bring_it_onAs I understand things, the X would be similar to the F-15SA/QA, but with the AN/APG-82. Sure, maybe some other small changes but that is the big one. That radar, and whatever other changes, will not significantly change what the aircraft can do or not do relevant to a near peer adversary with advanced EW, shoot and scoot capable air defense systems, and a mixture of stealth and legacy aircraft. So my main interest in how the SA did against the simulated enemy at Red Flag is that it is a pointer at how capable and flexible the X could be when working with other assets. But, from what I’ve been reading, it looks like we might not be simulating stealth aircraft in the aggressors yet.
The F-15 EX will feature a –
– Advanced Display Core Processor II Mission Computer
– AN/APG-82 radar
– EPAWSS Electronic Warfare Suite
– USAF ONLY NCTR and ID capabilities
The F-15SA’s at Red Flag have none of these. So as I said, what will you test against the modern simulated air-defenses? You can’t test the survivability because it doesn’t carry the self-defense suite that you are getting. You can’t test radar performance to enemy countermeasures because you aren’t getting the same radar (even if you were, you already have that radar in service), you cannot test how the mission computer handles the higher workload given an overhauled misison system suite because you do not have the mission system you are getting. And finally, in an A2A and A2G threat you can’t test out the CID capabilities because the EX’s will get US only capabilities that are being funded in the USAF budget for the last few years and that will begining transitioning into the F-16 and F-15 fleets starting next year.
And what will you learn that you do not know already given that the systems on the F-15SA’s are US systems, and were tested by the USAF?
bring_it_onI wasn’t so much speaking of systems evaluation as evaluating the platforms themselves in concert with other combat platforms in simulated future battlespaces. What I was saying was that we have a better idea of what a future battlespace with a near peer power will be like. We’ve now got the chance to work in near vicinity to advanced A2AD systems like S-400 and we’ve now been experimenting with combined 5th and 4th gen platforms in training simulations for a while (and the Russians and Chinese will be doing it now as well). So, this helps the USAF to evaluate it with that forward picture in mind. In order for the F-15X to make sense it has to be able to successfully/reliably accomplish roles/tasks against near peers on the future battlespace over the next 25 years. It doesn’t have stealth, so it can’t do everything, but if it can just do that much then it has potential.
A platform is a SYSTEM with individual elements contributing to its success against a particular threat. If those individual elements are different on two different variants then so will be their cumulative affect on the platform’s performance. The USAF is literally getting a different radar, a different mission computer, a different EW suite, and a different cockpit layout than the Saudi’s. What else can you realistically model using their aircraft that you simply couldn’t in the M&S side since you yourself designed, tested and validated each of those changes?
bring_it_onAs I’ve said on other forums. The perfect compromise is right in front of us…….
That is let the USAF acquire the “72” New F-35A’s per year. While, canceling the F-15EX. Yet, use the additional F-35A’s to replace some of the F-15E’s early. Which, in turn could be used to replace the retiring F-15C’s!
Remember, the F-15E’s are in the process of being upgraded with New AESA Radars, EPAWSS, IRST, etc. Which, would be very similar to the F-15EX anyways!
In short the USAF get’s all the F-35A’s it wants and the F-15C Squadrons are replaced by newer F-15E’s. Which, are basically upgraded F-15EX’s!
WIN-WIN-WIN
72 F-35A’s a year in reality would go simply towards the requirement already designated for the F-35A. The USAF need for recapitalization of those units is between 60 and 80 5th gen tails a year. Prior SAR’s are indicative of that (Dec. 2010 SAR had them at 80 F-35A’s a year starting 2017). That they are hovering at at 50-60 means that it is a budget compromise so going up to 72 would only accelerate current plans (or closer to the AF’s desired modernization rate for the existing F-35 topline number of aprox. 1700 aircraft). To begin recapitalizing the fleet not designated for F-35A replacement, you’d probably need closer to 90 F-35As a year for the USAF alone. It would also entail increasing the AF program of record to closer to 2000 and that involves quite a bit of formal justification so it is a process that takes time. I doubt the USAF will be willing to pass on perfectly good F-15E’s, with loads of life left in them, to the ANG without first hitting at level of production target. 60 a year is probably as high as they are likely get in the next half decade or so that plan won’t go anywhere.
If the USAF gets its UPL this year then they would have moved up from 56 F-35A’s that were appropriated for them last year, to 60 F-35A’s appropriated this year. This is a really good number but it is unlikely that they are able to go much higher than that given other priorities and the current budget topline. The budget has peaked and is not expected to grow in the FYDP (it will barely keep up with inflation) so I doubt that the USAF is willing to adjust other acquisition priorities to move that number up significantly from the 50 odd requested and the 10-12 in its UPL for the Congress’s consideration over and above.
bring_it_onB-21 update from earlier this month –
bring_it_onThe Air Force announced on Wednesday that it has chosen Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to be the first base to house an operational B-21 bomber unit, as well as the formal training unit for the Raider.
Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and Dyess Air Force Base in Texas will follow, and receive B-21s as they become available, the Air Force said in a release.
“These three bomber bases are well-suited for the B-21,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said in the release. “We expect the first B-21 Raider to be delivered beginning in the mid-2020s, with subsequent deliveries phased across all three bases.”
The release said Ellsworth was chosen as the preferred location for the first of the advanced long-range strike bombers because it has enough space and existing facilities to accommodate simultaneous missions at the lowest cost, and with minimal impact across all three bases.
But it will probably be 2021 before the final decision on where to base the B-21 is made. The Air Force said that decision will be made after it complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and other regulatory and planning processes as part of the service’s strategic basing process.
bring_it_onShanahann isn’t related to NATO. So i’d take a pinch of salt before saying “NATO’s opinion”
The article haavarla refers to references the person leading the The NATO Military Committee.
bring_it_onCan you take the non F-35, Turkish part somewhere else? This is not a thread to discuss Patriot or S400. As far as Turkish pilots are concerned, of course they will continue to train on the aircraft because as of today, Turkey is still a partner. But having a handful of pilots begin training on the aircraft is a lot different from being able to fly these aircraft home or use them in an operational setting. I agree with the planning ahead part, given that Turkey is executing the fastest 5th generation project in the world with the aim to put into service the T-X by 2025 (how many flights has the TD had on that?) .
And yes I agree, Turkey should plan for a future without the F-35, without the industrial partnership in the program and without being able to supply weapons like the SOM-J to its partners. That appears to be the best outcome for both Turkey and the US though I am sure offers and counter-offers will continue to be made, as is normal during a negotiation because what I have described is likely the worst case scenario that both parties would probably like to avoid if possible. They have till the summer to sort this out if they can.
bring_it_on[USER=”4698″]bring_it_on[/USER] – I’ll take your word for it. I really don’t know how involved the USAF gets involved with the purchases of partner nations.
Involved as much to jointly test the new variant and to certify it. The Advanced F-15 is has some fairly significant modifications compared to your standard E. The design reviews and flight testing was approved and conducted by a joint USAF and Boeing team.
Any initial evaluation was done in the late 00s early 10s.
I’m pretty sure that the elements of the F-15 SA flight test program were ongoing through the 2015-2016 time-frame if not later. The joint USAF and Boeing led team received the Howard W. Leaf Award for flight test excellence at last year’s Air and Space Conference.
As far as evaluating the aircraft Post “Syria”, which systems would you evaluate? The EW/EA suite and the radar on the two aircraft are to be different (USAF already operates the radar that it wants on the EX) as is the mission computer and the aircraft will have the USAF funded NCTR and ID capabilities that they have been developing for the last few years (its in the R&D budget since FY17/18)…I believe even the cockpit displays will be different from the SA since Boeing has moved over to the flat panel touch displays on the QA (on which the E/CX are to be based).
The USAF will get a very good idea of all this when they enter the flight test phase of EPAWSS testing which should be very soon. Those Strike Eagles would probably also have an APG-82 and the new mission computers.
bring_it_onDepends upon what you look at. They were -6 compared to FY19 SAR or +14 if you look at FY20 request + UPL (still trying to figure out what the Marines have requested as part of their UPL)
EDIT: The USMC has requested 4 F-35s in its UPL so that makes it 18 additional F-35s taking the # to 96 or 4 more than what was appropriated last year
bring_it_on[USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER] this is last year’s SAR which I and others have posted before…Eagerly awaiting the next iteration..
A step in the right direction… if funded by Congress, but odds are good. The FY 2021 advanced procurement is even better news considering the FY2020 budget which neglected the planned procurement uptick due in 2021.
As I said..”The game the service officials play during budget times..”..The F-35 has good support with Congress so moving it out of the main budget request and into the UPL is a pretty good idea given how much more likely it is (compared to nearly everything else except perhaps hypersonic weapons and DEW research) to get funded.
bring_it_onThe USAF has requested 12 additional F-35A’s in FY20 in its Unfunded Priorities List delivered to Congress. This would take the number of F-35A’s requested in either the budget or the UPL up to 60. As a reference, the Congress funded 56 F-35A’s for the USAF in its FY19 and as I said the number in FY20 should be at least that much ..
The USN has requested an additional 2 F-35C’s.
Air Force’s unfunded priorities list sees need for more tankers, F-35s
The Air Force has sent Congress a $2.7 billion unfunded priorities list for fiscal year 2020, the bulk of which would be used to procure additional KC-46 tankers and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, according to a document obtained by Inside Defense.
The Air Force would use an additional $1.9 billion to buy three Boeing-made KC-46A tankers and 12 Lockheed Martin-made F-35As, along with enough advanced procurement items to support procurement of an additional 12 F-35As in FY-21, the document states.
bring_it_onThoughts on the two unnamed “new” weapons?
I am thinking larger Paveways, Brimstone/JCM, JASSM, etc….
Interesting development as far as block 4 and beyond weapons integration is concerned. JASSM / F-35 integration progress is particularly relevant to a couple of potential FMS customers and competitions and other operators who already have the weapon in inventory.
So SiAW and JASSM/LRASM..Eventually JAGM as well..
bring_it_onIndustrial base considerations played role in F-15X decision
[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER], the USAF was part of the test and evaluation team for the F-15SA so they are well aware of its capabilities and how it will perform in the high end fight. I think the CSAF was clear that this was a “capacity” based decision for the USAF and if it came to a capability based decision then this conversation wouldn’t even have started. If those F-15C’s with the guard cannot be retained and if retained cannot guarantee high readiness then it becomes an issue down the road…
Lee Hudson | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Industrial Base Diversity Drives USAF F-15EX Buy
Had been saying all along that IB played a very important role in this decision. It is quite stupid for the DOD to have waited this long to spell it out..
bring_it_onAs for G variant, there is a 2018 SAR document that envisions 160 airframes, so that should be about the right number even today. Unless those 160 include airframes for Australia. Do they?
The 160 number is for the USN (not including RAAF). The requirement went from 114 up to 160 and the last time the Navy performed an AEA AOA the requirements ticked up to 180 (another 20). The Navy is currently awaiting a Joint AF/Navy AEA AOA completion to determine whether to proceed to that 180, stay put or pursue a different number. Navy took the 160th growler delivery last year.
On the F-18E/F fleet, with the current Multi Year Procurement contract (72 aircraft + 6 prior year congressional adds) the Navy’s SH fleet will grow to 619 aircraft (this accounts for losses etc) so if you want to get the current count you can subtract all future year (FY20-23) deliveries and average out annual deliveries to account for aircraft delivered in 2019 so far..
Since no new F/18E/F SAR is required (because of quantities being below the threshold that triggers a new SAR) your best bet to dig up current and planned inventories and future plans is to look at the 30 year aviation inventory and funding plan which is usually updated (combined AF and USN/MC) with every budget.
bring_it_onReadiness or operational readiness? Different metrics in France. If you want an operational case context, see Libya instead. (e.g.). It’s been discused ad nauseam but should better be placed in Rafale thread no?
Provide the exact definition with an official French MOD/AF source (not your own definition or your understanding). I am sure members here can provide the same for how these same metrics are defined using official USDOD or DOD authorized sources.
Sign In
