Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
TaiidanTomcat

Air Force officially hates F-15s now

Recommended Posts

So how are these aircraft going to be integrated into the AF, especially in the first few years when they are very few in numbers?  Gradually   replace a squadron of active duty F-15’s or just give them all to the guard?  

Share this post


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

So how are these aircraft going to be integrated into the AF, especially in the first few years when they are very few in numbers?  Gradually   replace a squadron of active duty F-15’s or just give them all to the guard?  

 

No idea. The military can be really anal retentive about cockpit similarity and compatibility as well. These would be different presumably

 

 jjad918.jpg?quality=85

 

VIA AIR FORCE MAG

 

Buying F-15EXs could preserve years of readiness that might otherwise be lost if units transitioned to an all-new airplane, and the fighter could have application to new missions such as a hypersonic missile launch platform, Air Force Director of Strategic Plans and Requirements Maj. Gen. David Krumm told Air Force Magazine Thursday. These factors weighed against the fact that the F-15EX won’t be able to penetrate enemy air defenses, he said. 

In a sidebar following a speech at an AFA Mitchell Institute event, Krumm said “cost of ownership” is one of the pluses in favor of buying new F-15s.

“There’s 80-90 percent commonality” between the F-15C and the F-15EX, Krumm said, adding the new aircraft can use all the aerospace ground equipment now used for the C-model of the Eagle.

“That’s all already in the inventory,” he said, but the similarity of aircraft also means “we’re looking at a transition time of months—less than six months”—to transition units now flying the C-model to EX. “Typically, [with] an Active unit, that takes 18 months; with the Guard, it takes three years…If you average that out, Active and Guard, each time we do that we save about two years of readiness,” meaning aircraft available for combat use that would otherwise be sidelined, “And that’s important for us.”

He insisted, though, that USAF is “committed to the F-35, and I think we’ve outlined that in the budget.” In Q&A after his speech, Krumm said the F-35 “is a game-changer” and “we won’t take one dime” out of 5th-gen capability, but the F-15C “won’t make it to 2030” due to its age and structural fatigue. He also said the lead time for buying any new fighter is “about two years.” Krumm denied the F-15EX will “take anything away from NGAD,” or Next-Generation Air Dominance, the family of systems that will complement and/or replace the F-22 and F-35.

Brand-new F-15EXs will have strong bones and could last a long time—Krumm said 20,000 hours—meaning it could potentially serve well into the 2040s or 50s. The Air Force has said the F-15 won’t be survivable against modern air defenses after 2028, so is it worth it to the service to spend the money to keep a non-stealthy, 1970s design into the 2040s?

“I think what we know is that we’re going to be fighting with 4th-gen [aircraft] in 2028, and in 2035, we’re still going to have those,” including the A-10 and F-16, he told Air Force Magazine. “The way to use these things is to collaborate on a network, and it’s going to be, what can those things bring to the fight faster?”

The new Eagle could be a launch platform for “standoff weapons, hypersonics … They can go a long ways to assist the penetrating forces,” Krumm noted.

Air Force leaders have said they are seeking an early, interim hypersonics capability, and having F-15s that are not speed-limited due to their age could be helpful in that pursuit. The F-15 design is technically capable of exceeding Mach 3, and so could accelerate a hypersonic missile close to its Mach 5-plus operating regime. That in turn would permit smaller booster rockets for the rest of the acceleration to Mach 5 for weapons such as the Tactical Boost Glide hypersonic concept. The F-35, which was not designed to be USAF’s high-end dogfighter, has a top speed of Mach 1.6, and the first generation of hypersonic missiles is unlikely to fit inside its weapons bay.

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2020 budget request includes about $1 billion for eight F-15EX “advanced Eagles,” a decision that stemmed from former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. 

Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, the “framework” for that decision came from a study of the future needs of the military’s tactical aircraft fleet, which showed the Air Force had a shortage in its number of aircraft and the amount of ordnance those aircraft could carry. When combined with the fact the F-15C will age out in the 2027-2028 timeframe, Dunford said “the best solution” was to go with the F-15EX to “backfill” the F-15 fleet.  

The EX-variant initially would only be “slightly” cheaper to buy than a new F-35, but it will be more than 50 percent cheaper than the Joint Strike Fighter to operate over its life. Additionally, it has “twice as many hours” in terms of how long it lasts, he added.

The Air Force’s five-year Future Years Defense Plan calls for buying 80 of the F-15EXs, though the ultimate buy could be as many as 144. 

“This is all about making the best use of the resources we’ve been given and building the best Air Force that we can,” Krumm said. The F-15EX is “what we came up with … We will find a way to make this the best we can. We have to, anyway, and this is a capacity we think we need.”

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might believe all that if Boeing/USAF was also trying to build and buy new B-52EX bombers to ease the transition to the B-21.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

The Air Force’s five-year Future Years Defense Plan calls for buying 80 of the F-15EXs, though the ultimate buy could be as many as 144. 

 

That total is predicated on future defense budgets remaining as fat as they currently are.   Assuming this won't be the case after the next year or two, where does that leave the AF?   With a mini fleet of 16 or so of these new Eagles?   I have to believe that if budgets are significantly cut, this purchase would be one of the first to go, especially if turns out that F-35's are in peril.   If that happens, would there be issues managing and integrating such a small number of jets?

Share this post


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

That total is predicated on future defense budgets remaining as fat as they currently are.   Assuming this won't be the case after the next year or two, where does that leave the AF?   With a mini fleet of 16 or so of these new Eagles?   I have to believe that if budgets are significantly cut, this purchase would be one of the first to go, especially if turns out that F-35's are in peril.   If that happens, would there be issues managing and integrating such a small number of jets?

 

IT could be a huge problem if they get small fleet and the parts that are not compatible with the current Eagles are suddenly rare. They estimated between 80-90 percent common, which is great obviously but if suddenly they are a limited run those 20-10 percent parts may wipe out any savings or aircraft availability one as hoping for...

 

 

I just can't imagine buying new F-4s in the mid 1990s. 

 

 

Mattis is being... I don't want to say blamed, but lets say "responsibled" for this idea seeing as he is now gone. so hes a fine scape goat. The ACTING SecDef is a Boeing guy of 30 years,  and has the job only after Mattis Resigned over Syria, And "out of nowhere" and against what the SecAF has said these Boeing F-15s suddenly show up. Its already attracted the attention of Civilian Watch Dog Groups. 

 

One of my favorite phrases, and its ignored by nearly every organization I've ever worked for: "what accomplishes the mission is good, and what gets in the way of that is bad" I know that sounds ridiculously obvious, but you would be shocked how few organizations and humans actually do this.  Its absolutely true that Teen fighters are still going to be around in the 2030s, but the idea is they are on the way out, and the numbers are shrinking along the way. The objective is to replace 4th gen with 5th gen. Buying more 4th gen gets in the way of that mission. SecAF already talked about the Ratios of 4th:5th Gen they are hoping for, and this once again makes the Ratios of their planned force structure move the needle the wrong way. 

 

We simply can't keep ordering "everything on the menu" forever. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This buy has nothing to do with USAF, fleet modernization, air superiority or increased capability. 

 

It has everything to do with keeping the production lines open in St Louis and keeping as many jobs there as politically possible. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CF-15EX

Image result for Canadian F-15

:woot.gif:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

FY2020 USAF Budget Doc:

 

F-15EX "details" are just "airframe", no GFE, CFE, avionics, engines, etc. REC Flyway is $80mil but full Flyaway is $131 mil.

"The pre-decisional plan is for the first two aircraft ordered in FY20 to be taken from the existing production line and delivered approximately 2 years after contract award to support flight testing. The subsequent delivery of aircraft 3-8, also ordered in FY20, are expected approximately 3 to 3.5 years after contract award."
 

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/

 

These bad boys are READY NOW in 3 to 3.5 years!

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

FY2020 USAF Budget Doc:

 

F-15EX "details" are just "airframe", no GFE, CFE, avionics, engines, etc. REC Flyway is $80mil but full Flyaway is $131 mil.

"The pre-decisional plan is for the first two aircraft ordered in FY20 to be taken from the existing production line and delivered approximately 2 years after contract award to support flight testing. The subsequent delivery of aircraft 3-8, also ordered in FY20, are expected approximately 3 to 3.5 years after contract award."
 

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/

 

These bad boys are READY NOW in 3 to 3.5 years!

 

 

 

Uelw.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones ..."

 

 

-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pentagon's Watchdog Is Investigating Whether the Acting Defense Secretary Boosted Boeing 

By W.J. Hennigan 


Updated: March 20, 2019 3:49 PM ET 

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General confirmed it has launched an investigation into whether Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan has violated any ethics rules by promoting his former employer Boeing while serving in the Trump Administration.


The investigation comes a week after a government watchdog group, called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), wrote a nine-page complaint to the Pentagon’s inspector general urging the agency to scrutinize the relationship. At issue is whether Shanahan pushed the Pentagon to buy more Boeing-made F-15X fighter jets, which the Air Force does not want, and whether he criticized Boeing-rival Lockheed Martin Corp. during government meetings. 

 

http://time.com/5555186/patrick-shanahan-defense-ethics-probe/

 

6 minutes ago, GreyGhost said:

"Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones ..."

 

 

-Gregg

 

Shouldn't have to wait years for teen fighters, when your selling point is the speed in which they'll be ready. Especially as the F-35 slog is finally over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it though ...?

 

-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GreyGhost said:

Is it though ...?

 

-Gregg

Given the absolutely horrific readiness numbers that just came out, I’d argue that the JSF program isn’t quite ready for prime time yet.  

 

Share this post


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

Given the absolutely horrific readiness numbers that just came out, I’d argue that the JSF program isn’t quite ready for prime time yet.  

 

 

 

Compared to what?? What are the numbers?

 

 

The F-35B's first combat strike was in Afghanistan in September, where the Marine pilots were flying close-air support missions, said Lt. Col. Kyle Shoop, VMFA-211's commanding officer.

From there, they flew more than 50 days' worth of close-air support and defensive counter-air missions in Iraq and Syria.

"Every day, [the pilots] were supporting over six hours of time in theater," Shoop said.

The Marines were prepared for a higher-level fight had they been provoked by other actors in the region, he added. Their encounters with pilots from Russia, which is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, were minimal though, he said.

"We were aware they were airborne," Shoop said. "There are some established de-conflictions that are already set up between Russian and U.S. forces. They were all adhered to, but we were aware."

The F-35Bs were able to give troops on the ground more information than would have been possible in the AV-8B Harrier jump jet, which the Joint Strike Fighter will eventually replace. Its sensors are better in poor weather, Shoop said.

The Marines ended up flying the F-35B about twice as much as the Harrier flew on past deployments, Nelms said.

"A conservative estimate is the F-35 flew 100 percent more hours on this deployment than a typical deployment for a Harrier squadron," he said. "When you consider that their readiness was 75 percent or better ... while doubling the amount of flight hours being flown, it's a real testament to the aircraft and the maintainers."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Compared to what?? What are the numbers?

 

 

From a recent article:

 

"The Navy document POGO obtained shows that the problem persists: the Marines' F-35B and the Navy's F-35C variants posted even worse figures in 2018 than in the previous year," the report said.

"The F-35B's fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018," the group added.

 

Obviously these are not the AF variants but from the articles that came out, the A version, is doing better but not by much.    Since it's OT to this thread, I'll post the articles I've seen in the F-35 thread and the experts can jump in and dissect the info to tell us how bad (or good) things really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, 11bee said:

 

From a recent article:

 

"The Navy document POGO obtained shows that the problem persists: the Marines' F-35B and the Navy's F-35C variants posted even worse figures in 2018 than in the previous year," the report said.

"The F-35B's fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018," the group added.

 

Obviously these are not the AF variants but from the articles that came out, the A version, is doing better but not by much.    Since it's OT to this thread, I'll post the articles I've seen in the F-35 thread and the experts can jump in and dissect the info to tell us how bad (or good) things really are.

 

It's pretty much OT here because there is no other way to spin the idea that the F-15X buy is going to compete againt F-35 funding one way or another. Not to mention the "5th gen or bust" weve been hearing for 20 years...

 

So the Marines are saying 75 percent on a deployment with -211 which is better than every other USMC fighter and especially the Hornet and the USAF is saying 70 percent in some squadrons and a fleetwide average of 60 percent which is better than even the F-22

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 8:58 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

The Pentagon's Watchdog Is Investigating Whether the Acting Defense Secretary Boosted Boeing 

By W.J. Hennigan 


Updated: March 20, 2019 3:49 PM ET 

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General confirmed it has launched an investigation into whether Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan has violated any ethics rules by promoting his former employer Boeing while serving in the Trump Administration.


The investigation comes a week after a government watchdog group, called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), wrote a nine-page complaint to the Pentagon’s inspector general urging the agency to scrutinize the relationship. At issue is whether Shanahan pushed the Pentagon to buy more Boeing-made F-15X fighter jets, which the Air Force does not want, and whether he criticized Boeing-rival Lockheed Martin Corp. during government meetings. 

 

http://time.com/5555186/patrick-shanahan-defense-ethics-probe/

 

 

Shouldn't have to wait years for teen fighters, when your selling point is the speed in which they'll be ready. Especially as the F-35 slog is finally over. 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×