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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 15:11

So what if Boeing doesn't win the PCA contract, will USAF F-15s still be being produced in 20 years time for industrial base reasons ? Was such concern showed to Northrop-Grumman or others in the past ? Congress has to get to the bottom of all these saving cost assertions and go from there. At least the Super Hornet is currently cheaper than F-35C ...
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 16:59

Read Rand report mg1133. Industrial base has been a concern for at least 2 decades. I noted Rand already suggested t-x, kc-x and uclass to keep Boeing in the business and b-21 to keep Northrop Grumman in the business. That was 8 years ago.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1489
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 18:49

weasel1962 wrote:Read Rand report mg1133. Industrial base has been a concern for at least 2 decades. I noted Rand already suggested t-x, kc-x and uclass to keep Boeing in the business and b-21 to keep Northrop Grumman in the business. That was 8 years ago.


They were *not* arguing to sole-sourcing KC-X, T-X and UCLASS programs to Boeing.
And only UCLASS before the *strike* component was eliminated)would have helped maintain
a base to build a 6th gen fighter.

Nowhere was the recommendation to procure a warmed over 60's era design.

If anything it argues against the F-15 because of the large amount of foreign content on it
whereas the F-22 is solely derived from the US industrial base. So restart the F-22 program
if you want to keep Boeing healthy (they were the main agitators behind it).

But the real argument there is for accelerating a 6th gen fighter program.

If you want to sustain a competitive industrial you do so with:

a. open competition on new programs
b. directed shares for competition on new programs

The Navy did a form of b. with Boeing on two of the three teams for MQ-25.
And arguably the Air Force did so on LRS-B but even with Lockheed helping
to produce a technically superior design, Boeing still managed to lose.
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 19:54

marsavian wrote:So what if Boeing doesn't win the PCA contract, will USAF F-15s still be being produced in 20 years time for industrial base reasons ? Was such concern showed to Northrop-Grumman or others in the past ? Congress has to get to the bottom of all these saving cost assertions and go from there. At least the Super Hornet is currently cheaper than F-35C ...


Exactly. If the USAF wants to procure the numbers published at the published rate, we will be building F-15, PCA, and F-35. God only knows what the Navy will be building in the same time frame? Super Hornets, F-35. FAXX?

If Lockheed and NG split the PCA/FAXX business, then Boeing is out of the fighter business unless Eagle and SH are still around. In all honesty, why Boeing is the darling of the industry - now - is beyond me. They did not design the F-15, the F-18, the B-1 or the Apache or the C-17. Until the merger/takeover of MD, what had they done that was of significance? The B-52? Boeing basically bought all of it's business when MD ceased to exist.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1489
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 21:43

charlielima223 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
The USAF really needs to learn from this pickle they're in. The catalyst for all of this was not buying enough F-22's. The capacity shortfall they have, the average age of the fleet etc.. This is what happens when key decision makers like Gates blows a big call.


All of this falls on gates, not the USAF. In fact the air forces top dogs fought until gates fired their a$$. For all the smack talk the internet likes to level at people the USAF did about everything it could.


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
TOO TRUE!
This is all a symptom of not having enough F-22s.


Except CAPE's "analysis" is premised on not needing/wanting stealth at all for homeland and expeditionary
base defense. Even if the F-22 had gone to say 300+ units, CAPE could still mount a tortured argument against it.

The counter-argument is that stealth birds on base/homeland defense could be those that weren't
MC for penetrating.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Mar 2019, 00:58

crosshairs wrote:
marsavian wrote:So what if Boeing doesn't win the PCA contract, will USAF F-15s still be being produced in 20 years time for industrial base reasons ? Was such concern showed to Northrop-Grumman or others in the past ? Congress has to get to the bottom of all these saving cost assertions and go from there. At least the Super Hornet is currently cheaper than F-35C ...


Exactly. If the USAF wants to procure the numbers published at the published rate, we will be building F-15, PCA, and F-35. God only knows what the Navy will be building in the same time frame? Super Hornets, F-35. FAXX?

If Lockheed and NG split the PCA/FAXX business, then Boeing is out of the fighter business unless Eagle and SH are still around. In all honesty, why Boeing is the darling of the industry - now - is beyond me. They did not design the F-15, the F-18, the B-1 or the Apache or the C-17. Until the merger/takeover of MD, what had they done that was of significance? The B-52? Boeing basically bought all of it's business when MD ceased to exist.


Point here is this order for the F-15EX doesn't put Boeing back in the fighter business. It just continues production of a 45+ year old design. Nor, does Boeing need the contract to stay afloat or win a future fighter contracts.

Which, is why acquiring the F-15EX is just throwing Boeing a handout and one that is not needed at that.... :bang:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Mar 2019, 01:28

What many are leaving out or just flat ignoring. Is the fact to really make the F-35 work. We need vast numbers to continue to push down the price and make it truly "affordable". This isn't just for the benefit of the USAF. Yet, for the other services (USN/USMC) and our Allies.

This potential order for F-15EX's cuts into that deeply and at a critical stage in the F-35 Program.


To put this into perspective. You can buy "13" F-35A's in the current FY2020 budget for just "8" F-15EX's. Now divide that by the planned "140" F-15EX's! This would equate something like 228 F-35A's! This all in the coming decade and when future Defense Budgets are most likely to decline..... :shock:

AND FOR WHAT??? :? To put more money in the pockets of Boeing. Which, has already won a number of recent Defense Contracts and booming Profits! :bang:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4250
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Mar 2019, 15:17

I'm not so certain all this corporate welfare for Boeing (F-15EX, Super Duper's) is necessary. I'm talking about the "industrial base" argument. Let's look at LM, for example...

Prior to winning the ATF competition, what was the last fighter they built of any note? The F-104? They absorbed General Dynamics, and presumably the minds that created/built the F-16. So when it came time to build and win the ATF/JSF contracts, they did so.

Boeing isn't known for building fighters, but they did absorb McDonnell Douglas and presumably the minds who worked on the F-15 and F-18. It isn't inconceivable they too could be building stealth fighters, or otherwise win the PCA contract. Particularly if partnering with Northrup.

So I don't understand this "industrial base" argument. It just doesn't jive with reality, or the history these respective companies share. Some companies grow through acquisition. Some thrive, some die, but that's capitalism.

The company best meeting requirements should win DoD contracts, not win an award out of concern that company may not have "capacity" to build fighters in the future.. My 2 CC's..
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 01:14

mixelflick wrote:I'm not so certain all this corporate welfare for Boeing (F-15EX, Super Duper's) is necessary. I'm talking about the "industrial base" argument. Let's look at LM, for example...

Prior to winning the ATF competition, what was the last fighter they built of any note? The F-104? They absorbed General Dynamics, and presumably the minds that created/built the F-16. So when it came time to build and win the ATF/JSF contracts, they did so.

Boeing isn't known for building fighters, but they did absorb McDonnell Douglas and presumably the minds who worked on the F-15 and F-18. It isn't inconceivable they too could be building stealth fighters, or otherwise win the PCA contract. Particularly if partnering with Northrup.

So I don't understand this "industrial base" argument. It just doesn't jive with reality, or the history these respective companies share. Some companies grow through acquisition. Some thrive, some die, but that's capitalism.

The company best meeting requirements should win DoD contracts, not win an award out of concern that company may not have "capacity" to build fighters in the future.. My 2 CC's..


Boeing doesn't need this order for F-15EX's to stay in the fighter business. As a matter of fact it's hardly uncommon to have large gaps between designs. For example before the F-22/F-35 what was the last Fighter Lockheed Martin designed??? Maybe the F-104 Starfighter? Which, dates back to the 1950's?

In addition Boeing will clearly develop a future 6th Generation Fighter for the PCA and/or NGAD. Which, it has a fair shot of winning. Which, means she will still gain from all of the research and technology from it's development.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1489
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 03:17

lipovitand wrote:
Link please? im interested in reading it. Tried to search but got nothing :(


"The Next-Generation Attack Fighter - Affordability & Mission Needs"

LO was terrible on "fourth generation" too. As I very easily found, it was used and defined
by CBO in the 70's despite his claims to the contrary.

He's now presently arguing against rate adjusted cost-improvement curves despite 45 years
of use founded on overwhelming empirical findings; I'm staring to tune out because of his
level of innumeracy and lack of technical background. That only leaves his awful historical
understanding.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 03:54

To make the F-35 work and to produce enough for the US and her Allies. We must produce it in very large numbers. Even a slight cut back could take the program off track....
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6565
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 04:24

lipovitand wrote:Link please? im interested in reading it. Tried to search but got nothing :(



https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ ... 53.15.html
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1489
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 04:27

The only industrial base sustained by F-15 production is the Israeli, South Korean and Saudi industrial base
which is where most of the airframe is fabricated.

The mission systems aren't particularly novel, cutting edge or interesting and you could achieve
the same effect by competing say the radar on the F-35.

As with Advanced EODAS, Raytheon would have a very strong incentive to win.

That leaves propulsion for which AETP is a multi-billion $$$, fully funded effort at GE and P&W.

Boeing hasn't won any competitions for front line air breathers: F-35, LRSO, B-21 etc.
That doesn't speak much to their design ability and the F-15 isn't exactly built with cutting edge
materials or techniques. Certainly not of the type anyone is envisioning for future fighters.

If Boeing had done something like MANX, or F-15SE or even say an F-15 model with integrated
IFDL and MADL then there would be a stronger case. But they haven't.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 05:11

Corsair1963 wrote:To make the F-35 work and to produce enough for the US and her Allies. We must produce it in very large numbers. Even a slight cut back could take the program off track....


Are you a LMT salesman/consultant/lobbyist ?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 05:15

marauder2048 wrote:The only industrial base sustained by F-15 production is the Israeli, South Korean and Saudi industrial base which is where most of the airframe is fabricated.


What do the Saudi's produce for the F-15? The joke in industry is that there are no Saudis in a manufacturing facility located in Saudi Arabia, except on a payroll.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests