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

[brabus]

No, it doesn't.  Those who seriously think it does make sense (especially at that price tag) do not have enough knowledge on "future us" and "future them," either via lack of read-ins, lack of understanding of said read-ins, and/or lack of understanding of future capes on other platforms (including non-fighter platforms).  

Bottom line, while buying Block 70 Vipers or F-15X seems like a good move to replace our aging fleet, it is not for many reasons.  If we had infinite resources, then sure lets buy a bunch of each, but we don't, so as Danger said: spending $80K on a full resto on an old and busted 69 mustang will still never make it a 2019 Corvette ZR1.  Lipstick on a pig and all that (and yes, that's a dig at my Ford friends!)

Edited December 24, 2018 by brabus

[SocialD]

Hold on, let me go consult with the Old Fighter Pilots FB group, they all seem to be experts on how shitty of a jet the F-35 is...and how great of an idea this will be.  

[EvilEagle]

All the briefs I’ve gotten on it and why it is or isn’t a good idea require a vault to even start the discussion.

 

The limitations of 5th gen to operate in the 2030+ battlefield is a dirty secret most don’t want to talk about; nor should they be discussed open source. 

[Sprkt69]

11 hours ago, brabus said:

No, it doesn't.  Those who seriously think it does make sense (especially at that price tag) do not have enough knowledge on "future us" and "future them," either via lack of read-ins, lack of understanding of said read-ins, and/or lack of understanding of future capes on other platforms (including non-fighter platforms).  

Bottom line, while buying Block 70 Vipers or F-15X seems like a good move to replace our aging fleet, it is not for many reasons.  If we had infinite resources, then sure lets buy a bunch of each, but we don't, so as Danger said: spending $80K on a full resto on an old and busted 69 mustang will still never make it a 2019 Corvette ZR1.  Lipstick on a pig and all that (and yes, that's a dig at my Ford friends!)

So we should get rid of our 4th Gen now instead of limping them along into the 2040s?

[brabus]

49 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

So we should get rid of our 4th Gen now instead of limping them along into the 2040s?

Not even remotely what I said.  We will continue to upgrade current 4th gen fighters for a long time, which is in general a more fiscally sound proposition than spending $90M+ on a non-5th gen aircraft.  If companies cut the cost to $40M per, then maybe it'd be worth looking at, but I don't see any company doing that, as its not in their best interest to do so.

[Sprkt69]

34 minutes ago, brabus said:

Not even remotely what I said.  We will continue to upgrade current 4th gen fighters for a long time, which is in general a more fiscally sound proposition than spending $90M+ on a non-5th gen aircraft.  If companies cut the cost to $40M per, then maybe it'd be worth looking at, but I don't see any company doing that, as its not in their best interest to do so.

You do realize the operational cost benefit of purchasing new 4.5+ Gen aircraft have over bandaiding jets built in the 70s and 80s right? All fun and games until the next 4 Gen grounding over failed structure for an aircraft past service life. Or death of one of our bros

[pilot]

30 minutes ago, brabus said:

Not even remotely what I said.  We will continue to upgrade current 4th gen fighters for a long time, which is in general a more fiscally sound proposition than spending $90M+ on a non-5th gen aircraft.  If companies cut the cost to $40M per, then maybe it'd be worth looking at, but I don't see any company doing that, as its not in their best interest to do so.

Not saying you’re wrong, but if the lifetime cost (capital cost and operating cost) of F-15X ends up being less than the SLEP/upgrade costs + operating cost of the F-15C/D over the next say 20 years (or comes even close to it), especially if it adds capes, wouldn’t it be worth looking at? If the cost per flight hour is actually a lot lower than the C model and “it’d pay for itself” with lower operating costs, then it ought to be considered IMO out of fiscal responsibility. But I am not a bean counter, nor do I know the actual breakdown of costs per flight hour for the C model or the x model, or the actual acquisition cost of an X vs the lifetime SLEP/upgrade costs for C models.  

[Lawman]

1 hour ago, Sprkt69 said:

You do realize the operational cost benefit of purchasing new 4.5+ Gen aircraft have over bandaiding jets built in the 70s and 80s right? All fun and games until the next 4 Gen grounding over failed structure for an aircraft past service life. Or death of one of our bros

Yeah there is a solution to that, stop pretending that every scenario requires you to fly your well worn but useful for the low intensity mission to the edge of the envelope. 

The Tomcat had a 6G+ limit and half a dozen additional limitations (inverted flight etc) placed in it for most of its last decade in service specifically to stop people from breaking stuff doing unnecesarry stuff and that was in a plane still deployed forward to combat. Accept the fact that a population will perform said boring stateside air defense mission, and tailor the beating you put on a jet to maximize its life instead of “train worst case” on every airframe and melt the life out of them through fatigue. 

Thatll piss people off to find out they are JV and not Varsity in the lineup, but that’s smarter than burning F-35/F-whatever/specialty mission aircraft money to buy the random guard unit a jet just so it has a new car smell.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Lawman

[pilot]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Yeah there is a solution to that, stop pretending that every scenario requires you to fly your well worn but useful for the low intensity mission to the edge of the envelope. 

The Tomcat had a 6G+ limit and half a dozen additional limitations (inverted flight etc) placed in it for most of its last decade in service specifically to stop people from breaking stuff doing unnecesarry stuff and that was in a plane still deployed forward to combat. Accept the fact that a population will perform said boring stateside air defense mission, and tailor the beating you put on a jet to maximize its life instead of “train worst case” on every airframe and melt the life out of them through fatigue. 

Thatll piss people off to find out they are JV and not Varsity in the lineup, but that’s smarter than burning F-35/F-whatever/specialty mission aircraft money to buy the random guard unit a jet just so it has a new car smell.

Pulling G’s and pushing the edge of the envelope is kind of a necessary task to gain and maintain proficiency in air to air. Artificially lowering g limits doesn’t seem like a good way to produce and keep the best flying force in the world. But beyond that, and perhaps more importantly and to the point (according to Boeing’s sales pitch of the F15X), 30-40 year old eagles with old tech and worn out structures cost a lot more per flight hour to operate and maintain than a new build F15X with fresh components, with easier mx and higher capes to boot. If the new jets will pay for themselves in a decade (ie cost less in acquisition/operating costs than refurbing/upgrading C models over a decade) as Boeing claims, why inject a ton of capital into an old beat up jet just to keep it flying when it would cost taxpayers less to get a better replacement product. Regardless of whatever G/op limit you propose (which isn’t realistic anyway), the c models will need a lot of money to stay flying. If I had a 1980 crown vic with 400,000 miles on it, I’d probably be better off buying a new crown vic with all new parts assembled from the factory as a whole rather than buying new individual components trying to keep the old hooptie driving, especially if I had to go in and do some serious frame work. Lastly, the ANG isn’t exactly the JV of the Air Force. They do more than just sit stateside alert, and in many cases fly more than their AD counterparts. 

All that said, I don’t have any of the details for costs, capes, etc., and I’m guessing most on this board don’t either. I’d like to think that if it’s fiscally responsible to replace C models with the X and if it fits within our national defense plan over the next couple decades, it’ll happen. Conversely if it ends up being too much money for technology that will be obsolete, I’d like to think we won’t get it, despite a career Boeing guy being the secdef. 

[di1630]

All the briefs I’ve gotten on it and why it is or isn’t a good idea require a vault to even start the discussion.
 
The limitations of 5th gen to operate in the 2030+ battlefield is a dirty secret most don’t want to talk about; nor should they be discussed open source. 

I’m watching a Documentary on Netflix called “Tanks” and its terrific on the rise of tank technology, then when the counter tech was developed for different tank generations, how quickly it changed strategy and approach to battle.

I saw a lot of similarities between it and aircraft capes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Breckey]

Quote

Accept the fact that a population will perform said boring stateside air defense mission, and tailor the beating you put on a jet to maximize its life instead of “train worst case” on every airframe and melt the life out of them through fatigue. 

Ref. HH-60G

[Lawman]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

Ref. HH-60G

Or look back to the 80/90s at how long we had Century series fighters still flying in CONUS Guard units. Or how long it took to totally phase out the Phantom from our ranks when it had long been proven inferior to every other aircraft in our toolbox. 

We’re they part of a national defense strategy? Absolutely.... one that realizes the Montana Guard isn’t going to be doing the merge with Flankers over Bismarck. There was still a useful spot for them to perform. 

The 15X is the definition of requirement creep because all these “wouldn’t it be nice if....”  The fact we are talking about spending more money than on Lightning just to get a fresh jet 15 should immediately sound insane. Especially since whatever “cost of operation” math trick you do we don’t just stop flying our old worn out beat up planes tomorrow when we sign the contract. It’d be one thing if they were coming down saying “hey we updated the C a bit to replace components that simply don’t exist anymore, it’s 45 mil a copy and won’t take a bunch of new training” but they aren’t after that.

 

This whole idea looks exactly like the perception that if you’re not a fighter pilot you’re a second class citizen that was my dad’s Air Force. We are flying 50+ year old aircraft across the spectrum in critical low density high demand positions some of which are retiring with no replacement, and what do we commit money to fixing... a fighter jet so it can chase down a lost Cessna that strayed too close to a restricted area with a bitchen new AESA Radar. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by Lawman

[norskman]

49 minutes ago, Breckey said:

Ref. HH-60G

Exactly. As I'm reading through this thread, I can't help but think of Rescue's decision to buy another -60 in this day and age. Yeah it has some nice software upgrades, but the bottom line is that we are just getting another -60. IMHO, the battlefield has changed way way too much to be driving a Hawk downtown to get a dude/dudette outta there. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by norskman

[Lawman]

7 minutes ago, norskman said:

Exactly. As I'm reading through this thread, I can't help but think of Rescue's decision to buy another -60 in this day and age. Yeah it has some nice software upgrades, but the bottom line is that we are just getting another -60. IMHO, the battlefield has changed way way too much to be driving a Hawk downtown to get a dude/dudette outta there. 

Let’s be honest, nobody wants to commit on buying anything but short term solution “proven Helicopter” until the Army shakes the bugs out (and spends its money) on future vertical lift. 

 

Edited December 25, 2018 by Lawman

[norskman]

I think the H-47 proved the test of time. The AF has a bad habit of weighing down its helos with various hardware to the point of pushing max gross. The -47 would allow for that and still have the power to operate on a wide range of environmentals. 

And, it's fast! ( relatively )

 

Edited December 25, 2018 by norskman

[Lawman]

13 minutes ago, norskman said:

I think the H-47 proved the test of time. The AF has a bad habit of weighing down its helos with various hardware to the point of pushing max gross. The -47 would allow for that and still have the power to operate on a wide range of environmentals. 

And, it's fast! ( relatively )

 

Oh it’s a phenomenal aircraft no doubt, but It’s the wrong fit for you guys in a lot of ways.

For one the development of all the stuff that makes the G so capable isn’t run from Boeing or PM 47, it’s run by SIMO at the regiment. The avionics for CASS as example are a completely independent buy from Rockwell-Collins for both it, th SOAR 60M, and the H-6. Boeing did the avionics for the E only, and everybody hated it. 

You would undoubtedly get a lot of helicopter, but it would kinda be like if the Army said “hey we want some of those C-130s you guys have for this mission but own them ourselves.” You would be beholden to what SOAR needs/pays for if you wanted to stay a viable customer upgrading down the road. The Brits are currently working through that pain as they try and acquire the G themselves. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by Lawman

[norskman]

26 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Oh it’s a phenomenal aircraft no doubt, but It’s the wrong fit for you guys in a lot of ways.

For one the development of all the stuff that makes the G so capable isn’t run from Boeing or PM 47, it’s run by SIMO at the regiment. The avionics for CASS as example are a completely independent buy from Rockwell-Collins for both it, th SOAR 60M, and the H-6. Boeing did the avionics for the E only, and everybody hated it. 

You would undoubtedly get a lot of helicopter, but it would kinda be like if the Army said “hey we want some of those C-130s you guys have for this mission but own them ourselves.” You would be beholden to what SOAR needs/pays for if you wanted to stay a viable customer upgrading down the road. The Brits are currently working through that pain as they try and acquire the G themselves. 

I'm just spit balling slick F models, then contract out the AF hardware ( radios, SPS, FMS, throw a probe on it...etc) 

But I'll agree to disagree.... Merry Christmas! 

[SocialD]

9 hours ago, FlyArmy said:

Lastly, the ANG isn’t exactly the JV of the Air Force. They do more than just sit stateside alert, and in many cases fly more than their AD counterparts.

Lol right.  One of the few places where an overwhelming majority of your experience is on the "JV team."

Also, I've consulted with the OFPs and they think the F-4 was a better fighter than the F-35 could ever hope to be.  Brb, gonna go hit up Pierre Sprey...

[brabus]

13 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

You do realize the operational cost benefit of purchasing new 4.5+ Gen aircraft have over bandaiding jets built in the 70s and 80s right? All fun and games until the next 4 Gen grounding over failed structure for an aircraft past service life. Or death of one of our bros

The point is why would you spend the same or more money on a "4.5 gen" fighter when you can have a 5th gen fighter for the same cost?  Would you have supported buying "3.5 gen" F-4s for the same price (at a 1:1 ratio) of brand new F-16s/F-15s back in the 70s?  This is the same argument that occurs every generation of aircraft...somebody thinks the "new fangled stuff" is bullshit, overpriced "night one" tech we'll likely never really need, etc. and upgrading "old faithful" fits the bill better.  I'm not arguing we fly Block 30 Vipers until 2050 (we won't), I'm saying we need to spend our money on technology with greater capability/survivability longevity than what a 4.5 gen fighter can ever give us.  This discussion cycle will continue when 6th gen comes out and a camp of people will be arguing for purchasing new 5.5 gen F-35s for the same price as a 6th gen F-69.  I love the F-16, but I'm also pragmatic about the subject.

Everyone here needs to have a little trust/faith in their bros working with the science and technology world, assessing and ranking future requirements, and steering core function groups in the best direction they know with the current information.  I assure all of you there is an amazing amount of things that exist in the shadows and there are very good, smart bros working on all of our behalf to make sure the right moves are made.  This includes the way forward for current 4th gen fighters and keeping them safe and relevant within the constraints of technology, threat advancement, and budget.

 

[EvilEagle]

The more i learn about the X band, it’s capes and limitations, the more i realize that the thought that stealth is required to operate in the contested battle space more than 10 years in the future is an outdated and very limited viewpoint. 

[Lawman]

1 hour ago, EvilEagle said:

The more i learn about the X band, it’s capes and limitations, the more i realize that the thought that stealth is required to operate in the contested battle space more than 10 years in the future is an outdated and very limited viewpoint. 

 

Fighting a war in 10 years is going to work/fail based far more off the fact of what we have/haven’t put into the other stuff

Raptor, M1A2, F-35, etc.... we’ve never found a tip of the spear project we didn’t want to invest in. What we haven’t invested in is all the stuff that makes that stuff so lethal. I wonder if you went back to the guys planning the first night for desert storm “ok do this same idea but without Raven/Jstars/RC-135/etc oh and this new GPS thing... yeah it’s not gonna work” what they would tell you besides “that’s insane why would we ever do that.”

Edited December 25, 2018 by Lawman

[BashiChuni]

I think the way of the future night one stuff is very cheap throw away small stuff that can swarm en mass. Cheaper the better and the more the better. Can’t sustain the 200+ mil per copy

you got 40 sams?! Cool. I got 5000 hand grenades that can fly, reorganize, and overwhelm your iads. Kill 400 of them. Good on ya. 

I think we’re at the pre-wwi “battleship is king” tech kind of area. Stealth won’t be king forever and could get exposed by a billy Mitchell type employing way less expensive weapon system. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by BashiChuni

[brabus]

Remember guys, "5th gen" is WAY more than just LO.  I absolutely agree some people oversell LO's future value (as it currently is applied), but don't mistake "5th gen" as simply meaning an LO asset.  There's far more to 5th gen technology than the brochure highlights. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by brabus

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

I think the way of the future night one stuff is very cheap throw away small stuff that can swarm en mass.

We should look into that. 

[Lawman]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

We should look into that. 

The problem with the near peer fight isn’t going to be offensively overwhelming an enemy. The problem is going to be facing an enemy capable of ranging into your support zones and offensively impacting them to much the same degree of lethal results as you inflict on them. 

 

Swarm weapons with some form of semi-autonomous AI will be the 21st century equivalent of the LGB/JDAM revolution though. Even in a coin fight they just provide such a generational improvement over current limits on going kenetic. Now instead of dropping a Hellfire into a window and hoping I catch the guy, let me send a half dozen bird sized drones able to go inside said building, look around corners and stairwells and find the guy all while directing its kenetic kill to ignore the mom and her kids or going high order when they find a few of his friends in said room.