USAF News and Discussion

[Terran]

noted for future reference.

Here Is Our First Look At One Of Boeing's New F-15EX Eagle Fighter Jets For The Air Force

Air Force just awarded Boeing a contract worth nearly $23 billion related to these aircraft, which includes the purchase of the first lot.

www.thedrive.com

First images of the F15EX in the Primer. 8 were purchased for delivery this year. Initial units use F110 GE 129. This may change as there is now to be a competition with P&W’s F100 PW 229.

 

[ngatimozart]

noted for future reference.

Here Is Our First Look At One Of Boeing's New F-15EX Eagle Fighter Jets For The Air Force

Air Force just awarded Boeing a contract worth nearly $23 billion related to these aircraft, which includes the purchase of the first lot.

www.thedrive.com

First images of the F15EX in the Primer. 8 were purchased for delivery this year. Initial units use F110 GE 129. This may change as there is now to be a competition with P&W’s F100 PW 229.

She's going to be a formidable platform. Boeing reckoned that they can supply the aircraft for the low US$80 millions, but I wonder if they actually can. I have my doubts considering their history over the last few years.

 

[John Fedup]

She's going to be a formidable platform. Boeing reckoned that they can supply the aircraft for the low US$80 millions, but I wonder if they actually can. I have my doubts considering their history over the last few years.

If they can actually price this in the low $80million range, then IMO it makes for a better NORAD solution for the RCAF than the SH. However, I agree it is doubtful Boeing can get the price in this range.

 

[Ranger25]

Intent to acquire up to 144 units is substantial. With the upgraded Avionics suite and weapons capacity the airframe will make a great additional to a fifth gen flight group

 

[ngatimozart]

Intent to acquire up to 144 units is substantial. With the upgraded Avionics suite and weapons capacity the airframe will make a great additional to a fifth gen flight group

Yes it would. I quite like it as a platform and with new engines the fuel burn will be less.

 

[ngatimozart]

Intent to acquire up to 144 units is substantial. With the upgraded Avionics suite and weapons capacity the airframe will make a great additional to a fifth gen flight group

The intent now is to acquire 200 aircraft, Air Force Now Wants Up to 200 F-15EXs, with a flyaway cost of US$87.7 million including 2 engines at approx. The article notes that F-35A Lot 14 flyaway price is US$77.9 million including the single F-135 engine. So the price difference between the two is the price of a F-15EX engine.

The USAF head of acquisition has concerns about the decreasing defence industrial base and that at some stage the advanced aviation part of it may have to be nationalised, Air Force’s Roper Sparks Debate On ‘Nationalizing Advanced Aviation’ Industry. He went on to say that preliminary studies have shown that the Digital Century Series of fighter acquisition shows some long term savings over the current acquisition process. However outside experts have been bought into to check the USAF assumptions and math. This is an interesting concept that does have its detractors.

 

[Ranger25]

Roper has also recently discussed the progress on the B21. Sounds like it may reach IOC as expected in the early 20s He indicated the program was on schedule.

Sounds like the B21 may be deployed within 2 years. Total award is still in the 80-100 airframes.

America's New B-21 Stealth Bomber Is Just Two-Years Away

America's New B-21 Stealth Bomber Is Just Two-Years Away

defensemaven.io

 

[Boagrius]

Another piece on the Digital Century Series that echoes some of my own concerns about the concept:

The Air Force’s new approach to fighter development harkens back to the Cold War’s Century Series, which created a half-dozen jet designs in less than a decade to gain an edge over improving Soviet aircraft. The new “Digital Century Series,” brainchild of wunderkind acquisition chief Will Roper, aims to use modular “plug and play” hardware and software, computer-aided design, and virtual modeling & simulation to rapidly field new fighter variants, with less of the cumbersome integration and real-world testing that bog down modern R&D...

...The Digital Century Series will instead fall right in the middle with the worst combination of attributes: aircraft that are too expensive to buy in the large numbers required for adaptability and complexity, but too limited in their functionality to be effective as a small force. It’s worth remembering that the Air Force bought at least 800 copies of each of the original Century Series variants...

...Unmanned platforms would make the most of the Digital Century Series approach by placing fewer design and testing constraints on developers. Unmanned vehicles would also enable the Digital Century Series to employ and mature technology for small batch manufacturing. Lying between artisanal prototyping and mass production, engineers using this technique construct a vehicle using off-the-shelf components that are integrated using middleware built from open source code or 3D printing. The resulting aircraft would contain a large portion of existing well-understood components, reducing test requirements and supply chain challenges. A manned aircraft would be less likely to harvest these benefits.

I do worry about the potential for this approach to produce penny packet fleets of orphan aircraft whose production runs are too small to be affordable, exportable or worse of all - deployable. The concept of shifting this approach to UAS makes a lot more sense IMO.

Air Force ‘Digital Century Series’ Is Stuck In The Wrong Century - Breaking Defense

Acquisition chief Will Roper wants to replicate the rapid-fire development of new fighter jets in the 1950s. He should focus on new drones instead.

breakingdefense.com

 

[SolarWind]

noted for future reference.

Here Is Our First Look At One Of Boeing's New F-15EX Eagle Fighter Jets For The Air Force

Air Force just awarded Boeing a contract worth nearly $23 billion related to these aircraft, which includes the purchase of the first lot.

www.thedrive.com

First images of the F15EX in the Primer. 8 were purchased for delivery this year. Initial units use F110 GE 129. This may change as there is now to be a competition with P&W’s F100 PW 229.

Why not make F-15 Stealth Eagle? Would it not be better to have a multirole stealth plane?

Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle - Airforce Technology

The F-15SE features an innovative design which reduces its radar cross section. A prototype of the F-15SE Silent Eagle aircraft was first unveiled in March 2009.

www.airforce-technology.com

 

[Terran]

Why not make F-15 Stealth Eagle? Would it not be better to have a multirole stealth plane?

Because it isn’t stealth.
The Silent Eagle idea failed as all it would have been was an F15 with the cross section return of a F/A18E for the price of an F22. Reduced range and payloads increased cost. The F15 wasn’t designed to be Stealth the modifications proposed for Silent Eagle wouldn’t fix that. It would have been stealthy like modern F16 or Rino Hornets To get a true stealth you would need to start from scratch.
here is a reprint of a war is boring article on the matter form 8/2018.

Forget the Old F-15: The Air Force Could Have a Stealthy F-15SE "Silent Eagle"

Key Point: A stealthy F-15 sounds like a good idea in theory, but it is unclear how much it would cost. Given that the military already has the super stealthy F-35, it would not make sense to purchase another expensive fighter. A recent article concerning Boeing’s pitch to the U.S. Air Force of...

nationalinterest.org

 

[the concerned]

I think the USAF should consider buying enough of the new F-15's to replace both c's and e's . This would actually give them extra time to concentrate on developing a 6th generation plane to replace the raptor then hopefully a strike aircraft for the future.

 

[Terran]

I think the USAF should consider buying enough of the new F-15's to replace both c's and e's . This would actually give them extra time to concentrate on developing a 6th generation plane to replace the raptor then hopefully a strike aircraft for the future.

The main issue is the F15C and F15D at the heart of the problem is a structural flaw in a critical component of the aircraft’s skeleton the Longeron. This is then followed by the aircraft’s age. Older A and B variants are now more or less retired but that issue remains. This lead to an in air break up of at least one fighter. Today replacement of that component is done when able but that’s a patch job.
F15E when it was developed reinforced the entire body of the aircraft due to concern over high speed low altitude operation as a strike fighter. The reason why F15EX will not replace F15E is that 1, F15EX is basically a heavily modified F15E neither has the Longeron issue. 2, this is a patch job. F15C and D were slated to last until the 2060s but the structural issue would have caused that life to fall far short.

Replacement of Raptor isn’t as a big a deal as some might make it out to be. F22 although bought only in limited numbers isn’t slated to be replaced until the 2070s.
What it needs is a mid life Service update refocusing to move units from home defense missions to more active offense and replacement engines.
Buying huge numbers of F15EX would eat into that. especially since by the USAF own estimate the EX would really only be suited for home defense missions. The hope of the 6th gen for the USAF is really to fill the fleet numbers and phase out the remaining F15 units that are not replaced with EX. These would take the place of the remainder of older F15 and be offensive along side Raptors, Raiders and Lightning.

 

[Boagrius]

Regarding 6th gen: The thing I like about applying the century series approach to UAS rather than manned fighters is that it dovetails nicely with the crawl-walk-run approach needed to allow unmanned systems to steadily take over some of the roles currently performed by manned systems, and provides an accessible pathway for smaller companies to eventually enter the tactical fighter market competitively.

A company like Kratos might struggle to produce a serious 6th gen tactical fighter today, but continued experience refining their UAS designs over the years could result in a different outlook in a decade or more where accumulated corporate knowledge might help them and their peers compete on a more equal footing with LM and Boeing. It would still be tough, but expecting smaller companies to break the existing duopoly with a fully fledged 6th gen aircraft right out of the gate doesn't strike me as start-crawl-walk-run, it is simply start-run(-fail?).

 

[ngatimozart]

I do worry about the potential for this approach [digital Century Series] to produce penny packet fleets of orphan aircraft whose production runs are too small to be affordable, exportable or worse of all - deployable. The concept of shifting this approach to UAS makes a lot more sense IMO.

I actually don't think so because you will have new aircraft being developed and IOC a lot quicker instead of one aircraft taking 20 - 30 years to reach IOC, and costing a humongous amount of treasure before it even reaches active service. You have incremental increases in capability that go into the following aircraft and if they last 15 years that's good. Don't forget many air forces will be happy for a fighter / strike aircraft that is realitively inexpensive to own and operate, capable, and will last them 20 years. Technology is advancing so quickly theses days that platforms with a service life of 40+ years may become anachronistic.

 

[Boagrius]

I actually don't think so because you will have new aircraft being developed and IOC a lot quicker instead of one aircraft taking 20 - 30 years to reach IOC, and costing a humongous amount of treasure before it even reaches active service. You have incremental increases in capability that go into the following aircraft and if they last 15 years that's good. Don't forget many air forces will be happy for a fighter / strike aircraft that is realitively inexpensive to own and operate, capable, and will last them 20 years. Technology is advancing so quickly theses days that platforms with a service life of 40+ years may become anachronistic.

Time shall tell I guess. I suspect relatively inexpensive UAS may lend themselves more naturally to this model but it will be interesting to see how it all plays out - especially as UAS capabilities become progressively more sophisticated over time and the gap between what they can accomplish vis a vis their manned counterparts continues to narrow.

 

[John Fedup]

I actually don't think so because you will have new aircraft being developed and IOC a lot quicker instead of one aircraft taking 20 - 30 years to reach IOC, and costing a humongous amount of treasure before it even reaches active service. You have incremental increases in capability that go into the following aircraft and if they last 15 years that's good. Don't forget many air forces will be happy for a fighter / strike aircraft that is realitively inexpensive to own and operate, capable, and will last them 20 years. Technology is advancing so quickly theses days that platforms with a service life of 40+ years may become anachronistic.

The key is inexpensive to own and operate for 20 years. Most nations operate fighter fleets for 30-40 years because they don’t want the political/cost blowback from their electorates on a more frequent timeline. Renewing fast jets every 20 years would be a challenge for pollies without significant cost/performance advantages.

 

[Boagrius]

The key is inexpensive to own and operate for 20 years. Most nations operate fighter fleets for 30-40 years because they don’t want the political/cost blowback from their electorates on a more frequent timeline. Renewing fast jets every 20 years would be a challenge for pollies without significant cost/performance advantages.

Yes I think this is the big challenge. As I've said before fighter jets worthy of the name strike me as inherently expensive things. I just don't see how you stitch together a modern AESA radar, EW gear, MAWS, VLO features, a modern engine etc etc into a workable package and come up with something that could sanely be called inexpensive. That said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong so we will see.

 

[Terran]

A company like Kratos

It should be noted that what Kratos did is less from scratch. The adapted the Existing BQM167 target drone into a UCAV. This isn’t a stand alone fighter but more of a wingman or rapid scramble close range air to air drone. That is launched from a rail with rockets or... off the wings of a mother ship.
these images are from last week show an USAF F15 with a UTAP 22 in Navy colors Acting more like a Remora than a Mako.
http://instagr.am/p/B3-2NvghiDn/

 

[John Fedup]

This article from Defence One suggests nine reasons for why the F-15EX should be rejected. Assuming the costs numbers are accurate, overall the combination of reasons makes for a compelling argument. Reason 8, maintaining the fighter manufacturing base (this was one of features of the F-15EX purchase) is weak IMO. Boeing, at best might stretch SH production to 2030 and I don’t consider trainers as persevering the fighter manufacturing base. The US government should have arranged the JSF program to mandate the winner to allow license builds to another vendor. Having Boeing manufacturing F-35s instead of F-15EXs would also preserve the base, even if it were only the B and C versions.

Nine Reasons Congress Should Nix the Air Force’s F-15EX Purchase

None of the service's proffered explanations stands up to analysis.

www.defenseone.com

 

[ngatimozart]

This article from Defence One suggests nine reasons for why the F-15EX should be rejected. Assuming the costs numbers are accurate, overall the combination of reasons makes for a compelling argument. Reason 8, maintaining the fighter manufacturing base (this was one of features of the F-15EX purchase) is weak IMO. Boeing, at best might stretch SH production to 2030 and I don’t consider trainers as persevering the fighter manufacturing base. The US government should have arranged the JSF program to mandate the winner to allow license builds to another vendor. Having Boeing manufacturing F-35s instead of F-15EXs would also preserve the base, even if it were only the B and C versions.

Nine Reasons Congress Should Nix the Air Force’s F-15EX Purchase

None of the service's proffered explanations stands up to analysis.

www.defenseone.com

There are arguments for and against, but I don't think this argument is the best against one around. I am of the school of thought that putting all your eggs in the one basket isn't the brightest of ideas and I do think that there is an argument for a F-35 / F-15EX combination that could prove to be quite lethal.