Yes and it would cost more than $30 billion to purchase. The Air Force also has a huge F-16 infrastructure and would also be cheap too. Since they’re asking for missile trucks.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Unmasking The F-15X, Boeing's F-15C/D Eagle Replacement Fighter
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
The article states that decommissioning the existing fleet of F15s and replacing them with F16s would leave a role deficit, while costing MORE than upgrading the existing FT fleet while ADDING to it with new fixed-cost F15Xs. It's quite clear that this is a cost savings to taxpayers.
What role deficit is that? The F-15X is not being pitched for air superiority. Again, this is all based on assumptions because there is no RFP yet. The F-15X is an F-15E variant if you look closely at the 2040C proposal, not an F-15C variant.
How did you figure that it is cheaper to buy a direct replacement than upgrade the current fleet with a SLEP?
At least 70 million per aircraft direct replacement
vs
At least 30 million per aircraft SLEP.
Assuming that they want to buy or retrofit up to 250 of them, you're looking at a difference of $10 billion. However I've seen numbers as high as 450 aircrafts although we don't have 450 F-15C's in the active inventory. Maybe if you count the ones that have been sent to AMARG and they will need to be retrofitted to be put back into service. A SLEP can convert an F-15C to a missile truck since the F-15X incorporates CFT's and there is currently a CFT upgrade in process for the F-15C's since they've never bothered to use them before until now.
Within 2 years, there are going to be more F-35A's in the service than there will be F-15C's. Then you got NGAD that will be RFP'ed soon AND they do want it to do air superiority. The F-15X if requested won't fulfill that role.
You also got the report to the Armed Service committee that they requested money to make upgrades to the F-35A to do air superiority and not disrupt the production line.
Last edited:
![[Spectre]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/89/89728.jpg?1455675927){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,678
No you keep changing your avenue. That is the problem.
No, it is not. There is literally no metric in which the Viper has parity with the Eagle. Combat radius? Nope. Wing loading? Nope. Time to climb? Nope. Top speed? Nope. Service ceiling? Nope. MTOW to EW delta? Nope. Etc. Nothing from it's basic performance characteristics to its operational capabilities and payload make the Viper close. Which is why the Viper isn't used in that role.
That isn't what parity means. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you do it as well as someone else. I can run a mile in 6 minutes, but I don't have parity with olympic athletes who push 4 minute miles. Do you understand what parity is now?
What doesn't the Viper do? The Viper doesn't have the range, loiter times, payload, etc. of the Mudhen. It is not an equal platform in anyway when it comes to strike missions.
Half of which cost? Think about it.
That isn't the same as a zero time 20,000 hour airframe. If you have been paying attention, you might have noticed that the legacy Hornet fleet, A-10, legacy Eagle, and such have literally had their wings flown off with current usage and 3000/6000 hour airframes aren;t cutting it anymore. SLEPing a legacy airframe is going to put you in the same spot in the future.
Only if you have no idea how and why they want to use these aircraft.
LOL. You work for Lockmart now.
Cr4ckm0nk3y
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 847
FFS - the 16 and 15 family (C/D/E) have completely different mission profiles. The 16 cannot and would not replace the 15 and was never intended to! Arguing the point the 16 can replace the 15X is ridiculous.
There is definitely a place for the X in the fleet. Just like there is a place for the 16, 22, 10, and maybe the 35. The 35 IMO suffered from multi-branch development. The USAF messed up by not allowing a comp between the 35 and newer block 16's. The newer block 16's, IMO, are a better platform compared to the 35.
Back to the point, the USAF has a need/place for a large multi-role platform like the 15X. The shear fact of the amount of ordinance it can carry shows its need.
There is definitely a place for the X in the fleet. Just like there is a place for the 16, 22, 10, and maybe the 35. The 35 IMO suffered from multi-branch development. The USAF messed up by not allowing a comp between the 35 and newer block 16's. The newer block 16's, IMO, are a better platform compared to the 35.
Back to the point, the USAF has a need/place for a large multi-role platform like the 15X. The shear fact of the amount of ordinance it can carry shows its need.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Payload, speed, radar, altitude, etc. In pretty much every metric the F-15 is a better plane.
They'll be more useless F-35 than F-15s, but that's not saying much. Wake me up when the USAF actually receives an F-35 that isn't projected to need 50+ million in retrofit just to meet standards...
Nor is considering NGAD at all practical. They haven't even RFP'd the damn thing which means we are 20 years from real prototypes and 30 years from LRIP. Then again, maybe that's just an LM being shitty issue.
What do you think buying F-15Xs is? Its upgrading the F-35!
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
Curious as to why you think the F-35 is a POS?
If anyone in the world knows the capabilities of the airframe as it stands now, it should be the Israelis, and they seem happy with it so far.
Disregarding Russian disinformation, most reliable information I have read so far indicates it is settling down in a good aircraft. Overpriced, sure.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
F-35 is a POS because: it is behind schedule (by over a decade), it is above cost (by about 4-5x), is has basically missed every original program performance milestone and even is missing the greatly reduced revised performance milestones, its performance characteristics put it behind already existing aircraft, etc. The only thing the F-35 brings to market is a marginal level of stealth in one vary narrow profile.
And the Israeli's know the capabilities which is why they are ordering the F-15IA which is effectively the F-15X.
There is one version of the F-35 that is decent and an upgrade: the F-35B. Keep the F-35B, can the rest of the program, and move on.
None of this is russian propaganda, it is simple reading actual USG testing reports that are made public on the progress of the program.
Honestly, at this point LM should be barred from even responding for an RFP ever again for planes considering their horrendous performance with both the F-22 and F-35.
You can keep pointing out this but it's not going to change what I said. So I guess we can agree to disagree.
You're thinking "Air Superiority" still. This proposal has nothing to do with air superiority. This is about being a missile carrier. In most of these cases, a KC-135 is on spot. Here's an example. Russia decided to send Bear bombers to the United States. What gets scrambled first? The KC-135's out of Spokane. Once they reach the range they need to be out to refuel the fighters, they scramble both Luke and Portland. They both do have the range to reach the Bear bombers with the KC-135 on station. The F-15C has slightly more range than the F-16 out of Luke by a couple hundred nmi. With the KC-135, the range is significantly extended obviously.
Now we've moved to strike missions rather than air superiority. The current USAF F-16's do not use CFT's that would extend the range by up to 40% more. It's better than equipping it with drop tanks which does inhibit the aircraft. In exchange, it increase loiter time AND payload.
After I've been consistently pointing out the cost, half of the cost of a direct replacement. The F-15X is just a single seat F-15E with more rails to the same hardpoints, CFT, and bigger engines. Are you arguing that they can't accomplish the same goals with the F-15C being a missile carrier carrying the same loadout with a SLEP that does indeed give new radars, cockpit upgrades, etc sans longeron replacement since they're already doing that now?
Yes, I have been paying attention. For example, the A-10 got a variation of a SLEP where they dewinged every A-10 and added a new set of wings to extend their lifespan. Boeing is still doing this and it extends the lifespan of the A-10 to 2040. The longerons for the F-15C can be replaced especially after that F-15 broke up mid-air when they found the flaws in those longerons.
Yes, I do know what they want these aircrafts for. Replacing their F-16 Fleet backbone and making upgrades to them including adding the "Air Superiority Family of Systems" package to the F-35 program. The Air Force clearly sees a lot of room for improvement.
No. I work with a defense program in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing in cyberspace for cyber ranges here in Orlando where I work out of. Northrop didn't bid. I have nothing to do with Fort Worth, Marietta, Renton, St. Louis, Charleston, etc. I used to work for Boeing. What you failed to realize is who is the winner in a SLEP? Boeing. Who is the winner in a F-15X win? Boeing. Who is the winner in any scenario that maintains the F-15C? Boeing. I don't work for Boeing anymore. The point is on COST. Which the GAO report which you chose to skip over and go straight to attacking me by saying I work for Lockheed Martin. I'm actually on the way out of this program because the program office is on the cutting block for 2019 and I'm headed towards Raytheon in either Tucson or Dallas depending on which group picks me up due to the clearance that they want from me.
Why don't you let Dejawiz answer that instead of you.
Please cite the GAO report or any actual report that says they need $50 million to retrofit to meet standards.
Is this just personal opinion? The Air Force WANTS NGAD and PCA.
No, it's a proposal to add missile carriers. You just said that the F-35 is useless so which is it? Is it useful and the F-15X is to help or is it totally useless and the F-15X is to replace the F-35A? Again the Air Force like the NGAD and PCA wants the F-35A as their backbone.
4 to 5 times the cost? Where is your source for this? The cost of the F-35 is now at 80-90 million per aircraft and they're at LRIP. They didn't select X-35 until 2001. Cite a source that it costing 4-5 times now for the Pentagon office. It's met most of those goals according to the annual report even the last one. What are you reading? Sputnik? This is the last report. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/dod/2017f35jsf.pdf You said "Greatly" but the report says "Several" which is not the same word at all.
Here's an example of the weapons tests for the F-35 in the last year.
What are you talking about? They haven't ordered any new F-15's. They've yet to decide any purchase still and that is dated January of this year. They still haven't decided what to do with their third squadron.
No, the Air Force does not want that and they want the F-35A to replace most of their fleet. You have no alternative.
Are you sure?
Maybe you should actually go read the GAO report which places huge blames on the Pentagon F-35 program office which is not owned or controlled by Lockheed Martin at all. The military was supposed to have SIX depots ready to go but that is 6 years behind schedule.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687981.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-75
Unlike you using unsourced claims, I actually use sources.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,678
Reread your posts. Seriously.
Because you said:
Which is patently false.
A couple hundred miles, or DOUBLE the combat radius. It's on the order of F-16C ~350 vs. F-15C ~1000. (yes you can screw with the numbers by adding drop tanks, CFT, how dirty the plane is, how the plane is flown, etc...........the point is the F-15 HAS MASSIVE amounts of internal fuel stores and range that the F-16 does not).
Yeah, because when your air superiority story about the F-16 fell apart you went to strike.
Gee, and we could use FAST packs on the F-15's.
You don't know anything about airplanes do you? How exactly does adding more fuel increase the MTOW of an F-16? I'll sit here and wait.
Speaking of MTOW (which includes fuel, weapons, equipment, etc). Do you have any idea what kind of frame of reference you are even looking at?
The F-16C has a MTOW of ~42,000lbs against a dry weight of ~19,000lbs which means it can lift 23,000lbs.
The F-15C is generally given to have a MTOW of ~68,000lbs against a dry weight of 28,000ilbs....which means it can lift 40,000lbs. Or think of it this way....and F-15C can just about lift the equivalent of a fully loaded (MTOW) F-16C.
The F-15E is even crazier with a MTOW of ~80,000lbs against a dry weight of ~32,000lbs. That is a lift of ~58,000lbs. Hell, F-15E's should just carry F-16C's and drop THOSE on strike missions (that is sarcasm BTW).
Yes those numbers aren't exact because the empty weight numbers get fudged but you get the idea. It is part of why people aren't buying your line that an F-16 can do anything the F-15 does as well as it does. It's like putting a fly weight in to fight a heavy weight.
No, it can't which is I told you to think about it.
No you haven't and that example shows as much. Boeing delivered less than 200 wing sets and then the contract was terminated leaving more than 100 to be done....or they did 2/3 of the job. The USAF is "sort of" looking for someone else to rewing the rest but that is not likely to happen.
No, it does not extend their lifespan until 2040. I don't think you quite understand how airplanes work. Rewinging them will extend their service life. Which is rated in hours not years (commercial airliners differ for instance if they are pressurized they are rated in cycles and hours). The A-10 was actually a very robust aircraft that was originally designed with a service life of ~8,000 hours (SuperHornets which are also rather robust are rated at 6,000 hours). Sure enough, around 8,000 wings started cracking. Now, just because something is rated for 8,000 hours does not mean that it is trouble free until 8,000 hours. As planes age through that curve they become more maintenance intensive (which is part of why a SLEP is never as good as new frames and have higher recurring costs even if a lower upfront cost). The rewing is buying them another X,000 hours. Not any number of years. We flew the A-10's more than predicted over the last 20 years which blew through their service life.
Want to try again?
So planes aren't your thing, that is fine.
No, it's not patently false. You're back to the F-15C. We're talking about F-15X a variation of the F-15E, not the F-15C.
Again this is not about air superiority. What is the F-15X supposedly proposed for? Not Air Superiority. I get that when you hear F-15, you think Air Superiority. But all of the articles that discusses the F-15X suggestion makes assumptions about air superiority but the rumors which we haven't seen any RFP if any exists may not be talking about air superiority.
They already do for the F-15E which that would go over to the F-15X.
Actually I do know about airplanes because I did work for Boeing and worked with flight engineers, aircraft engineers, etc. I was at St. Louis for a bit as well as Hazelwood and then moved over to Charleston to be with the 787 program. So a mixture of BDS and BCA. Then I changed over to EO&T. Again did you figure out that the proposal is about missile trucks? After the loaded weight, it leaves a lot of room for to carry missiles which hypothetically an F-16 Block 50 can carry 47 AIM-120 but we know that won't the case similar to the F-15C hypothetically carrying up to 100 AIM-120's. But all of this conjecture comes from the fact that the claims is that it won't take away money from F-35A production so where's the money coming from? That's what I'm trying to get at. So if we order 450 F-15X, that's $36 billion. If we order 250, that's $20 billion. Unfortunately Boeing's history as of late has been consistently behind schedule and lackluster when it comes to their management of BDS. They got delayed with the P-8A, they are way behind schedule with the KC-46 which last I recall there are now over 20 KC-46's parked around Everett.
Because you said so? Why can't the F-16 fire AIM-120's especially with CFT's?
The contract is still occurring which Congress funded four wings for the FY18 project at a cost of $103 million AND the Air Force requested more wings to be produced for the FY19 budget for Boeing. So the contract is still in place which the Air Force is doing another RFP for another party other than Boeing to do the work. So the original contract hasn't been terminated YET.
The contract you said that is not likely to happen just went out for RFP a couple months ago. I don't have full access to the bidding website so for all we know there are interested bidders which if it isn't going to be Boeing, it could hypothetically be General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Honeywell, General Atomics, BAE, Harris, Textron, Triumph, Leidos, CACI, Booz, etc. Hell even Airbus Defence could do it. Some company called KIHOMAC has been doing the pylons and rudders for the A-10.
Since it is now August 27, we should find out eventually who will win the contract.
In the draft, it says this:
Here's the bid link. https://govtribe.com/project/a-10-thunderbolt-advanced-wing-continuation-kitting-attack
Okay, you want to nitpick over the word I use. Fine. It extends their service life to 2040 based on the utilization as described in the link below. Which is around 2040 when they max out their service hour. The SLEP that they requested does indeed extend it to past 2040 based on their projections by increasing the original service hours of 6,000 to 16,000. https://www.sae.org/events/dod/presentations/2009/b6chrisdavis.pdf which this is based on info from back in 2009 when they first initiated this contract and that Boeing won as prime contractor. This contract was occurring during my time at Boeing.
Okay. Replacing their F-16 Fleet backbone and making upgrades to them including adding the "Air Superiority Family of Systems" package to the F-35 program. The Air Force clearly sees a lot of room for improvement.
And there you go, making assumptions again. I transitioned to cyber security several years ago after I was done with Boeing. So I got to ask, did you read the GAO report that I linked earlier? That is an honest question.
Last edited:
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Every single frame delivered so far requires extensive rework with each block requiring largely different rework.
The USAF/USN can want NGAD/PCA as much as they want, it doesn't change the fact that not a single project has gone from RFP to production in under 2 decades for a new advanced design. Even without LMs horrible mismanagment, the F35 would of taken 2 decades from RFP to actual production spec (hint we still haven't received a production spec F35).
F-15X is to help F-22s according to current strategy. One of the primary reason for choosing the F-15X is that it can network with the F-22 systems.
F-35 was suppose to cost <<50 mil per copy (it was after all suppose to be a low cost replacement for the F-16). Last full accounting had the F-35A at $150 mil, F-35B at $251, and F-35C at $337 million (no wonder the USN doesn't want it). Those are *actual* prices paid by the USG, not PR pricing BS (and I won't even get into the allegations that price shifting has occurred to lower the shown price of the F-35A by transferring costs to the F-35B and C).
They gave up on the F-35 meeting almost all of its original goals quite some time ago. Its somewhat meeting the significantly reduced goals that they backed off to.
The IAF is literally finalizing a contract with boeing as we speak for F-15IAs along with KC-46s, CH-47s, and V-22s: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israe...litary-aircraft-purchase-from-us-firm-boeing/
The USAF doesn't have to pay for it, we do. Canning the A and C and buying new block F-16s and F-18s is massively cheaper with effectively the same mission capabilities.
The actual delays are all LM. They have repeatedly over promised and under delivered.
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
Being overpriced and behind schedule does not indicate how useful or how well an aircraft performs in combat.
Real world users who's opinions I trust have endorsed this aircraft, mostly what I have been seeing here is results of the Russian disinformation campaign they have waged to discredit the F-35 in the eyes of the American public.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
If the F-35 was late and overpriced but actually met the original requirements, I'd be fine with it, unfortunately it doesn't meet any of the original requirements.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,678
Yes, it is.
You were talking about the F-15. The F-15 has been delivered in two different forms much like the F-18. There is the Eagle and the MudHen. The Eagle is an Air Superiority Fighter while the MudHen is a Strike Fighter. Both of which are superior to the F-16 in EVERY form for their respective form. The F-16 is a LIGHT Mulitrole fighter. Or, a Jack of all trade master of known while the F-15 is a HEAVY master of each trade and jack of the rest. So, since you want to move the goal posts, Let's. Let us compare the least optimal Air Superiority F-15 to the most superior F-16 Air Superiority Fighter. Does the F-16C best he F-15E in:
Combat radius? Nope. Wing loading? Nope. Time to climb? Nope. Top speed? Nope. Service ceiling? Nope. MTOW to EW delta? Nope. Etc. Nothing from it's basic performance characteristics to its operational capabilities and payload make the Viper close. Which is why the Viper isn't used in that role. Does it have draw backs? yep. Are they ones you hvae identified? Nope.
Then why did you keep talking about how great the F-16C was related to the F-15C in air superiority?
And I work for cardiac surgeons so I am going to go ahead and do that heart transplant.............
This is the single most insane thing I have ever seen posted here and this is a website for people who do sort of insane things at times. You have no idea what MTOW means. In the MTOW I have to have fuel, you know the thing that we burn to propel the aircraft, so we have to subtract that. 47 AIM-120 would weigh on the order of 16,000lbs and would have been out of hard points like 43 missiles ago (this isn't Ace Combat or Iron Eagle after all and is acounting for actually loading them). That leaves us less than 7,000lbs for fuel and other sensors, ordnance (we aren't going to fly without AIM-9 on the wingtips), etc. That gives us less than one hour of fuel in of take off and flight time in a CLEAN configuration on the F-16. You are literally going down a road of weird alternate universe to try and justify this arguement.
Yeah, I'm he one who pointed that out....thanks for saying I was right.
Where did I say thaey can't? I'll wait for you to find that quote.
I didn't say it wasn't likely to be bid I said it wasn't likely to HAPPEN. There is a difference. Also, the fact that the previous contract was terminated https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/01/25/air-force-searching-new-company-re-wing-10s.html is a matter of record.
There is no "nitpick" you fundamentally don't understand how aircraft lifespans are rated. And, that is FINE. Just don't say I worked at Boeing in a COMPLETELY unrelated department so I know about aircraft.
Are you starting to understand what a multirole fighter is versus a strike fighter or an air superiority fighter?
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,359
Eh, the A-10 is probably one of the worst choices for that role. It can't defend itself against much of anything. Too slow and lack of energy to evade multiple missiles. It can only operate in pacified environments. If you're dealing with modern tank convoys with modern air defense, the A-10 is the last thing you want to use. And dozens of platforms can carry AGMs. Pretty picture time. This old F-4 can:
... so can this F-16:
How about 12 AGMs?
Desert Storm showed us the A-10 and Harrier didn't fare very well against ADA of the 90s. You think it will hold up well to systems fielded by the Russians (or their proxies) in 2018?!
I'll defer to your expertise here. But I don't see it approaching 60 million unless we ordered 200-300 of them. 70 million maybe.
How much are we paying for the new Super Hornet Block III we're ordering?
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
All data points to a complete refresh of the current F-15C fleet which is 200-300 of them. Boeing actually wants the volume and is willing to sac some profit to get it. They apparently are willing to do a fixed price contract at 60-65 per with a rough volume of ~250. The reality is that Boeing needs the volume in order to keep the plant open which they need in order to bid on NGAD/PCA. If the USG is willing to contract for say 50-60 per year over ~5 years, they'll be more than willing to do it at a sweetheart price. Combined with FMS (which the USG volume will easily make possible because of the lower effective overhead), that would give the plant roughly 8-9 years of runway.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,678
It depends on the size of the buy. The last small order was $70million just to keep the line moving. If they do bigger buys they can get the price down to the $60something million range.
SecretStash
Gawd
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 684
Great discussion. Love the back and forth.
If we ever go the master/drone route with an f15 model, would we need a two seat variant?
If we ever go the master/drone route with an f15 model, would we need a two seat variant?
Source. I asked you to provide one. You came up with an arbitrary number of $50 million.
So you didn't read the GAO report? You simply read other websites, correct? Do you understand that the Pentagon's F-35 office is not part of Lockheed Martin? The Pentagon was supposed to have 6 depots ready to go when the F-35's started rolling off the lines. Instead they fell behind schedule by 6 years and they had to ask Lockheed Martin to produce OEM parts taking resources away from both the final assembly line and testing. It's one of these examples where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-75
That's an assumption. We don't know the details nor is there any RFP out yet.
Again source.
LRIP-10 was priced at:
$94.3 million for the F-35A
$122.4 million for the F-35B
$121.2 million for the F-35C.
These are the figures. I'm not sure if I got the F-35B cost correct but you want to scrap the entire program except for the F-35B.
Where did you come up with those figures? Oh!! Now I see. https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2014/07/30/analyst-f-35c-to-cost-337-million-apiece-2 The figures comes from POGO. Do you know how POGO came to that figure? Because they're adding the cost of IOT&E, fuel for flyaway!, simulators, logistics, etc all of which Lockheed Martin isn't supposed to provide as part of the package because that wasn't part of their contract. The contract for the lots are for the airframe itself. The United States government is now at Lot 10. And the F-35C isn't even IOC yet and there aren't that many of them produced. For LRIP-11, they are still negotiating the price for 141 F-35's. After that, it will be purchased in blocks of 400-460 aircrafts rather than LRIP's costing around $80 million per aircraft then.
Also POGO debunked your claim of $50+ million by the way.
No, they never did. They're still purchasing more F-35's from Lockheed Martin. Again I need a source for your claim that they stopped talking to Lockheed Martin or changed their purchase orders or even their goals.
Supposedly.
So you assume I don't know where taxpayer money comes from and where the Air Force gets their money from?
So, no you haven't read the GAO report at all.
Now you are re-wording what I said to encompass the entire F-15 program instead of F-15C vs F-15X/F-15E. Yes, I know the F-15C is an air superiority fighter while the F-15E is a strike fighter as I've said multiple times and yet you keep skimming over what I said.
I'm not even a fan of the F-16V which is what I'm talking about, not the F-16C as you keep interjecting Again you're re-wording what I said to another block that isn't the same. The F-16V as you know is the latest production model which obviously LM isn't going to be producing any more Block 52's especially they're doing final assembly at Greenville, SC rather than Fort Worth.
No, you keep twisting my words. I already know that I didn't count for fuel and the limitation of hardpoints. I know that you know that you can modify an aircraft to have more hardpoints and pylons. Again this goes back to cost. Can you modify a Viper to carry more missiles hypothetically? Yes. After all, the proposal is about missile trucks, not air superiority, not strike aircrafts, etc.
Okay the point I was making was that BDS has been a last priority for Boeing and more contracts to Boeing for BDS will keep continuing that trend.
Go back and read what you wrote to me. What has been my argument? Cost. Not your nitpicking over the details. What am I arguing against? Purchasing more direct replacement aircrafts because the Air Force does not have the money for it. Do I think the Air Force is going to buy the F-15X? Definitely not. Not without killing NGAD, PCA or F-35A purchases.
Nowhere in that article states that the contract has been terminated. In the article they are still maintaining purchasing of the wings while they rebid the contract to any other interested party. I just showed you the links AND the screenshots. So I guess I just pulled these out of thin air, correct?
https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...order-more-a-10-wings-in-fy19-budget-request/
Dated around the same time that you linked the military Times article it states that Boeing has to deliver 14 more A-10 wingsets. In that same article, it states that they were unfunded which is not the case anymore as it was fully funded in the FY18 budget when Trump signed it. So for FY19, Boeing is still going to be supplying wingsets. We're dealing with two different time periods. One back in January 2018 and post-FY 18 budget.
Years ago prior to my time at Boeing when I entered the workforce. I get that you want to be snobby about trying to nitpick everything. Do you want me to write papers so you don't find issues with it? Why did I come criticizing the purchase in the first place? Cost. Nothing more. If you want the Air Force to buy more F-15's because you like the F-15, that's fine. My own father was an F-15 Crew Chief with the wing he was attached to so I'm glad it is a great platform. Can we purchase the F-15X without sacrificing other platforms? No, we can't. Not unless Congress somehow agrees to tack on more money. With Oregon (2 D's), California (2 D's), Florida (1 D), Massachusetts (2 D's), sure you might be able to swing some D senators to vote for raising funds to to allow the DoD to purchase the F-15X.
Current flyaway cost of the F-15 program is over $100 million which if the blockbuy is under 200, it will be well over $90 million. If over 400, it will be over $70. The problem is you're making a direct replacement aircraft that would retire before the F-35 program is retired. Where would the funding come from? Something has to be sacrificed to fund this program considering how the DoD has had to lobby hard for funding over the last year for the FY18 budget contrary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's claim on Comedy Central that the DoD didn't ask for money and it was given to them.
Last edited:
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,359
Not that bad of a price then. Still, for an strictly F-15C replacement we should've just bought more F-22s. Price may have come down to $100 a piece or less. And we should have repealed the ban on export and sold some to Japan. I am sure they would have bought 60 or so to replace their F-15s which would have brought the price down a bit further.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Not going to dig through years worth of DOD/etc reports to dig up the numbers.
You think they are going to get a plane that is significantly more complex and significantly bigger than the F-35 from demonstrator to prototype to production in less than 20 years? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Those aren't real prices, those are PR prices. You have to go through the appropriation reports over multiple years to find the real price for each F-35.
Um, yes they did. When they figured out that the F-35 was never going to ever come close to meeting the original key performance marks, they significantly reduced them across the board. This was years ago.
https://www.wired.com/2013/02/pentagon-downgrades-jet-specs/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ions-may-have-significant-operational-381683/
atp1916
[H]ard|DCoTM x1
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,004
Ya'll some big ass nerds, but carry on.
This thread is fun and the 35 is a turkey.
This thread is fun and the 35 is a turkey.
So I'm just going to have to assume that there is no source. Got it.
What are you talking about? There is zero details of any RFP. We do not know anything about what the DoD wants if there is even anything. Boeing tried pitching 2040C a little while ago and the DoD said no.
No, these are contract flyaway prices and they are publcly available at the DoD Contract website. The number you cited is from POGO which they included all figures of what it costs the DoD to maintain the F-35 which is a separate cost including fuel, IOT&E, depot maintenance, etc. Maintaining a platform costs money and it never was going to be $X amount fixed for the duration.
Go to POGO's website and see how they came to those figures. They already admit themselves that the prices are indeed what I just showed you. They're adding additional figures on top of that that are not part of the procurement contract between LM and the DoD. You got to understand once the DoD takes the planes off Lockheed Martin, the DoD is free to do however they wish with these airplanes and that includes modifying them.
It's like buying a Tesla which say costs $33000 for the Model 3. I also have to pay insurance, gasoline, modifications etc for as long I own it.
So your basis is 2013 articles despite the fact that things have changed significantly since then. This is IOT&E which the specifications will change constantly so they can get rework done. All of this is from the 2013 Annual Report by the way which you can read yourself instead of having someone reinterpret what these means. Someone already went through this and the changes is way overhyped that it is not even remotely significant. http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html
By the way, did you realize that the performances based on those numbers the anonymous touts as flawed are even worse for the F-35B? "The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from 5.0 to 4.5 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds." How big of a difference is it below the performance specs that was defined according to you? 1%. You want to kill the program because of a 1% under specs? Feel free to read through the guy's writing and he does a good write up explaining the sustained G-turns calculations.
What's next, are you going to say that the F-35B has to refuel immediately after takeoff? Which by the way isn't true.
Last edited:
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
Based on what? how many hours do you have in an F-35?
I'll say it again, I've yet to see an actual pilot of an F-35 in it's current state of readiness bad mouth the plane like the armchair pilots here do. real pilot accounts are saying good things about the aircraft.
this article is a couple years old at this point, and I haven't read anything that contradicts it in the meantime.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...hat-31-us-air-force-pilots-who-flew-the-17266
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
If the current F-16 is better than the F-35, why is Israel buying F-35's? they have one of the best F-16 upgrades in service with the Block 52+, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Doesn't matter, the point is that the technology exist currently to perform the autoland maneuver and the answer is yes on several different commercial aircraft.
Only in very limited circumstances for autolanding but as for auto-takeoffs, never. There is no group out there that wants this. You may think flight can be more automated, sure. But the FAA / EASA will not sign off on it especially when the OEM's aren't even thinking of it either.
While I am not on the up up on the F35, from what I understand is not only the high price per aircraft, but what the civilian world doesn't understand is they also require much less support from other support aircraft and ground personnel on sorties, opposed to the other older aircraft in service. There is value to that, as well as a potential for reduction in sortie costs. The ability to link up multiple aircraft's radars as one on each HUD is a huge advantage in the field. Our current older aircraft is getting old and they have had there service life's already extended form the manufacturer and the defense through upgrades and beef up's.
Maybe they will release an F-14Y a few years from now.
New engines, weapons, and targeting computers of course.
Because those seem to be the only selling point of any of these crazy expensive jets and might as well base it on the coolest jet ever made.
New engines, weapons, and targeting computers of course.
Because those seem to be the only selling point of any of these crazy expensive jets and might as well base it on the coolest jet ever made.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,678
No, no I am not. You literally said:
This is what I have been correcting you about; your incorrect suposition that the F-16 in as match for the F-15. IT IS NOT. You were NOT comparing the F-15C to the F-15X at any point. HOwever, I am going to assume you would like the move the goal posts again since your F-16 argument is in tatters?
Well, if we are going to use aircraft not operated by the USAF to play your game of the F-16 is equal to the F-15 that means we can't compare the F-16 to the F-15C/D or E/F like you have been. We get to use the SA or I or any of the Israeli upgraded models. I mean, to be fair. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
No, I have quoted them and replied to them exactly. Your words simply obviosuly don't make sense when people shine light on them.
No, no you can't simply go back and keep adding pylons and hard points. And it isn't about cost. This is so INSANE I don't even know where to start. The amount of work you have to do to the wing to carry more weight at extended distances from the fuselage, the change in wing charachteristics, combined with the aerodynamic changes, the changes in flight characteristics, etc.....no you can't just keep adding hardpoints.
Then why were you talking about air superiority and then when that died strike missions? On top of that, who would use a lightweight fighter as the basis for a missile truck? I guess you missed the MTOW. Here they are again for you:
The F-16C has a MTOW of ~42,000lbs against a dry weight of ~19,000lbs which means it can lift 23,000lbs.
The F-15C is generally given to have a MTOW of ~68,000lbs against a dry weight of 28,000ilbs....which means it can lift 40,000lbs. Or think of it this way....and F-15C can just about lift the equivalent of a fully loaded (MTOW) F-16C.
The F-15E is even crazier with a MTOW of ~80,000lbs against a dry weight of ~32,000lbs. That is a lift of ~58,000lbs. Hell, F-15E's should just carry F-16C's and drop THOSE on strike missions (that is sarcasm BTW).
You WOULD never want to use the F-16 as the basis for a missile truck. It does not have the lift first. Second, an F-16 loaded to its MTOW is going to be a pig. An F-15 loaded to its MTOW is going to be a pig. An F-15 and F-16 loaded to the same weight is going to see the F-15 be MUCH better manuvering aircraft with much better range, loiter time, etc. An F-15 loaded to its MTOW will have better range and loiter time than an F-16. So, you don't use an F-16.
So, you can't find that quote? Perhaps, because I didn;t say it.
Literally the first line:
It's not nitpicking, you were fundamentally wrong on each of your assertions. It is pretty simple really.
Something you don't actually know what would be under the plan. The only information released was in the article that was in the OP which gave a price of $60-70million.
I don't care one way or the other. I was just correcting your incorrect posts. You were posting some really off the wall fantasies trying to make a terrible case for an inferior platform while claiming it was superior. What the USAF should do actually is once the F-35 is at block 4.4 push rate to drive down cost. Then move on to their 6th gen unmanned and call it a day.
It seems like you people are missing a valuable change in our strategic planning. Space Force is going to make most atmosphere-residing defense systems pointless. When Trump-Mechs drop from the carriers into the Hot Zone they will be covered by extensive satellite laser systems. Land is held by ground forces, not planes.
Cr4ckm0nk3y
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 847
Politics and the fact Isreal is a dev partner for the F-35 and their own F-35I. Politics is also why the F35 even still exists.
Just as a note, Israel isn't replacing all their 16's with 35I's. The legacy A/B variants are being sold off and the C/D fleet are getting upgraded to plus variants to match the systems of the 52+ I Soufas.
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
You could say politics is the only reason any big budget defense projects exists, but, whatever.
Virtual_Bomber
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Messages
- 140
There is more to owning an Aircraft than just the pilot sitting in it and what his opinion is.
It is MAINTAINING the Aircraft is what is so shit about it.....or was anyway. Before you question my knowledge of it, I was an F-16 crew chief and while I was in Kunsan, befriended someone who went to work on the F-35s after his tour was up in Kunsan. I talked to him a few times after he got there to his next base.....he had nothing nice to say at all about that piece of shit. He sounded like he was almost to the point of very much regretting going to that airframe.
The grain of salt to this though was that this was back in 2014, so I am sure they hashed out a lot of issues but I'm not going to put to much faith in that the Aircraft is "good" now by knowing how the Air Force operates.
And pilots may be awesome at what they do, which is flying the Aircraft, but I'll be the first to tell you, half of them are arrogant dumbasses who think they are gods among men. I wouldn't go trusting their word like its ironclad.
Not to mention that they will get a bad OER from the brass if the talk shit about it.
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
Well, time will tell.
if aircraft readiness rates suck across all users, then that will tell the story. You can only whitewash readiness rates for so long before the truth comes out.
Virtual_Bomber
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Messages
- 140
And you would be surprised at how much that happens on the Enlisted side of it all too. Fudging the mission capable rates a little is standard practice among a small percentage of squadrons.....its gives the maintenance group commander warm and fuzzies so he's not making people work every fucking weekend.
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
Probably not much. It happens in the Army to. Not supposed to, but we had "hanger queens" in some units, piece of equipment is down for a part, and that part isn't coming in from the States for a month, guess we can "borrow" some parts off of it to keep the rest of the equipment up. Just takes one surprise IG inspection to ruin a career or two if you make a habit of that though.