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

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

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.  

Copy words and legit point(s) but I will still advocate for replacement of Hog with Superbug.  Mainly I see it as cheaper in the long run to operate, more room for improvement / focus on the Attack mission with a more modifiable design, digital system less cranky / integrated than ALIS and existing weight in carrier suitable structure that could be traded perhaps for gas, armor, redundant systems, new systems, new / less fatigued airframes and more robust logistics system for sustainment, etc…. Not saying the 35 will be a slouch as to CAS, TTPs and weapons will be delivered to maximize effectiveness of the platform in delivery of CAS and it will answer the call, I just think the an A-18 would answer it better.  

A hypothetical "Attack-Fighter" focusing more on Attack than AS might also answer the mail for the 4+ / 5- fighter the CSAF has called for to avoid overkill in missions where full up 5th gen is not warranted.  

But there is only so much appropriation to spend so there we are.

Your point as to the Joint Force being accustomed / maybe complacent about AS are right, well maybe complacent is too harsh but the customers of AS maybe don't have a true understanding of the cost / preparedness it takes to have it in a timely manner due to the nature of most of our conflicts of the last 20-25 years.  LFEs and simulations against capable opponents that show AS is not a given and must be won only leave so much of an impression in the mind of civilian planner when they see the dominance in the real world conflicts we have engaged in even though most of those engagements did not involve an opponent who could truly resist our Airpower.  

Vapor-porn just because but an approximation of what I think an A-18X could/should be:

Thrust vectoring not needed IMO and a few other changed (wing folding gone, screens to hide fan blades, etc…) but a good approximation.

[Blue]

The whole idea of retiring EA-18 Growers en-masse seems like nothing more than a negotiating tactic by the Navy.

It's been a long time, and my recollection is a bit fuzzy, but didn't the AF and Navy agree for the Navy to take on all responsibility for Electronic Warfare when the AF retired the EF-111 in the late 90s?  Believe the Navy took on all responsibility for tactical reconnaissance, too, when the last RF-4's were retired about the same time.

As part of the deal, I believe the Navy was promised some kind of additional funding, in exchange for taking the EW responsibility for the whole DoD.  I'd suspect there have been some budget games afoot, the Navy isn't getting their promised $$, and so they're resorting to political gamesmanship.

Maybe someone closer to the EW community can clarify.

[StoleIt]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Copy words and legit point(s) but I will still advocate for replacement of Hog with Superbug.  Mainly I see it as cheaper in the long run to operate, more room for improvement / focus on the Attack mission with a more modifiable design, digital system less cranky / integrated than ALIS and existing weight in carrier suitable structure that could be traded perhaps for gas, armor, redundant systems, new systems, new / less fatigued airframes and more robust logistics system for sustainment, etc…. Not saying the 35 will be a slouch as to CAS, TTPs and weapons will be delivered to maximize effectiveness of the platform in delivery of CAS and it will answer the call, I just think the an A-18 would answer it better.  

A hypothetical "Attack-Fighter" focusing more on Attack than AS might also answer the mail for the 4+ / 5- fighter the CSAF has called for to avoid overkill in missions where full up 5th gen is not warranted.  

But there is only so much appropriation to spend so there we are.

Your point as to the Joint Force being accustomed / maybe complacent about AS are right, well maybe complacent is too harsh but the customers of AS maybe don't have a true understanding of the cost / preparedness it takes to have it in a timely manner due to the nature of most of our conflicts of the last 20-25 years.  LFEs and simulations against capable opponents that show AS is not a given and must be won only leave so much of an impression in the mind of civilian planner when they see the dominance in the real world conflicts we have engaged in even though most of those engagements did not involve an opponent who could truly resist our Airpower.  

Vapor-porn just because but an approximation of what I think an A-18X could/should be:

Thrust vectoring not needed IMO and a few other changed (wing folding gone, screens to hide fan blades, etc…) but a good approximation.

What does that thing get us that the F-35 doesn’t cover? Or the F-15EX? At least the Eagle already has a draft Silent Eagle/Stealthy ish semi developed we could pick up.

But I still don’t see why dropping another billion on the Superbug would do anything to improve our capes.

Looks pretty cool though…so that counts for something.

[Lawman]

What does that thing get us that the F-35 doesn’t cover? Or the F-15EX? At least the Eagle already has a draft Silent Eagle/Stealthy ish semi developed we could pick up.
But I still don’t see why dropping another billion on the Superbug would do anything to improve our capes.
Looks pretty cool though…so that counts for something.

I don’t think anybody has look at or even though about putting the ALQ legacy or next generation pods on anything outside the Hornet for one…

I’m sure as much random stuff as you can bolt to a Strike there is a way to carry it all, but then you’re talking about allocating an already limited group of airframes to pick that mission up on Top of what they are already penned for in the big Jpint peer fight.

And while “let’s just get/leverage another 4.5-5th Gen” is a plan for the strike side of that fight. There are a whole lot of missions (air resupply, PR, SOTF, etc) that will live/die based on the presence of an available stand off jamming platform to function. Loosing a third of that fleet will mean severe delays to other parts of the big plan that can’t move forward until assets are allocated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

The whole idea of retiring EA-18 Growers en-masse seems like nothing more than a negotiating tactic by the Navy.
It's been a long time, and my recollection is a bit fuzzy, but didn't the AF and Navy agree for the Navy to take on all responsibility for Electronic Warfare when the AF retired the EF-111 in the late 90s?  Believe the Navy took on all responsibility for tactical reconnaissance, too, when the last RF-4's were retired about the same time.
As part of the deal, I believe the Navy was promised some kind of additional funding, in exchange for taking the EW responsibility for the whole DoD.  I'd suspect there have been some budget games afoot, the Navy isn't getting their promised $$, and so they're resorting to political gamesmanship.
Maybe someone closer to the EW community can clarify.

Oh there is no doubt the Navy is setting up its position for the big budget pie share fight.

They’re proposing this, retiring Nimitz, folding up all its Cruiser force in a matter of a few years (which form a big chunk of ABLM shield)…

The Navy is selling the idea that it will have to hit its self because they’ve seen the proposed budgets. They can’t afford the replace the Ohios, build the ships they wanted to build, get the FFX to replace LCS, etc. They want the congressional reps that need those programs to argue to cut back on things the Air Force wants like modernized nuclear triad, less B-21s, etc.

But don’t anybody suggest retiring the A10… that thing will be flying when we retire the 35 just because of nostalgia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

39 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Oh there is no doubt the Navy is setting up its position for the big budget pie share fight.

They’re proposing this, retiring Nimitz, folding up all its Cruiser force in a matter of a few years (which form a big chunk of ABLM shield)…

The Navy is selling the idea that it will have to hit its self because they’ve seen the proposed budgets. They can’t afford the replace the Ohios, build the ships they wanted to build, get the FFX to replace LCS, etc. They want the congressional reps that need those programs to argue to cut back on things the Air Force wants like modernized nuclear triad, less B-21s, etc.

But don’t anybody suggest retiring the A10… that thing will be flying when we retire the 35 just because of nostalgia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only they didn’t waste several billion on the LCS.

And I think now that McCain is gone there is a better chance of ditching the hog.

 

But I think bolting jammers and pods on the EX would be easier than adding an additional airframe to our branch. Granted, there is a lot of history of the ANG flying Navy fighters.

[Blue]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

But don’t anybody suggest retiring the A10… that thing will be flying when we retire the 35 just because of nostalgia.

Ehhh, I bristle at any talk of "We must retire platform X to pay for platform Y."  It's just another example of a bureaucracy's favorite logical fallacy: The False Choice.

If the Air Force's mission really was "Fly, fight and win - airpower anytime, anywhere" like it says on the front door, then we'd have F-23s, F-32s, C-27s, AT-6s, A-29, etc, in addition to the current fleets.  Supporting a larger number of aircraft types costs more in operations and sustainment, but it gets you more flexibility and more options in a time of war.  Flexibility is the key to Air Power, or so I was taught long ago.  It also gives you the opportunity to keep a robust, varied industrial base, which encourages competition, drives innovation, and incentivizes competitors to reduce cost.

However, the mission isn't "Fly, fight and win."  The mission is "Jobs, graft and lobbying."  That's why things always tend towards a fewer number of operational platforms, and incredibly complex acquisitions programs.  Flying a fighter jet or cargo plane are pretty straightforward from a cost perspective.  X dollars per flight hour, etc.  It's therefore pretty hard to program in a lot of graft (although they do try and succeed pretty well).

Something like the F-35 program on the other hand is so incredibly complex, there are all kinds of profit-taking and other incentives built in.  Congress critters get defense work in their district, the defense contractors get a large long term program to take their 10% profit margin off the top, etc.

But, perhaps a conversation better suited for a different thread.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Blue

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, StoleIt said:

What does that thing get us that the F-35 doesn’t cover? Or the F-15EX? At least the Eagle already has a draft Silent Eagle/Stealthy ish semi developed we could pick up.

But I still don’t see why dropping another billion on the Superbug would do anything to improve our capes.

Looks pretty cool though…so that counts for something.

What @Lawman said.  

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

I don’t think anybody has look at or even though about putting the ALQ legacy or next generation pods on anything outside the Hornet for one…

I’m sure as much random stuff as you can bolt to a Strike there is a way to carry it all, but then you’re talking about allocating an already limited group of airframes to pick that mission up on Top of what they are already penned for in the big Jpint peer fight.

And while “let’s just get/leverage another 4.5-5th Gen” is a plan for the strike side of that fight. There are a whole lot of missions (air resupply, PR, SOTF, etc) that will live/die based on the presence of an available stand off jamming platform to function. Loosing a third of that fleet will mean severe delays to other parts of the big plan that can’t move forward until assets are allocated.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I suggest the Superbug or a hypothetical Super-Duper Bug as it is in production with advanced variants with additional capes already flying, if Boeing had built and already flown a Silent Eagle that would be another viable COA but alas it has not been done so probably based on cost, risk and time I think that is out of the mix.

Just as there is a value to just having X booms in the air for the air refueling mission, there is a value to X number of TAC platforms in the air.  More sensors, weapons and nodes in the link just make it bigger and stronger sts 

Choosing to invest in a more affordable platform to get more quantity will bring quality to riff on Marshall Stalin's words

The F-15EX is still a possibility for an Attack focused platform but my druthers is that it should be a 4+ gen in production today or one readily developed from an in production 4+ gen, a crewed aircraft to handle the likely growth in cognitive demands as unmanned platforms come into the fleet and we will likely want tactical management of them versus reach back link in the conventional fights and we will want magazine depth on this platform to aid the 5th gens with their limited internal stores.

I guess another reason I suggest the Superbug is as it is carrier based aircraft, methinks it would be a good candidate for expeditionary ops.  Considering further the dispersed ops concepts for future fights, one platform already adapted for extreme launch/recovery options might be handy.

 

A stretched version with two bays might be better but on the wings have smaller versions of the existing lo weapons pods along with its own internal bays and some good engineering to get one or two more weapons in there.

[VMFA187]

23 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

What @Lawman said.  

 

I suggest the Superbug or a hypothetical Super-Duper Bug as it is in production with advanced variants with additional capes already flying, if Boeing had built and already flown a Silent Eagle that would be another viable COA but alas it has not been done so probably based on cost, risk and time I think that is out of the mix.

Just as there is a value to just having X booms in the air for the air refueling mission, there is a value to X number of TAC platforms in the air.  More sensors, weapons and nodes in the link just make it bigger and stronger sts 

Choosing to invest in a more affordable platform to get more quantity will bring quality to riff on Marshall Stalin's words

The F-15EX is still a possibility for an Attack focused platform but my druthers is that it should be a 4+ gen in production today or one readily developed from an in production 4+ gen, a crewed aircraft to handle the likely growth in cognitive demands as unmanned platforms come into the fleet and we will likely want tactical management of them versus reach back link in the conventional fights and we will want magazine depth on this platform to aid the 5th gens with their limited internal stores.

I guess another reason I suggest the Superbug is as it is carrier based aircraft, methinks it would be a good candidate for expeditionary ops.  Considering further the dispersed ops concepts for future fights, one platform already adapted for extreme launch/recovery options might be handy.

 

A stretched version with two bays might be better but on the wings have smaller versions of the existing lo weapons pods along with its own internal bays and some good engineering to get one or two more weapons in there.

Is that a missile going into the right tailpipe?

[El Duderino]

I think it’s the second bay he mentioned, the built in seaker head preheater is a cool feature. 

[Clark Griswold]

Is that a missile going into the right tailpipe?

Shit - okay maybe not this one ;-)

I thought that was the tail hook


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

I think it’s the second bay he mentioned, the built in seaker head preheater is a cool feature. 

Yup second bay is high on the want to have list
If you’re gonna go to all the trouble and cost, it’s gotta bring something to the fight we do t have right now, a lot of internally carried munitions in a semi lo / reduced signature platform would be something

https://preview.redd.it/i8fcjunuymu41.jpg?auto=webp&s=c477f22888d616c5728d04bc8878244421b5a25a

High flyer capability also (patrol comfortably above 50k) with 10+ missiles would impose costs / risks on our opponents that might negate / mitigate localized superior numbers in platforms they could generate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-wants-to-send-25-ea-18g-growlers-to-the-boneyard

Looks like the Navy really wants to get out of any land based EA...definitely a budget ploy.

[Lawman]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-wants-to-send-25-ea-18g-growlers-to-the-boneyard
Looks like the Navy really wants to get out of any land based EA...definitely a budget ploy.

Especially when there is an internal push to start prioritizing certain Hornet E/F guys to SEAD/DEAD as an acknowledgment that it’s a highly skill intensive specialization and not something you can just generate on an ATO line.

There is a reason we are simultaneously seeing news articles about how great the paring of 35C and 18G are as a strategic collections package, but also talk of just shitcanning a couple squadrons.

It’s like your wife implying you how much more sex you’ll be having if you buy her this _____. It’s a trap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[12xu2a3x3]

5 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 not something you can just generate on an ATO line.

they Navy has basically had this mindset since the Iron Hand days. Even with the Specialized A-6Bs and EA-6As of the era there was a shit ton of just lobbing shrikes off of A-7s and A-4s with very little to actually cue them