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

[SurelySerious]

Eagle II? It’s just another Eagle. If we bought Block 69 vipers to meet 4+ needs, are they going to seriously call it the FF II?

[MCO]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Eagle II? It’s just another Eagle. If we bought Block 69 vipers to meet 4+ needs, are they going to seriously call it the FF II?

Yeah, how is it not just the next letter in the series? Like F-15F?

[Guardian]

Just another Eagle? Then why name the E Strike Eagle? Are you aware of the Eagle’s capabilities verses the EX? F was already spoken for. It was supposed to be the two seat and the E was a single seat originally. Also they jumped around with the others. S, I, J, SE, DJ, N, K, SG, and now EX.

[SurelySerious]

Just another Eagle? Then why name the E Strike Eagle? Are you aware of the Eagle’s capabilities verses the EX? F was already spoken for. It was supposed to be the two seat and the E was a single seat originally. Also they jumped around with the others. S, I, J, SE, DJ, N, K, SG, and now EX.

Sadly they didn’t consult me in the late 80s wrt naming the strike pig, but you’ve got light grey, dark grey, and now nouveau medium grey. Done.

The S, I, J, K, and SG all make a bunch of sense given the buyers.

[MCO]

15 hours ago, Guardian said:

Just another Eagle? Then why name the E Strike Eagle? Are you aware of the Eagle’s capabilities verses the EX? F was already spoken for. It was supposed to be the two seat and the E was a single seat originally. Also they jumped around with the others. S, I, J, SE, DJ, N, K, SG, and now EX.

Got it, and I assumed so which is why I said like F-15F, but it’s not a new airframe, it’s just the next iteration of an old airframe. Hence give it a new letter. Or call it the Eagle II and pretend like you developed it from scratch.

 

Edit to add, I don’t really care, it was just more of an eye roll when I saw it.

Edited April 8, 2021 by MCO

[Steve Davies]

On 2/26/2021 at 5:18 AM, Lawman said:

... Tornado, a plane which literally did nothing as well as any of its peers except fly fat slow and stupid down a runway and get shot down in spectacular fashion.

Hmm.

Only one Tornado was lost on a JP233 mission and that was actually on the egress and several miles from the runway. IIRC, only two others were lost at low level - neither of which flew down any runway. 

A balanced view of the performance of the Tornado in ODS is that it did well. It certainly held its own against other strikers in theater, including F-15E, F-111, F-16, Jaguar, A-6, A-7 etc. 

[Clark Griswold]

Just adding this to the thread for more context with the difference of opinions aired on the Tornado 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Hs0Jm1ACY

Good listen if you've got an hour.

 

[Lawman]

Hmm.
Only one Tornado was lost on a JP233 mission and that was actually on the egress and several miles from the runway. IIRC, only two others were lost at low level - neither of which flew down any runway. 
A balanced view of the performance of the Tornado in ODS is that it did well. It certainly held its own against other strikers in theater, including F-15E, F-111, F-16, Jaguar, A-6, A-7 etc. 

For the opening salvo of the Air Campaign the Fin was flying an extremely low number of sorties (2%) while experiencing roughly 25% of the Allied air losses. This was entirely a combination or tactics vs threat driven both by the limitation of the platform (optimization to low level Euro campaign entirely) with no organic PGM capability in the GR1 and the requirement of those tactics/capes to put the airplane right into the most dangerous regime as far as threat.

And there is absolutely no comparison between Tornado GR1 and the IS fielded 111s at the time. GR4 developed into something similar, but that wouldn’t come until later. 111s didn’t have to go find another Vietnam era plane to truck around 1 of 2 experimentally developed pods to designate for it so it could get back into the Air Campaign effectively.

That’s the problem the Tornado always suffered and what as others have said Typhoon suffers now. The RAF will be in a conflict with a sturdy enough airframe but what always seems to lack is a 5-10 year gap in capabilities that it’s peers on the Coalition Ramp already enjoy. I get that there is something to be said for unified euro political alignments in military procurements but honestly they keen going into fighter programs with the Germans and Italians like we haven’t seen this not work out before. Shoulda/woulda/coulda if anybody had a chance to get on something like Raptor it was England.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Davies]

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

For the opening salvo of the Air Campaign the Fin was flying an extremely low number of sorties (2%) while experiencing roughly 25% of the Allied air losses. This was entirely a combination or tactics vs threat driven both by the limitation of the platform (optimization to low level Euro campaign entirely) with no organic PGM capability in the GR1 and the requirement of those tactics/capes to put the airplane right into the most dangerous regime as far as threat.

And there is absolutely no comparison between Tornado GR1 and the IS fielded 111s at the time. GR4 developed into something similar, but that wouldn’t come until later. 111s didn’t have to go find another Vietnam era plane to truck around 1 of 2 experimentally developed pods to designate for it so it could get back into the Air Campaign effectively.

That’s the problem the Tornado always suffered and what as others have said Typhoon suffers now. The RAF will be in a conflict with a sturdy enough airframe but what always seems to lack is a 5-10 year gap in capabilities that it’s peers on the Coalition Ramp already enjoy. I get that there is something to be said for unified euro political alignments in military procurements but honestly they keen going into fighter programs with the Germans and Italians like we haven’t seen this not work out before. Shoulda/woulda/coulda if anybody had a chance to get on something like Raptor it was England.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the considered post. 

I don't agree with the assessment that a 5-10 year capability gap existed between the F-111 and the Tornado. 

The Tornado IDS was on par with the F-111E (operating in Northern Iraq out of Incirlik) in terms of capabilities. These 1-11s dropped at night from medium altitude, alone and without ever seeing many of their targets (and they weren't running against Saddam's airfields, either). I am not sure how effective they were, but as one of the guys who there recently told me, "no one really cared about what we were doing". 

As for the F-111F with its PGM capability, they still went in low against airfields and other targets in the opening nights. So, they chose the exact same tactics. Sure, they didn't overfly the runways, but I think I have already established was not the cause of the initial Tornado losses. In fact, the F-models were extremely lucky not to eclipse the Tornado force's losses - three of them were badly damaged by AAA on night one.

The F-15E, which had a PGM capability, went in low for the first couple of nights. One was downed by AAA on night one. At the time, it was the newest MDS in the Air Force inventory and was, in the same way as you characterise the IDS, optimised for a European conflict. But the capability gap didn't stop the same tactics being chosen...

The F-16 had no PGM capability (some squadrons with LANTIRN did, but they were in the monitory), and they went in at medium altitude and dropped dumb bombs without any idea whether they were going to hit the target. 

So, no, not convinced that capabilities explain the disparity between sortie numbers and loss rates. 

 

 

 

[Lawman]

Thanks for the considered post. 
I don't agree with the assessment that a 5-10 year capability gap existed between the F-111 and the Tornado. 
The Tornado IDS was on par with the F-111E (operating in Northern Iraq out of Incirlik) in terms of capabilities. These 1-11s dropped at night from medium altitude, alone and without ever seeing many of their targets (and they weren't running against Saddam's airfields, either). I am not sure how effective they were, but as one of the guys who there recently told me, "no one really cared about what we were doing". 
As for the F-111F with its PGM capability, they still went in low against airfields and other targets in the opening nights. So, they chose the exact same tactics. Sure, they didn't overfly the runways, but I think I have already established was not the cause of the initial Tornado losses. In fact, the F-models were extremely lucky not to eclipse the Tornado force's losses - three of them were badly damaged by AAA on night one.
The F-15E, which had a PGM capability, went in low for the first couple of nights. One was downed by AAA on night one. At the time, it was the newest MDS in the Air Force inventory and was, in the same way as you characterise the IDS, optimised for a European conflict. But the capability gap didn't stop the same tactics being chosen...
The F-16 had no PGM capability (some squadrons with LANTIRN did, but they were in the monitory), and they went in at medium altitude and dropped dumb bombs without any idea whether they were going to hit the target. 
So, no, not convinced that capabilities explain the disparity between sortie numbers and loss rates. 
 
 
 

-That ability to incorporate some form of stand off day/night sensor both for navigation and targeting.

-Organic designation capability (or even just as a section having a buddy/shooter capability).

-Employment and fielding of any form of standoff ground attack capability.


You can dismiss it but half the airplanes in your list of contemporaries the Tornado was on the ramp with in desert storm enjoyed that ability. Even the A-7 which was supposed to be retired and literally held on to so it could go on the Midway class carriers that couldn’t handle A-6 had enjoyed a stand-off land attack capability since the Vietnam war.

The Intruder, Hornet, Strike, 111, all of them had those capes during night 1 of DS. Every the F-14 which in no way was ever considered by the Navy as a ground attack plane would enjoy them before Tornado, having Demo’d a PGM night attack capability in 1995. GR4 wouldn’t meet that standard until 1997.

As I said, it was a sturdy airframe but it was woefully behind its NATO peers in development of what are now standard systems critical to the use of air power in any modern conflict. And that continues to be a trend with Typhoon.

At least it’s not a CF-18 though...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LiquidSky]

Can someone explain why are we buying the EX at significant cost over 5th gen? Is fat Amy truly that bad? Or has congress/the AF been hoodwinked yet again? 

 

"The “Gross Weapons Systems” cost includes the “flyaway cost” and the per-jet share of the cost of unique equipment, simulators, and standing-up depots needed to support the aircraft. The gross weapons system cost of an F-35A adds up to $98.2 million in FY22.

The defense department calculates the F-15EX at $110 million. But that does NOT include the cost for simulators, EPAWSS, or the targeting and IRST pods required for combat. Adding in those costs brings the gross weapons systems cost for the F-15EX to $136.7 million — $38.5 million or 39 percent more than a fully loaded F-35A."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/air-forces-math-on-the-f-15ex-and-f-35-doesnt-add-up/

Edited April 20, 2022 by LiquidSky
Source Added

[uhhello]

On the surface it doesn't add up.  Also, google the "heritage foundation" and it's connections to Lockheed in the last decade.  

[brabus]

The financial argument I’ve heard is the sustainment cost is where the “win” is. But other than that, it was not the best move IMO…still a shitload of money for a less capable platform. 

[1:1:1]

Need to keep Boeing in the fighter business

[LiquidSky]

Copy all. I could potentially buy the sustainment costs are lower argument if F-15 tools/sims can be cheaply converted to EX and cost per flight hour ends up being significantly less. However, I'm a strong believer in economy of scale. Hard to imagine the small run of EX stuff will in reality be cheaper than an increased run of 35s plus increased commonality of parts, sims, ops/support personnel, etc.

29 minutes ago, 1:1:1 said:

Need to keep Boeing in the fighter business

Huh. And here I was thinking they should've gotten blacklisted after delivering us the shittiest tanker ever created. Oh well. Guess this is why I'm not getting paid to think, but to write decs and plan Christmas parties.

[Inertia17]

6 hours ago, LiquidSky said:

Huh. And here I was thinking they should've gotten blacklisted after delivering us the shittiest tanker ever created. Oh well. Guess this is why I'm not getting paid to think, but to write decs and plan Christmas parties.

 

And don't forget they got the T-X contract too. Despite the T-50 being available on a shorter timeline...not like we needed a new trainer a decade ago (or more).

[Stoker]

I think it's about having a modern-ish fighter to sell for export to countries we like, but don't trust with the F-35. 

[StoleIt]

All speculation on my part but I think having a non-stealthy fighter option in our inventory can have it's advantages.

Additionally, according to the "4+1" plan if we want to match the WEZ of other countries A2A missiles (AA-37, etc) having a missile truck of a jet also has it's perks: "the F-15E/EX as a supplement to carry big weapons as a third." My thoughts, being constrained to the internal dimensions of an airplane designed 20-30 years ago before anyone would have thought/planned on needing 100+ mile WEZ's is a huge limiting factor. I'm sure there is a lot of political and industrial chess moves being called in also to keep the F-15 line open and continue to provide the FMS a heavy jet option.

[VMFA187]

On 4/20/2022 at 7:05 AM, StoleIt said:

All speculation on my part but I think having a non-stealthy fighter option in our inventory can have it's advantages.

Additionally, according to the "4+1" plan if we want to match the WEZ of other countries A2A missiles (AA-37, etc) having a missile truck of a jet also has it's perks: "the F-15E/EX as a supplement to carry big weapons as a third." My thoughts, being constrained to the internal dimensions of an airplane designed 20-30 years ago before anyone would have thought/planned on needing 100+ mile WEZ's is a huge limiting factor. I'm sure there is a lot of political and industrial chess moves being called in also to keep the F-15 line open and continue to provide the FMS a heavy jet option.

Concur with this. Go look up some of the threat missiles, CH-AA-10 specifically, and you'll see why having a missile truck with standoff is incredibly advantageous. 

[Clark Griswold]

Grab these and regain jammers with alt role as missile truck.  Could use longer legs but never look a gift horse in the mouth.

https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-proposes-to-cut-five-ea-18g-growler-electronic-attack-squadrons/

[12xu2a3x3]

On 4/10/2021 at 2:07 PM, Steve Davies said:

The F-16 had no PGM capability (some squadrons with LANTIRN did, but they were in the monitory), and they went in at medium altitude and dropped dumb bombs without any idea whether they were going to hit the target.

didn't they use AGM-65s like the A-10As did, for a really drinking straw type of view? i know they were mostly dropping Mk82/83/84 and CBU.

unrelated but still pretty funny that the 174th went to war with the GAU-13

[12xu2a3x3]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Grab these and regain jammers with alt role as missile truck.  Could use longer legs but never look a gift horse in the mouth.

https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-proposes-to-cut-five-ea-18g-growler-electronic-attack-squadrons/

totally, especially since the Navy already has the depot and other support functions in place and the knowledge base to start already exists with the 390th. just need a base

spin up all the old ECSs and man it as a Special Duty Program since most of what they are doing is flying HVAA orbits.

[Danger41]

I’d sign up for that.

[Clark Griswold]

totally, especially since the Navy already has the depot and other support functions in place and the knowledge base to start already exists with the 390th. just need a base
spin up all the old ECSs and man it as a Special Duty Program since most of what they are doing is flying HVAA orbits.

Concur
Not holding breath for the AF to deviate from its current plan which unfortunately does not include a Raven follow up
One other good idea from internet left field, if these Growlers were acquired go ahead and retire the Hog and replace with Superbugs, synchronizes a section of the TAC force, replaces the venerable Hog with a modern platform that answers the deficiencies that critics have leveled against it (survivability, self-escort, etc…) and keeps a reasonable portion of said TAC force focused on the Attack mission set with high training and practice in the CAS sub-set mission
Yeah, no more 30mm but something has to give, Superbugs are a realistic compromise to keep Attack squadrons alive with a better platform overall for the Joint Fight IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

17 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

replaces the venerable Hog with a modern platform that answers the deficiencies that critics have leveled against it (survivability, self-escort, etc…) and keeps a reasonable portion of said TAC force focused on the Attack mission set with high training and practice in the CAS sub-set mission

Diametrically opposed desires. The deficiencies of the A-10 have been answered, it’s called the F-35 - which lacks the strengths of the A-10.  The DOD needs to accept that air superiority is a requirement for CAS performance at the level we’ve all become accustomed to in the last 20 years. So what we really need in the “perfect,” but realistic, world is exactly what we have now - a community/platform(s) that provide CAS expertise in the fight that has AS, and accept a reduced/nil CAS capability in the fight that does not have AS. 
 

Bottom line, we don’t really have a CAS capability problem (except maybe new hardware to replace aging fleets), we have a problem understanding/accepting reality of AS vs. no AS.