USAF Actually Buying F-15Xs?

a reply to: mightmight
Possibly, although there are other targets if you are just talking funding. PCA will probably happen but at worst be delayed a few years. From what I'm hearing it is moving in the right direction and wont be a repeat of the F-35 debacle, more like the B-21 in that regard. There was a funding scenario list kicking around recently that showed alternatives for what the USAF could achieve and what would have to go in alternative funding scenarios. It was quite an eye opener in how much certain platforms could save them if they are ditched early. In order to save the PCA program its possible they might kill the F-22, all the non Beagle F-15's and make do with F-35's, F-15X and maybe (maybe not?) some of the later model lower time F-16's. Given that Scorpion based OAX is dead (for now) you can expect the A-10's to survive for awhile given the upgrades and re-winging programs, that and there isn't really anything else that can slot in to the lower end for grunt support with that lower cost per flight hour.

a reply to: thebozeian

Would you rather replace F-15Cs with PCA or the F-22s?

Replacing F-22s with PCA while retaining the F-15 fleets ... you cant fix stupid.

As i argued before, they should switch the Air Guard squadrons to F-16s for Homeland defense. Lots of those around. They can fly whatever is able to carry an AAM, it really doesnt matter. The 439d Fighter Squadron at Lakenheath should get Strikes Eagles from a sateside squadron, which in turn should transition to F-35A (increase procurement accordingly). The 44th and 67th Fighter Squadron at Kadena need to go. Kadena is not defendable against Chinese missiles. Transfer the aircraft to the Air Guard for them to use up.
And thats it. No need to invest billions to increase availbility for Air Guard units task with a basically obsolete mission.

a reply to: thebozeian

It was quite an eye opener in how much certain platforms could save them if they are ditched early

I don't think people understand how much savings you get when you slim down number types in the fleet. That's why the A-10 is always on the block. Not because it isn't awesome (it is), but because they can save boatloads of money by completely eliminating them instead of running a relatively small ( ~140) boutique fleet of single-purpose A-10's. You free up all the pilots, maintainers, and training programs for both to support the rest of the fleet, too. That $800 million or so every year either frees up money for other programs or helps meet the sequestration limitations.


I'm on board with F-16's to the Guard for DCA missions. Hell, you could probably get me behind new builds. Make Boeing produce them under license; LM already shuttered their line. Or give Boeing work to SLEP the worn out Eagles and upgrade them at the ~$15-30M a pop they offered to do awhile back. But the upfront costs of the F-15X along with the way higher operating costs seems dumb on many, many levels. The F-35 is already cheaper to operate than a C, and on par with the newer Beagles. That will only come down when the depots are in place and they get upgraded to the same standard block. Either increase the F-35 buy, go cheap with Vipers, or just update and SLEP the Eagles again.

Even their sales job is bad. "We have to have more airframes quickly." There is slack in the F-35 line. You could pump out even more with adequate lead time which would also let you delay to 4.2 and save money that way. Even if they started yesterday, Boeing can't start delivering brand new F-15s for 18-24 months. There is a huge airframe gap between 2021-24 that requires a run of new build Super Eagles? Not buying it. It also marries you to them and probably the Beagles for longer than planned. Meaning no cost savings every year from dumping those for more of the types you want to keep (F-16, F-35, B-21, etc).

The whole thing is a boondoggle.

a reply to: RadioRobert

There is also the issue of how many F-15X the Air Force has to buy / Boeing wants to build each year. If they dont speed up production, it will take a decade to replace the current F-15Cs. And thats without considering international customers like the Israelis.
It's ridiculous know, but think about 2025 with F-35A Block 5 (or whatever) for 80 mil or less...

But apparently they came up with a new excuse:

Air Force officials said privately the NDS demands certain levels of force structure that can’t be achieved on the timelines it requires by buying more F-35s, which would take some time to deliver. Boeing is building F-15s for foreign customers, however, and could potentially deliver the aircraft faster, especially if foreign customers agree to let USAF buy earlier aircraft off the line.

www.airforcemag.com...

You got that one right, HUUUGE fighter gap aparently that can only be closed by buying an odd dozen F-15 each year. Because everything will fall apart for some reason if they just finally ramp up F-35 production to full capacity.

a reply to: mightmight

I can get waiting for block 4.-whatever. That makes sense to me. The "we need them more quickly than that" makes zero sense. The only way this would make sense is if you thought we were fighting a near-peer in the next four or five years. I don't think it even makes sense as an industry protection measure because there are other, better ways to keep Boeing Defense alive and at work. The only thing it does it keeps the Eagle line open for Boeing to squeeze more foreign orders out to countries who aren't cleared for the F-35 or don't have enough priority to get airframes in a reasonable time period. The US fits neither category. There is no other market.

a reply to: mightmight

You can’t put 16s in Homeland Defense.

originally posted by: glib2
a reply to: mightmight

You can’t put 16s in Homeland Defense.

Oh please tell me why not.

a reply to: glib2

You absolutely can. It's just not as ideal as using an F-22 or F-15 for ASA/DCA ops. You'll also wear them out faster because they'll need to carry ET's and tank more often. I'd much rather they do that than buy new Eagles and eat hours off our F-22's. You can always bring in more assets (F-22/35) if things heat up.

originally posted by: mightmight
You got that one right, HUUUGE fighter gap aparently that can only be closed by buying an odd dozen F-15 each year. Because everything will fall apart for some reason if they just finally ramp up F-35 production to full capacity.

Everything won't fall apart. These clowns just won't get their cushy high paying job with Boeing after they leave the Air Force. The Navy is going the same way with the F/A-18.

a reply to: mightmight

Here lies the problem. Dude a lot of the stuff you are saying is pretty interesting and just trying to nudge the “make Guard units F-16s for Homeland Defense because we have enough of them.” High capacity ops like in DC for bug smashers or the airline that needs an inspection sure the 16s are awesome as any aircraft that can physically get there would be. However, there is a reason the main alert units are Eagles. There is a reason they are C models. No amount of money or upgrade you do to an F-16 would match the capability of the C model jets flying today. If you can just absorb that and take it for fact “F-16s can’t fulfill the shoes of what the Eagle can do.” It’s nothing against the Fighting Falcon. Great lightweight jet. The replacement needs to be an Eagle or better. There is a reason Fresno went from -16s to Eagles. Jax went from -16s to Eagles.

a reply to: glib2

Absolutely nobody is arguing that the F-16 is better at ASA/DCA missions than the F-15. The argument is that as an interim arrangement, for the next five years, the F-16 can adequately fill the shoes much more cheaply than a purchase of a small batch of new -build Eagles. As you point out, we've even had them doing it before.

a reply to: RadioRobert

First I’ve heard that carrying externals and tanking wears things out. Also, maybe the scenario is just a little skewed with how you present it. Homeland Defense squadrons sit alert. Typically benign and jets actually sit more in the alert hangars. It’s peacetime. Something causes a scramble. Jets launch. # hits the fan. We are no longer peacetime. Now everyone plays. There is no “eating hours off F-22s.” The point is, depending on how bad the # hitting the fan is, you’d want Eagles up instead of -16s.

ASA would follow under the “everyone” gets to play category. Try to separate that from homeland defense C model vs -16 vs Raptor talk. I think you are right though that it doesn’t make sense because it isn’t ideal. We are still young enough to remember 9/11. Doubt “let’s put -16s there instead of Eagles even though it’s not ideal” would ever come to fruition.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I hear what you are saying. So the C-models go away. -16s fill the role for a few years. What goes in and replaces the -16s then? Hopefully this follow up doesn’t seem snarky. I think this is a better conversation in getting to why the CX.

a reply to: glib2

Eventually PCA or the F-35 both of which have better range than the Eagle.

# hits the fan. We are no longer peacetime

Snip rarely hit the fan with no warning. When things heat up, you can stop caring about the dollars.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Valid. No argument here.

Basically what RadioRobert said, as usual.

Some additional comments:

originally posted by: glib2
The replacement needs to be an Eagle or better.

Nope. The replacement needs to do one thing and one thing only: Provide the capability necessary to fulfill the requirements set by the Air Force and the DoD.
And requirements change as the threat environment changes.
This is not the 80s anymore, there are a grant total of 17 high performance aircraft in the world (!) that can conceivably strike Contiguous US from abroad. Ten years from now it will be 26. Maybe. And those would have to come over the pole from Russia, running into 2 F-22 Squadrons out of Elmendorf.
Unless the threat environment changes a hell of a lot in at this point totally unforeseeable ways, it really doesn’t matter whether the Oregon National Guard flies F-15s or F-16s. They will never intercept something else than the odd airliner or a lost Tu-95 anyway.
F-16s for Homeland Air Defense is already a reality no matter what.
CONR-AFNORTH has more Air Guard wings flying F-16s than wings flying F-15s assigned to it. And you could probably get away with cutting half of those.

originally posted by: glib2
We are still young enough to remember 9/11.

Yes I remember. The Air Guard F-15s didn’t arrive over New York until it was over and the F-15s from the 1st Fighter Wing were too late intercepting the plane that hit the Pentagon.
Which will more likely than not always be the stark reality when dealing with 0911 style attacks.
The same will be true for cruise missile strikes launched by submarines or whatever. You’d need a hell of a lot more fighter jets on more locations with a much higher alert posture to do anything about those. Would be much cheaper to deploy air defense systems to protect high value targets.

originally posted by: glib2
What goes in and replaces the -16s then?

F-16s from Air Force squadrons when they transition to F-35s of course. This game can go on for a very long time, basically until all Legacy jets have been used up.
Secondary Guard units should always fly the oldest equipment on the book. Eventually (post 2030) they’d get early F-35s or possibly F-22s when those transition to 6th Gen.

a reply to: mightmight

Provide the capability: yes, that is why Eagles are on the four corners. They won’t downgrade the four corners with F-16s. Hence why it’ll be an Eagle or better.

It’s not the same”alert” as it was pre 9-11. Not sure what the point is that the Guard eagles didn’t make it there.

Emerging threats: yup, still not going to replace an AESA Eagle with a -16.

I disagree that you can cut half the Guard. Different subject maybe.

Standby the X will be a reality. C models are old. You can’t do away with their capes.

originally posted by: glib2
Provide the capability: yes, that is why Eagles are on the four corners. They won’t downgrade the four corners with F-16s. Hence why it’ll be an Eagle or better.

To reiterate again, there is no military reason to pick Eagles over Falcons for Air Guard duty. Frankly there is no military reason to pick the Falcon over any other fighter capable of carrying an AAM.
The aircraft used for the mission is almost irrelevant and so is the mission itself.
Or to put in another way, if the Guard F-15s didn’t exist, nobody would miss it. They are being used by the Guard for Homeland Air Defense because frankly, the Air Force only has a very limited need for legacy Air Superiority Fighters.
If the Obama admin had decided to procure another 100 F-22 back in the day, the F-15Cs would be long gone by now and four out of five Guard squadrons would fly F-16s for Homeland Air Defense.
Putting the Eagles “on the four corners” provides nothing of military relevance and just saying otherwise won’t make it so.

originally posted by: glib2
It’s not the same”alert” as it was pre 9-11. Not sure what the point is that the Guard eagles didn’t make it there.

The point is, most of the time, the alert flights will be too late to do anything about whatever is going on. The attack will be over, just like it was the case on 0911.
To ensure an actually viable air defense for the contiguous US (against both cruise missile and terrorist attacks) you’d need a hell of a lot more infrastructure and hardware all over the states. IE an airfield with a half squadron worth of aircraft and a QRA flight ready to go on the tarmac every 300 miles or so.
Won’t happen. Hence the bs Homeland Air Defense posture, looks good on paper, wont be effective if actually needed.

originally posted by: glib2
I disagree that you can cut half the Guard. Different subject maybe.

Not really. The Air Force argues it needs quantity as well as quality and therefore the F-15 fleet needs to be beefed up.

I’d argue the Air Force wouldn’t be able to deploy half their fighter jets in a conflict against a near peer like China. Let alone secondary Guard units. The support infrastructure just isn’t there. Andersen will be at capacity with 2 wings worth of F-35s and support. The next US airbase outside the Chinese missile range is Hickam at Pearl Harbor…
The Air Force needs a solution to field less short legged fighter jets against China, not a program to boost the numbers. Hence, PCA, not F-15X.

So yes, cut the Guard. The war will be won or lost over the South China Sea, not over the Channel Islands.

I can agree the job of Homeland Defense can be done in peacetime with a T-38 and a pistol. I just disagree that taking the capes of an Eagle and replacing it with an inferior platform to certain mission sets is a smart move. I disagree that any AAM platform can take over the role and that the platform doesn’t matter. For the basics sure. But you don’t sit and wait on the four corners for just the basics.

Same with AD. Confidence isn’t high the PCA or a Raptor follow on will show anytime soon. Upgrading with a new Eagle would take the majority of our air superiority muscle and just make it better. No more Raptors are being built. Who’s gonna lead the charge on an OCA sweep? -16s? Nope. -35s? Not quite.

My point is, and it’s fine if you disagree because it’s interedting to hear, is the Eagle would be missed. Not just by the pilots that fly them but from the dudes that have less game in A2A tactics because they drop b-words and try to go 2v5 because they are “stealth”.

The platform has more to do with it than just a missile truck. Even for the guard. Maybe people might not miss it, but damn those capes being lost if replaced by Fighting Falcons would be huge.

Guard could use it. AD could use it. Makes sense.

a reply to: glib2

I just disagree that taking the capes of an Eagle and replacing it with an inferior platform to certain mission sets is a smart move. I disagree that any AAM platform can take over the role and that the platform doesn’t matter. For the basics sure. But you don’t sit and wait on the four corners for just the basics.

Look, whether you like it or not, the mission isn’t there.

There is one nation in the world that can launch conventional symmetric strikes against the contiguous US. What’s left of their strategic bomber fleet happens to be located on the other side of the north pole. It will not make a shred of difference whether the Oregon or California Air Guard flies F-15s or F-16s, the Tu-160 won’t get passed the Raptors.

Yes, that nations could theoretically deploy on of their few remaining SSGN to the Eastern Pacific or Atlantic to launch cruise missile attacks.
If they manage to sneak past American submarines it again will not make a shred of difference whether the Massachusetts or Florida Air Guard flies F-15s or F-16s – likely none of the cruise missiles launched will be intercepted, unless AFNORTH is on high alert, with alert flights already on station. In any other scenario, the missile strike will occur inside the OODA loop of the current force structure.

There is no other Air threat to the contiguous US, no other bases to cover. Except glorified air policing of course.

Same with AD. Confidence isn’t high the PCA or a Raptor follow on will show anytime soon. Upgrading with a new Eagle would take the majority of our air superiority muscle and just make it better. No more Raptors are being built. Who’s gonna lead the charge on an OCA sweep? -16s? Nope. -35s? Not quite.

Well, I’m sure as hell would not want lead the charge on an OCA sweep into a Chinese or Russian A2AD area flying a Legacy platform. You might as well get it over with an eject right after takeoff.

F-15s, no matter how many ‘x’ you put on them are not suited to operate in the modern threat environment a near peer can create. It still holds its own against the run in the mill muslim nation the US picks to bomb this month – really any 4th Gen platform does - but you can’t operate it inside the engagement zone of long range SAM systems.

If you think the Russians or Chinese will come out to play outside their virtual castles you’d be in for a rough surprise.
So who is going to “lead the charge” against late 4th Gen and evolving 5th Gen threats? F-22s and F-35s, full stop.
F-15s will flying BARCAP for the tankers. Xs or not.
And I keep repeating myself, but it also doesn’t matter which platform flies the BARCAP.

My point is, and it’s fine if you disagree because it’s interedting to hear, is the Eagle would be missed. Not just by the pilots that fly them but from the dudes that have less game in A2A tactics because they drop b-words and try to go 2v5 because they are “stealth”.

The 1980s called, they want their Cold War back?
The reality is this: The US is facing an unprecedented challenge with China. If they have to confront them someday, they’ll face an prepared opponent which has build up its entire armed forces specifically for this fight.
But instead of accepting this challenge, half the US military is still preoccupied with winning hearts and minds in random muslim countries by bombing the crap out of them, while the other half wants a rematch with Russia for a worse outcome or something.

Its high time to look at a freaking map and accept the fact that the Western Pacific is not Europe where they could land an 4th Gen platform on the Autobahn if need be. The fact is, if the US goes to war with China, its ability to deploy fighter jets will be severely limited.
All US or allied airbases within comfortable range of the Chinese Coast are in range of Chinese missiles. And the Chinese are more than capable of denying those bases within hours of any general engagement.
The US will have to project airpower from well beyond the second island chain. That means tankers, tankers and tankers on top of tankers and platforms with long enough legs to need as few air refuelings as possible. And still be able to survive against an opponent that basically almost matches your deployed tech and has prepared for your assault for decades.

To get a handle this situation the US is actually in dire need to radically change its force structure.
I don’t want to go into any details but less fighter jets, far less. I’d be comfortable with about a 1000 modern 5th gen jets. Still double what you can realistically deploy in the Pacific theater. And i’d gladly cut every single legacy F-15 and F-16 today, if that would guarantee PCA, 200 B-21 and a crapton of standoff ammunition to get the job done.
And frankly, I’d be getting every last refurbishable B-52 and B-1 out of AMARG before I’d think about procuring obsolete and unneeded fighter jets.

This shouldn’t be about replacing in place. Its about winning the next war, not arming to fight the last one.