Boeing Unveils New Stealthy F-15

[Air Force Brat]

I am sure if you ever saw a Lightning II in flight, and her cockpit at an air show, you would be singing its praises too. I get goose bumps every time a Lightning II takes off and land as I drive under them in Fort Worth, TX. There is a reason why two different US governments from two different political parties killed Raptor production.

I am sure you love your lightning II, after watching a video, or two its a nice airplane, my point is theres also a reason our follow on partners are fleeing the F-35 by the dozens, without the scale of thousands, the supposed cost savings will never materialize. We have thrown ourselves into the idea that we are invincible, not only arrogant, but not true! I just ask that you have a look back to the early 50s, the idea that we are so far superior in quality, that we have no need of quantity! The Soviet pilots flying their Migs for the Chinese Communists put us on notice, the fellows flying Mustangs and Bearcats had a bit of a surprise with the classy Mig-15, and the P-80s and F84s were no match for the swift, tight turning, and fabulous climb of the Mig. We were getting our butts kicked until the Sabrejet was up to speed. While I am well aware that production of the F-22 is coming to an end this spring, it will give me no pleasure when the sleepers realize too late that the best bird for the job, is no longer available because some bean counters got together and decided it cost to much. I'm afraid I do know a lot of those folks, my point is the single engine, porky little F-35 bears a sad resemblance to the old Seversky P-35 that we valiantly put up against the Japanese zero zen, certainly the Pak-Fa is a surprise already, as is the J-20. I myself am not willing to bet my freedom, or the freedom of this great nation on the bean counters, but you go ahead. My point is that its always better to here the bean counters say, I told you we didn't need it, than to hear some wise old sage say if only they would have listened!

 

[Air Force Brat]

It is too late. You may have missed it, but the F-22A Raptor program was capped at 187 aircraft by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, President Obama and the United States Senate, all the way back in 2009. The last F-22 airframes are in production, due to roll off in early 2012 and that will be it. All the SME's that produce all the little parts that go together to make an F-22A are or have already moved on to other projects.

There are no more funds and no more F-22A airplanes.

You will have to learn to play with what you've got...

As you missed the announcement clearly, here it is summarised:

Announcement duly noted, my plea is to reopen the raptor line, while there are/is an aircraft still on it. I would remind you that Jimmy Carter killed the Bone, but a wiser man resurrected it. I am well aware of Senior Gates, I am well aware that Senior Rumsfeld before him had already marked the Raptor as persona non-grata. I would also point out that at the time those decisions where made, that the Russian Defense Ministry was still in the throes of financial malaise, and that Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin were "Buds", Russia was dismissed at least publicly as an adversary, as was China, and we were all making nicey nice. The "War on Terrorism" was ramping down and we were moving in to the nation building process in Iraq, and Afghanistan looked to be drawing to a police/observation advisory phase. The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority aircraft, with a secondary air to ground capability, as was the F-15 at its inception. The F-35 is a one size fits all aircraft, much like the F-4 in Vietnam which lacked an internal gun as well as the ability to stay with the smaller more agile Migs. From an asthetic standpoint the F-35 looks more akin to the F-17 Woblin Goblini, than an air superiorty fighter. I may be the only one, but the Pak-Fa looked very good on display this summer and appeared to be quite capable in the air to air role, in addition the J-20 has now flown for all the world to see, and while it has a way to go, may in fact have some potential. That along with the frenetic activity of both the Russians and the Chinese to ramp up defense spending, with the express purpose of matching and meeting the US on a future battlefield, with the revenue stream favoring the Russian and the Chinese. To modify one of my old Daddy's sayings, if you have enough money you can make anything fly. The F-35 has turned into a money pit, the upgraded F-15 is a considerably more mature and at present far more capable aircraft, with proven capability both air to air and air to ground in the E-model. My point is simply that the Raptor is an ace in the hole, keep the line open and the supply line available for the inevitable attrition, upgrade and support the F-15, F-16, and F-18, put the F-35 on the back burner and let the designers keep workin the kinks out, and pray that we don't have any more UAV's that fly to Iran and give themselves up!

 

[Air Force Brat]

I am sure if you ever saw a Lightning II in flight, and her cockpit at an air show, you would be singing its praises too. I get goose bumps every time a Lightning II takes off and land as I drive under them in Fort Worth, TX. There is a reason why two different US governments from two different political parties killed Raptor production.

Today was a sad day for Air Superiority in the free world, as the last F-22 rolled off the assembly line. My real concern is that the real player in LO air superiority has had her wings clipped, as Sea Toby noted, by politicians in the military as well as civilian life. The statement continues to be made, "we can't afford it", reminds me of my very sweet and intelligent wife every time we purchase a nice used vehicle. My response is "can we afford not to". Never in modern history has the USAF played with such a short hand, and no one who's ever been in a aircraft over open water, wouldn't like that second engine. Those who continue to argue that technology , bvr engagement, and UCAVs negate the need for a true air superiority fighter. All fighter aircraft are expensive, building airplanes today that we will have to fix in five years is false economy, thank God for the old F-15, she is still very, very good! However, with the first flight of the J-20, and the outstanding flight demonstration of the Pak-Fa at Maks 2011, to sell the Competition short because "we are so far ahead", was shown to be a sad assumption today, when the world was informed, " sorry, we stole your stealth drone."

 

[fretburner]

Canted tails optional...

Boeing Cuts F-15SE Design Feature in Korean Fighter Bid

"...And now, Boeing said the canted tail-fin configuration would be offered only as an option and not a standard feature on the F-15SE..."

With Japan buying the F-35, I don't think would win this contest.

 

[SteelTiger 177]

Has Boeing announced plans on exporting this particular variant of the F15 or is it barred from export like the F-22?I would hope the Isrealis give some thought of buy this variant given that Obama is unwilling to sell Raptors to Israel and would be an improvement on their current force of F-15s and such a sale would be helpful should the F35 run into future troubles.

 

[Bonza]

Has Boeing announced plans on exporting this particular variant of the F15 or is it barred from export like the F-22?I would hope the Isrealis give some thought of buy this variant given that Obama is unwilling to sell Raptors to Israel and would be an improvement on their current force of F-15s and such a sale would be helpful should the F35 run into future troubles.

I warned you about posting crap and letting others do the quality control for you, instead of just spending a bit more time reading on topics before you post about them. Apparently you ignored this, so now you're going on holiday for a while to think it over.

 

[Cadredave]

Has Boeing announced plans on exporting this particular variant of the F15 or is it barred from export like the F-22?

Why would the F15SE be barred from export if I may ask, none of its LO capabilities are in built into the aircraft. The F22 I totally agree with as it was purpose designed from the get go to have LO/VLO.

I would hope the Isrealis give some thought of buy this variant given that Obama is unwilling to sell Raptors to Israel and would be an improvement on their current force of F-15s and such a sale would be helpful should the F35 run into future troubles.

GB government refused to sell those F22 to anyone carried on by Obamas government you all need to get over the fact that the F22 line is dead, closed never to be reopened again plus Israel are not mugs they know the difference between a make believe LO aircraft to a purpose designed one knowing full well that Boeing are looking for partners to help fund the F15SE.

 

[Todjaeger]

GB government refused to sell those F22 to anyone carried on by Obamas government you all need to get over the fact that the F22 line is dead, closed never to be reopened again plus Israel are not mugs they know the difference between a make believe LO aircraft to a purpose designed one knowing full well that Boeing are looking for partners to help fund the F15SE.

Actually a bit more to it than that. Enough so that a Sticky was posted here.

In a nutshell, Congress passed a law which prohibited the Gov't from spending any money on the sale of the F-22 to any foreign nation. Given that all arms exports (except possibly some to Canada) need to go through the State Dept and Congress for approval, the inability for Gov't to spend any money means that the work State would need to do for FMS, the work needed for it to go to Congress, etc all that cannot be done.

Until that law is changed (and the F-22 line restarted) then discussion of foreign sales is pointless.

-Cheers

 

[OPSSG]

Back in 2002, the South Koreans picked the F-15K for its F-X Next Generation Fighter Program, where they placed an order for 40 aircraft powered by F110-GE-129 engines (with a single F-15K that crashed during training in June 2006). In 2008, a 2nd F-X Phase II contract was signed for 21 more F-15Ks powered by F100-PW-229 EEP (Pratt & Whitney F100 also power Korean F-16s).

In the F-X Phase III project, there has been some developments that would make Boeing executives happy and the Korean Government happy (having squeezed Boeing through the bidding process).

SEOUL, Aug. 18 - The Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) has reportedly been eliminated from South Korea's multibillion-dollar project to buy new fighter jets, leaving Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle as the sole final candidate, government sources in Seoul said Sunday.

Earlier on Sunday, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration said that one of the two finalists -- Boeing and EADS -- in the nation's 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) fighter project has dropped out of the bidding due to problems with their documents...

...The committee, presided over by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, is to hold the committee in mid-September in order to finally pick a fight jet model to be introduced to South Korea's Air Force.

The competition to win the South Korean project narrowed to a two-way race last week after the two aerospace firms offered their fighter jets for prices below the South Korea's state budget set at 8.3 trillion won. Another player Lockheed Martin submitted a price for its F-35 stealth, exceeding the state budget.

By way of background, Korea operates about 180 F-16s and they have plans for BAE to upgrade 134 of these aircraft with improved avionics and Raytheon’s Advanced Combat Radar (RACR) in a 1.3 trillion won (US$1.1 billion) contract. The Koreans also have contracts signed for the domestic production of FA-50 by Korea Aerospace Industries. I believe they have 60 aircraft contracted in a deal worth US$1 billion (with eventual plans to acquire a 150 of these aircraft). Please correct me, if I have got the numbers wrong.

 

[ADMk2]

Yep it seems based on lower cost, Korea is preferring the uber-F-15 over the F-35 or Eurofighter Typhoon.

Given the demonstrated capability and operational record of the F-15, it says a lot for the F-35 (and Typhoon for that matter) that the Korean Air Force prefers the F-35 to it, but the bureaucrats won't let them buy it on a cost basis...

 

[OPSSG]

Yep it seems based on lower cost...

A game well played by Boeing executives, to keep their factory going - a hot production line also benefits existing F-15 user base (US, Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Singapore). However, the choice of the F-15SE is not without significant risk (for both buyer and seller). It is still not confirmed that the Koreans will place the order. Without an order, the F-15SE is still not developed (it is only a proposal, with some risk reduction planning done). If South Korea doesn't buy this version, the Silent Eagle will probably never be developed.

There are two things to note:

One, they have worked in the Koreans, as suppliers, to Boeing's F-15 production line and in other Boeing products (growing the industrial base of the buyer). They leverage off their commercial aircraft sales and other divisions to make a great industrial base argument for buying their product. In Feb 2012 Boeing has received a Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contract from the Korea to sustain of the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) fleet of F-15Ks. The five-year US$ 300 million PBL contract provides local industry with opportunities and Hyundai Glovis is providing logistics handling and supply chain distribution activities.

Two, they are able to leverage their Saudi win for 84 F-15SAs (and upgrade to the 60 existing F-15S) to bring the cost of development of the Silent Eagle down to compete. Flight tests for the fly-by-wire F-15SA began in March 2013 (with the first F-15SA rolled out of the production line in May 2013) and the Silent Eagle will be an even more advanced variant, with missile and bomb carrying CFTs, possibly with canted tails and an advanced EW system. The question in my mind, is whether Boeing can deliver on time and at their projected cost?

 

[colay]

AFAIK, the canted tails are not included in the Boeing proposal. I'm guessing that these would have significantly raised their bid amount and adversely affect the delivery timetable.

This is now to be treated as an option that may or may not be offered down the road if there is enough interest to fund their development.

 

[Toptob]

I don't know if there's a specific thread regarding the FX-III program, I haven't found it. So I'll post my question here because the program is being discussed here anyway (I won't be insulted if the post is moved).

So, big news this week regarding EADS bid for the FX-III program. My opinion? Well it is what it is. I do have some issues with the reporting I'm reading on the issue. Not the most reputable source, but from what I read on DiD EADS was dropped from the bid because of procedural flaws. Well that's okay, but defence talk specified that EADS only included six two seaters in its bid. And that the estimate was in pounds instead of dollars.

First of I am NOT a specialist or insider, but I call bullshit. IMHO those are some pretty weakass reasons to drop a bid and with the information available to me it smells like something else is going on here. It smells a bit like the Dutch so called fighter competition which got us stuck in the F-35 program (which EVERY government since has tried to drop). If anyone knows what credible reasons there are for this action I'd be grateful if you could share those with me assuming they are not classified or confidential ofcoarse.

 

[KiwiRob]

Anyone else a little bit puzzled that EADS are being disqualified from the process as their offer only included 6 twin seaters and did not meet the contractual requirement to provide 45 single seaters and 15 twin seaters.....

The F35 is NOT available as a two seater!
The F15SE is not available as a single seater!

 

[RobWilliams]

Different packages for different fighters I suppose, like you say, you can't get two seater F-35's nor single seater F-15SE's but you can for Tiffy and they decided to ask EADS to put forward a different package because EADS could step up.

It's the only logical explanation, otherwise it looks like a poorly disguised attempt to hamstring the other two competitors. It was always going to be a US supplier, no question about it (forget Wildcat/Taurus for a minute), then as soon as the F-35 was dropped due to costs (due to the red-tape of the sale, it's not just an equipment sale it goes through the US Govt so the price was much less flexible IIRC) it would have been more surprising if they went for Typhoon anyway. Out of the pair it was always going to be the choice.

 

[OPSSG]

The F35 is NOT available as a two seater!
The F15SE is not available as a single seater!

Good one!

Wait, there is more. It was reported on 19 August 2013 that Amy Horton, a spokeswoman for Boeing has said in an email:

“Boeing has not received an official notification from the Republic of Korea regarding a decision in the F-X competition.”​

Looks like we just have to wait for more details to emerge.

 

[Ananda]

For me, hard to believe a company in the caliber of EADS can make rudimentary mistakes on final bidding like misquoted prices on different currency, and not submitting specification as required. Seems EADS already realise they can't compete with Boeing deal, perhaps on integration costs to ROKAF environment. So they just submitting on face value basis.

I agree with with colay, canted tails seems will not be likely implemented on this Silent Eagles for FX III. With Korean already squezed Boeing hard, developing canted tails for ROKAF F-15SE will increase the development costs. My suspicion this SE will shared many similar aspects with current F-15K, so Boeing latter on can provide SE up grade kits forexisting F-15K.

For me, as ROK already stipulated that whoever got the FX III deal, must also provide support for KFX program, will be interesting how Boeing can contributed on the KFX development.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually, in the majority of tender releases there are clauses which allow companies to submit solutions which don't exactly comply with the specifics but which meet the intent

ie if their solution meets the CONOPs and they believe that they can make a compelling case for inclusion, then they can submit that solution

It is of course within the remit of the tender review team to reject or accept - and as an example, if all the other responses addressed the requirements, then the team would be within their rights and responsibilities to reject it as not meeting the requirements

 

[Ananda]

Actually, in the majority of tender releases there are clauses which allow companies to submit solutions which don't exactly comply with the specifics but which meet the intent

ie if their solution meets the CONOPs and they believe that they can make a compelling case for inclusion, then they can submit that solution

Aaahh..Thanks for that explanation gf. Still, I keep wondering, why they submitted something that not meet official requirement on final stages on bidding. Well off course this only based on official Korean explanation.

Seems they try to provide rather different solution for ROKAF than the tender requirement, and try to make a case on it. Still on final stages of bidding process ? For me, seems little bit desperation move from EADS.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Aaahh..Thanks for that explanation gf. Still, I keep wondering, why they submitted something that not meet official requirement on final stages on bidding. Well off course this only based on official Korean explanation.

Seems they try to provide rather different solution for ROKAF than the tender requirement, and try to make a case on it. Still on final stages of bidding process ? For me, seems little bit desperation move from EADS.

I can't speak with much confidence having not seen what the original tender documentation was, and obviously what the riding instructions to the evaluation team were.

normally a company that was intending to submit a response that didn't specifically address the requirements would have sought discussions prior to submitting their bid.

The eval team is well within their right to reject it outright on receipt (there is an acceptance matrix that is used and that enables the tender eval team to quickly remove the time wasters or blue sky dreamers.

so, any response that does not meet basic requirements would need to have an absolutely compelling and obvious case to have a chance - they could submit a plan that involved an A400 set up as a missileer - and that might mean that they meet a portion of the (eg) strike requirements, but then would fail on performance issues of max altitude, range at specific speeds and altitude, commonality of components with other strike packages and partners etc....

its a brave company that submits anything that does not meet basic requirements.

If you consider that a complex response will possibly cost $10m (min) to develop - thats not going to go well with the executive of that company if its regarded as burning money with a high risk of failure to even get over the line