F-15X on the Air Force's Budget Request

[VMFA187]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25636/usafs-next-budget-request-will-include-new-f-15x-advanced-eagle-fighter-jets-report

 

Thoughts? One can only hope.

[Standby]

My thought: $1.2B for 12 old airplanes...what a steal. If only we had purchased more Raptors when they were $140M a copy. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Standby

[Danger41]

No kidding. If only the whole 1 for 1 thing would’ve happened with Eagles and Raptors...

[Sprkt69]

33 minutes ago, Standby said:

My thought: $1.2B for 12 old airplanes...what a steal. If only we had purchased more Raptors when they were $140M a copy. 

The contract that was turned down for the next lot of Raptors would have brought that cost down quite a bit. That’s the Ghost of Ole St Gates affecting the present and future.

[brabus]

For that price, dumb.  60% off, now maybe we can talk.

[Skitzo]

No kidding. If only the whole 1 for 1 thing would’ve happened with Eagles and Raptors...

Wonder if this news is in any way related to the losses incurred at Tyndall?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pilot]

...........

Edited December 24, 2018 by FlyArmy

[Hacker]

4 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Thoughts? One can only hope.

Hope for what?

Some new-build can't-survive-in-a-double-digit-SAM-threat jets?  Some new barely-equals-to-the-Flanker?

 

[Boomer6]

Serious question: How many here commenting have been briefed on the capes? Just trying to separate the chaff.. 

[icohftb]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

Serious question: How many here commenting have been briefed on the capes? Just trying to separate the chaff.. 

And please upload the briefed capes to the interwebz.

[brabus]

Yes.  If such a buy happens, it will be a very myopic decision to do so.

Edited December 24, 2018 by brabus

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

For that price, dumb.  60% off, now maybe we can talk.

But how is Boeing Defense Systems supposed to make up for the write-offs for the KC-46?

You're right, the cost is off and my conspiracy tin foil hat side says that money is to shore them up.

From the article:

What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages. 

Given their experience with the shit sandwich of the the FFP contract of the KC-46 and the teething problems/costs, they were not going to do this on the cheap and needed another cash cow besides the 737 line to fix their bottom line I suspect.

 

 

[Boomer6]

6 minutes ago, icohftb said:

And please upload the briefed capes to the interwebz.

Didn't ask for briefed capes, only if those lamenting the article actual know what is on the table. 

[MooseAg03]

I took it to mean it would be the beginnings of replacing C/D models which are mostly flown by the guard. We don’t really need F-22s doing the air sovereignty mission and new airframes would cut maintenance costs which is an argument made in the article.

This idea is not coming from Air Force leadership, which makes me like it more.

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

Didn't ask for briefed capes, only if those lamenting the article actual know what is on the table. 

The WGASF and the Strike Eagle have been absolutely phenomenal assets for the USAF but the airframe is not conducive to advanced threats (in a night 1 scenario anyway). It’s like upgrading your ‘69 Shelby with touch screens and a new motor. The thing just can’t compete with a Tesla. Unless they pulled a “My Cousin Vinny” and got the laws of physics to cease to exist on the old flying radar reflector that is an F-15, I don’t get it.

I guess I should say if they’re looking for additional Eagles, go to DM and dust off the hundreds that are sitting in the boneyard for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Boomer6]

2 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Unless they pulled a “My Cousin Vinny” and got the laws of physics to cease to exist on the old flying radar reflector that is an F-15, I don’t get it. 

 

Yeah, I guess there's no way to improve the survivability of an airframe due to its RCS size.. 

[BashiChuni]

please post capes boomer k thanks - china

[Boomer6]

20 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

please post capes boomer k thanks - china

Word is it has sharks with laser beams on 1 and 9. Or was it midgets with lasers? 

[Clark Griswold]

39 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

The WGASF and the Strike Eagle have been absolutely phenomenal assets for the USAF but the airframe is not conducive to advanced threats (in a night 1 scenario anyway). It’s like upgrading your ‘69 Shelby with touch screens and a new motor. The thing just can’t compete with a Tesla. Unless they pulled a “My Cousin Vinny” and got the laws of physics to cease to exist on the old flying radar reflector that is an F-15, I don’t get it.

I guess I should say if they’re looking for additional Eagles, go to DM and dust off the hundreds that are sitting in the boneyard for a fraction of the cost.

 

True but does everything need to be Night 1 capable?  If the F-35A procurement happens as planned, ultimately we'll have bought 1700+ over the course.  At anyone time in the 2020's and beyond, with B-2s, F-22s and the B-21 (eventually), how many LO assets will we need to service those Night 1 targets vs. the opportunity cost / loss by having an almost all LO tactical fleet?  

Methinks we will have crap ton (LO strikers) but as they are all very expensive, not much of other stuff we need (LAAR, A-X, etc...)

It would have costs with it but in my humble internet general's opinion, forgoing the F-15X for the F/A-18 Advanced Capability Hornet while coaxing some allies / partners into purchasing that also for further economies of scale savings (Canada, USN, Aussies, etc...) would have been better and retire the Eagle fleet as these USAF super duper hornets arrive on the ramp.  

If we decided that an all LO tac fleet (or almost all) was too expensive and we wanted a high / medium / lo mix that is...

[BashiChuni]

i think we should go the other way with night 1 opening...SWARM!

[ThreeHoler]

I’m sure this new direction from DoD is totally unrelated to the acting SecDef’s former ties to Boeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Right Seat Driver]

I’m sure this new direction from DoD is totally unrelated to the acting SecDef’s former ties to Boeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I tried and failed to find the article I read saying Shanahan would step aside on any issues dealing with Boeing. Hah. Fortunately, the KC-46, sorry, the C-46 program is going swimmingly. I’m just waiting for the day the other Deputy SecDefs come from LM, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.

Where is Eisenhower when you need him?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[billy pilgrim]

4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

I took it to mean it would be the beginnings of replacing C/D models which are mostly flown by the guard. We don’t really need F-22s doing the air sovereignty mission and new airframes would cut maintenance costs which is an argument made in the article.

This idea is not coming from Air Force leadership, which makes me like it more.

This is a big point.  It makes no sense to me to have the F-22 sitting alert.

Also the USAF has been training with the 4th gen 5th gen mix for a while, and the whole "night one of the war" situation I don't think is an insurmountable problem with FI.  Plus, the legacy jets give you a lot more options for basically uncontested air environments, like Syria, or Afghanistan etc...

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Yeah, I guess there's no way to improve the survivability of an airframe due to its RCS size.. 

It's not solely about that, nor is it solely about "night 1."  The Vipers and Eagles in the ARC will do just fine executing the ADA mission, the Vipers and Strikes in the ARC/AD will do just fine employing A/G weapons in low-med ALR conflicts where fighters are required (or not required, the way our politicians like to manage wars), etc.  This isn't about what we'd like in 2019, it has to be about 2030+.  Procuring a fighter that will not fully stand up to threats 10 years down the road is a waste of money and effort.  By the way, there are current/about to be current threats I have serious doubt about the X being effective around, not even talking about 2025+.  

[Majestik Møøse]

This thing wouldn’t be operational until 2025 or so. Does it still make sense then?