Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

USAF to buy F-15X?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

USAF to buy F-15X?

Old 23rd Dec 2018, 09:52
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,123
USAF to buy F-15X?

USAF to buy F-15X?
It is being claimed by the now normal, 'anonymous sources' that the USAF is to buy 12 F-15X (initially, perhaps more later?) to replace some of the ageing ANG F-15Cs. Previously, the USAF had stated categorically that it had no intentions to buy any new version of the F-15 and that it's efforts and money would be concentrated on the F-35A and lesser upgrades to the existing F-15 and F-16 fleets. Could this be a step change in thinking of going with a mixed fleet of long range, missile trucks to complement the F-22/35, or, as is suggested in the article, down to the machinations of a former Boeing exec who is now in an influential position at the Puzzle Palace? If the story turns out to be true, and the purchase is only going to be 12 new build airframes, then that seems to be an enormous waste of money and perhaps a missed opportunity too?
What say you all?
-RP
Rhino power is online now  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 13:26
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
In January 2019, the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi's wonderful leadership, take control of the House of Representatives where all Spending Bills must originate.

As you might recall, the Democrats hate Defense Spending as every dollar they can divert from the Defense Budget can be poured into their never ending quest to buy votes by giving money away in Social Programs.

Then in Two Years time we have another Presidential Election, an election that will put every single House Seat up for grabs again, and large number of Senate Seats..

When it comes to Defense spending .....nothing is etched in stone because of the way in which the fingers on the Cash Register Keys are affected by Election outcomes.

Trump ran on rebuilding the US Military and had the benefit of Republican control of both Houses of Congress upon taking office.

Any Spending Bill will have to start in the House....go to the Senate for its mark ups....then to a Conference where both Houses seek some workable compromise.

Don't hold your breath thinking you will see a large fleet of new F-15's ever.....as the Teeter-Totter is now leaning back towards Social Spending rather than Defense Spending.
SASless is online now  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 15:45
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,505
It is being claimed by the now normal, 'anonymous sources'

Anonymous sources have been normal since... I have no idea when, but do you remember Chapman Pincher in the Express?

Previously, the USAF had stated categorically that it had no intentions to buy any new version of the F-15

Sorta. Civilian leadership denied that the USAF had discussed anything of the sort when in fact a two-star had talked about such ideas in an industry forum.

Could this be a step change in thinking of going with a mixed fleet of long range, missile trucks to complement the F-22/35

If you think that there is a threat from Russian bombers armed with cruise missiles, this would be a sound idea.

Or, as is suggested in the article, down to the machinations of a former Boeing exec who is now in an influential position at the Puzzle Palace?

He is no dummy, and I would be surprised if he'd crossed any lines.

If the story turns out to be true, and the purchase is only going to be 12 new build airframes

If we're talking about replacing Guard (and Reserve?) F-15s it will be more than that. Given the F-15 backlog, they can take their time. We'll see what the FYDP numbers are.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 16:43
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,851
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
In January 2019, the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi's wonderful leadership, take control of the House of Representatives where all Spending Bills must originate.

As you might recall, the Democrats hate Defense Spending as every dollar they can divert from the Defense Budget can be poured into their never ending quest to buy votes by giving money away in Social Programs.
...reveals an historical truth previously ignored by voters: Since World War II, Republicans, not Democrats, have overseen defense budget cuts that drastically reduced the size of the military.



How the GOP Learned to Love Defense Cuts The Fiscal Times

Since earlier this month, when Congress passed a budget deal that massively boosts both defense and non-defense spending, liberal commentators—and even some Republican politicians—have accused the GOP of hypocrisy. Republicans, they noted, are supposed to loathe debt. They’re supposed to loathe government spending. Yet, in large numbers, they voted for much more of both.

Fair enough. But what about the Democrats? If Republicans are supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with social-welfare spending, aren’t Democrats supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with military spending? Not anymore. In the run-up to the deal, Nancy Pelosi’s office fired off an email to House Democrats proclaiming that, “In our negotiations, Congressional Democrats have been fighting for increases in funding for defense.” Chuck Schumer’s office announced that, “We fully support President Trump’s Defense Department’s request.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ending/553670/

Tough argument to make, even to those of us who are neutral observers from the other side of the pond.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 17:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,505
You've done it now, JTO. Deploying facts and logic against Trumpalos merely annoys them.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 17:54
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,851
Maybe, but we have a similar paradox over here; although that could change with Comrade Corbyn.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 18:07
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,816
Look at the loadout under the wings of the right hand F15X - woo hoo!!


Also, the 2 seat cockpit demonstrator - yes please:



Now that the Harrier Mafia appears to be dissolving in the RAF can we bring back the 2 seat concept as well? Pretty much every other air force has adopted 2 seat, so is it time for change?
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 23:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
LoO.....you might read this.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/p...l-of-congress/
SASless is online now  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 23:31
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 606
Is this any surprise, with Patrick Shanahan being an ex Boeing Exec and Deputy Sectetary of Defence (and possibly Mattis replacement?)

A Boeing businessman in the Pentagon.
gr4techie is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 00:10
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 746
Patrick Shanahan will be taking over as Acting Secretary of Defense effective January1, 2019.

More on the F-15X here - airframe life of 20,000 hours compared with 5,000 hours originally on the F-15C/D - Boeing claims it would pay for itself within 10 years compared to running on the F-15C/D.

Equipment: flat-panel glass cockpit, JHMCS II helmet mounted display, revised internal wing structure, fly-by-wire controls, APG-82 AESA radar, activation of outer wing stations one and nine, advanced mission computer, low-profile heads-up display, updated radio and satellite communications, Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) electronic warfare and electronic surveillance.

Weapon hauling capability with the new AMBER pylon configuration: 22 x AAMs or 8 x AAMs + 28 x Small Diameter Bombs or 8 x AAMs + 7 x 2,000-lb bombs.

USAF's Next Budget Request Will Include New F-15X Advanced Eagle Fighter Jets: Report - The Drive

Exclusive: Unmasking The F-15X, Boeing's F-15C/D Eagle Replacement Fighter - The Drive

https://taskandpurpose.com/f-15x-pen...urchase-order/
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 11:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,130
Lima Juliet,

"Pretty much every other air force has adopted 2 seat, so is it time for change?"

Er, like who?

F-16, F-35, Typhoon, Gripen, F/A-18, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35 all single seat. Surely the only 2 seat are legacy like F-15E and F/A-18D and a few Rafale anomalies?

I think 1 pilot reducing to 0 pilot is the way rather than 1 to 2...
pr00ne is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 11:27
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,816
In a similar way, put conformal tanks on this and you would get a great Tornado GR4 replacement for Stormshadow and ‘Wild Weasel’ type work - self sweeping as well:




Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 11:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,816
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Lima Juliet,

"Pretty much every other air force has adopted 2 seat, so is it time for change?"

Er, like who?

F-16, F-35, Typhoon, Gripen, F/A-18, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35 all single seat. Surely the only 2 seat are legacy like F-15E and F/A-18D and a few Rafale anomalies?

I think 1 pilot reducing to 0 pilot is the way rather than 1 to 2...
So it looks like F15X is going to have 2 seaters, plus the F15E then there are the USMC/USN F18D and F18F (plus the RAAF’s Growler). Then there is the new Israeli F16I which is a 2 seat only variant for deep strike and EW missions. The French have 139 Rafale Bs to replace the 2000N and others, plus they are looking at more 2 seaters. The Sukhoi Su 30 is a two-seater only and is in operation with 13 different nations. The Su 34 is the same as a two seat only aircraft but only in operation with 2 countries. Then there was the Israelis that asked for a 2-seat version of the F35 for wild weasel missions - I believe LM refused. Then the latest fighter variant from Airbus, for France, Germany and possibly Spain is a two seater. Finally, talking to the some of the Tempest team they are also considering two seat (but that is 15 years away).

So quite a few actually...


This is Airbus’s two seat concept to replace German PA200 Tornado and French Rafale.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 12:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,816
PS. Plus the new 2-seat JF17B...


PPS. The F15K is also two seat only...

Last edited by Lima Juliet; 24th Dec 2018 at 23:42.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 14:32
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,505
SasLess - That's a pre-election story, and it cites the Progressive Caucus. JTO's references reflect Planet Reality.

I've seen Adam Smith speak, and he makes more sense than most of the outgoing GOP chairs, who tend to talk about things like the "355-ship Navy" without explaining what ships those should be. (In practice, Navy-by-the-numbers means building more fundamentally flawed LCSs while the naval architecture bureaucracy figures out how to screw up an imported design.) The recent Congressional Commission report follows the same practice - nowhere does it ask "what can we do less of, to do more of something else?"

Historically, real strategic change has meant making sacrifices. For example, the USAF built up vast bomber and interceptor forces in the 1950s at the expense of Army modernization and surface combatants, and lost most of them by the early 1970s. Today, the resistance to any such trades is more powerful than ever, as witness the fate of Air-Sea Battle. It's not a good trend.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 14:51
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
I was wandering around the many miles of corridors in the five sided wind tunnel during the Reagan years when SecNav John Lehman convinced him he needed a 600 Ship Navy.

I did find being in the immediate presence of Lehman quite often in a "Fly On The Wall" circumstance to give me an unusual perspective.

We built that Navy for the most part, and as predicted by sober thinking folks.....found we could afford it, man it, or sustain it over the long term.

I have watched some. really stupid decisions being made by all concerned over the years...Congress, Civilian Leadership, Military Leadership....and Presidents.

I fully agree with what you suggest is yet another chapter in a continuing saga.

Did not Eisenhower warn us about the evil the Military-industrial Complex poses to our Nation?

I specifically recall attending classified briefings by a group from US Navy Intelligence, where various staff dressed and spoke as if they were members of the Russian Navy.

I got the distinct impression the message was the Russian Menace was being over blown to the public, that the real analysis of the Russian Naval Strategy showed them to be "defensive rather than offensive" and that our conduct of naval operations was perhaps more provocative than need be to meet our intelligence gathering operations and Freedom of Navigation Ops.

Sadly, politicians like to see DOD money and other Federal Money pouring into their Districts....so they can brag about bringing home the Bacon.

Some industries require strategic investment in order to maintain the ability to provide War Time growth and production capability.

Other times....it is just plain graft and corruption that drives spending decisions.

Add in the mix the absolute bitter division we are seeing in our politics and the future does not look very promising.

We have squandered many Trillions upon Trillions of Dollars in needless wars and conflicts, failed to wage those wars properly by defeating the enemy and packing up our kit and returning home immediately afterwards.

We stayed in Europe after WWII, Korea after that War, and Iraq and Afghanistan afterwards as well.

I like to look back to the Roman Empire on this .... did they not do the same thing.

Perhaps we should look to history with open eyes and minds.
SASless is online now  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 23:05
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Lima Juliet,

If Israel did in fact ask for a two seater (I haven't seen that reported anywhere, but I don't see everything), it would not be so much that LM refused. First US Gov't would have to approve such a thing, and then the question would be would there be an adverse affect doing that h on the rest of the program domestically and internationally,. Also, who would pay the considerable cost of developing such a craft. If you say Israel, don't forget that a significant portion of their defense funds come from the US, so would we be willing to cough up what it would cost?

IF those questions could be resolved I suspect LM would be thrilled to take their money.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 23:19
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,816
Originally Posted by Commando Cody View Post
Lima Juliet,

If Israel did in fact ask for a two seater (I haven't seen that reported anywhere, but I don't see everything), it would not be so much that LM refused. First US Gov't would have to approve such a thing, and then the question would be would there be an adverse affect doing that h on the rest of the program domestically and internationally,. Also, who would pay the considerable cost of developing such a craft. If you say Israel, don't forget that a significant portion of their defense funds come from the US, so would we be willing to cough up what it would cost?

IF those questions could be resolved I suspect LM would be thrilled to take their money.
CC

Lots of references on the open internet:

Israel has also been a proponent of a two-seat variant of the F-35, which would be convenient for training purposes, and also allow a back-seat Weapon System Officer to manage the F-35s precision-guided weapons while the pilot focuses on flying.
source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...983?page=0%2C1



or

Israel sets sights on two-seater F-35

Israel Aerospace Industries, for example, foresees opportunities to participate in major upgrades and redesigns for the currently single-seat F-35 stealth fighter. IAI has even considered playing a role in the development of a two-seat variant.

"That's possible," an IAI executive says. "There is a known demand for two seats not only from Israel but from other air forces. Advanced aircraft are usually two seats rather than single seats."
Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...r-f-35-337464/

There are loads more, but this kind of shows the intent...
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2018, 17:45
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,505
SASLess - The departure of Andy Marshall and the defunding of the ONA have been part of the problem. There is also the cost of living in DC - as experienced Congressional aides and think-tankers retire, they're being replaced by interns and other politically ambitious strivers.

As for the Russian navy, today's equivalents are the "aggressive" Chinese and Russian nuclear modernization (the Chinese don't seem to have changed their deterrent posture and the Russians are mostly replacing Cold War stuff) and hypersonics (unless we're secretly much better at intercepting ballistics than we seem to be, what's new?)
LowObservable is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2018, 18:29
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
We also have to remember the departure from the "Two War" capability that went by the boards due to the damage done to the National Security interests as a direct result of Sequestration.

Now there is concern we might not be able to respond effectively to a single War.

Trump promised to re-build the Military and seems to. have been somewhat successful in doing that with the Seven Hundred Billion Dollar Appropriation last year and this one.....but with the Democrats taking the House the level of DOD Funding remains uncertain.
SASless is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.