Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
Well it IS Boeing we're talking about.
Click to expand...
To be fair there was a small supply chain disruption and a little bit of inflation after the economy all but shut down…
Click to expand...
True. Funny how it's always Boeing in the news for being late, under performing, and over charging though. *cough* Starliner.
 
sferrin said:
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
Well it IS Boeing we're talking about.
Click to expand...
To be fair there was a small supply chain disruption and a little bit of inflation after the economy all but shut down…
Click to expand...
True. Funny how it's always Boeing in the news for being late, under performing, and over charging though. *cough* Starliner.
Click to expand...
No doubt they earned some well deserved criticism there. It does though feel like a bit of a cheap shot to lay at the feet of poor management things that are economy wide problems.

Just yesterday I had a conversation with an engineer in the industry who complained about how hard it is now to source titanium with the current sanctions. When a significant portion of the available global market becomes unavailable just getting the stuff, never mind the cost, is pretty hard.
 
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
Well it IS Boeing we're talking about.
Click to expand...
To be fair there was a small supply chain disruption and a little bit of inflation after the economy all but shut down…
Click to expand...
True. Funny how it's always Boeing in the news for being late, under performing, and over charging though. *cough* Starliner.
Click to expand...
No doubt they earned some well deserved criticism there. It does though feel like a bit of a cheap shot to lay at the feet of poor management things that are economy wide problems.

Just yesterday I had a conversation with an engineer in the industry who complained about how hard it is now to source titanium with the current sanctions. When a significant portion of the available global market becomes unavailable just getting the stuff, never mind the cost, is pretty hard.
Click to expand...
Try getting fasteners.

P.S. Yes, it was a cheapshot. Just annoyed at the latest Starliner drama.
 
isayyo2 said:
Why weren’t early F-15Es upgraded with the -229 engine?
Click to expand...
No money for it, probably. Plus with 100+ with the -220 (and who knows how many F15C/Ds and F-16s with them), that's not a severe problem in terms of maintenance. But with reducing F-15C/D numbers they may not have the maintenance balance anymore.
 
I think part of what is driving the USAF to cut back its fighter force (besides the obvious cost reasons) is the reduced Russian threat combined with the increased Chinese threat.

There are plenty of friendly bases from one end of Europe to the other for tactical fighters and their tankers, but that role seems increasingly unnecessary in the short, medium and long terms. Short term, the VKS is quite busy. Medium term, they (and supporting missile forces) proved less able to interdict air bases than most would have imagined and now would operate with a huge PGM deficit. The war also has to be destroying maintenance cycles and burning through engine life. Long term, local NATO members will have sufficient tactical air power to contest Russia with minimal US tactical fighter involvement. Poland, Norway, and Finland alone will eventually put ~150 F-35s right up against the Russian border, and there will probably be a few dozen in other Eastern European countries as well, before we even get to larger Western European air forces (or Turkey, were it to get involved). Clearly more is better, but a big USAF tactical fighter presence* doesn't seem absolutely necessary over most any timeframe, and the VKS is unlikely to meaningfully expand for a decade.

* (though there are probably a lot of supporting aircraft roles the USAF can uniquely supply)


The opposite is true in China - there would be a vast need for additional tactical firepower,..but almost no safe place to base it. The limiting factor would be not how many aircraft in total could be brought into theater but rather how many could be supported from dispersed fields with minimal cover and facilities. I suspect the USAF has a lot more fighters than it could reasonably rearm and refuel in a dispersed fashion the western pacific theater.

Net effect seems to be that USAF wants to down size the fighter force to use that money for future longer ranged platforms and current munitions purchases instead.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think part of what is driving the USAF to cut back its fighter force (besides the obvious cost reasons) is the reduced Russian threat combined with the increased Chinese threat.

There are plenty of friendly bases from one end of Europe to the other for tactical fighters and their tankers, but that role seems increasingly unnecessary in the short, medium and long terms. Short term, the VKS is quite busy. Medium term, they (and supporting missile forces) proved less able to interdict air bases than most would have imagined and now would operate with a huge PGM deficit. The war also has to be destroying maintenance cycles and burning through engine life. Long term, local NATO members will have sufficient tactical air power to contest Russia with minimal US tactical fighter involvement. Poland, Norway, and Finland alone will eventually put ~150 F-35s right up against the Russian border, and there will probably be a few dozen in other Eastern European countries as well, before we even get to larger Western European air forces (or Turkey, were it to get involved). Clearly more is better, but a big USAF tactical fighter presence* doesn't seem absolutely necessary over most any timeframe, and the VKS is unlikely to meaningfully expand for a decade.

* (though there are probably a lot of supporting aircraft roles the USAF can uniquely supply)


The opposite is true in China - there would be a vast need for additional tactical firepower,..but almost no safe place to base it. The limiting factor would be not how many aircraft in total could be brought into theater but rather how many could be supported from dispersed fields with minimal cover and facilities. I suspect the USAF has a lot more fighters than it could reasonably rearm and refuel in a dispersed fashion the western pacific theater.

Net effect seems to be that USAF wants to down size the fighter force to use that money for future longer ranged platforms and current munitions purchases instead.
Click to expand...
While I follow your logic, I don't think it's a good decision.
 
Josh_TN said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Cutting fighters NOW without an aircraft to replace them already being delivered is a guaranteed permanent cut to the total number of aircraft the USAF will fly. It's how government budgets work. If you don't use everything you have been given, you will not be given as much next budget cycle. Been proven in every government and military since military budgets were invented!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Cutting fighters NOW without an aircraft to replace them already being delivered is a guaranteed permanent cut to the total number of aircraft the USAF will fly. It's how government budgets work. If you don't use everything you have been given, you will not be given as much next budget cycle. Been proven in every government and military since military budgets were invented!
Click to expand...

I disagree with that logic. Defense budgets spiral ever upward, especially in environments where there is a tangible threat. IMO what drives down fighter purchases is the cost per airframe always skyrocketing. Clinging to outdated or redundant aircraft doesn’t solve the problem, IMO.
 
Josh_TN said:
I disagree with that logic. Defense budgets spiral ever upward, especially in environments where there is a tangible threat. IMO what drives down fighter purchases is the cost per airframe always skyrocketing. Clinging to outdated or redundant aircraft doesn’t solve the problem, IMO.
Click to expand...
Getting rid of aircraft before you have their replacement being delivered is guaranteed to result in reduced manning budgets and Reductions in Force (or whatever the current name for semi-voluntary drawdowns is this year), so that when you finally do get the replacement aircraft, you then have to fight to recruit more crews for them. This increases the apparent costs of the program and leads to reductions in purchase numbers that you cannot afford.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Getting rid of aircraft before you have their replacement being delivered is guaranteed to result in reduced manning budgets and Reductions in Force (or whatever the current name for semi-voluntary drawdowns is this year), so that when you finally do get the replacement aircraft, you then have to fight to recruit more crews for them. This increases the apparent costs of the program and leads to reductions in purchase numbers that you cannot afford.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Even if the move to a more UCAV centric force is successful, the maintainers still need to be available even if the pilots don’t.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Getting rid of aircraft before you have their replacement being delivered is guaranteed to result in reduced manning budgets and Reductions in Force (or whatever the current name for semi-voluntary drawdowns is this year),
Click to expand...

Conversely that can be dealt with a proactive intervention to convince the bean-counters that numbers need to be maintained and if that doesn't work said bean-counters can be reminded of something called the firing-squad, that will definitely result in them being compliant.
 
Josh_TN said:
Fair enough. Even if the move to a more UCAV centric force is successful, the maintainers still need to be available even if the pilots don’t.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And since the USAF is stupidly requiring drone pilots to be officers, I am including the pilots in the total manning.


NMaude said:
Conversely that can be dealt with a proactive intervention to convince the bean-counters that numbers need to be maintained and if that doesn't work said bean-counters can be reminded of something called the firing-squad, that will definitely result in them being compliant.
Click to expand...
Even that doesn't work well, see the British troubles prying money out of Treasury to pay for things that should be included in their combat craft but weren't included at construction. AKA "Fitted for, but not with," which should be a profanity.
 
boeing.mediaroom.com

Indonesia Announces Commitment to Acquire Boeing F-15EX

boeing.mediaroom.com boeing.mediaroom.com
www.flightglobal.com

Indonesia signs MOU for potential 24 F-15EX fighters

Indonesia has signed a memorandum of understanding to acquire up to 24 Boeing F-15EX fighters during a visit by defence minister Prabowo Subianto to the USA.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
www.reuters.com

Indonesia, Boeing sign deal for sale of F-15 fighter jets

Indonesia's defence ministry and U.S. planemaker Boeing have signed an agreement on the sale of 24 F-15EX fighter jets to help modernise the Southeast Asian country's ageing fleet, the ministry and the company said.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
im very curious to what the Indonesian Air Force will be like in the next 5-10 years.
it feels like they are operating too many types, which I imagine could be a logistic nightmare at some point.
there's still the incoming KF-21 too.
 
helmutkohl said:
im very curious to what the Indonesian Air Force will be like in the next 5-10 years.
it feels like they are operating too many types, which I imagine could be a logistic nightmare at some point.
there's still the incoming KF-21 too.
Click to expand...

Well Flanker fleet is expected to be retired in 2030's. Logistic nightmare is just an excuse tbh.

The hope is that there would be some commonalities in maintenance tools, service manuals etc. Still we would ended up having more twin engine types than single engine (Rafale, F-15EX, KF-21 vs Mirage & F-16) Which made me laugh as there were those in top brass consider that Flankers are more expensive to operate due to twin engine nature. Fking ridiculous.
 
stealthflanker said:
Mirage & F-16) Which made me laugh as there were those in top brass consider that Flankers are more expensive to operate due to twin engine nature. Fking ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I did hear rumours that the Indonesians were showing interest in the F-35 as a long term replacement for some the single-engined types. Not sure how realistic these claims are though.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
I did hear rumours that the Indonesians were showing interest in the F-35 as a long term replacement for some the single-engined types. Not sure how realistic these claims are though.
Click to expand...

It was real. But US doesnt allow that. F-15EX deal was the compromise as the MoD wants some high performance aircraft but dont actually want to buy Viper.
 
I'm surprised Indonesia has twin engine types at all. Is this a range/endurance issue? I feel like the whole safety over water thing no longer applies with modern engine reliability.
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm surprised Indonesia has twin engine types at all. Is this a range/endurance issue? I feel like the whole safety over water thing no longer applies with modern engine reliability.
Click to expand...

Well, first thing. we're that big.

Indonesia vs US.png


So range is a plus. The second is twin engine have high T/W and therefore relatively faster acceleration, good for intercepts especially those types with high transonic speed and high altitude (e.g Gulfstream) Afaik our airforce have trouble catching them with single engine. Su-27 and 30 is always assigned for this type of intercept.

Back in the day we were seeking Typhoon for similar reason.
 
stealthflanker said:
Well, first thing. we're that big.

View attachment 706416


So range is a plus. The second is twin engine have high T/W and therefore relatively faster acceleration, good for intercepts especially those types with high transonic speed and high altitude (e.g Gulfstream) Afaik our airforce have trouble catching them with single engine. Su-27 and 30 is always assigned for this type of intercept.

Back in the day we were seeking Typhoon for similar reason.
Click to expand...
This is really good info. Thanks for posting...I learned a lot today!
 
Now that the F-15EX’s first integrated test and evaluation phase is done, the Air Force said, its Operational Test and Evaluation Center as well as the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation office will analyze the collected data. This data will be used to help make a decision on full-rate production for the fighter in the months to come.

The 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron carried out the tests, alongside the 53rd Wing’s 83rd and 86th fighter weapons squadrons.
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

F-15EX weapons test ends key phase, could lead to production decision

The F-15EX took part in 19 large-force events to test how well it could integrate with fifth-generation aircraft and fire missiles.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom