|
I bet you an F-35 equipped force would dismantle an F-15 equipped force cetaris paribus
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
bewbies posted:I bet you an F-35 equipped force would dismantle an F-15 equipped force cetaris paribus Yep. Unless the engagement area was simply placed out of range of an F-35’s combat radius just so the F-15s could win via no-show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
bewbies posted:cetaris paribus Is pulling a lot of weight here, but sure. Thats why the F-15X is being added to a force that has the F-22, F-35, F-15E, and the E-3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I bet you an F-35 equipped force would dismantle an F-15 equipped force cetaris paribus Without a doubt. The avionics package in the 35A is far superior to the F-15C's. The AN/APG-63 (especially after V2 and V3) is a decent system. But as usual the US has a mix of original 63's, 63V1s , a few 63V2's and a good number of 63V3's. Each of them has quite a bit of differences between each other even if based off of the same system... designed in the early 1970's. The AN/APG-81 in the 35A is just... well its probably the best airborne A2A and A2G system currently running and even with the latest software updates to it, STILL isn't near being maxed out of its capabilities. For example the V2 can track a small object out to about 50 miles or so... the 81 tracking the same can do so about 110 miles. And mind you that object isn't very large either. The 81 ca also track almost 2x the number of targets more than 3x faster and engage 50% more targets 4x faster... What the F-15 that the F-35A doesn't is speed, range and weapons load-out. The F-15 is both a lot faster and has a lot longer legs (range of the 15 is just about twice that of the 35 configured for interdiction, however its nearly identical to that of the Mud Hens range), a lot faster (at altitude) with a fine 2.63 Mach vs. 1.61. EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Mar 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I bet you an F-35 equipped force would dismantle an F-15 equipped force cetaris paribus You're still coming back to the problem that the F-15s are going to be maxed the gently caress out long before there will be F-35s to replace them. The way the delays have stretched the timeline theres already talk of SLEPing a bunch of F-16s that should have been replaced by F-35s on the the original timeline. Lockheed cannot literally make F-35s fast enough to fix this problem, not without a lot more money at least. This also assumes they don't find additional major problems with the F-35 or ALIS or whatever, since concurrency is still very much a problem causing thing. It's getting better but the F-35 still has a lot of loving ground to make up on things like CPFH and mean time between major maintenance events. The F-15X is a good solution in several ways, assuming Boeing actually does keep the costs down and takes a fixed cost contract like the KC-46. 1. It refreshes the F-15 side of things in such a way all the existing facilities are very much still useful. We don't have to incur a ton of new back end costs for new F-15s (some, to be sure, but significantly less than a new fighter). 2. The new build F-15s have airframe lifes of like 20,000 hours. That's a shitload by most airframe comparisons. 3. They have lots of range and lots of capability to do things we've been doing with F-15s for a long time. The F-15CX would realistically have the capability to do everything the F-15Es do given the avionics package they are starting with. They won't have that mission set but there's very little keeping them from getting it later, barring the extra seat of the E. They are also buying 15EXs with the 8, so basically updated 15Es with all the poo poo that other nations already paid for, like SA and Qatar. 4. If they actually are cheaper than the F-35, they have a lot of things about them that make them better at different things than the F-35. The F-16 can be looked as a flat downgrade to the F-35 now, the F-15 still has quite a few things that make it not directly comparable to an F-35. Speed, range, and payload being the big 3. If you can buy F-15s at a lower cost than the F-35, we should do so for a bunch of reasons, from keeping Boeing in the fighter business to hedging our tactical strike fleet bet on the F-35. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
I endorse these latest events as maybe Canada can get some sort of Gripen/Snow Eagle combo mix going
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Mazz posted:You're still coming back to the problem that the F-15s are going to be maxed the gently caress out long before there will be F-35s to replace them. The way the delays have stretched the timeline theres already talk of SLEPing a bunch of F-16s that should have been replaced by F-35s on the the original timeline. Lockheed cannot literally make F-35s fast enough to fix this problem, not without a lot more money at least. This also assumes they don't find additional major problems with the F-35 or ALIS or whatever, since concurrency is still very much a problem causing thing. It's getting better but the F-35 still has a lot of loving ground to make up on things like CPFH and mean time between major maintenance events. F-35's were never supposed to, and won't be, replacing F-15's. That was SUPPOSED to be the F-22. And unless the US buys a LOT of F-15X's they will cost more than the F-35A will when it is in full production (about 90 million per airframe vs. 80 million).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:F-35's were never supposed to, and won't be, replacing F-15's. Yes, I know, but last time this came up bewbies asked why we aren't replacing them with the F-35 now. Besides the fact they never planned to, on the current timeline of production we literally can't. EDIT: The pricing is still up in the air but there's potential for the 15X to eventually replace most of the 15s, including some of the Es since they are offering both the CX and EX. Boeing's offer was aggressive last I read, and also should be repeated that it was a fixed cost like the KC-46, meaning they eat the majority of cost overruns. I don't normally give Boeing a lot of credit (I still think they haven't done anything truly noteworthy since they bought McD) but it's a seriously interesting offer. The F-35 should not be our only option going forward. You know I've argued for the 35 a bunch, but all your eggs in one thus unproven basket is just a bad idea regardless. The fact the USAF has actually started to shop for other options is a good thing in my eyes, and the 15X is the (by far) best option I've seen in that race. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Mar 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:A friend of mine told me the moment his wife decided to punch out of the USN as a career was when she saw a guy on watch fall asleep on his feet. Wife was navy for eight years, got out the beginning if this year. She told me stories of falling asleep on her feet as the officer of the deck during her last deployment. Woke herself up asking one of the enlisted dudes for a cheeseburger due to dreaming. Every JO she kept track of as a friend/acquaintance except for one got out off the navy after one or two deployments. From my admittedly small sample size it seems they have a terrible JO retention problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I endorse these latest events as maybe Canada can get some sort of Gripen/Snow Eagle combo mix going It’s gonna be F-35s and you know it. Only problem is by the time the purchase is finalized (after several orders and cancellations through successive governments) it’ll be obsolete and cost so much we can only order 5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yes, I know, but last time this came up bewbies asked why we aren't replacing them with the F-35 now. Besides the fact they never planned to, on the current timeline of production we literally can't. Not a chance in hell. But we do need to keep in mind that the F-15X would actually be more like an F-15E/X and not an C/X. McD-D would use the existing F-15E lines producing the F-15SA for the Saudis and 15QA's for Qatar (130 of them in the queue). Supposedly the DoD wants to buy 144 of them... Right now the USAF and the ANG has about 450 total F-15's in service, about half of which are Mud Hens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The F-35 should not be our only option going forward. You know I've argued for the 35 a bunch, but all your eggs in one thus unproven basket is just a bad idea regardless. The fact the USAF has actually started to shop for other options is a good thing in my eyes, and the 15X is the (by far) best option I've seen in that race. Nope, it shouldn't be. And that is what kinda irritates me. The F-22 and the F-35A were supposed to be where it was at. But they cut F-22 production to a mere 195 units (only 182 remain in service). Versus what was originally going to be 650. F-22 handles air suppression F-35A handles CAS F-15E handles other mud moving when a larger, non-stealthy attack can be carried out until the airframe expires. Now the A-10C is back on the table for at least another 20 years (not a bad thing). From what I have been reading too, if Boeing doesn't land a big warplane order in the next few years, they will not be able to support that part of the business. EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:From what I have been reading too, if Boeing doesn't land a big warplane order in the next few years, they will not be able to support that part of the business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:This. It smells like a hedge for when the F-X reveals itself as vaporware to have an existing fighter line available to build airframes to fill existing commitments. There are a lot of rules about acquiring new major weapons systems. The rules are so complex and arcane and politically manipulated that in a lot of ways DoD actually has a hard time getting the thing it's asking for. However, DoD does have a reasonable amount of ability to re-prioritize and reallocate funds to existing programs at certain levels. You know kind of like how Trump thinks he's going to get DoD to spend operations money on building a wall except for something that DoD actually wants. So, this is either what it looks like, evaluating a small number of 'off-the-shelf' units for a potential larger acquisition OR political back scratching OR sneaking a procurement program in under the radar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Murgos posted:OR sneaking a procurement program in under the radar. They're surely trying to pull the super hornet trick again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You know kind of like how Trump thinks he's going to get DoD to spend operations money on building a wall except for something that DoD actually wants. lol if you think a cent of the money tapped for this "national emergency" is coming out of operational funding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The F-35 is a "strike fighter" which could be thought of as a fancy name for a light bomber. The classic F-15 is an air superiority fighter. "Not a pound for air to ground". They really do not step on each others toes at all. Except in the budget, which is what matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yes, I know, but last time this came up bewbies asked why we aren't replacing them with the F-35 now. Besides the fact they never planned to, on the current timeline of production we literally can't. Aggressive pricing seems to pose a very small risk to Boeing. It's the goddamned F-15. They've been churning these things out since 1971 and are really loving good at it. 99% of the design and integration work is done and operational. McNally posted:lol if you think a cent of the money tapped for this "national emergency" is coming out of operational funding. The current plan seems to be pulling it from funds intended for signing/retention bonuses that aren't being taken because nobody wants in anymore. 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Mar 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
A T-28 and a small plane collided in Compton. The T-28 survived, the other plane (and pilot) didn't. https://abc7.com/1-killed-when-2-planes-collide-at-compton-airport/5190835/
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:A T-28 and a small plane collided in Compton. The T-28 survived, the other plane (and pilot) didn't. Ejected... Straight Outta Compton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
david_a posted:Even taking into account the T-X? Remember that the T-X really isn't a Boeing thing... its a SAAB thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aaronmehta/status/1106220719132889089?s=21 Time will tell, but makes sense if you want interceptors that don’t need to be stealthy strikers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
The operate over time cost seems prone to being vague enough to make it what ever you want. Sure the F-35s operation cost can probably be accurately determined at some point in the future but my guess is that for the F-15x they are building in all kinds of assumptions that they don't have to claim as a cost just because there is something similar already in service. So, the comparison is probably closer to 'new or additional costs to operate an F15X vs total cost to operate an F-35'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The operate over time cost seems prone to being vague enough to make it what ever you want. CPFH being lower for the F-15X doesn't strike me as pie in the sky thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:CPFH being lower for the F-15X doesn't strike me as pie in the sky thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:CPFH being lower for the F-15X doesn't strike me as pie in the sky thinking. I thought the engines were supposed to be a large part of the cpfh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
david_a posted:This made me think of that fancy coating they put on stealth planes... Is the “paint” on something like an F-15 a special sauce too? Considering it has to survive at Mach 2 I’d assume so
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:I thought the engines were supposed to be a large part of the cpfh? They are and they’ve been perfecting the art of Eagle Maintenance and ops since the 70’s. They know what it’s going to cost in terms of CPFH pretty drat well. That cheaper CPFH is remarkable since it’s a larger, faster, twin engine jet with more range. LO Maintenance apparently really drives up costs. The JSF’s F-135 is a superior and more efficient engine than the F-100-220’s in the eagle- you’d expect lower CPFH on the newer engine but that’s probably not going to be realized early on. LO just gets expensive in general. Plus it’s avionics are an insanely complex thing compared to the F-15. When the force is all 5th and 6th gen aircraft and the 4th gen stuff is mothballed we’re gonna have a very expensive to operate CAF. We’re probably looking at having fewer, much more capable, but much more expensive, aircraft. If the whole PCA (I wanna say that stands for Penetrating Counter Air but idk for sure) program takes a poo poo and doesn’t deliver an F-22 replacement we might be well and truly hosed into fielding eagles into loving 2040 and beyond. The aircraft where we really want to see a clawback in terms of CPFH is the B-21. Of what I’ve been told it’s going to be significantly cheaper to field and operate than the B-2, and the B-1. Possibly even lower CPFH than the B-52. If it really does deliver on being stealthier than the B-2, and cheaper to operate than the B-52, then it’ll probably be our most successful Air Force acquisition in decades. Just hitting those two objectives would make it a truly remarkable accomplishment. We’ll see if that happens. I’d love to see is darken the skies with B-21’s like we used to do with B-52’s. Only buying 20 B-2’s really hosed that program. If AFGSC gets their way we should be looking at a minimum of 200 B-21’s possibly as many as 350. I’ve seen 450 from some overly optimistic articles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:I’d love to see is darken the skies with B-21’s like we used to do with B-52’s. Only buying 20 B-2’s really hosed that program. If AFGSC gets their way we should be looking at a minimum of 200 B-21’s possibly as many as 350. I’ve seen 450 from some overly optimistic articles. Ask for 750, have the buy halved, then cut again, actually end up with 275, retire the B-2, the B-52, and the Bone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
david_a posted:This made me think of that fancy coating they put on stealth planes... Is the “paint” on something like an F-15 a special sauce too? Not nearly as special as the "paint" used on stealth aircraft. The overall process is far more simple. The lower CPFH at least for the near future has already been touched on. I'm absolutely assuming there are no bonkers deviations from the "E" model the "X" is based off. That said if there were bonkers deviations, I don't think it would be as attractive to USAF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:The JSF’s F-135 is a superior and more efficient engine than the F-100-220’s in the eagle... So I'm hearing re-engine the F-15X with a pair of F-135s, then perform like streak eagles while carrying an ace combat loadout. Or, you know, break up mid-flight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Bring the polished aluminum back, see if we can’t make it glow like a Sprint missile
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Woof. Rough week for Boeing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Bring the polished aluminum back, see if we can’t make it glow like a Sprint missile Unfortunately modern fighters are made of several different metals instead of "all aluminum skin."  
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
McNally posted:Unfortunately modern fighters are made of several different metals instead of "all aluminum skin." Nickel plate everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Nickel plate everything. Heavy, but baller.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
The F-135 is aeronautical magic. We’ll see a derivative soon with 50,000 lb’s of wet thrust. The NK-32 gets in that thrust range with a much worse thrust to weight ratio and a lot of reliability issues + the NK-32 has to be pulled and inspected way sooner than the F-135. I saw a proposal to re-engine the B-1 with F-135’s, but I have my doubts that they could do it without a full airframe SLEP. It’s interesting to think about though. Mach 3 at altitude maybe high Mach 1 at lower altitudes? Supercruise? Who knows. The F-135 is aeronautical magic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:The F-135 is aeronautical magic. We’ll see a derivative soon with 50,000 lb’s of wet thrust. The NK-32 gets in that thrust range with a much worse thrust to weight ratio and a lot of reliability issues + the NK-32 has to be pulled and inspected way sooner than the F-135. F135: Length: 220 inches Inlet diameter: 43 inches Maximum diameter: 46 inches Weight: ~5400 lbs F100: Length: 191 inches Inlet diameter: 34.8 inches Maximum diameter: 46.5 inches Weight: 3,234 lbs F101: Length: 181 in Diameter: 55 in Dry weight: 4,400 lb (1995 kg) It's a much bigger engine than the F100s in the F15 or the F101s in the B-1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
Delivering an aircraft with FOD is a pretty major gently caress up. Also talk about a relationship between contractor and PMO gone wrong. That they’re putting out press releases every time Boeing fucks up is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Delivering an aircraft with FOD is a pretty major gently caress up. Yep, this is a loving idiotic move by Boeing. WTF are they thinking?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 13:01
|
|