Jump to content

Air Force officially hates F-15s now


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, 11bee said:

And the Middle East (as is well underway), Southwest Asia (as will be underway shortly) and Eastern Europe but who's counting?   Frees up forces to defend our homeland though.

 

FWIW, always thought the decision to cancel the F-22 after just 187 jets was horribly shortsighted.   I don't follow defense subjects as closely as others, isn't the AF beginning to lay the groundwork for an F-22 successor?

 

 

Losing an Empire isn’t anything to celebrate IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vaildog said:

Losing an Empire isn’t anything to celebrate IMO

Self-inflicted wounds (and not just by the current guy in charge, China could have been restrained by any of the last 3 administrations but that window is now firmly closed). 

 

I never really dug running an empire anyway.

 

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the USAF is looking at buying the F-15X. Congress may force the airforce to buy it because of cost. Why not, the Russians have done the same with their Su-27. How many permutations of it are there now and they act like it's a whole new airplane. A F-15 with the latest electronics/engines, etc. could probably easily handle an ex soviet steam punk design. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 12:49 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

So yes it was short sighted. It was terribly short sighted and obviously so. We traded "air dominance" for decades for dirt wars that have no relevance 10 years later, and instead cost us more blood sweat and treasure along with opportunity costs in who knows how many areas FOR YEARS. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. We suckered the Russians into sticking around until it cost them dearly. I hate to say that pulling out of Afghanistan in 2019 will have the same result as 2009, or 2029. But every year we stay we waste more so that's nice I guess.

 

 

From talking to people who served in the Pentagon at the time, Gates' overwhelming concern was the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his minions handled everything else.

 

Quote

All the brass agitating for F-22s was replaced. Again, long term it looks like they were right. Moseley was booted and replaced with a cargo plane pilot who played ball. The writing was on the wall. Wanting more F-22s was against the secdefs wishes and you would be canned for trying otherwise.

 

We needed enough F-22s to last 50 years. So yes. It was terribly short sighted. It was short sighted In the fact that we are still looking for ways to fill that vacuum. It was short sighted in the fact that there is no winning In Iraq, or Afghanistan and that was before adding Libya and Syria to the list. It was short sighted in the fact that China revealed a stealth aircraft gates said they wouldnt have for years. 

 

So the fun question to me is when did the light bulb go on? When did we go "oops!" On canceling the F-22?

 

 

Moseley was fired rather than being allowed to resign, due to his advocacy of the F-22.  That was the depth of Gates' animus regarding the F-22, and everything else was window dressing.  The absolute minimum number of Raptors the USAF said they needed was 270ish, and the preferred number was in the 380 range to align with the AEF structure.  The Obama Administration justified ending production by floating a non-existent study that said 187 was sufficient.  Also, the arguments against the F-22 inevitably broke down to it in isolation against a possible opponents' fighters, while totally ignoring having to operate in a double digit SAM environment, which puts the 5th Gen fighters in a totally different class than the 4th Gen ones.  One thing I fault the USAF for is that they did not point this out nearly enough to the public.

 

Quote

It's the same secdef. Gates and no one would have batted an eye had Obama replaced him and kept the F-22 going especially as jobs were a factor.

 

Gates' hatred of the F-22 was well known in the military, and his statement about not having to face a near peer competitor in the foreseeable future was ludicrous at the time, and looks even worse now.  I watched him do a Q&A at Langley, and when a Guard pilot asked him about buying more Raptors his face literally turned red, and I thought we were going to see a repeat of the exploding head scene from Scanners.  What usually gets left out of the public equation is the role of the Deputy SecDef, Gordon England; he had lost a succession struggle when he was still an executive at Lockheed, and was yuuuge in the decision to end F-22 production.  For those interested, Robert Dorr's Airpower Abandoned lays out a lot of the behind the scenes decision making that went on.

 

 

22 hours ago, Geoff M said:

The real problem with the F-22 is:  1981 Request for Information to develop a new fighter,  2004 F-22 to be declared operational.

 

You can thank the Clinton Administration for that; it stretched out development because just feasting on the defense dividend following the end of the Cold War wasn't sufficient.  As TaiidanTomcat said, I don't start counting at the RFI.  The YF-22 was selected in 1991, and the first F-22 didn't leave the production line till 1997.

 

Regards,

Murph

Edited by Murph
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vaildog said:

Losing an Empire isn’t anything to celebrate IMO

 

 

We should not be an empire. Its fundamentally wrong and I wont miss it. We spent 1 trillion dollars in Iraq (before getting into the waste in human capital.) I still dont know what we bought.

 

We spent 20 years patting ourselves on the back about keeping Russia engaged in an expensive boondoggle(s), then spent the next 15 convincing ourselves it was different when we did it. "Surely they're not bleeding us right? No no of course not..." 

 

And on the same theme while Russia was bleeding out in " Bush wars" they were falling behind conventionally. They lost the cold war, which as it turn out collapsed their nation, and their empire. In hindsight they traded something really big and important, for something not big and not important. Would you trade Europe or japan for Afghanistan? The answer should be REALLY obvious. 

 

Has Afghanistan become more western? Or has the west become more Islamist? The answer is worth noting.

 

Back to the subject at hand tho. And what Murph added. The F-22 was highly symbolic.  Again I give all the media click-bait hacks so many of you breathlessly follow (david axe) for setting the narrative that the F-22 was "ZOMG expen$$$ive!!" But also "useless for Afghanistan" (Afghanistan is landlocked, but I dont think the navy should not be allowed new ships since they dont work in A-stan...) the F-22 became the white whale of white elephants. A giant expensive waste that was "unneeded in the current conflict" a symbol of waste. Fine China. Gold plated. Etc.

 

Again there were people here on ARC who were telling us it would not be RPGs and IEDs forever and guess what? they were right then, and they've become even more right with time. The F-22 was not built for Afghanistan and that was a good thing. It was built to secure the wests most valuable military advantage -- airpower--for decades into the future against real actual scary bad guys that can have real actual global influence.

 

2008 was so bizarre in hindsight. It was insane what people believed back then

 

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you say about the Middle East, but the American empire is also what has made the dollar the reserve currency of the world and enabled globalization and free trade to a degree that has benefited most people on the planet.

 

 That’s not to say we need to be continually adventuring in the Middle East militarily, but it dies mean we need to maintain our status as the dominant power globally 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vaildog said:

I agree with everything you say about the Middle East, but the American empire is also what has made the dollar the reserve currency of the world and enabled globalization and free trade to a degree that has benefited most people on the planet.

 

 That’s not to say we need to be continually adventuring in the Middle East militarily, but it dies mean we need to maintain our status as the dominant power globally 

 

 

Agree or not, you explained that well

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 11bee said:

Self-inflicted wounds (and not just by the current guy in charge, China could have been restrained by any of the last 3 administrations but that window is now firmly closed). 

 

I never really dug running an empire anyway.

 

 

Somewhere we went from "we gotta fight over there so we dont fight here, and preserve our freedoms"

 

to

 

 

"we got to fight them everywhere! and also here too! so give up some of your rights for safety. Individual Freedom is over rated"

 

giphy.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

Somewhere we went from "we gotta fight over there so we dont fight here, and preserve our freedoms"

 

to

 

 

"we got to fight them everywhere! and also here too! so give up some of your rights for safety. Individual Freedom is over rated"

 

giphy.gif

 

 

It's a crazy, topsy-turvey world we live in TT.   Only going to get crazier in the next few years as regional /  global opponents seek to fill the power vacuum or just decide to test us with increasingly provocative acts as we continue our departure from the world stage.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 11bee said:

It's a crazy, topsy-turvey world we live in TT.   Only going to get crazier in the next few years as regional /  global opponents seek to fill the power vacuum or just decide to test us with increasingly provocative acts as we continue our departure from the world stage.  

 

Overplay your hand, you get stung. We basically have to shrink back at some point. "Boots on the ground" in 2/3 of the countries of the world. We have basically shown up everywhere one can. Until they start making new countries this is the high water mark.

 

 

The issue has been we kept ordering "everything on the menu" and "all of the above" for over a decade. That's not sustainable. If you want endless foriegn wars but the NSA doesn't spy on me, ok. But "all of the above" is endless wars AND spying on me. We keep getting it all, and it's not all good. That's the best way I can put it. If Russia or China or Turkey or Saudi Arabia want to throw blood sweat and treasure at these places, I'm inclined to let them at this point. That's how we beat them back in the old days right?? I was told the Russians trying to have big influence in places like A stan was expensive folly...

 

We basically need to make America choose again. You can have Afghanistan or japan. Not both. You can have a well equipped professional force for conventional war, or keep throwing big money and time at COIN. Or even beyond that Cyber warfare. Guess where you need to be throwing your money these days?? Its not teaching officers how to sit and drink Afghan tea. 

 

It's time to go. And no it will not be pretty. It's like a divorce. Rarely is it the "right time"  and yes it's often messy. And you can always find some reason or other to put it off a little bit longer...

 

It would be nice to get back to the 80s or 90s level of "isolationism" we arent even programmed for that anymore. Say what you will about Iraq in 2003, people thought it was controversial. These days the US occupies 1/3 of Syria "indefinitely" it doesnt even rate a mention. 

 

 

Interesting "sub factoid" --for as maligned as ACU pattern is. The transition phase to multicam is considered the transition point to the status quo of normalized not winning and just keeping it all bureaucraticly stable within the military force. The end of trying to win

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

How much did the F-15E cost per unit around the time that the last production model was purchased by the USAF? Granted one must always take into account inflation and all that other economic stuff but surely it wasn't close to $80 million was it? 

 

So it sounds definitely like the only downside to the X is that it is not a stealthy airframe am I correct? But with it being bigger than the F-35 (and able to fit more computers) it's systems should be just as potent if not more than the F-35?

 

I'm just really curious more than before as I thought I understood this but apparently I did not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jonathan_Lotton said:

We're only buying 8...

More than likely they'll be in Eglin forever.   Time will tell if they buy the full "80 aircraft" that "people familiar with Air Force plans" have indicated. 

What would the point be of just limiting your purchase to 8?  That would be less than a squadron's worth and would be a maintenance nightmare to have two very different aircraft in a single unit.  Plus, it pretty much makes it pointless to integrate such a small number in any major engagement.   I was surprised by that number as well but gotta believe that if they actually do purchase those initial 8, they will eventually have significantly more.   

 

Anyone know if the plan (assuming it's even be finalized) is to replace active F-15's with these new ones or just send them to Guard units? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Looks like it's official - the AF is formally requesting 8 F-15X's in their 2020 budget.   This despite some experts fiercely proclaiming that those earlier reports were fake news and the AF never actually wanted these aircraft.    Still find it interesting that they only ordered 8.  Even assuming additional follow up orders in upcoming years, not sure what they'd even do with such a limited initial number, unless they want to turn them into a small, highly capable adversary force?

 

 

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Looks like it's official - the AF is formally requesting 8 F-15X's in their 2020 budget.   This despite some experts fiercely proclaiming that those earlier reports were fake news and the AF never actually wanted these aircraft.    Still find it interesting that they only ordered 8.  Even assuming additional follow up orders in upcoming years, not sure what they'd even do with such a limited initial number, unless they want to turn them into a small, highly capable adversary force?

 

 

 

Lol did you just say they wanted them then wondered why just 8? Because they dont want them. It's a forced move. They wanted F-22s to replace F-15s if you recall. 

 

"Despite some experts fiercely proclaiming..." come now John you seem confused. Just because they're getting them doesnt mean they want them. 2 different things. The Marines wanted all F-35Bs. Had to get C's too. You served, did you forget how things worked? What you want and what you get are 2 different things even up to the rank of general. This "sticking it to the experts" schtick is eye rolling. I don't think the air force is going to burn a bunch of capital to NOT get more airplanes, but it's not even their 2nd choice. 

 

A lot of the "experts" have been the people saying 5th generation or bust the last 15 years anyway. And they wear funny uniforms and fire proof PJs. 

 

Here we are 10 years later and still trying to make up for the F-up of curtailing the F-22. Which the experts warned, was bad and would create capability gaps lol at those silly experts!!! How wrong they were!! 

 

Whatever, we can get some models out of it if it goes through. 

 

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

Lol did you just say they wanted them then wondered why just 8? Because they dont want them. It's a forced move. They wanted F-22s to replace F-15s if you recall. 

 

"Despite some experts fiercely proclaiming..." come now John you seem confused. Just because they're getting them doesnt mean they want them. 2 different things. The Marines wanted all F-35Bs. Had to get C's too. You served, did you forget how things worked? What you want and what you get are 2 different things even up to the rank of general. This "sticking it to the experts" schtick is eye rolling. I don't think the air force is going to burn a bunch of capital to NOT get more airplanes, but it's not even their 2nd choice. 

 

A lot of the "experts" have been the people saying 5th generation or bust the last 15 years anyway. And they wear funny uniforms and fire proof PJs. 

 

Here we are 10 years later and still trying to make up for the F-up of curtailing the F-22. Which the experts warned, was bad and would create capability gaps lol at those silly experts!!! How wrong they were!! 

 

Whatever, we can get some models out of it if it goes through. 

 

 

 

Thanks TT.     As far as who wants these aircraft, I genuinely am confused.   I get that in many cases, unwanted weapons are forced on the services, just wondering who specifically is pushing so hard for these new Eagles?   Sec of AF, Sec of Defense,  congress, Trump (gotta keep in mind how aggressively BA was kissing his butt when he was elected)?  Seems like a long list of potential candidates.   Any thoughts on who?  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In one article about the new F-15X's it was mentioned that the USAF wanted 72 altogether, and further in the text it was implied that they would replace the current Eagles flying with the 18FW. 

 

From a business perspective, competition is what keeps pushing the price. If LM sees the USAF is serious about adding other fighters they will have a strong incentive to cut the price of the F-35 quicker than currently planned. But you have to show that you are serious, and hardly anything more serious than buying from the competitor 😏

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 11bee said:

Thanks TT.     As far as who wants these aircraft, I genuinely am confused.   I get that in many cases, unwanted weapons are forced on the services, just wondering who specifically is pushing so hard for these new Eagles?   Sec of AF, Sec of Defense,  congress, Trump (gotta keep in mind how aggressively BA was kissing his butt when he was elected)?  Seems like a long list of potential candidates.   Any thoughts on who?  

 

 

 

 

Supposedly it was pitched to Gen Mattis who supported the Idea, but he resigned over Syria.

 

A government watchdog group has asked the Department of Defense Inspector General to investigate whether Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan violated ethics rules by promoting Boeing weapons systems while serving as a government official.

Shanahan, 56, worked at Boeing for more than 30 years prior to being tapped by President Donald Trump to serve as deputy secretary of defense under former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. When Mattis submitted his resignation in December, Shanahan was named by Trump as acting defense secretary.

Since coming to the Pentagon, Shanahan has faced criticism over reports that he has touted Boeing’s line of aircraft over rival Lockheed Martin. In the fiscal year 2020 budget released Tuesday, the Air Force is set to purchase up to 80 F-15Xs over the next five years —

 

 

 

a system, made by Boeing, that the Air Force has said it does not want.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told Defense News in February that the budget proposal that we initially submitted did not include additional fourth-generation aircraft.”

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson’s comments confirmed reporting by Defense News and other outlets, which have reported that the decision to buy new F-15X aircraft was essentially forced upon the Air Force. According to sources, the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office was a key backer of the F-15X and was able to garner the support of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Last week, Wilson announced that she was stepping down as Air Force secretary to become president of the University of Texas-El Paso.

Previous news reports indicated that Shanahan has disparaged Lockheed Martin’s fighter, the F-35, and other Lockheed weapons systems in private Pentagon meetings. In January Politico reported that Shanahan called the F-35 “f---ed up” and reportedly said Lockheed “doesn’t know how to run a program.”

“Mr. Shanahan appears to have participated in the decision to include more than $1 billion in federal funds in the 2020 budget cycle for the F-15X fighter aircraft,” the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said in their ethics complaint. “Mr. Shanahan’s reported conduct and comments appear to violate federal regulations and his Ethics Pledge, and CREW therefore requests that you investigate his alleged conduct.”

 

I'm sure its just a coincidence

 

Again I don't think many people in the Air Force actually like the idea, though I'm sure there are those that do just from the "why are you turning down 'free' airplanes?" perspective. Get em now, we will figure it out later. 

 

2 hours ago, Niels said:

 

 

From a business perspective, competition is what keeps pushing the price. If LM sees the USAF is serious about adding other fighters they will have a strong incentive to cut the price of the F-35 quicker than currently planned. But you have to show that you are serious, and hardly anything more serious than buying from the competito😏

 

 

I often wondered about this in the context of Government contract awards. That's basically the opposite of the free market. The F-35 price has been dropping and may actually be cheaper than these eagles. If the Government plans on paying billions in the hope that the F-35 price drops a few million more per unit, I don't understand the logic. Its one of the reasons the F136 got cut. Why are you going to spend billions of dollars you'll never see again in the hope it "drives competition" to save some millions? Especially when there is no chance of going back should it fail or prove to be the lesser. we weren't going to scrap the F136 once it was in operation. 

 

In this case the USAF is going to saddle itself with 72 white elephants that it can't throw away should they prove to be inferior or the gambit fail?  There is also the chance (very slim) that the F-15EX's end up costing more for whatever reason. 

 

In a free market where someone can go back and forth the notion of competition makes sense, but from the military perspective once something gets locked in, its generally locked. And the purpose of the F-35 for Example was to limit other types. The purpose of the F-22 was to replace the F-15. Which goes to show that the military is still "locked in" to the F-15. No matter if the F-35 is technically the future and the better deal. 

 

 

Boeing is basically continuing to improve and sell McAirs fast jets. x-32 was a flop. Nortrhop won LRSB by basically pitching themselves as 'the only company that's ever done anything like the B-2" and it won promoting itself as the "safe and experienced choice" Hard to imagine LM doesn't pitch the same thing using its history of 5th Generation fighters in the future. 

 

Its not that I'm against competition, I just don't know that I expect it to actually save anything in the long run. But backups and redundancy are sometimes worth additional cost. 

 

 

But just to bring it back to the F-15X people are talking somewhere between 80 and 144 in the coming years? cost between 80-125 million each? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

In a free market where someone can go back and forth the notion of competition makes sense, but from the military perspective once something gets locked in, its generally locked. And the purpose of the F-35 for Example was to limit other types. The purpose of the F-22 was to replace the F-15. Which goes to show that the military is still "locked in" to the F-15. No matter if the F-35 is technically the future and the better deal. 

 

 

The USAF apparently have left the "one fighter for everything" thinking, that's why the F-15 is suddenly back on the table. Hence the policy is not to have as few types as possible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Niels said:

 

The USAF apparently have left the "one fighter for everything" thinking, that's why the F-15 is suddenly back on the table. Hence the policy is not to have as few types as possible. 

 

The USAF never had F-15x in their original budget. It was added by someone else. Even up to the secretary of the air force said it was not in their original budget. It was added by someone after submission of the budget by the air force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...