I'm sure you folks could spend your money on something better than more murder-machines.
But, 1 billion doesn't get you very far. Taking just 10% of the population of the US (328.2 million) and giving them an equal share of the 1 billion is just $30 per person, so doesn't get you very far.
You'd be better off dismantling your whole war machine instead, and reinvesting it in the humans inside your country, rather than focusing on killing people outside of it.
> You'd be better off dismantling your whole war machine instead, and reinvesting it in the humans inside your country, rather than focusing on killing people outside of it.
Sure, except:
> We're drawing down troops from Germany, SK, Japan, etc.
"You isolationists! You're abandoning NATO! Trump is a Russian Asset!"
> We recently bombed this bad terrorist guy who was mutilating children
"You murderers! How dare you violate another country's sovereignty. You're the reason the world sucks!"
> one of the worlds largest public healthcare systems
Bypassing the fact that the US is a large country so many things will be "worlds largest" without actually carry any significance, being the worlds largest public healthcare system and also one of the worst in the world, says a lot about what a failure it is.
What if I told you the US already has both a private and public system....
What if I told you that nothing short of exclusive government run healthcare will ever be acceptable to the socialists that make up a large percentage of the people calling for "universal healthcare, and any private system would be deemed "unfair"
Why would they be mutually exclusive? What exactly is the U.S. doing in Germany, or Japan, or Bahrain?
If the U.S. tries to slow operations of "bombing terrorists", then that necessarily means that there is not much use for those bases.
I'd be fine keeping some bases in Europe and in Asia (Japan, SK, Australia, Philippines, etc.) basically for the purposes of helping to train our allies and for joint maneuver training, but do we really need so many bases around the world? And if we're going to do that, how should the costs be split?
I think people like to pretend these bases are solely for U.S. benefit, but every time we try to leave there's a huge uproar over it. Just like now in Germany when Trump said he was going to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops. Germany didn't say: "please do, we don't really need them" as I'm sure you certainly noticed.
> Just like the healthcare debate, what if I told you that you can have both a private system and a public system?
The only way that this is even remotely similar to the healthcare debate is the subsidization of drugs for most of the rest of the world (similar to defense). When the US (not if) switches to single-payer drug prices across the world will go up, and availability for new vaccines and therapy will be reduced. The amount of which is to be seen.
Besides that, there is legitimate discussion on the pro and cons of single-payer and I find myself wavering between the two. But the overarching thing that matters here is that it's an internal US matter. Frankly, I don't see why it should be anyone else's business what we decide to do. People spending all this time talking about it should focus more on their own countries and improving them instead.
This article is about the contract with Boeing (it's in the title and everything), the other article does not mention the contract with Boeing and appears to be about the engine contract.
The main problem with the F-22 is that restarting production will cost $10 billion all on its own. Then each jet would be $200 million. [1] The F-15 is still produced in various configurations for our allies so any change/upgrade is going to be much cheaper.
F-22 is the greatest plane in the US arsenal. It's unhackable (because the IBM mainframe powering it is so old, it would be difficult for the chinese or russians to attempt to do so). And -nothing- can currently beat it in a 1v1.
The raptor is, unfortunately, not the future due to costs and maintenance (tho the f-35 is having the same maintenance issues with the stealth coating. Hopefully it's not as bad.)
Under the terms of the deal, Boeing will build a new version of its F-15, an older fighter jet developed in the 1960s, with new automated flight controls and electronic warfare capabilities. The newer model, known as the F-15EX, will be designed to carry heavier weaponry than smaller, stealthier jets like the F-35.
The Air Force is looking for a bomb/missile truck. They already have extensive experience with the F-15, and retraining(pilots/maintainers) and retooling to use the smaller f-18 would most likely cost as much or more as this deal. Also given military structure you would have to spin up a whole new command and maintenance Wing for the new type. Where the f-15 will just get added to an existing f-15e wings.
The possibility of some fighters going unmanned and under the control of the ground or of another fighter in some scenarios has been discussed in other places, yes. It sounds like it's still in the planning stages.
That's a better argument for the F-22/35 programs. The F-15 is a workhorse, and this is an extremely inexpensive upgrade program relative to building an actual modern replacement, or buying F-35s and calling it "good enough."
The question was roles not covered by the F-22, F-35, and/or F/A-18, so that response isn't quite on point, even to the extent the F-15EX might also serve that role.
This is the cheaper, "upgrade the old system" option.
And no matter what aircraft we buy, we're still in the AFG and Iraq, goin on near 20 years for the former. This is a drop in the bucket compared to what we're paying to stay in those countries. The medical care for OIF and OEF veterans will be north of $1 Trillion...
f-15 is airforce, f/a-18 is primarily navy and suited for their roles.
F-22 is too expensive to use most of the time and we are having a VERY hard time keeping the fleet operational.
F-35 has basically been a giant cluster. But getting better.
The primary role of the F-15EX program is to keep aircraft defense manufacturing viable.
And ultimately:
Although Air Force leaders at the time said that the service would have preferred funds to buy additional fifth generation planes like the F-35, officials now say that buying new F-15s is the quickest path for replacing aging Air National Guard F-15C/Ds that are reaching the end of their service lives.
“The F-15EX is the most affordable and immediate way to refresh the capacity and update the capabilities provided by our aging F-15C/D fleets,” Gen. Mike Holmes, Air Combat Command commander, said in a statement. “The F-15EX is ready to fight as soon as it comes off the line.”
> officials now say that buying new F-15s is the quickest path for replacing aging Air National Guard F-15C/Ds that are reaching the end of their service lives.
Does this mean the F-15EX will deploy to ANG squadrons, or does it mean that the Air Force planes which are displaced by new F-15EXs will deploy to ANG squadrons? Just curious.
The F-15 is one of the baddest planes in the air, and has been since its' first flight back in 1976, with an undefeated combat record. The radar capabilities are superior to almost all planes out there, which make it a damn good deterrent because they can reach out and touch you before you can see them. They have a wizzo in every situation, which offloads a lot of work from the pilot and lets them focus on flying the plane. I'm pretty sure none of the three you mentioned can boast those stats, so I'd say yes, give us more F-15s. The US has the most dominant air force in the world and I'd like us to stay that way personally. If you're upset about the government spending more money on new planes, be upset about the money wasted on the planes that aren't even flying, not our bread and butter.
Weapons system officer. F-15E is a two seat cockpit so you have someone dedicated to the weapons systems and someone dedicated to flying the aircraft at all times. I generally share the above commenter’s enthusiasm for the F-15 over the modern “replacements”.
>They have a wizzo in every situation, which offloads a lot of work from the pilot and lets them focus on flying the plane.
Isn't that only true of the F-15E? The F-15C/D that these are going to replace are single seaters aren't they? I'm having trouble finding detailed information on the F-15EX that specifies whether it's retaining the dual seat configuration.
Seems mostly like a stopgap to me. This is meant to replace a bunch of old F-15 C/Ds which are aging out of their operational life. The -18s are Navy, and so using them in the Air Force to replace existing -15s would be pricey on the logistics side, F-22s aren't being manufactured anymore and would far too expensive for the National Guard units these are going to, and the F-35s just aren't available in large enough numbers yet. The -15 has also turned into a very versatile aircraft, and it a lot cheaper to operate than a -35.
Part of the reason these old aircraft stick around is due to the very low risk involved with upgrades. We have -15s, we know they work very well, we know how to fix them, we know what to do with them.
A sibling commenter of yours pointed out that the EX variant will retain the dual-seat configuration of the E variant, which allows a dedicates weapon systems officer. An obvious fundamental improvement that can't be addressed through maintenance or upgrades of old variants.
You are absolutely correct, I should have been more clear that I meant they would be too expensive to go to the number of ANG squadrons that currently fly the C/D, I think they would have to double current F-22 numbers.
F-15EX is essentially a flying missile boat, I'm pretty sure it can hold up to 20 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. For context a 35 carries only 4. They will support f22's and f35's from BVR. The upgrades are probably designed to modernize the older air frame to talk to the newer ones.
I think if any bomber were to be used in this capacity it'd be a B-21, stealthy, good capacity, but still subsonic so vulnerable. The range of AMRAAM is still considered being in the danger zone for those aircraft. I've used the F-15EX as a missile boat against China in Command: Modern Operations to great success. Some context I used to be in the AF and worked on raptors but, now it's more of a hobby. All information I'm discussing is gleaned from the Command simulation which is publicly available and a relatively good approximation of reality.
Anyhow, I know it's pointless to talk about this here on hnews, because the smug crowd that's read one or two articles on war is boring or such drown everything out, but I've seen this issue discussed by actual military aviators at length, and they were overwhelmingly of the opinion this F-15EX buy is a bad idea, and basically just a pork politics attempt for Boeing to pull some more cash their way.
Interesting I'll have to ask the guys I know at ACC. I mostly play with the planes in sims and they seem useful. The dollar amount isn't really a consideration then.
Most the guys I know think throwing away f22 production was the dumbest thing we could have done.
Probably an Air Force equivalent to the Navy's EA-18 Growler.
The Growler is basically an F-18 Hornet, so it's maneuverable like a fighter (and can engage in limited combat), but is refitted with equipment for electronic warfare missions and roles (radar and comms jamming, intercept, etc...).
The Air Force F-22 can already do some EW, but that is not the F-22's primary role or specialty. Also, there's a limited supply of F-22s and they are very expensive to operate and maintain compared to F-15s.
So, this new F-15 does seem fill a niche where F-22s would be overkill and Growlers unavailable (since they're Navy aircraft built for carrier operations).
I believe the F-35 was supposed to have a SEAD variant or "SEAD-mode". The F-4 Wild Weasel filled that role for a long time until the AF gave up on SEAD and handed it off to the Navy with the EA-6B Prowler. The Prowler did well and was replaced the Growler which has a decent reputation (or so I've heard).
Given the mess that the F-35 has been, I'm in agreement with the parent -- this may be a recognition that the AF needs a EW/SEAD fighter like the Growler and the F-35 will have some limitations.
The F-15 also has some serious combat persistence, which isn't terrible for an EW/SEAD craft, esp. since anyone thinking about fighting the US is investing heavily in AA, both in technology as well as sheer volume of systems. Having a big "missile truck" with EW makes squashing all of those systems a little easier.
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, on the other hand, can only carry four AMRAAM missiles in an internal weapons bay, a result of its need to fly without missiles and other equipment hanging off its wings to preserve its anti-radar stealth profile. […] The F-35 and F-15EX will likely fly in pairs, with the F-35 quietly detecting enemy fighters while the F-15EX services them with air-to-air missiles.
The F-15(E) is the only aircraft capable of carrying the bigger munitions and in large quantities including the heavier nuclear gravity bombs that isn’t a strategic bomber.
With the F-14 gone and the F-111 gone the US doesn’t have the ability to drop big heavy bombs outside of using a B-52/B-2/B-1 bomber.
The strike eagle is aging and the F-35 isn’t as suited for ground attack missions.
> The strike eagle is aging and the F-35 isn’t as suited for ground attack missions.
Ground attack is literally the reason the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter exists, so it not being as suited for it as an upgraded F-15 is a pretty big indictment of the program.
That's also a problem, since we’re talking about it's core mission where it's supposed to be a more capable replacement for the F-16, and is several times as expensive (both initially and per flight hour).
It’s more capable because it has better avionics and electronics, the F-16 just like the F-15 still needs a targeting pod for many ground attack missions.
The F-15E was built for air interdiction to replace the F4/F111 it has a better radar (especially for ground attack), a more sophisticated electronics warfare system and more busses for high bandwidth electronics such as targeting pods than it’s air superiority brothers.
The F-35 is an advancement over the F-16 it was supposed to be and is a relatively cheap (for a 5th gen fighter) multi-role platform it’s more advanced than the F-16 in every aspect for example much of the capability that a targeting pod such as the LITENING provides is integral to the F-35 and the fact that it carries about 2.5 times the fuel than the F-16 means it can carry much more munitions instead of fuel tanks (F-16E/F with conformal fuel tanks comes closer without expanding hard points)
What you can’t change is it’s main characteristics and that is its a single seat single engine multi-role fighter so regardless of how more advanced it is it simply doesn’t have the hard points due to its size and due to the fact that it’s a single seater it is more limited than a two seater aircraft when it comes to operating in denied airspaces and missions that require a pilot and a weapons officer.
Saying that it’s a problem because the F-35 is more expensive currently is nonsense the F-16 is the most produced fighter of the modern era comparing its cost now to the F-35 is silly.
The F-35 is unquestionably more capable than the F-16, but it doesn’t mean that the US currently doesn’t have a gap in its capabilities specifically for interdiction and deep air support missions.
During the early to mid development of the F-35 an F-35E was considered it was to be a larger two seater variant of the F-35 without S/VTOL capabilities to replace the F-15E but due to the cost and lower part commonality between it and the rest of the F-35 line up it was abandoned.
I'd add to this the unmanned combat planes like the Predator.
As unreliable as Wikipedia can be, the unit cost of the newest upcoming Predator (Predactor-C, or Avenger) is $12-$15M each. Which is 10X cheaper and moreover easier to scale, e.g. easier to train ground personnel than pilot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
The real kicker is the U.S. military spending is already more than the next 10 countries combined....so what is the F-15EX supposed to be fighting against? Sure it's a much better deal than the F-35, but the F-35 is already a giant money sink so not saying much...
Maybe if they build more of them and the price comes down, but 8 for 1.2 billion is 150 million a piece and the f-35 costs 78-101 million a piece depending on the type [0].
Nothing. It’s a jobs program same with the F-35 as China/Russia/Iran doesn’t want to start a war, they would much prefer to cause chaos in the elections. When we can spend way too much money on these corporate welfare vehicles, but can’t even make enough simple N95 masks. I’ve lost faith in this country.
The impression I got from reading the pitch on the official Boeing site was essentially: "You are mandated to buy 72 planes every year, how would you like to buy a cheaper plane? We'll even throw in some extra kit!"
I used to work in a DoD acquisitions role (as sort of an engineering analyst).
It's not the actual planes or engineering design work that costs so much money. Most of the time, the companies building the systems know what they're doing. (Not always though... I saw some awful stuff...)
The real costs come from all of the work necessary to get those systems through the government's testing and certification processes. Typically, each individual subsystem has to be checked by a different DoD agency that specializes in that kind of technology. That means dozens or hundreds of similar but different documentation packages need to be created, reviewed, revised, and signed off...
Defense is as much about creating and maintaining jobs as it is about building war machines. The military-industrial complex is very politically motivated to keep jobs over any real need for efficiency gains.
The pentagon has been trying for decades to shift as much as possible to COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) supply with limited success.
In their defense they have some exotic requirements; not just things like warplaenes but simply buying things that will continue to be available for n years into the future.
Also in their defense: the contractors go out of their way to paperwork their way out of anything standard. This is like med device companies who try to wedge a “consumable” into their otherwise single-purchase device.
But the biggest problem is the military themselves who can’t write specs that could be satisfied by anything COTS, adding random requirements because they aren’t subject to the usual fit-for-purpose constraints of a business.
And Congress also gets to weigh in, which, while crucial, often doesn’t help...
I'm also saying they have been building these planes for nearly 50 years. At what point have we finished paying for the infrastructure to build these?
And I'm guessing it's not possible to add one more plane to this order at or near the 1985 price, which speaks to cost inflation beyond one-offs like documentation updates etc.
> But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper.
This, at least as much as the prior, is a rational response. There's a trend that defense analysts have observed where defense systems that are institutionally popular but fundamentally obsolete in the combat environment become radically more expensive (usually, but not exclusivelt, with costs focussed on survivability features) with successive generations (or updates of existing gear, if it's a kind that is refreshed rather than replaced); battleships went through this before being abandoned and manned tactical combat aircraft are on technology that as long as 20+ years ago were being written about being well into the same trend.
> But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper.
Imagine how much an iPhone would cost if Apple only built 10 of them in a year and at most 2000 would ever be built. And those iPhones can't be shoddy prototypes either, in fact they would need to conform to much higher standards and testing than current mass produced models. You can see that it wouldn't be surprising if each of these hypothetical iPhones cost tens or even hundreds of millions each (especially given Apple's R&D budget).
And unlike most things, Military aircraft have become more expensive because of technology, not less.
yeah, except they don't have to go through the FAA this time >_>. /s
What drove me nuts about the 737 fiasco, is that the military version of a 767 had a similar issue that was easily overridden by just... moving the stick.
(the military aircraft is based on the 767 which only has rudimentary fly-by-wire for the spoilers along the wing, so everything else is hydraulic like the 737).
Why make an order for only eight? It seems wasteful for a country like the US to order so few. Either you need a lot more, or you don't need them at all.
I'm honestly wondering why those planes are so expensive. If it's mostly human work, 1.2 billion is (very) roughly 1000 highly-skilled people employed for two full years. This feels out of proportion, even for bleeding-edge technology.
Does someone here know a bit more about the breakdown of costs?
Probably not serious consideration at this point, but the salient TL;DR: it's hard to retain talent and industrial base when there's so few engineering projects. Talent leaves if they only get to do 1 major project throughout their career. So here's busy work. Some of it might be productive. Though I'm sure has more to do with Boeing needing more dough after losing 60 orders this month, 800 so far this year.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
He did write with remarkable candor when leaving office.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."
An interesting counterpoint when a nun wrote to a NASA asst administrator and suggested that NASA be shut down so that its budget could be repurposed to help feed and clothe the poor. Not all of the arguments apply to military spending, buy some do: https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/
TBH I think it's a moot point anyways. Maybe federal budgets were a zero-sum game during the Eisenhower Administration, but I don't think that's been the case for a long time
I was hungry and not fed, cold and not clothed ( * ). Living behind the Iron Curtain. And because of all those guns that America kept making, those warships she kept launching and rockets she kept firing, the Iron Curtain eventually fell, and I'm not hungry and cold anymore.
( * ) I was not literally hungry, but our food options were extremely limited. Clothes the same. And shoes. As for cold, that I was. Many, many cold winter nights with no heating and oh, so many times, no electricity.
104 comments
[ 12.4 ms ] story [ 2434 ms ] threadDefinitely a higher priority than Americans not being able to afford rent.
/s
But, 1 billion doesn't get you very far. Taking just 10% of the population of the US (328.2 million) and giving them an equal share of the 1 billion is just $30 per person, so doesn't get you very far.
You'd be better off dismantling your whole war machine instead, and reinvesting it in the humans inside your country, rather than focusing on killing people outside of it.
Sure, except:
> We're drawing down troops from Germany, SK, Japan, etc.
"You isolationists! You're abandoning NATO! Trump is a Russian Asset!"
> We recently bombed this bad terrorist guy who was mutilating children
"You murderers! How dare you violate another country's sovereignty. You're the reason the world sucks!"
It's so exhausting.
Just like the healthcare debate, what if I told you that you can have both a private system and a public system?
21% of hospitals in the US are owned by the government. And 64% of US healthcare spending is paid for by the government.
Bypassing the fact that the US is a large country so many things will be "worlds largest" without actually carry any significance, being the worlds largest public healthcare system and also one of the worst in the world, says a lot about what a failure it is.
What if I told you that nothing short of exclusive government run healthcare will ever be acceptable to the socialists that make up a large percentage of the people calling for "universal healthcare, and any private system would be deemed "unfair"
Why would they be mutually exclusive? What exactly is the U.S. doing in Germany, or Japan, or Bahrain?
If the U.S. tries to slow operations of "bombing terrorists", then that necessarily means that there is not much use for those bases.
I'd be fine keeping some bases in Europe and in Asia (Japan, SK, Australia, Philippines, etc.) basically for the purposes of helping to train our allies and for joint maneuver training, but do we really need so many bases around the world? And if we're going to do that, how should the costs be split?
I think people like to pretend these bases are solely for U.S. benefit, but every time we try to leave there's a huge uproar over it. Just like now in Germany when Trump said he was going to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops. Germany didn't say: "please do, we don't really need them" as I'm sure you certainly noticed.
> Just like the healthcare debate, what if I told you that you can have both a private system and a public system?
The only way that this is even remotely similar to the healthcare debate is the subsidization of drugs for most of the rest of the world (similar to defense). When the US (not if) switches to single-payer drug prices across the world will go up, and availability for new vaccines and therapy will be reduced. The amount of which is to be seen.
Besides that, there is legitimate discussion on the pro and cons of single-payer and I find myself wavering between the two. But the overarching thing that matters here is that it's an internal US matter. Frankly, I don't see why it should be anyone else's business what we decide to do. People spending all this time talking about it should focus more on their own countries and improving them instead.
If you are looking for an example of how the government prioritizes Boeing ahead of people who can't pay their rent, this is not that.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34568/
[1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-someone-say-f-22-...
The issue, however, is we can barely keep 50% of the already existing raptors operational. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28659/air-force-admits...
The raptor is, unfortunately, not the future due to costs and maintenance (tho the f-35 is having the same maintenance issues with the stealth coating. Hopefully it's not as bad.)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29218/these-images-of-...
The Air Force is looking for a bomb/missile truck. They already have extensive experience with the F-15, and retraining(pilots/maintainers) and retooling to use the smaller f-18 would most likely cost as much or more as this deal. Also given military structure you would have to spin up a whole new command and maintenance Wing for the new type. Where the f-15 will just get added to an existing f-15e wings.
Would this be good for making a drone version?
The corporate welfare role
This is the cheaper, "upgrade the old system" option.
And no matter what aircraft we buy, we're still in the AFG and Iraq, goin on near 20 years for the former. This is a drop in the bucket compared to what we're paying to stay in those countries. The medical care for OIF and OEF veterans will be north of $1 Trillion...
F-22 is too expensive to use most of the time and we are having a VERY hard time keeping the fleet operational.
F-35 has basically been a giant cluster. But getting better.
The primary role of the F-15EX program is to keep aircraft defense manufacturing viable.
And ultimately:
Although Air Force leaders at the time said that the service would have preferred funds to buy additional fifth generation planes like the F-35, officials now say that buying new F-15s is the quickest path for replacing aging Air National Guard F-15C/Ds that are reaching the end of their service lives.
“The F-15EX is the most affordable and immediate way to refresh the capacity and update the capabilities provided by our aging F-15C/D fleets,” Gen. Mike Holmes, Air Combat Command commander, said in a statement. “The F-15EX is ready to fight as soon as it comes off the line.”
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/07/13/heres-how-much-mo...
Does this mean the F-15EX will deploy to ANG squadrons, or does it mean that the Air Force planes which are displaced by new F-15EXs will deploy to ANG squadrons? Just curious.
What do you mean here by "wizzo"?
Isn't that only true of the F-15E? The F-15C/D that these are going to replace are single seaters aren't they? I'm having trouble finding detailed information on the F-15EX that specifies whether it's retaining the dual seat configuration.
I found some details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike...
>> In 2018, the USAF and Boeing discussed a proposed F-15X, a single-seat variant based on the F-15QA intended to replace the USAF's F-15C/Ds.
Part of the reason these old aircraft stick around is due to the very low risk involved with upgrades. We have -15s, we know they work very well, we know how to fix them, we know what to do with them.
The 149th and 199th Fighter Squadrons are ANG and fly the F-22A.
A F-22/35 goes in to find targets, relays them to the bomber, and the bomber slings missiles from BVR.
I remember enjoying his earlier novels. His later novels became both weirder and more political, so not much of a fan of them.
Anyhow, I know it's pointless to talk about this here on hnews, because the smug crowd that's read one or two articles on war is boring or such drown everything out, but I've seen this issue discussed by actual military aviators at length, and they were overwhelmingly of the opinion this F-15EX buy is a bad idea, and basically just a pork politics attempt for Boeing to pull some more cash their way.
Most the guys I know think throwing away f22 production was the dumbest thing we could have done.
The Growler is basically an F-18 Hornet, so it's maneuverable like a fighter (and can engage in limited combat), but is refitted with equipment for electronic warfare missions and roles (radar and comms jamming, intercept, etc...).
The Air Force F-22 can already do some EW, but that is not the F-22's primary role or specialty. Also, there's a limited supply of F-22s and they are very expensive to operate and maintain compared to F-15s.
So, this new F-15 does seem fill a niche where F-22s would be overkill and Growlers unavailable (since they're Navy aircraft built for carrier operations).
Given the mess that the F-35 has been, I'm in agreement with the parent -- this may be a recognition that the AF needs a EW/SEAD fighter like the Growler and the F-35 will have some limitations.
The F-15 also has some serious combat persistence, which isn't terrible for an EW/SEAD craft, esp. since anyone thinking about fighting the US is investing heavily in AA, both in technology as well as sheer volume of systems. Having a big "missile truck" with EW makes squashing all of those systems a little easier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel
Disclaimer: I'm legally still a Whidbey Island WA resident and have connections to the Growler project. However, the above points are simply opinions.
More:
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, on the other hand, can only carry four AMRAAM missiles in an internal weapons bay, a result of its need to fly without missiles and other equipment hanging off its wings to preserve its anti-radar stealth profile. […] The F-35 and F-15EX will likely fly in pairs, with the F-35 quietly detecting enemy fighters while the F-15EX services them with air-to-air missiles.
With the F-14 gone and the F-111 gone the US doesn’t have the ability to drop big heavy bombs outside of using a B-52/B-2/B-1 bomber.
The strike eagle is aging and the F-35 isn’t as suited for ground attack missions.
Ground attack is literally the reason the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter exists, so it not being as suited for it as an upgraded F-15 is a pretty big indictment of the program.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-46eaff74c15723fcc73d97...
That's also a problem, since we’re talking about it's core mission where it's supposed to be a more capable replacement for the F-16, and is several times as expensive (both initially and per flight hour).
The F-15E was built for air interdiction to replace the F4/F111 it has a better radar (especially for ground attack), a more sophisticated electronics warfare system and more busses for high bandwidth electronics such as targeting pods than it’s air superiority brothers.
The F-35 is an advancement over the F-16 it was supposed to be and is a relatively cheap (for a 5th gen fighter) multi-role platform it’s more advanced than the F-16 in every aspect for example much of the capability that a targeting pod such as the LITENING provides is integral to the F-35 and the fact that it carries about 2.5 times the fuel than the F-16 means it can carry much more munitions instead of fuel tanks (F-16E/F with conformal fuel tanks comes closer without expanding hard points)
What you can’t change is it’s main characteristics and that is its a single seat single engine multi-role fighter so regardless of how more advanced it is it simply doesn’t have the hard points due to its size and due to the fact that it’s a single seater it is more limited than a two seater aircraft when it comes to operating in denied airspaces and missions that require a pilot and a weapons officer.
Saying that it’s a problem because the F-35 is more expensive currently is nonsense the F-16 is the most produced fighter of the modern era comparing its cost now to the F-35 is silly.
The F-35 is unquestionably more capable than the F-16, but it doesn’t mean that the US currently doesn’t have a gap in its capabilities specifically for interdiction and deep air support missions.
During the early to mid development of the F-35 an F-35E was considered it was to be a larger two seater variant of the F-35 without S/VTOL capabilities to replace the F-15E but due to the cost and lower part commonality between it and the rest of the F-35 line up it was abandoned.
2.Don't shoot and blow your cover.
3.F-15EX follows behind, launches their huge barrage of missiles.
As unreliable as Wikipedia can be, the unit cost of the newest upcoming Predator (Predactor-C, or Avenger) is $12-$15M each. Which is 10X cheaper and moreover easier to scale, e.g. easier to train ground personnel than pilot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
The real kicker is the U.S. military spending is already more than the next 10 countries combined....so what is the F-15EX supposed to be fighting against? Sure it's a much better deal than the F-35, but the F-35 is already a giant money sink so not saying much...
Maybe if they build more of them and the price comes down, but 8 for 1.2 billion is 150 million a piece and the f-35 costs 78-101 million a piece depending on the type [0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/
But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper.
It's not the actual planes or engineering design work that costs so much money. Most of the time, the companies building the systems know what they're doing. (Not always though... I saw some awful stuff...)
The real costs come from all of the work necessary to get those systems through the government's testing and certification processes. Typically, each individual subsystem has to be checked by a different DoD agency that specializes in that kind of technology. That means dozens or hundreds of similar but different documentation packages need to be created, reviewed, revised, and signed off...
In their defense they have some exotic requirements; not just things like warplaenes but simply buying things that will continue to be available for n years into the future.
Also in their defense: the contractors go out of their way to paperwork their way out of anything standard. This is like med device companies who try to wedge a “consumable” into their otherwise single-purchase device.
But the biggest problem is the military themselves who can’t write specs that could be satisfied by anything COTS, adding random requirements because they aren’t subject to the usual fit-for-purpose constraints of a business.
And Congress also gets to weigh in, which, while crucial, often doesn’t help...
I'm also saying they have been building these planes for nearly 50 years. At what point have we finished paying for the infrastructure to build these?
And I'm guessing it's not possible to add one more plane to this order at or near the 1985 price, which speaks to cost inflation beyond one-offs like documentation updates etc.
This, at least as much as the prior, is a rational response. There's a trend that defense analysts have observed where defense systems that are institutionally popular but fundamentally obsolete in the combat environment become radically more expensive (usually, but not exclusivelt, with costs focussed on survivability features) with successive generations (or updates of existing gear, if it's a kind that is refreshed rather than replaced); battleships went through this before being abandoned and manned tactical combat aircraft are on technology that as long as 20+ years ago were being written about being well into the same trend.
Imagine how much an iPhone would cost if Apple only built 10 of them in a year and at most 2000 would ever be built. And those iPhones can't be shoddy prototypes either, in fact they would need to conform to much higher standards and testing than current mass produced models. You can see that it wouldn't be surprising if each of these hypothetical iPhones cost tens or even hundreds of millions each (especially given Apple's R&D budget).
And unlike most things, Military aircraft have become more expensive because of technology, not less.
This sounds familiar...
What drove me nuts about the 737 fiasco, is that the military version of a 767 had a similar issue that was easily overridden by just... moving the stick.
https://qz.com/1718506/boeings-737-max-mcas-has-better-desig...
(the military aircraft is based on the 767 which only has rudimentary fly-by-wire for the spoilers along the wing, so everything else is hydraulic like the 737).
Does someone here know a bit more about the breakdown of costs?
>US May Need to Nationalize Military Aircraft Industry, USAF Says
https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/07/us-may-need-nati...
Probably not serious consideration at this point, but the salient TL;DR: it's hard to retain talent and industrial base when there's so few engineering projects. Talent leaves if they only get to do 1 major project throughout their career. So here's busy work. Some of it might be productive. Though I'm sure has more to do with Boeing needing more dough after losing 60 orders this month, 800 so far this year.
The actual deliverables seem to be a distant, almost irrelevant goal
Am I the only one that immediately thinks about the 737max disaster where they tried the same thing?
/s
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."
TBH I think it's a moot point anyways. Maybe federal budgets were a zero-sum game during the Eisenhower Administration, but I don't think that's been the case for a long time
( * ) I was not literally hungry, but our food options were extremely limited. Clothes the same. And shoes. As for cold, that I was. Many, many cold winter nights with no heating and oh, so many times, no electricity.