Unmasking The F-15X, Boeing's F-15C/D Eagle Replacement Fighter

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

Caveats are not the point, stop being so picky on every one of your posts. It is done and can be done.
 
Caveats are not the point, stop being so picky on every one of your posts. It is done and can be done.
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.
 
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 even remotely the same territory as fighters.

There are about 450 F-15s in service for the US military right now. This upgrade project comes in at around $1B.

$1B / 450 = $2.22M each. Plus the $5k per operational hour savings for EACH one of them.

It is cheap. It is simple.
 
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.

which side of the company did Kenneth Pinyan work for? :p
 
There are about 450 F-15s in service for the US military right now. This upgrade project comes in at around $1B.

$1B / 450 = $2.22M each. Plus the $5k per operational hour savings for EACH one of them.

It is cheap. It is simple.
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 F-15C/D's which is a separate thing.

So if a direct replacement is ordered and up to 250 are ordered, the cost will be about $25-$30 billion just for the airframe alone. Since you said 450, then you're looking at $35-$40 billion. No, it's not cheap.
 
Last edited:
which side of the company did Kenneth Pinyan work for? :p
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.
 
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 superiority capabilities. The big money comes from AOG support that Boeing can provide AFTER which they're more than happy to give a fixed price contract on delivery.

Qatar is purchasing 36 F-15QA's which they're paying $171 million per aircraft which also comes with support from Boeing.

No, they don't. Not even close.
 
No, they don't. Not even close.
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 don't know enough details since these reports are based on private sources at the moment and we're only going off what Boeing pitched with the 2040C concept back around 2015.

A lot of this hypothetical stuff comes from the McCain white papers that came out this year.
mix.PNG
 
Last edited:
And who is this going to be used against?
Goat fucking terrorists flying on their donkeys trying to split the moon again while raping 12 yo girls?
Maybe Europe when they finally get tired of 45's ass-hattery.

This is the only reason it can work. Don't need stealth when you're fighting a terrorist organization instead of a nation state. Those missile hardpoints will be filled with bombs.
 
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.

I have the mental image of an average Joe wondering into the Marietta dealership trying to look at various models of strike fighters while simultaneously trying to avoid the salesman that is hunting him in the lot.

"Sir, what are you looking for? Ahh yes, the F-22 .. can I interest you in an F-35? It comes in 3 configurations with an assortment of options. We're currently doing a free upgrade month where; and I can't believe we're doing this; if you buy today, we'll double the cupholder capacity and throw in 1 year of SiriusXM radio!"

"You were able to catch my finance manager on a good day. He cut the price from $94.6mil to $94.1mil and threw in a 2nd year of SiriusXM. Would you be interested in our extended maintenance plan? Highly recommended for this jet."
 
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 don't know enough details since these reports are based on private sources at the moment and we're only going off what Boeing pitched with the 2040C concept back around 2015.

A lot of this hypothetical stuff comes from the McCain white papers that came out this year.
View attachment 91847

And in no way does a Viper provide the same Air Superiority Capabilities like you claimed. Not a block 70, not any of them. They are fundamentally different airframes.
 
And in no way does a Viper provide the same Air Superiority Capabilities like you claimed. Not a block 70, not any of them. They are fundamentally different airframes.
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 we're talking BVR to complement the F-22's picking out targets, then sure an F-15X with the 14 to 24+ AIM-9X's. Do we really need 250-450 F-15X's to do the same job when the F-15C/D's as stated by Boeing can have their life extended out past 2030 with SLEP's?
 
I agree with Aaron, also cost.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

Per hour cost.

F35 https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f35-costs-rise-20180328-story.html?outputType=amp

Many more articles like that.

The ongoing cost is HIGH and they are worried they won't be able to afford them AND other platforms.

I know they are harping on the A-10 but it cost a tiny fraction of what the F35 does to operate.

If I was looking at this from a defense perspective I woukd operate a mix instead of this all eggs in one basket some people are proposing.

Why can't we have a few stealth multi-role strikers and a few middle boats that can deal with surprises?

I like them all :)

Also this
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/rip-f-22-and-f-35-thanks-one-new-technology-26816

Let the berrating begin
 
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 don't know enough details since these reports are based on private sources at the moment and we're only going off what Boeing pitched with the 2040C concept back around 2015.

A lot of this hypothetical stuff comes from the McCain white papers that came out this year.
View attachment 91847

Ok, how about I give you a bit to figure out what you want to argue to try and equate the F-15 and F-16 because you don't seem to know. One minute you are claiming that they are equal Air Superiority Fighters and when that is clearly not true we move to Multi-mission comparing the Viper and the Mud Hen.
 
I agree with Aaron, also cost.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

Per hour cost.

F35 https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f35-costs-rise-20180328-story.html?outputType=amp

Many more articles like that.

The ongoing cost is HIGH and they are worried they won't be able to afford them AND other platforms.

I know they are harping on the A-10 but it cost a tiny fraction of what the F35 does to operate.

If I was looking at this from a defense perspective I woukd operate a mix instead of this all eggs in one basket some people are proposing.

Why can't we have a few stealth multi-role strikers and a few middle boats that can deal with surprises?

I like them all :)

Also this
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/rip-f-22-and-f-35-thanks-one-new-technology-26816

Let the berrating begin
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 is about $17,000 based on the Comptroller's rates (https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2018/2018_b_c.pdf). They're not putting their eggs in one basket. They still will be maintaining the F-16, F-15, F-22, F-35 for decades especially when NGAD gets eventually RFP'ed at some point. (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20180412/108078/HHRG-115-AS25-Wstate-BunchA-20180412.pdf)

Ok, how about I give you a bit to figure out what you want to argue to try and equate the F-15 and F-16 because you don't seem to know. One minute you are claiming that they are equal Air Superiority Fighters and when that is clearly not true we move to Multi-mission comparing the Viper and the Mud Hen.
Again, no, I never argued that point. The problem is people think we are doing a direct replacement of the F-15C/D to do air superiority when the F-15E which the F-15X is based on is not for air superiority especially when I learned that during my time at Boeing. Yes, the F-15 is great for air superiority but the purchase for the F-15X is not about air superiority, it's about complementing what is already in the inventory per the McCain white paper. The F-15E since they have the CFT's attached has worse performance which they cannot jettison it. The F-15C's on the other hand do not have CFT's although they can be attached but the USAF does not do it at all. I asked my dad a while ago when I saw the article about CFT's (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...for-u-s-f-15c-eagles-and-conformal-fuel-tanks) and he stated that they never used them nor did they have them in inventory for the 3 decades with the wing he was attached to and they used drop tanks instead. You'd be hardpressed to find any F-15C with CFT's today as well. However based on this http://www.ang.af.mil/Portals/77/do...s/2018 Mod Book.pdf?ver=2018-01-05-115735-630 it indicates that they're trying to change the mission of the F-15C to perform outside of its air superiority role.
 
Didn't read the article fully, but is this an actual single seat C variant or based on the E? Very different aircraft.

This is a good idea. They're cheap, the airframe is proven, they're cheap, and they're cheap. We're making Raptors that will be very useful...when the ID4 Aliens arrive. But prior to that, we're still trying to figure out something better than the A10 and those Prop-based planes, basically Sandy's from the Viet Nam war, are what they are going to turn to. Cheap and Simple is in again.

The Strike Eagle variants sold to various countries are not cheap. It is one of the most expensive fighters in production. A lot more expensive than the F-35, but it is a different class.
 
Didn't read the article fully, but is this an actual single seat C variant or based on the E? Very different aircraft.



The Strike Eagle variants sold to various countries are not cheap. It is one of the most expensive fighters in production. A lot more expensive than the F-35, but it is a different class.
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 month from what I've seen.
 
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 month from what I've seen.

Figured. I believe the single seat models are out of production entirely.
 
Again, no, I never argued that point.

Um, yeah you did. You need to reread your posts. You claimed a Viper was a parity when it comes to Air Superiority Fighters. Then tried to claim parity as Strike Fighters. You REALLY need to pick a point to argue because you keep flopping all over the place. So, like I said. Take some time and figure out which avenue you want to argue about why a Viper is a peer to an Eagle or Mudhen. Then we can try this again.

The problem is people think we are doing a direct replacement of the F-15C/D to do air superiority

Yes and no. They need a missile carrier to interface with forward deployed assets (F-35) and use that missile load but is also a cheap 4/4+ Gen fighter that can still take down any 4/4+ Gen fighters that make it into the back field. That is what the whole point is and has been about keeping the F-15 around post F-35 introduction. If they don't get new build frames with increased capacbility they will have to SLEP many more frames and keep a much higher cost on the fleet going forward.
 
The Strike Eagle variants sold to various countries are not cheap. It is one of the most expensive fighters in production. A lot more expensive than the F-35, but it is a different class.

Well, when you are selling not only the fighter but munitions, service and support, etc while amortizing development costs on small orders that tends to happen. That said, it is not an airframe manufacturing issue with the cost. These would be built off of a mature process and under a fixed price contract for the frames. The estimation is that you could see production costs closer to Super Hornet costs. If they can pull off $60-70million on a platform that is supposed to have a service life of 20,000 hours that would be a bargain. And it isn't LM so there is a chance they won't fuck it up....well unless it is a derivative of a 767....
 
Um, yeah you did. You need to reread your posts. You claimed a Viper was a parity when it comes to Air Superiority Fighters. Then tried to claim parity as Strike Fighters. You REALLY need to pick a point to argue because you keep flopping all over the place. So, like I said. Take some time and figure out which avenue you want to argue about why a Viper is a peer to an Eagle or Mudhen. Then we can try this again.
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-15E by comparison is a strike aircraft and does do air-to-air combat when it needs to defend itself no different than what the F-16 Viper is proposed to do. The F-15X is a proposed evolution of the F-15E. After all, this is the evolution F-15A -> F-15C -> F-15E -> 2040C -> F-15X.
Yes and no. They need a missile carrier to interface with forward deployed assets (F-35) and use that missile load but is also a cheap 4/4+ Gen fighter that can still take down any 4/4+ Gen fighters that make it into the back field. That is what the whole point is and has been about keeping the F-15 around post F-35 introduction. If they don't get new build frames with increased capacbility they will have to SLEP many more frames and keep a much higher cost on the fleet going forward.
The SLEP are a cheaper alternative to buying brand new direct replacements. SLEP's are half the cost and still extend their shelf life to past 2030 which by the time there will be over 1,500 F-35A's in existence then and that doesn't include NGAD. It seems pretty pointless to spend up to $40-50 billion to purchase something that likely will be retired before the F-35 or NGAD will be.
Well, when you are selling not only the fighter but munitions, service and support, etc while amortizing development costs on small orders that tends to happen. That said, it is not an airframe manufacturing issue with the cost. These would be built off of a mature process and under a fixed price contract for the frames. The estimation is that you could see production costs closer to Super Hornet costs. If they can pull off $60-70million on a platform that is supposed to have a service life of 20,000 hours that would be a bargain. And it isn't LM so there is a chance they won't fuck it up....well unless it is a derivative of a 767....
The program office of the Department of Defense is the one that's fucking up the cost of the F-35. Lockheed has done everything what's happening is the DoD's F-35 program office is NOT communicating cost to the branches. Even the GAO report states that the fault belongs to the Pentagon's program office, not Lockheed Martin.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687981.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-75
"Specifically, the services do not fully understand how the costs they are being charged by the program office are linked to the capabilities they are receiving, citing unexplained cost increases and difficulty in tracking their requirements to contracts. For example, the Marine Corps received an initial funding requirement for fiscal year 2017 sustainment of $293 million, which then increased to $364 million in the execution year. This lack of transparency is due in part to insufficient communication between the program office and the services, and it puts the services in a difficult position as they consider critical trade-offs that may make F-35 sustainment more affordable. Without improving communication with the services about the costs they are being charged, the services may not be able to effectively budget for long-term sustainment."
Translation: DoD needs to get their shit together.
 
Makes sense to me....

The F-15 is still more than capable against the bulk of our most likely adversaries. Obviously China and Russia can field some other goodies but we've already got platforms tasked for that. Cost effective missile trucks that can still hang in 95% of air superiority engagements seems like a fairly cost effective solution
 
And who is this going to be used against?
Goat fucking terrorists flying on their donkeys trying to split the moon again while raping 12 yo girls?
Maybe Europe when they finally get tired of 45's ass-hattery.

You build your arsenal for the war of tomorrow, not the war of today.

And why would Europe attack America with her awesome arsenal? Because 45 says mean things about the EU?
Europe has enough problems filing up with said goat loving terrorists to be much of a threat to anyone.
 
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 don't know enough details since these reports are based on private sources at the moment and we're only going off what Boeing pitched with the 2040C concept back around 2015.

Oh yes, what I want in my missile truck is an airplane that carries lots of missiles that can't even make it to the spotter before they plunge into the earth. FYI, AIM-9X isn't viable in this role. The 22 A2A missiles on the F-15X aren't AIM-9s, they are AIM-120 AMRAAMs which are both significantly bigger and heavier with plans to eventually to to even bigger and heavier missiles beyond that.
 
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-15E by comparison is a strike aircraft and does do air-to-air combat when it needs to defend itself no different than what the F-16 Viper is proposed to do. The F-15X is a proposed evolution of the F-15E. After all, this is the evolution F-15A -> F-15C -> F-15E -> 2040C -> F-15X.

F-15X is a single seat fighter targeted at air superiority and missile support with a better radar than any other US fighter platform. The F-16 is a cheap simple ass plane with no legs that has crap alll carry and range.

The SLEP are a cheaper alternative to buying brand new direct replacements. SLEP's are half the cost and still extend their shelf life to past 2030 which by the time there will be over 1,500 F-35A's in existence then and that doesn't include NGAD. It seems pretty pointless to spend up to $40-50 billion to purchase something that likely will be retired before the F-35 or NGAD will be.

SLEPs can be cheaper, but in this case, the data says that it won't be cheaper than new frames at the fixed contract pricing boeing is proposing. The US F-35 order is going to get severely clipped and anyone with a clue knows it due to the still extremely high cost per frame that is still well above 100+ million (averaging over 200+ million) not to mention the boatloads of broken shit that is still all over the place with the latest builds). The only F-35 model that has any actual use is the B model. The A and C models are simply craptacular in all regards.

And no, LM is solely responsible for the insane cost of the F-35. The USG literally had to say 'F off' we don't pay that much' to LM and enforce pricing on them because the pricing from LM was absolutely insane and greater than 2x to anything that was ever agreed to.
 
F-15X is a single seat fighter targeted at air superiority and missile support with a better radar than any other US fighter platform. The F-16 is a cheap simple ass plane with no legs that has crap alll carry and range.
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.
SLEPs can be cheaper, but in this case, the data says that it won't be cheaper than new frames at the fixed contract pricing boeing is proposing. The US F-35 order is going to get severely clipped and anyone with a clue knows it due to the still extremely high cost per frame that is still well above 100+ million (averaging over 200+ million) not to mention the boatloads of broken shit that is still all over the place with the latest builds). The only F-35 model that has any actual use is the B model. The A and C models are simply craptacular in all regards.

And no, LM is solely responsible for the insane cost of the F-35. The USG literally had to say 'F off' we don't pay that much' to LM and enforce pricing on them because the pricing from LM was absolutely insane and greater than 2x to anything that was ever agreed to.
What data is that? Boeing's SLEP proposal is $30-40 million per airframe when they pitched it back then while the cost on a fixed contract is going to be at least $70 million per airframe. The longerons can be done for $1 million per aircraft which they're already doing now. They will eat any loss on an F-15X proposal because they will make up for it in upgrades and AOG support.

No, the Pentagon's program office is the one that has been responsible for the insane cost of the F-35. For example, the Pentagon was supposed to have depots ready to go to support the branches but that is 6 years behind schedule. But they didn't so they had to go to Lockheed Martin to make more OEM parts taking those away from the F-35 production line delaying not only deliveries to the DoD but the turn around time to get delivered planes back in the air.

depot.PNG
 
Just load up 250 missiles onto a jumbo jet frame and there is your jumbo missile bus?

I like the idea of using existing infrastructure / training / experience for upgraded models, as opposed to throwing everything away every 10-20 years and starting over. Then again, who ever said the US military ever made sense, especially financial sense?
 
And who is this going to be used against?
Goat fucking terrorists flying on their donkeys trying to split the moon again while raping 12 yo girls?
Maybe Europe when they finally get tired of 45's ass-hattery.

+ one billion times.

the fact that F-22 is still broken and the original order was cut by 3/4, and the fact that F-35 is still not in mass production, and the fact that DESPITE ALL THESE YEARS WE STILL DON'T NEED THEM, points to what a useless direction this is. jet fighters for dogfights? nope don't need that anymore. wars aren't fought this way anymore. it's all going to be cruise missile boats and drone strikes and cyberwarfare. dump this idiocy.
 
Without any Stealth, this is pointless on today's let alone tomorrow's battlefield. For lower cost, the Raptor makes more sense. Boeing - stick to commercial or come up with something new and Stealthy.

Stealth means near jack shit with modern weaponry, the US does well because of DISTANCE they can target things, F22 does well because of how "fast" the weapon bay opens and closes, but "stealth" by and large has been almost not worth using at all compared to just "flying higher"

them big jet/military makers jump the price huge amount to give the stealth/stealthy paint etc and when comes to keeping it functional is a massive amount of upkeep vs just building lower radar cross section, but hey, whatever means more of the trillions sinking your country huh lol.

NOW stealth can be usefull against some weapon types but things that use optical specifically stealth is pretty much useless always has been, speed is king to avoid optical based, and other countries armaments have been getting better and better.

US has great radar, great targetting distance, great multi target track and with "old school" weaponry stealth is very useful, but, probably not when comes to something like F35 which is way slower than should be even compared to much older jets. multi billion $ steal from everyones cookie jar project..guess they needed to come up with something when NASA was starting to "gear down" need to lie cheat and steal that money from somewhere o_O
 
"Stealth" has no place on the modern air battlefield(not including ground) as it is a function that is rapidly being outmoded. In less than a decade, we will have the computing power to optically identify airframes to the horizon line. Void searching with modern radar is also a thing and rapidly becoming a combat reality. Active stealth is a losing game due to the flat lack of reconfigurability.

Master/drone will be the future. Period. The drone can be a missile or a bloody quadcopter. It doesn't matter as that aspect will evolve with the battlefield realities. The master(human) will always be in the loop because we are not morons in a sci-fi movie and do not need light speed response times more than we need a thinking brain choosing to pull the trigger or not when the target looks like a school bus full of kids.

The F15x is just a step to the master drone saturation method of warfare. Drones are still relatively stupid as independent platforms.
 
+ one billion times.

the fact that F-22 is still broken and the original order was cut by 3/4, and the fact that F-35 is still not in mass production, and the fact that DESPITE ALL THESE YEARS WE STILL DON'T NEED THEM, points to what a useless direction this is. jet fighters for dogfights? nope don't need that anymore. wars aren't fought this way anymore. it's all going to be cruise missile boats and drone strikes and cyberwarfare. dump this idiocy.
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 that set the production rate so they could get the depots prepared. The rate of production will go to full rate in early 2020 which they will produce more than 2000 past early 2030.

Neither of these planes are/were being produced for dogfights either. They do have the capability but that was not the primary goal and never was.
 
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 even remotely the same territory as fighters.

How *dare* you call out that I have no idea what I'm talking about.......this is the INTERNET, SIR.......</schooled>.
 
I agree with Aaron, also cost.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

Per hour cost.

F35 https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f35-costs-rise-20180328-story.html?outputType=amp

Many more articles like that.

The ongoing cost is HIGH and they are worried they won't be able to afford them AND other platforms.

I know they are harping on the A-10 but it cost a tiny fraction of what the F35 does to operate.

If I was looking at this from a defense perspective I woukd operate a mix instead of this all eggs in one basket some people are proposing.

Why can't we have a few stealth multi-role strikers and a few middle boats that can deal with surprises?

I like them all :)

Also this
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/rip-f-22-and-f-35-thanks-one-new-technology-26816

Let the berrating begin

The problem is there aren't enough maintainers that are specialized in each aircraft type. You also have to consider maintenance impacts, and from that perspective having fewer types in the fleet (or at least types that use common parts) greatly simplifies this problem as well as driving down cost.

People harp on the A-10 for what it can't do; it's designed to do exactly one thing: Kill tank convoys in relatively open terrain. And with the focus being on small scale conflicts where MANPADs are a thing, the A-10, while effective, was seriously miscast for the conflicts it's participated in. But with Russia clearly spreading it's influence west, I personally think we need an A-10 replacement, since none of our other platforms are really effective at dealing with 100+ tank convoys without additional support.
 
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 F-15C/D's which is a separate thing.

So if a direct replacement is ordered and up to 250 are ordered, the cost will be about $25-$30 billion just for the airframe alone. Since you said 450, then you're looking at $35-$40 billion. No, it's not cheap.


You should probably re-read the opening post and the linked articles throughout the thread a bit more closely...

the Air Force has entered into talks with Boeing to potentially provide a replacement for the F-15C/D aircraft that is approaching EOL and will require millions of dollars to upgrade. The Air Force already has an enormous F-15 infrastructure in place and it makes sense to take advantage of it to save money.
 
Back
Top