FY2020 DoD Budget

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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??


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.

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/

cc

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.

Here's a thought. What if Congress just bought them at the volume the military needed them?

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.

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

If the new electronics reduces the weight in the front of the aircraft

Even the new passive attack displays are coming in overweight...

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.