Slater Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 I was reading in Jane's Defence Review today that Boeing is quietly suggesting the purchase of 100-150 more F-15E's to the USAF. These would be a so-called "F-15E+" configuration, being basically the F-15K with upgraded avionics (bigger displays, some parts adapted from the F-18E/F, improved radar, etc.). Boeing's pitch is that these additional aircraft would be a gap-filler until the F-35 comes on line in sufficient numbers. They maintain that stealthy features are largely irrevelant in many of today's combat scenarios and that range and payload are more valuable in these "non-stealth" missions. Snowball's chance in Hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burncycle360 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 (edited) The line only recently closed. I'd be glad to see more F-15E's around. Edited November 14, 2005 by Burncycle360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavT Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 They maintain that stealthy features are largely irrevelant in many of today's combat scenarios and that range and payload are more valuable in these "non-stealth" missions.246509[/snapback] Trying to convince the USAF that they need less F-35s in the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 They are just trying to get more business. They certainly need more than just the 280 or so F/A-22s to keep their fighter program going. They lost the JSF competition. The additional F-15E+s would be a a "gap-filler until the F-35 comes on line in sufficient numbers", not instead of F-35s. I think Boeing has a better chance of getting 100 more F-15Es than 100 more F/A-22s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 I'm pretty sure that their competitor Lockheed Martin builds the F/A-22 and F-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hard Ball Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Hmmm, IIRC the F-22 is produced by Lockheed-Martin, not Boeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Hmmm, IIRC the F-22 is produced by Lockheed-Martin, not Boeing.246528[/snapback] IIRC Boeing is a major sub-contractor for the F/A-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Boeing is a one-third partner in the F/A-22 aircraft program. So like I said, Boeing needs something more than the F/A-22 to keep its fighter program going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siddar Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Singapore is ordering 12 with final purchase of 20 likely South Korea is buying 40 with 40 more likely Japan is very posable for 50 to 75 then add 50 to 100 for US and you have a very good foundation for keeping F15 line open for another ten years. On top of that you can add the likely upgradeing of existing US Isreali and Korean F15-Es to new standard useing same asembly line and you have very good chance at 200+ new builds with 400+ rebuilds for a production run of 600+. This plus F18 work should tide Boeing over nicely until UCAVs being designed by Boeing and NorthropGrumman are ready to enter production arounf 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I forgot about the F/A-18E/F. Too bad the commitment to the "Superbug" had already been made. We would be have been better off with navalized F-15E. It would cost about the same as the F/A-18E/F (USAF F-15Es cost ~$60million compared to ~80million for USN F/A-18E/Fs), weight slightly less than the F-14D, have better air-to-air & stike capabilities plus, with a significanly larger & more powerful radar, the ability to fit a longer range missile (easiest way would fit a booster to the AMRAAM or make a AAM version of the ESSM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingCanOpener Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I forgot about the F/A-18E/F. Too bad the commitment to the "Superbug" had already been made. We would be have been better off with navalized F-15E. It would cost about the same as the F/A-18E/F (USAF F-15Es cost ~$60million compared to ~80million for USN F/A-18E/Fs), weight slightly less than the F-14D, have better air-to-air & stike capabilities plus, with a significanly larger & more powerful radar, the ability to fit a longer range missile (easiest way would fit a booster to the AMRAAM or make a AAM version of the ESSM).246962[/snapback] The R&D costs as well as addition of gear to navalise it would put it over the $80 million mark per plane... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5150 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 We would be have been better off with navalized F-15E.246962[/snapback] You keep finding wonderful ways to diminish your credibility. Do you know what would be involved in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) To my untrained eye, the F-15 looks a weeee bit fragile to navalize. There'd be changing the landing gear, the basic structure has to be strengthened to take the stress of carrier ops, all these have weight penalties which in the end probably make the F-15 just as heavy as the F-14. And to further show my ignorance... Isn't the F-15K the South Korean version? Edited November 16, 2005 by TomasCTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingCanOpener Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 To my untrained eye, the F-15 looks a weeee bit fragile to navalize. There'd be changing the landing gear, the basic structure has to be strengthened to take the stress of carrier ops, all these have weight penalties which in the end probably make the F-15 just as heavy as the F-14. And to further show my ignorance... Isn't the F-15K the South Korean version?246975[/snapback] Yes, the F-15K is the South Korean version of the F-15E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubberanvil Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Isn't the F-15K the South Korean version?246975[/snapback]Bingo http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/milita.../f15k_web2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 To my untrained eye, the F-15 looks a weeee bit fragile to navalize. There'd be changing the landing gear, the basic structure has to be strengthened to take the stress of carrier ops, all these have weight penalties which in the end probably make the F-15 just as heavy as the F-14.246975[/snapback]F-15E alreeady had strengthened landing gear & structure to cope with its increased GTW compared to earlier F-15s. Yes, it would require further strengthening for carrier duty but it would have cost less to navalize the F-15E than it did to develope the essentially all new F/A-18E/F & would have resulted in a much better aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 The R&D costs as well as addition of gear to navalise it would put it over the $80 million mark per plane...246964[/snapback]How do you figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5150 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 F-15E alreeady had strengthened landing gear & structure to cope with its increased GTW compared to earlier F-15s. Yes, it would require further strengthening for carrier duty but it would have cost less to navalize the F-15E than it did to develope the essentially all new F/A-18E/F & would have resulted in a much better aircraft.246996[/snapback] I take it you've got some sort of study that shows that? One that was done by professionals? Heck, I'd even give you some credit if you could find a marketing brochure for it. Unfortunately, I think you've made an unsupportable statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Yes, it would require further strengthening for carrier duty but it would have cost less to navalize the F-15E than it did to develope the essentially all new F/A-18E/F & would have resulted in a much better aircraft.246996[/snapback] Complete B-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Not the worst idea, that would leave you with a healthy F-15E fleet for the Guard once F-35 comes online for the USAF. And the F-15 would still be a good plane for low to medium threat level conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 F-15E alreeady had strengthened landing gear & structure to cope with its increased GTW compared to earlier F-15s. Yes, it would require further strengthening for carrier duty but it would have cost less to navalize the F-15E than it did to develope the essentially all new F/A-18E/F & would have resulted in a much better aircraft.246996[/snapback]Wasn't the whole F/A-18E/F a budget thing? A new plane disguised as an upgrade to the F-18 to sell to congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) I take it you've got some sort of study that shows that? One that was done by professionals? Heck, I'd even give you some credit if you could find a marketing brochure for it. Unfortunately, I think you've made an unsupportable statement.247006[/snapback]Are you saying that the F-15A/C structure & landing gear can handle 68,000 lbs GTW or that the F-15E structure & landing gear can not? Edited November 16, 2005 by pfcem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Complete B-S247015[/snapback]Are you saying it would take more to navalize the F-15E than it took to develope the essentially all-new F/A-18E/F or that a navalized F-15E would not be better than the F/A-18E/F? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE BRENNAN Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) (USAF F-15Es cost ~$60million compared to ~80million for USN F/A-18E/Fs), 246962[/snapback]I thought it was already pointed out to you last time you made that comparison how dubious it is to begin with, before the whopper of stating that the cost of navalizing the F-15 would be negligible*. In fact, strictly apples to apples comparisons, in time, included equipment and production volume, for those two planes don't exist. You're picking numbers semi-randomnly, even if both those have appeared someplace. In small lots (20-40) the ROK and Singapore contracts were $95 and $105mil per F-15 per press reports, but including stuff like weapons, spares, support etc plus the whole plane. Boeing planned to offer 18 F/A-18E/F's to Malaysia for $1.5, $83mil per, probably on a similar basis but we can't really say, and the deal wasn't, or hasn't, been done (Boeing's initial offers were negotiated down in the two F-15 deals). A recent Congressional move to add 1 F-15E to the USAF"s budget was for $65mil but those numbers quoted in US don't even include the whole plane (are minus "government furnished equipment", like engines), and aren't necessarily all put in one year's budget. The last multiyear procurement contract for F-18's, in '04, was $8.6bil for 210 or around $41 mil per, but again minus govt furnished equip, just Boeing's contract. But again we can't say the terms are the same, plus the F-18 is being produced in greater unit volume. So based on a cost comparison more or less pulled out of the air, let's pull navalization feasibility and cost out of the air and reach some really valuable conclusions... *which it would have to not to negatively impact the comparison, since F-18 RD money is spent already. Joe Edited November 16, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5150 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Are you saying that the F-15A/C structure & landing gear can handle 68,000 lbs GTW or that the F-15E structure & landing gear can not?247147[/snapback] What I'm saying--as if this wasn't plain--is that you're making things up. If you can produce some facts to support your statements about navalizing the F-15E, by all means do so. I think you should stick to reading, and spend a little less time pushing these ideas that spring from your imagination as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now