Jump to content


Photo

F-15Ex Proposed Procurement


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,502 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 1008 AM

I'm sure that Boeing would be happy if all goes as planned. Seems to be essentially an Americanized F-15QA:

 

 

GhgiIE2.png


  • 0

#2 Kenneth P. Katz

Kenneth P. Katz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,675 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longmeadow, MA, United States of America
  • Interests:Miltary history and technology, flying, wargaming

Posted 28 April 2019 - 0757 AM

I think that there are multiple factors driving this procurement:

  • The DoD wants Boeing to stay in the fighter business because they don't want the number of American suppliers of fighters to dwindle to one.
  • In some ways, the F-15 is better than the F-35.
  • Some missions don't require an LO fighter and the associated costs.

  • 0

#3 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sopron, Hungary
  • Interests:history, music

Posted 28 April 2019 - 1121 AM

4th point: the State must save them from the 737 MAX 8 fiasco (see Free Market, see Too big to fail)


  • 0

#4 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,331 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2019 - 1245 PM

5th point: The current head of the DoD previously had a career spanning 31 years at Boeing.


  • 0

#5 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,502 posts

Posted 28 April 2019 - 1255 PM

Assuming that all (or most) of them are funded, I would think that the bulk of these aircraft would go to the Air National Guard or Reserve to replace their antiques.


  • 0

#6 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 28 April 2019 - 1542 PM

Anything where we're just buying hardware and not pouring endless $ into a black hole of R&D is good.  The ideal would be Wal-mart or Menards for military hardware.  Since we're just buying stuff to pound 3rd worlders, it doesn't need to be bleeding edge.  And we don't need shedloads of it, since the proper tool for pounding 3rd worlders is drones with ground based ordnance, with infinity loiter time. 

 

Fighting China or some other "peer opponent" is stop the boats bringing them food.  S/F....Ken M


  • 0

#7 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,502 posts

Posted 28 April 2019 - 1814 PM

Yeah, I think these new "EX" models will spend their careers being mostly bomb trucks along with the existing "E" models.


  • 0

#8 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,041 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 29 April 2019 - 0221 AM

The Air Force presumably is thinking of using them in a similar way to the USN intends to use its F18E's. You use the F35's to designate the targets, and the F15's to spam missiles at designated targets. Which if it is what they are thinking of doing, to me commends creating rather longer ranged versions of Amraam than they have.

 

I truly dont understand why someone dont just buy Meteor off the Peg. Or at the very least, get a license to build it.


  • 0

#9 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 29 April 2019 - 0920 AM

5th point: The current head of the DoD previously had a career spanning 31 years at Boeing.

 

6th point:  infrastructure (from hangers, to maintenance, to pilot training, to training ground crews, spare parts etc etc etc)  

 

the airforce can only absorb so many new F-35's at a time.

 

the 'new'' F-15's just slot right into what they already have.


  • 0

#10 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 29 April 2019 - 0921 AM

The Air Force presumably is thinking of using them in a similar way to the USN intends to use its F18E's. You use the F35's to designate the targets, and the F15's to spam missiles at designated targets. Which if it is what they are thinking of doing, to me commends creating rather longer ranged versions of Amraam than they have.

 

I truly dont understand why someone dont just buy Meteor off the Peg. Or at the very least, get a license to build it.

 

https://www.thedrive...-to-air-missile


  • 0

#11 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,041 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1027 AM

The Pentagons multi billion dollar attempt to reinvent the wheel? Did they learn absolutely nothing from LCS?


  • 0

#12 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1104 AM

The Pentagons multi billion dollar attempt to reinvent the wheel? Did they learn absolutely nothing from LCS?

 

+1. Just buy the thing off the Brits already. They will probably handle most of the F-35 integration anyway and the range is far superior to AIM-120 with the development already done. If the US wants to come up with a mid ranged hit to kill BVR weapon that can fit two for one in the internal bays with an option for a extended range booster, make that a long term project as well. But buy off the shelf for now.


  • 0

#13 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,873 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1203 PM

4th point: the State must save them from the 737 MAX 8 fiasco (see Free Market, see Too big to fail)

 

The idea to buy a modernized F-15 to replace the old ones has been proposed years before the 737MAX.  F-22 and -35 are just too expensive to do all jobs. That Boeing is now stumbling, but necessary to keep at least a bit of competition in the defense market may help actually buy new built planes along though. 


  • 0

#14 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,041 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1227 PM

Back in the early 90s when Dick Cheney was mulling to kill the Super Tomcat program, it was estimated that the Tomcat was keeping something like 50000 people employed.

 

Didnt stop him killing it though. Twat.


  • 0

#15 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1311 PM

Anything where we're just buying hardware and not pouring endless $ into a black hole of R&D is good.  The ideal would be Wal-mart or Menards for military hardware.  Since we're just buying stuff to pound 3rd worlders, it doesn't need to be bleeding edge.  And we don't need shedloads of it, since the proper tool for pounding 3rd worlders is drones with ground based ordnance, with infinity loiter time. 

 

Fighting China or some other "peer opponent" is stop the boats bringing them food.  S/F....Ken M

You could effective support troops fighting the Taliban with a WWII Liberator carrying a modern

sniper pod and modern munitions. Likely for less money per flight hour. Replace the radials with turboporps if you want. 


  • 0

#16 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,052 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1458 PM

Someone said Super Tucano?


  • 0

#17 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,887 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1532 PM

The Air Force presumably is thinking of using them in a similar way to the USN intends to use its F18E's. You use the F35's to designate the targets, and the F15's to spam missiles at designated targets. Which if it is what they are thinking of doing, to me commends creating rather longer ranged versions of Amraam than they have.


I think the 'missile arsenal' was more like Boeing sales pitch than actual tactical use planned by USAF. As far as I can tell, this acquisition is partly motivated by much of the USAF legacy fleet getting very old and hard to maintain. Average age of F-15 and F-16 fleets is soon around 30 years, and particularly F-15 represents largely analog era technology dating back to 1970's. ANG has never been happy flying USAF hand-me-downs and if they're not getting F-35 anytime soon, might be cheaper to acquire more F-15's than trying to keep F-15C's flying.

I am somewhat puzzled why they insist getting two-seaters even though Boeing can offer single-seaters too and mostly they would be operated as single seaters. Supposedly this brings some kind of cost saving, but I don't understand where it could come from.

Edited by Yama, 29 April 2019 - 1533 PM.

  • 0

#18 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,331 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1543 PM

...obscure line-item under the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (the Pentagon's budget) called “emerging capabilities technology development."

 

What Rogoway lacks in ability to separate reportage from defense industry mouthguard, he makes up for by identifying two of the prerequisites for pouring endless public sector money into something: obscurity and backdated, unspecified amounts.

 

I re-read the article twice and did not see anything about cost or amount amid how right and necessary the development is.

 

To paraphrase JP Morgan, if you have to obscure how much it costs...

 

131.250

 

I like the F15 and the bomb/missile truck capability it represents, but this sounds high if Super Hornets with approx 18,000lb bombloading capacity and 11 hardpoints are available for 70 million per.


Edited by Nobu, 29 April 2019 - 1612 PM.

  • 0

#19 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1643 PM

The USAF would never operate a USN type unless forced to by Congress. In any case they already operate the type so training and infrastructure is a better match.
  • 0

#20 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,331 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1749 PM

The USAF would never operate a USN type unless forced to by Congress

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the facts implicit to this statement, but I will add that you have made an argument against the very existence of the USAF in just 13 words.

 

Should a change in such USAF dogma ever be needed, an announcement on White House stationery giving consideration to the abolition of the USAF and splitting up its mission between the Army and Navy would probably go a long way toward instant achievement of it.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users