose to not ramp up F-35C buys after the final hardware config was tested (ie Block 3i) and instead decided to wait till IOT&E to make that call. The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands. In the meantime, they decided to retire the Classic Hornets early as an excuse to buy more SH. The wartime support costs of the SH as compared to the F-35C in addition to the increased costs due to a lowering of the F-35C buy easily erases any cost benefit to buying the SH.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4947
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 04:38

madrat wrote:When talking about corporate cultures, he is.

But F-15X is a no go regardless of the circular arguments in this thread.



Honestly, forget about the lack of merit in the case of buying the F-15X. You just can't make a political one........... :?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1272
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 06:41

SpudmanWP wrote:Bravo Sierra, to put it politely.

The F-35C was to replace the Classic F-18 and not the SH. The USN chose to not ramp up F-35C buys after the final hardware config was tested (ie Block 3i) and instead decided to wait till IOT&E to make that call. The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands. In the meantime, they decided to retire the Classic Hornets early as an excuse to buy more SH. The wartime support costs of the SH as compared to the F-35C in addition to the increased costs due to a lowering of the F-35C buy easily erases any cost benefit to buying the SH.


So explain to us then what role do 500+ SHs have and what did they replace?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7951
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 08:38

The SH's that they have been buying over the past few years (and for the next few) are replacing Classic Hornets that they are retiring early, Early Lot SHs (Block1) that they do not want to update, and later Lot SHs that are wearing out too quickly (buddy tanking does not help).

Increased buy of SH and "forced" F-15X buy all from a DoD lead by an ex-Boeing Exec of 30 years.. total coincidence I am "so" sure.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 14 Feb 2019, 08:41, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1272
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 08:41

Thanks, so if the USN had not bought the SH, they would either have to continue flying legacy hornets today or have bought early lot F-35Cs.

On concurrency costs, its $1.41billion (with navy taking up 40% of the buys) for lots 1-12 of which less than 25% of lot 1-12 occuring before lot 7. The early lot buys were small.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54390

If the USN had gone full in at early lots, rather than buying SH, it would not be $1.41 billion concurrency cost.

Just to be clear, not justifying continued buys for SH today which I think makes more sense just to buy F-35Cs today but go back a few years, not so clear cut.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 14 Feb 2019, 08:44, edited 1 time in total.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7951
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 08:44

The Classic Hornets still had life on them and they should have ramped up the buy at Block 3i after the Hardware TR2 passed dev). Block 3i IS NOT in the Early lots where all the cost is. If they would have started ramping up at Lot8 (2014), 9 (2015), or 10 (2016) then they would already have F-35C coming off the line in large numbers.

btw, the USMC is still flying Classic Hornets and I am sure theirs are in worse shape than the USN.

If they could not deal with a 5-year delay in IOC then they have a bigger problem in their TACAIR plans than just the F-35.

Cost per Lot:
Lot 8 = $2.5mil
Lot 9 = $1.5mil
Lot 10 and later = Less than $1 mil

Image
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 14 Feb 2019, 08:52, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1272
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 08:51

If the USN had not replaced the classic hornets with SH, their classic hornet today will not be in better condition than the USMC ones since they would have had to fly those. If it made sense to buy early lot F-35Cs, the navy would have done it. Clearly the long development cycle had an impact.

This is more to address the issue that Gates is solely at fault for the states of the fleet today. Personally, I think the right time to consider F-15 gen series replacement should have been 2005, not 2019 but it is what it is.
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 09:11

weasel1962 wrote:One major F-15 improvement is in anti-ship. Besides the newer AESA radar being able to operate more effectively over water, newer F-15s can fire harps. Imagine if they carry LRASM.


It would take a great deal of imagination given that the Air Force's POR is like 50 LRASM
mainly as war reserve.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1272
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 09:24

marauder2048 wrote:It would take a great deal of imagination given that the Air Force's POR is like 50 LRASM
mainly as war reserve.


Better than the number of exocets the Argentinians had in 1982. Anyone has a better ship target for those 50 than PLAN CVs?
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 09:27

weasel1962 wrote:So explain to us then what role do 500+ SHs have and what did they replace?


Mission and recovery tanking. A role previously performed by the S-3.
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 09:45

weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:It would take a great deal of imagination given that the Air Force's POR is like 50 LRASM
mainly as war reserve.


Better than the number of exocets the Argentinians had in 1982.


Of course. The PLAN and PLAAF are sure to follow the British lead and treat the F-15 bases as sanctuaries.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 738
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 12:06

The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands.


Didn't the F-35C need specific hardware modifications, e.g. folding wing tip, in between those two specifications ? The F-35C was quite late in coming to its final hardware specification for IOC.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2317
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 13:47

SpudmanWP wrote:The Classic Hornets still had life on them and they should have ramped up the buy at Block 3i after the Hardware TR2 passed dev). Block 3i IS NOT in the Early lots where all the cost is. If they would have started ramping up at Lot8 (2014), 9 (2015), or 10 (2016) then they would already have F-35C coming off the line in large numbers.

btw, the USMC is still flying Classic Hornets and I am sure theirs are in worse shape than the USN.

If they could not deal with a 5-year delay in IOC then they have a bigger problem in their TACAIR plans than just the F-35.

Cost per Lot:
Lot 8 = $2.5mil
Lot 9 = $1.5mil
Lot 10 and later = Less than $1 mil

Image


Where did you get this chart? From the most recent ccy report? Reason I ask is because at one point the report showed columns w the deltas between projected and actual costs. Not saying this is wrong, just noting that the big outlier at the top was from the USG’s first ccy report and was a projection (not an actual) that was used to declare all the doom and gloom about ccy. You can see that the 2012 projection was off by ~30% in the early lots. IIRC, LM argued the point at the time, to little effect.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7951
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2019, 17:42

marsavian wrote:
The concurrency cost of Block 3i to 3F can be measured in tens of thousands.


Didn't the F-35C need specific hardware modifications, e.g. folding wing tip, in between those two specifications ? The F-35C was quite late in coming to its final hardware specification for IOC.

If the issue was discovered prior to 2017 then it's cost is already calculated in the chart I provided.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests