USAF Actually Buying F-15Xs?

a reply to: mightmight
He may well be right in many respects about the F-35 and how the program has been managed. But did he stop and think about how well the Boeing effort on the KC-46 tanker was going before he opened his mouth? People in glass houses and stuff.....

a reply to: thebozeian

I was about to say the same thing tbh.

a reply to: thebozeian

There was a good/great argument foe canceling the program in a five-year window or so from 2007-12, give or take. It was a colossal # up.
I don't think anyone is thrilled with LM's management of the program (or the former heads running the program on the customers ' side).

But right now there's no way to get a better tac fighter for less money anywhere in the world. F-35 prices are undercutting some of the latest legacy purchases, which is ridiculous, and the price will continue to fall as the program keeps chugging along. The 20+ years of seed and development money is gone forever. It's sunk costs. Shouldn't factor this late in the game.

It's like saying noone should have bought filament lightbulbs in 60's because it took Edison thousands of attempts to develop.

Also, as you state, odd what programs didn't get thrashed...

a reply to: RadioRobert
spot on

So odds on Shanahan getting the nod for SecDef? I don't see Trump picking Webb.

aviationweek.com...

originally posted by: anzha
aviationweek.com...

Paywall...any new information or just recap?

www.defensenews.com...

This is so fscking stupid.

a reply to: anzha

"He added that Air Force needs to buy 72 fighters a year to get to the amount they need in the future — and to drive average aircraft age down from 28 years to 15 years. And while Goldfein might want all 72 to be fifth generation F-35s, budgetary concerns likely won’t let that happen.

"If we had the money, those would be 72 F-35s. But we’ve gotta look at this from a cost/business case" he explained. "An F-15 will never be an F-35. Never. But I need capacity."

In what universe does this make any sense?

The F-35A is already cheaper than the F-15X. If they commit to full rate production it will cost even less. Buying both is the most costly option.
Its like they're shooting themselves in the foot on purpose.

a reply to: mightmight
The only theoretical way this would make sense is if the cost per hour of the F-35 was a great deal higher than an F-15X. Running two different airframes isn't the issue, they already run appreciably more than that now and with older less reliable airframes, and have a supply chain base already stood up for the F-15 family. Regardless the cost per flight hour of the F-35 should be coming down anyway and I doubt even a late model Eagle would vastly undercut an F-35 on flight costs if at all. So it really only makes sense if you are throwing Boeing a bone. In which case they should have done that five years ago.

a reply to: thebozeian

Cost per flight hour is already about the same and will continue to fall. Makes no sense. Hell, an F-16X makes more sense if you just want airframes. Make Boeing build them under license since LM closed the US line. Or better yet if it's just corporate welfare, buy ~60 Growlers for the USMC or Navy which would address an immediate short-term need. Or throw money at T-X.

If they are so bent on buying these, does that mean that loyal wingman types and X-35 successors don’t exist?

As these would potentially fill the gaps cheaper?

a reply to: Forensick

The X-35 successor was the F-35...what type do you mean?

This is clearly a Shanahan gift back to Boeing. It's stupid.

a reply to: RadioRobert
I have a better idea, buy 60-100 Growlers for the USAF and make them the same spec as the USN/RAAF models. That alone would make a huge and meaningful difference. I agree about the idea of buying F-16V's being a better option than this, like I said its at least 5 years too late. Roll on PCA I say.

a reply to: thebozeian

And then they spend even more money on infrastructure and training.

a reply to: thebozeian

Navy and USMC are already tasked with those missions for the time being. The AF talked themselves out of the mission several years ago, and I do not think they want to add a completely new type to support. So they miss out on this round of pork. Navy/USMC already have the type in service and have the resources in place. Just make a few land-based expeditionary squadrons for support ops in the sandbox and that frees up the other/new Growlers for fleet ops.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Forensick

The X-35 successor was the F-35...what type do you mean?

This is clearly a Shanahan gift back to Boeing. It's stupid.

Sorry X-45 demonstrators - they were quite successful weren’t they but nothing more was done with them?

a reply to: Forensick

J-UCAS kind of went sideways. It was split, with the Air Force portion going away and funding being put into the NGB program. The Navy portion became UCAS-D, which was the demonstrator for UCLASS, and we all know where that went.

a reply to: mightmight

Not in mine, that's for sure.

a reply to: seagull

If I squint and tilt my head, I can almost see this making sense. But it would have made a lot more 10 or 15 years ago. The existing Eagle fleet is going to time out fast, and the Viper doesn't make as good an air defense fighter IMO. They aren't buying F-35s fast enough to replace them either.

I still think it's a lousy idea and obviously a Boeing handout from Shanahan, but it almost makes sense if you look at it right.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You could probably flesh out a modernized F-16XL optimized for DCA and develop/produce/operate them cheaper than this programs costs over the next 20-30 years.

Hell, they'd almost be better paying for a stripped down development of Boeing's X-32/Monica optimized only for DCA with all the gold-plating stripped away. All OTS. Give it an F-135, AN/APG-77, and IRST. Strip all the multi-mission requirements and associated hardware/software. Ask for bays large enough for Meteor or future adv AAM programs and for three/four wet hardpoints. They already have all the planform data. No carrier landing bring backrequirement so they can keep the high volume delta-wing. Ask for delivery in 36 months or less. Accept that it will inevitably draw funding from the F-35.


At least that waste would be survivable and have growth potential.