pfcemWell it only has to overcome a $10 billion difference.
A ~$9.45-10.8 billion difference in a ~$35-40 billion program is a lot to “overcome”…
And to say an Airbus facility couldn’t contribute that here over its lifetime is silly. It could easily be substantially more.
It doesn’t contribute in any way to the KC-X program.
Also, as the assembly is here, they will start to build up a local supplier base as it will make sense to have some stuff made here instead of shipped from Europe.
Which means parts will be manufactured in the US
Pretty soon we will have a new center of aerospace development.
Sorry, you can continue to spin it all you want but there is still a ~42% (~$14.7-16.8 billion) foreign content to the NG/EADS proposal vs ‘just’ ~15% $5.25-6.0 billion) for the Boeing proposal.
??? i guess i don’t understand what you’re trying to say about Airbus and capitalist economy
IF Airbus wants to have a A330 final assembly facility in the US nobody here is stopping them (for the moment at least – I can’t make any promises if Obama takes over the aircraft manufacturing industy).
Anyways, Airbus can’t move anything over here without concessions from their unions. And their unions won’t make concessions unless such a move is directly tied to getting a large order, such as the tanker.
How typical.
179/15 per year = 12 years
See quite a bit more than a few.
you clearly have no clue how aircraft development works
even if all the components are existing, that combination has never been tested together
that requires extensive analysis, testing and certification, and that’s before you even get to the tanker stuff like booms
I have much more than a clue.
The 767-200LRF/KC-767AT does not represent a major development.
Note that even the Japanese & Italian KC-767 with no significant airframe changes required analysis, testing & certification and so would any new tanker.
even the almighty GAO agreed with the USAF’s assessment that the development was ‘high risk’
If there was nothing new, it wouldn’t be ‘high risk’
No it didn’t.
i never said they couldn’t do it, pay attention
i said it would take TIME
since you seem to have lost the point of what we were talking about, let me refresh your memory
Time already included in the SDD phase of the KC-X program.
Contrary to the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid you are drinking & pushing, the NG/EADS KC-30 also requires SDD TIME & money.
PS: using the P-8 as an example doesn’t help your cause
it was a simpler mod than the KC-767AT, was ordered in 2004 and still hasn’t been delivered (first flight just happened last month, 5 years after order)
:rolleyes:
Another person who clearly does not understand that deliveries occur per schedule rather than as fast as possible…
pfcemThis as good a time/place as any to bring up that the 183 total includes 6 Production Representative Test Vehicle (PRTV) II aircraft, 2 previously procured EMD aircraft funded in RDT& E and ‘just’ 175 production aircraft (187 makes for 179 production aircraft).
Now comments on the article…
It isn’t very economically sound to procure F-22 at a rate much lower than 18-20 per year.
The F-22 hasn’t flown in combat because Gates has not allowed it to do so.
Gates should get his military advice (he obviuosly needs a lot more than he has been getting) from someone other than Jong Young.
The USAF has not lowered its number. The low risk option is 381 F-22s + 187 “Golden Eagle” F-15Cs. The moderate risk option is 243 F-22s + who knows how many F-15Cs. The high risk option is 183/187 F-22s + who knows how many F-15Cs.
Note that Cogress had prviously provided $427 for advanced procurement for 20 F-22 but Gates & Young used that money for only 4…had they done as Cogress intended there would not even be a need for the $369 in 2010 (unless inteded for more beyond the 20 previously privided for).
pfcemYes, he indeed has, and those don’t lie with providing exact and reliable information to the public. That doesn’t take the PR responsibility off him though. And everything he says to the public is not an immediate public service, but service to LM, the USAF, DoD, etc and then hopefully in a roundabout way service to the public by supporting those instances in their intentions.
Sorry but his other much more important responsibilities exclude him from lieing or being misleading about the capabilities of the F-35.
My problem isn’t with Beesley. My problem is with people who take his roughly qualitative statements and turn them into unreliable quantitative ones. Because that’s really the point: He does not provide information to the public in a way one would expect it presented was it meant for external review. If you ask me about the weather and I tell you “It’s better than I expected, would have surprised many, and being better than days last year the same time, allowed me to get my tasks done”, you’d have a hard time pinning a lie on me no matter whether rain, snow or sunshine.
Except nobody is doing that.
OTOH there are those who flat out accusing him of lieing.
Just for the record: I’m convinced that LM will hit their KPP requirements (+- some odd, practically mostly uninteresting deviation). I just don’t think the requirements are hung as high as some other proponents of the program think. Where I do expect the program to fall significantly short though is the promised price. Just three or four years ago a price of ~50m USD was repeated over and over again by the larger fansphere, but I’d expect it to be at least between 50% and 100% higher than that.
The biggest problem is far too many people fail to recognize that along with the cost increases & delay that virtually every military program experiences is that to a large degree the “increasing” cost numbers come from simply changing the numbers to later year dollars. For example, the $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars F-35A flyaway price quoted to partner nations is directly in line with the still estimated $70-75 million for full rate production F-35s in 2014 (FY2014 dollars) & even the previous estimated $50 million in FY2002 dollars [with an average inflation rate of 3%].
I don’t know. The statements are pretty useless to me. Too many subjective variables. What do I know about pilots’ expectations?
And by the way, yes, I do think that a military person would lie to the public if it suited larger interests. Information management is a large part of their work.
of course you find the statements pretty useless since they dispell the BS that the F-35 is a turkey (or helpless baby seal) in terms of flight performance.
Well, I think he’s being very opaque and typically does not give enough context to make his statements very useful.
For the record: What are the firm, reliable insights about the F-35 you have gained about the F-35 from his statements so far? Can you give me four or five significant pieces of information as derived from his words? I’d be interested to compile a list and file it away for later reference. Doesn’t hurt to keep reevaluating one’s own assessment. 🙂
Sure.
Combat loaded (two ‘2000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + ~12,000-15,000 lbs of fuel at takeoff), the F-35A’s acceleration & turing abilities are similar to a clean Block 50 F-16.
Subsonically, the F-35A flies much like (not quite as powerful) the F-22 up to the point of stall (IIRC ~50-60 degree AoA – which is better than the much relished high AoA capability of the F/A-18) where the F-22s TVC allows it to maintain complete control.
pfcemAnd you know this how? Oh that’s right, you don’t.
Employing workers here in the US to manufacture USAF tankers instead of workers in Europe.
If Airbus establishes a permanent presence in the US, that is far more valuable than keeping the obsolete 767 line open another few years.
If Airbus wants to establishes a permanent presence in the US then good for them, at least for the time being we are still mostly a capitalist economy. But the KC-X program is going to be producing tankers for a lot longer than a few years…
If they were standard 767s that would be true. But they were proposing a NEW MODEL of 767. New models take time.
If the new RFP cuts requirements enough so they could use the same design as the Japanese models, then you would be correct.
Wrong. There is nothing new about the 767-200LFR/KC-767AT airframe. All of the componets come from existing 767 varients flying today. Boeing has already shown with the P-8 Poseidon that it is perfectly capable of marrying various airframe components from various variants of a platform to create a new varient specifically tailored to the customer’s requirements.
The KC-X program/contract includes time & money for four SDD airframes. For those (unsubstantially) so concerend about the ‘risk’ of the 767-200LFR/KC-767AT airframe, Boeing could (but would not need to) even go so far as to ‘develope’ the 767-200LFR/KC-767AT airframe in stages among those four airframes.
pfcemHopefully we see a tanker decision soon i hate all this waiting around. The whole Made in America Boeing stuff is rubbish anyway. The difference between the A330 and the 767 parts and construction content that is done in America is really small. I think we are talking under 5% difference maybe in favour of Boeing. But when you add in the a whole new factory would be built with the Northrop bid the A330 would create more jobs since the 767 line would be switching to the 787 anyway.
No the difference is US contend is >27%. That’s a ~$9.45-10.8 billion difference in US content. No matter how much EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers continue to try & spin it you simply can not ignor the difference between any aicraft manufactured & assembed in the US vs one that is manufactured in Europe & assembled in the US.
The 777 is too big for this portion of the tanker contract. That’s not to say it won’t be good for KC-10 replacement part of the tanker contract.
The KC-30 is too big/heavy for a KC-135 replacement but despite its size/weight (greater than anything in US inventory except for the C-5s & a few 747-based aircraft) lacks the capacity to compete as a KC-10 replacement.
The A330 does appear to be the better plane for the first part of the contract (KC-X) over the 767 and 777 and here a few points of why i think this:
Only to those who don’t understand US tanker operations.
It can take off and land in less distance. (Very important)
The KC-767AT meet the take-off requirement & can operate from airfields the KC-30 either can not or can only do so at reduced weight (thus negating its greater capacity).
It carries more fuel/cargo/people but has a lighter footprint on the tarmac. (very important)
The KC-767AT carries more fuel/cargo/people than the requirements call for & has a significantly smaller footprint on the tarmac (actually fits within the existing KC-135/B-52 infrastructure where the KC-30 does not).
It brings new jobs to America and will probably guarantee Airbus will be in America for the next 50+ years. This is great for creating jobs and bringing in money. (important)
More jobs lost than gained.
It will be in service with airlines for longer than 767 which is good for spares + upgrades. (Important)
The KC-135s have already remained in service longer than commercial 707…
It can fly further and offload more fuel without needing to be a HUGE plane like the 777. (Important)
Ferry range for the 767-200ER & A330-200 is almost the same but the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT carries 40,000 lbs more fuel than the 767-200ER…
The KC-767AT exceeded the fuel offload requirements & the KC-135Rs are not in need of replacement because they lack fuel offload capability.
The A330 will be supplied faster than the 767 and will give the airforce more planes by set delivery times. (very Important)
BS. Boeing can build KC-767s just as soon & as fast as EADS/Airbus can a KC-30s.
The A330 has been picked by a lot more countries for their Tanker/Transportation requirements than the Boeing. There must be reason for this and it ain’t bribery.
Other countries are not the USAF, the USAF has quite different requirements.
As I posted earlier, if you are not the USAF (i.e. not operating hundreds of tankers) & can only realistically operate one tanker type (as opposed to the US’s medium/large mix) the KC-30 might have value.
I am not anti Boeing and i wish people would think of it as Northrop Grumman versus Boeing because when you put it like that it takes the argument right out of this Made in America rubbish. The difference is tiny. The same amount of jobs will be created which ever plane is picked If not slightly in NG favour.
It isn’t Boeing vs NG though. Despite all the juggling of subcontractors & such to get the US content over 50% (of which NG is only a % of that) the KC-30 is very much an EADS tanker.
The difference is >27% (~$9.45-10.8 billion) US content.
There is no way the number of US jobs for an aircraft manufactured in Europe can be the same as one manufactured in the US.
pfcemSo is the KC-x requirement replacing the KC-10 aswell as KC-135? I thought it was just replacing the 707 airframes?
The KC-X is to replace the KC-135Es & a portion of the KC-135Rs.
The KC-Y is to replace the KC-10s.
The KC-Z is to replace the rest of the KC-135Rs.
The KC-135Es are already all-but non-operational & unlikely to ever return to operational status.
KC-Y & KC-Z were switched since the KC-135Rs are expected to last longer than the KC-10s & there is a desire to increase the proportion of large KC-10 like tanker.
The only reason for confusion of what the KC-X is supposed to be is because the A330 does not fit the KC-135 replacement requirements but since Congress demands a “transparent competition” (the 1st competition where the EADS KC-330 was rejected was not very “transparent”) & EADS was not going to ‘compete’ for a contract it knew it could not (based on the requiements/criteria) win. Thus in order for there to even be the Congress demanded “transparent competition”, the requiements/criteria were altered to accomodate the KC-30. Real real sad part (aside from the obvious delays in tanker recapitalization due the the DOD not being able to get its act together) is that even with the altered requiements/criteria (enough that NG/EADS believed they would win) the KC-X Source Selection Team still could not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation nor justify how it assested that the KC-30 even met certain requirements in selecting the KC-30.
pfcemWhat version is the F-15F?
A proposed single-seat F-15E varient proposed for Saudi Arabia but in the end they sytayed with the tried & true two-seater designated F-15S which I should have listed instead of the never produced F-15F. 😮
pfcemThe 777 solves the technology and additional cargo capability questions, but it increases cost and it might be too much plane for the requirement”
Calling PFCEM.:diablo:
The KC-30 is too much plane for the stated requirement (in fact an argument can be made that the KC-767AT is as well, it did after all exceed the key fuel offload requirements by 25,000+ lbs/500+nm, but at least it is not bigger & heavier than the KC-10 and fits existing infrastucture) so obviously the still larger/heavier KC-777 would be as well.
***
I see a different use for the 777 use in USAF colors. That of a combi-freight 777-200LR. (no tanking ability)
Reason? A squadron of these aircraft would get high priority cargo and personnel too and from the states and a theater hub without using any tanker resources. It of course would not be used for everything, just the kinds of cargo and personnel that had to get to and from a theater hub in one go asap.
Not a lot of these, but just a handful. And I think you would find they would show their worth.
That is what CRAF is for…
***
Pitching the KC-777 against the KC-330 would kill the tactical AAR mission.
They should rather look into a small 767 version (as KC-X)and a large 777 version (as KC-Y).
There is lies the problem…
There has to be a competition but the only ‘competitor’ [KC-30] is too much (big/heavy) for KC-X [KC-767] and too little (although quite large/heavy lacks competative capacity/capability) for KC-Y [KC-777].
***
Well, the big porky tankers may be needed. Figure that when a F-35 pulls up behind you it is going to take twice as much gas as an F-16. In a large coalition that is F-35 centric; based on an Allied Force-like bully bombing op, when a flight of these pigs pulls up behind you, you better have some gas to hand over….
Your logic is flawed. The F-35 does not require twice as much fuel to perform the same misison as the F-16…
***
A split buy of KC-767 and CK-777 would be perfect. (the CK not being an error)
Apart from the KC-330 being even better :diablo:
Quite the opposite, the 330 compares poorly vs the 767 in the “KC” role and compares poorly vs the 777 in the “CK” role…
With that being said, if you are not the USAF (i.e. not operating hundreds of tankers) & can only realistically operate one tanker type (as opposed to the US’s medium/large mix) the KC-330 might have value. 🙂
So will there even be a competition this time or will the US just go for home-grown aircraft? This, I wouldn’t mind, but to declare a competition, and and then for all this fiasco to erupt is symbolical.
There has to be a competition…
pfcemDelivered? Only for the flight test program I am afraid and for initial training.
Australia’s first batch of Supers will be flown to Australia before the RSAF F-15’s are even finished and we will be nearing IOC (end 2010) before the Sings see any F-15’s in-country.
Good god man. Singapore has already taken delivery of its 1st four F-15SG. Yes Signapore has decided to do flight testing & pilot training in the US. If it had instead chosen to do so in Singapore (note the geography of Signapore, unlike Australia, makes this rather prohibitive) it 1st four F-15SG would be in Singapore doing so.
Neither did Singapore as the production line was already going for the very similar F-15K. They still took almost exactly the same time as Korea.
Which proves nothing. Singapore wanted to take delivery of its F-15SGs in 2009. Does not mean it could not have done so earlier if so desired.
That was the original schedule, but it wasn’t achieved…
According to Korean news reports it was.
Again, Boeing who is conducting the RMP program and Raytheon who is building the V4 both state differently, but hey, your unsupported opinion is worth more than their’s I suppose…
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/news/2008/q4/081030a_nr.html
Neither link backs up your claim. They only refer to when the US will integrate the radar as part of its planned F-15C & F-15E upgrade programs. If these programs were underway today as opposed to planned for the future, the radar is ready now.
Production rate of WHAT? Unlike the F/A-18E/F production line there were no additional “slots” available, unless you’d like to try and argue that Singapore might have been willing to forgoe her own aircraft for Australia.
Production rate of F-15 airframes. The production line has in the past produced them at a faster rate.
Your chronology is seriously mixed up. Singapore’s initial order of 12 F-15SGs was being built, the Australian F-15s would/could have been next in line ahead of Singapore’s exercised option & increased order for another 12. I don’t claim to know the exact dates but unless Australia’s F-15 were some radical new developement, its F-15 airframes could have begun production along with (at an increased production rate) or immediately after Singapore’s #9-12 airframes.
In such small build runs, (24x aircraft max, remember Korea is assembling her own aircraft at Kai Industries, so the “assembly line at St Louis is only doing Singaporean aircraft). The F-15E itself hasn’t been produced since 2004, when the last of the USAF orders rolled off the production line.
This “full rate” production line you speak of has been going in “fits and starts” since then. The forst 8 Korean F-15K’s were wholly produced and assembled in St Louis, the rest were done in Korea. You’ve then got a nearly 2 year break before Singaporean F-15’s started production and now they are the only ones undergoing assembly AND production in St Louis.
Your increased production rate, would have seen production aircraft rolling off the line, before the flight testing was complete. Apparently some think that is a terribly bad idea.
Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker and of course, remain entirely unsupported…
The airframe of the F-15E, F-15F, F-15I, F-15K & F-15SG is the same.
pfcemWhich doesn’t mean that he hasn’t any marketing/PR responsibility when it comes to interaction with the public. Every company employee has.
Of course he does, I never said he didn’t. But as a test pilot (as opposed to a marketing spokesman) he also has much greater responsibities.
For me the thing is that he hasn’t said much that was quantified and could be subjected to any kind of test by the public. How many and which statements of his about the F-35 do you remember where he gives exact numbers? That’s something I would really like to see: A compilation of hard numerical data Beesley has shared with the public so far.
Of course, the ‘hard numerical data’ you speak of has not yet been cleared for public release. But the ‘hard numerical data’ does exist & a significant number of people have seen it and if it contradicted what Beesley has said you would hear about it. More so than just hearing about it, the release of such would prompt investigation into the program to discover what else the program was not being truthful about & the results of said investigation could result in the cancellation of the program.
Also, assuming he noticed the F-35 falling short in some way, let’s speculatively say high-altitude performance, do you think he’d call the press and ask them to run the story, or when asked about it instead and without his prior initiative, tell the truth instead of saying something like “it’s meeting our expectations at this stage of the program”?
The point is that, contrary to what some here are claiming, he would not lie & say the he expects F-35 pilots to be surprised by the F-35’s high-altitude performance &/or that is was similar to a clean Block 50 F-16…
I wouldn’t go as far as say that he would lie, but I would claim that he doesn’t offer much usable by the public. For example, if asked “How fast does a F-35A with full fuel load and A2A armament fly in maximum dry thrust at 36k feet?”, he would answer something like “It more than exceeds our tactical needs, but what you really should also look at is how far you can fly at its speed, and here comes one of the F-35A’s strengths into play, because, really, we got 18 tons of fuel on board, which corresponds to a fantastic fuel fraction, which means we can stay on station much longer than our competitors. No other current fighter can offer you 18 tons of fuel in a package as advanced and sophisticated as the F-35.”
The rules of PR as pertaining to fighter jets:
1. Don’t give numbers. If you do, avoid context so they aren’t of much use.
2. Divert. Respond in an abstract way to the point raised and then segue to another point you want to make instead.Just look at the Beesley videos posted at the DEW line.
For the record though: I don’t think that’s something bad to do, because I see their task in doing just that when confronted by press or public. And I think every test pilot does it, no matter the affiliation.
First a quick correction…it is 18,000+ lbs internal fuel capacity, which is 9 tons.
There is a huge difference between being deliberatly vague in order not to disclose still classified information. It is something quite different to, as some here are claiming he is doing, deliberately lie/mislead.
pfcemIf you don’t see how Beesley’s task is not to report to the public, but to his superiors and the program, then you are either incredibly naive or currently just dishonest. He is not an oversight instance to communicate shortcomings to the public.
Thats right, he is a test pilot, not a marketing spokesman. He reports to his superiors is LM’s systems test & development division. The only reason why he even speaks to the public at all is because of his 1st hand knowledge (it is one thing to see/read a report or flight test data [note if the flight test data did not back up his claims it would be discovered], it is something else to have actually experienced flying the aircraft) and is reputation as an honest & truthful individual.
I find it hard to believe that this point is being discussed at all. Especially with someone who so often bangs on the “intellectual dishonesty” drum.
The only reason it “has” to be discussed at all is because some people don’t like what he has to say & how it debunks much of their BS so they have to put forth the ridiculous notion that he is nothing more than a marketing spokesman with no credibility or reputation for hunesty.
pfcemBoeing and RAAF have confirmed that the first Super Hornet for RAAF will be rolled out in July 2009.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2009/q1/090308a_pr.html
Rollout & delivery are two differnet things.
Singapore’s 1st F-15SG was rolled out 03 Nov 2008 – that’s 8 months before the expected rollout of Australia’s 1st F/A-18F.
Singapore’s 1st four F-15SGs were delivered 07 May 2009 – that’s 2 months before the expected rollout of Australia’s 1st F/A-18F.
The difference in delivery dates is likely to be similar to the ~8 month difference in rollout dates.
WRONG.
Once again that smoking of yours seems to be affecting your recollection… 🙂
SK selected the F-15K in March 2002 and the official announcement was made that the aircraft had been selected in April 2002.
The first F-15K undertook it’s first flight on March 3, 2005 and was officially rolled out on March 16, 2005.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/news/2005/q1/nr_050316s.html
The first F-15K’s were actually delivered to Korea in October 2005.
Both Singapore and Korea’s F-15 production was virtually identical with both production series taking roughly 3 years to deliver the first airframe.
Nice try but with the Singapore F-15SGs aleady ordered, Australia would not have had to suffer start-up delays…production of Australian F-15s (unless some radical new developement such as F-15SE) could have begun immediately.
Again, you haven’t done your research…
As above, Korea ordered it’s F-15K in April 2002. It received it’s first F-15K on 15 March 2005 in the USA. It’s LAST F-15K’s were scheduled to be delivered in August 2008, whether that was achieved, I’m not sure, however that was 6 years to deliver the fleet, if achieved on time.
By December 2006, 18 of the 40 strong F-15K fleet (now 60 due to the additional order). That’s 18x airframes in 4 years. That is NOT “significantly faster” than the Singaporean production rate (mostly because the last 32x of the F-15K fleet are actually being assembled in Korea, not St Louis) and most definitely NOT faster than Australia’s Super Hornet production rate…
Still spinning.
Sorry but 40 aircraft from March 2005 to August 2008 (were delivered in August) is a delivery rate of about 1 per month (deliveries occur in batches rather than single airframe at a time however).
Korea & Singapore chose their delivery schedules…the length of time between when they ordered thier F-15s & when they recieved their 1st F-15s &/or when they recieve their last is not necessarily the same as it would be for Australia.
That is because the V4 hasn’t yet been developed, only proposed. It has won the RMP for the USAF F-15E upgrade, but it is still “in development”. As I pointed out earlier, it won’t be at IOC- Initial Operating Capability until 2014.
No, the (V)4 was developed along with the (V)3, it just has not received any orders yet but is ready for production.
That isn’t true. I’ve admitted repeatedly that I am aware Japan has been offered new build F-15’s.
Truth is truth however, not spin. F-15 is NOT entered formally into 4 current competitions, is it?
If they are, please feel free to show me the Boeing links, proving they’ve responded formally to request for proposals.
I have done so for F/A-18E/F.
It is formally entered as a response to a request for proposal in 4 current fighter acquisition projects as I proved with the earlier links…
So far you have proven singularly incapable of demonstrating as much for the Strike Eagle.
The ‘competitions’ which the F-15 is to be entered in haven’t progress that far yet.
Que? I SHOWED you the links proving this. I also showed you the links that THESE aircraft were ordered in 2005.
Now I’m wondering about your reading ability. We are discussing whether the F-15 could have met RAAF’s timeline, which IS, a new build fighter in-service by 2010, which was ordered in 2007.
It’s pointless discussing this any further if you cannot comprehend that.
It is so simple. The F-15 producton line was (or was as good as) running & producing airframes. All Boeing would have to do was increase the production rate (even doing like it did with Austrlia’s F/A-18E/F & deliver Australian airframes from already running production slots) so no need for delay for Autralian F-15s.
The best part is that it was already known that both Korea & Singapore had options for additional F-15s and all five non-US F-15 operators are/were known to be very likely (if not already openly expressed) to be looking for additional aircraft for there fleets in the near future.
pfcemNo, that’s when they will be flown to Australia. The first SH will be delivered to RAAF by Boeing in July 2009. 3x more aircraft will also be delivered to RAAF by the end of 2009 and these aircraft will be used for converting RAAF pilots and ACO’s to type, in the United States, just as Singapore is doing with her initial 4x F-15’s at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho USA. Except these won’t be flown to Singapore in 1st quarter because of that whole, “need to flight test the capability” for 12 months, issue…
Where are you getting this July 2009? I have not seen anywhere anything other than 2010 or late 2009.
No matter how YOU spin it, there is no getting around the FACT that Singapore’s F-15SG was ordered in December 2005:
You are the one spinning. It is delivery date which matters, not order date. The Korean F-15K were produced & delivered at a significantly higher rate that Singapore’s F-15SG so quite obviously there is sufficient production capacity to have added Australian F-15s (the only question being what configuration Australia chose).
And the first model, F-15SG1 was rolled off the production line in November 2008 with production deliveries to commence in 2009. The F-15SG also has to undertake a 12 month flight test program,as stated clearly by Boeing to confirm the modifications inherent in the DERIVATIVE version ordered by Singapore. It is also being delivered with APG-63(v3) AESA radar, a radar even Raytheon obliquely refers to as being inferior to APG-79.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q4/081103b_nr.html
The last aircraft will be delivered to Singapore in 2012. Boeing states this in black and white. FOC in RSAF service won’t occur until 2013 at the earliest and most likely 2014.
For a supposed direct replacement of an aircraft from 2010, that’s a pretty poor choice…
Singapore is recieving its F-15SGs per the schedule it contracted for. If it had wanted them any faster it could have. Just look at the rate Korea recieved its F-15Ks…
Everything the APG-79 is, except in-service you mean? Remember that risk reduction requirement, that just keeps nagging away?
If we needed such a radar in 2014 or later, we’d be well served no doubt. USAF IOC is planned for 2014….
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/news/2008/q4/081030a_nr.html
The APG-63(V)3 & APG-63(V)4 were developed together. The (V)3 being primarily as a retrofit to existing APG-63 fitted F-15s and the (V)4 being primarily for retrofit to existing APG-70 fitted F-15s (which would need the entire radar system replaced) and new build.
My understanding is that Singapore chose chose not to go for the additional cost/risk of the (V)4.
I can read what Boeing, RSAF, USAF and Raytheon actually write about their platforms and products, which is more than you can say, apparently.. .
You are the one who doesn’t know that Korea is not the only identified potential costomer for future F-15E derivatives, not me.
Korea is the customer who is fartherst along in the process but by no means the only potential customer.
It’s more than 5 actually…
1. India.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2008/q2/080424b_nr.html
2. Brazil.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2008/q3/080815b_nr.html
3. Greece.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2009/q1/090310b_nr.html
4. Denmark.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2008/q3/080827b_nr.html
5. Japan.
6. Canada.
7. Kuwait.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssAerospaceDefense/idUSN0549528220090505
And how many of those have actually shown any interest?
Let me see. Oh yes, it wants to sell both types and keep open it’s multiple fighter production lines, strange that a business should want to sell as many of it’s products as it can…
Boeing clearly sees more potential in it’s F/A-18E/F’s than it does in F-15E derivatives then doesn’t it?
F/A-18E/F is currently entered into 4x active fighter procurement competitions.
F-15E/K/SG/SE is entered in none.
F/A-18E/F has been proposed to at least 3 more countries, only one of which additional F-15’s have been proposed – Japan.
:rolleyes:
Go ahead keep on spinning…
I could ask you the same thing. Clearly whatever it is, it isn’t helping your recollection…
You are the one who seems to not realize that Signapore’s 1st F-15SGs have already been delivered but Australia’s 1st F/A-18Fs have not.
Again, only IF production and flight test programs could be sped up somehow, because both Singapore and Korea’s production schedule are slower than Australia has for the Super Hornet.
To believe that the production rate could be sped up, you have to believe that Boeing’s F-15 latent production capacity is greater than the rate at which they are actually delivering their current F-15 orders.
You’ve shown NOTHING to prove that.
I’ve shown conclusively, supported by Boeing’s own statements, that the RAAF’s 24x Super Hornet’s will be delivered sooner than Singapore’s 24x Strike Eagles, the bulk of which were ordered some 2 years prior to RAAF’s order.
LOL
Korea recieved 40 F-15K from Oct 2005 thru Oct 2008…
Show me some, then and prove me and RAAF wrong. So far all you’ve provided is unsupported opinion and casual dismissal of facts supported by Boeing statements…
Proof of what. That Australia is planning to retire its F-111’s in 2010 but won’t receive its 1st F-35s by then?
pfcemThe point is that the F-35 is going to be hugely important since it will replace so many different planes. If all the F16 had had the same engine and all got grounded at the same time, there would still be F15, F18, etc. etc. flying.
No the point is that 99+% of all combat aircraft have operated with just one engine and even the one that people site as “the example” of the need/benefit of more than one really did not need more than one.
Some years into the future there will be F-35, and a very low number of F22 (US only), and perhaps a few SH; if all the F35s are grounded due to engine issues there is not much left flying.
And how is that any different then it has been for 99+% of all combat aircraft?
besides, competition is good
There was a competition. P&W won, GE lost. Get over it.
***
:rolleyes:
Just from the top of my head: Fw190, Spitfire, A-4, MiG-21, MiG-23, Su-17/22, Mirage III/V if you include the Kfir, F-5/F-20, G91, F-14, F-15, F-16, B-52, C-130… Swapping engine during production is actually very, very common with combat aircraft. Especially if the type has a (relatively) long production run.
LOL.
Rather than taking the time to go through each & every one of them idividually…
If you were intellectually honest you would see that for the most part in almost all the only ‘additional’ engines were not ‘alternet’ engines but replacement engines in order to provide greater power to later model/varients than the original engines. Not at all like what is being claimed is the graet ‘need/benefit’ for two engines for one model/varient produced at the same time.
pfcemSingapore ordered it’s second batch of 8x F-15SG’s in 2007, roughly the same time as Australia’s Supers. Know when theese are likely to start to be delivered?
It ain’t July 2009…
Even Singapore’s aren’t.
Signapore took delivery of four of its 1st batch (12 total) of F-15SGs 07 May 2009.
The 1st of its 2nd batch (originally an option for 8 more that was increased to 12 [bringing the total order to 24] when the option was exercised) are expected to be delivered in 2010.
Australia isn’t expected to take delivery of its 1st batch of F/A-18F until 1Q10 (1st quarter of 2010)…
So Boeing has kept it’s expanded production line open despite a lack of orders requiring such a production rate, has it? How noble of them…
What ‘expanded production line’? There is one F-15 production line with a production capacity greater than the current build rate.
Name one component and why it’s “superior”.
APG-63(V)4.
Everything the APG-79 is but bigger & more powerful.
The only known potential demand for “more” F-15’s is Korea’s F-X III program for 60x aircraft. This may be filled with F-35 instead, it hasn’t been decided.
You don’t know much then.
It is interesting however that you choose to believe Boeing when it says that it sees demand for up to 5 customers willing to place additional orders, but not when it says virtually the same thing about the SH?
Where has Boeing said that it sees demand for up to 5 customers willing to place additional orders for F/A-18E/F?
Last I checked it was just two (India & Brazil).
Ask Eric about Project Archangel and how many customers Boeing expects to be selling Super Hornets to…
If Boeing is/was so convident in the F/A-18E/F’s export potential then why is it working so much on F-15E derivatives?
Besides, potential future orders are just that potenial. Where as there are allready four F-15E derivative (plus one F-15C) export operators and none for the F/A-18E/F…
Fair enough. After this I won’t be bothered to listen. When it’s pointed out to you the actual order and delivery dates that EXISTING F-15 customers have, taken straight from the Boeing IDS website and you still won’t believe them,I fear it’s pointless continuing this discussion.
You’ll believe Boeing, but only if it’s information happens to agree with your viewpoint…
What are you smoking?
The actual delivery dates of existing F-15 customers proves that if Australia had selected an F-15E derivative that they could be delivered when Australia wanted them.
Find out what FLEI means in the context of RAAF’s legacy Hornet and why it’s important that RAAF had a bridging air combat capability, not simply an “F-111” replacement and you’ll understand what the “gap” actually is.
Try and remember that the F-111 replacement IS the F/A-18A/B fleet…
Spin all you want. Doesn’t change the facts.
Sign In
