Search results

"the state already has enough cash." They need to fund their $150B+ train to nowhere.

Whoa, is this another Phantom Console?

"You're taxing it wrong."

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

What? What are you talking about? 1. The F-22A still works fine and they’re not grounded at all. Now they've been modernizing them to include newer equipment. 2. The F-35 is already at mass production which more than 300 have been made. They are now at what’s called LRIP. The DoD is the one...

We don't know that. The concept proposes to ditch the 2nd seat. We also don't know what radar they will incorporate which we assume it will carry the same Raytheon radar platform as the F-15E and F-15C does. What data is that? Boeing's SLEP proposal is $30-40 million per airframe when they...

Or I don't need to change my avenue because I've been pretty consistent. Yes, the Viper is a parity for air superiority missions and can do the job. They also can claim parity as strike aircrafts because they do have that capability as well. What is it that you're saying the Viper doesn't do...

The F-15X is apparently based on the 2040C concept which is an evolution of the F-15 Strike Eagle. It would be basically everything that's exactly what's in the F-15 Strike Eagle with all the updated advanced equipment and with the F100-PW-229 engines. We won't find out more details until next...

The "service" in the LA Times is the Department of Defense's F-35's program office. They have extremely poor management which cannot be blamed on Lockheed Martin at all. The A-10's flight hours is not a tiny fraction. To operate an A-10 today costs about $5500 per flight hour while the F-35...

But the F-15X is not being pitched for air superiority. It's being pitched to fit in multi-mission roles as the McCain white paper calls to do. The F-15E while based on the F-15 Eagle is also a multi-mission role too. If we're talking WVR, then F-16 does the job fine for a lesser cost. If...

The pitch is about proposing to make a "missile truck" since Boeing is touting the 16 hardpoints and fitting in with other profiles like the F-22 and F-35. The F-15X hypothetically could carry 16 AIM-9X with claims going up to more than 24 while the F-16 Block 70 does up to 11 for example. We...

Since Boeing isn't in Enumclaw anymore, I believe it was Boeing Defense. Most Boeing defense was shutdown in the 90's/early 2000's and moved to St. Louis even the one in Kent, WA.

It's not an upgrade. It's a direct replacement. If the Air Force wants to buy it, they retire an existing F-15 airframe in exchange for a new F-15 airframe. It helps Boeing keep the St. Louis production line open. What you just linked is talking about current existing upgrades to the...

No, it won't be done period. The FAA and EASA will go berserk if any idiot proposes this. Neither Boeing or Airbus will touch this with a 10 foot pole either. Airbus has flight control laws in their computers but they aren't willing to do stuff like this.

There are significant caveats which they highlight in the article. Autolanding as they point out is rarely used.

1. No, the airframe is not cheap. The flyaway cost is around $80-100 million depending on what Boeing negotiates with their suppliers 2. No, we're not making Raptors anymore. That line is dead. Feel free to go to Marietta and ask to see the F-22 line. It isn't there anymore. 3. CAS isn't...

The F-15X is non-existent. What you're talking about is PROPOSED. The AN/APG-81 is 160 km ~ up to 300 km depending on RCS compared to the 200 km ~ on the F-22. The F-16 block 52 has 80 km by comparison. The F-15C/D's range is limited to 100 km to around 175 km. What are you basing this on...

Now what does the term "multi-mission role" encompass? You really overrate the concept of dog fighting. The F-15X is not being pitched for dog fighting, it is pitched for missile payloads. Why do we need to buy more F-15X's to do dogfighting when we can buy more F-16's to do the same job?

Yes, it is and has been designed for air superiority with the CTOL.

Actually yes it is a viable replacement. 1. Shitty radar? It uses the AN/APG-81 which *drumrolls* is based on the same generation as the F-22 and does far well in jamming warfare. 2. The payload is nearly equivalent to the F-15C/D since it has 8 hardpoints which they haven't even gotten to...

It will be nowhere near 250-300 F-15X's. What wing would be getting it? National Guard? Unlikely since F-35A is going to full rate soon and the NG is getting them to replace their F-15C/D's. Saudi Arabia has 170 F-15's in total which is not a small handful by any measure. Then you also have...

Actually no, the cost of an F-15X would be around $75-$100 million. F-35 production is at around $90 million depending on which model it is. By comparison Saudi Arabia paid $100 million per F-15SA. It's far more reasonable to buy more F-16V's at half the cost that delivers the same air...

Uhh, they just announced Tempest and I doubt they want to replace the Eurofighter with an F-15X.

This is a feature, not a design flaw.

That's debatable. Don't get me wrong, my father was an F-15 crew chief so for a while I thought it was the case too.

The fact that they keep fucking up in 2018 is amazing despite destroying a KC-46's internals in 2015 with the wrong fluid. They should have gotten the program straightened out then. I'm glad I don't work for Boeing anymore. If anyone wants to work for Boeing, work commercial, not defense.

Against Lockheed Martin. It's a tactic but Boeing isn't going to win shit. They've gotten their hands full with the tanker and it isn't going well for them still.

Not going to sell. This is the 2nd or 3rd attempt by Boeing to try and sell more F-15's to the USAF. Last time, they tried to pitch the F-15E Silent Eagle but the USAF didn't bite. All they did was take one of their old F-15E, made significant modifications to make it a demonstrator and...

I suspect that these will start failing immediately around when the warranty is up and they do a stealth announcement that they will be doing a fix within 3 years of the purchase date.

No, it doesn't. I moved no goalpost. You did when you linked me a twitter post that didn't compare apples to oranges. It's still a significant design flaw due to the VRM not being able to provide power to the processor despite the processor being capable of handling more. I recommend Louis...

They're not comparing apples to oranges in that screenshot. You really can't read, can you? "2017 2.9Ghz Core i7". That's not the same model / generation. I'll highlight it again for you "2017 2.9Ghz Core i7"

No, just this one. Why is their default option better performing than their i9 upgrade that they have to go out of their way to select? Oh that's right, the motherboard cannot handle the i9 because they did not design it properly ergo a design flaw. What does Apple advertise? So if your...

Therefore reducing the amount of power that Apple specified when they released this product. Hence it's a design flaw that cannot be fixed by software. People actually have to go out of their way to upgrade the laptop to include the i9 which supposedly delivers more performance than their...