Boeing tries to peddle more F-15E's

[Slater]

This is probably neither here nor there, but the notional F-15N "Sea Eagle" proposed in the early 1970's would have added about 2300 pounds to the basic F-15A structure.

[Guest pfcem]

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

247152[/snapback]

You are completely missing the point.

 

I am saying we would have been better of with a navalized F-15E instead of the F/A-18E/F. There is no way navalizing the F-15E would have cost as much as it did to develope the F/A-18E/F.

 

I do not know what your problem with comparing apples to apples is. The fact is if the US wants F-15Es, they cost $60-65million each, if the US wants F/A-18E/Fs, they cost $80-85million each (based on the latest numbers I have seen - which for 2005 were $65million & $84million respectively). The actual cost per aircraft would go down from there if a significant enough number are purchased but the F/A-18E/Fs are still going to cost more.

 

I am just guessing, but I doubt a navalized F-15E would cost >$10million more than a non-navalized F-15E which would make it less expensive than the F/A-18E/F.

[FlyingCanOpener]

I am just guessing, but I doubt a navalized F-15E would cost >$10million more than a non-navalized F-15E which would make it less expensive than the F/A-18E/F.

247164[/snapback]

 

Your guess is completely wrong.

 

The per-unit cost of a navalised F-15E would still be more than an F/A-18F because of the fact that the bits that would make the F-15E "navalised" would cost more than the difference in cost.

 

Have you looked at the preliminary cost differences between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the concept of a Navalised Typhoon? Though I'm away from my books (Keep doing your economics homework kids!), The offhand total I remember was nearly 30 million extra per plane. It won't take much of an imagination to determine that the costs would be comparable to navalise the F-15E...

[Guest pfcem]

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.

247153[/snapback]

I messed up.

 

The F-15A/C have a GTW of 68,000 lbs, the F-15E has a GTW of 81,000 lbs so it would be heavier than the F-14. I do not know if it would be a problem though especially since F-15Es are usually not loaded to GTW.

 

Back to my point.

 

Either the F-15A/C structure & landing gear can handle the 81,000 lbs GTW of the F-15E, or the F-15E had its structure & landing gear strengthened to handle 81,000 lbs GTW or the F-15E can not handle 81,000 lbs GTW. Which is it? I know the answer. Do you? I thought it was "common knowledge".

 

Here are some websites that provide the answer:

http://www.f-15e.hu/main/index_eng.htm

http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f15e/

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f15_10.html

[swerve]

Have you looked at the preliminary cost differences between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the concept of a Navalised Typhoon? Though I'm away from my books (Keep doing your economics homework kids!), The offhand total I remember was nearly 30 million extra per plane.

 

Do you remember how much of that was production cost & how much was development cost? Obviously, the latter per unit would depend on how many units it was spread over, but I presume they had a number in mind.

[JOE BRENNAN]

(based on the latest numbers I have seen - which for 2005 were $65million & $84million respectively). 

247164[/snapback]

So give the source for the numbers so we can see if it is apples v apples. I already told you $65mil for the F-15 doesn't buy the whole plane (major equipment is accounted for separately), and from past small scale procurements of them (in late 90's) additional money would be appropriated in future years, so not a meaningful number. The headline number for F-18's in fy06 is $74.3mil* but again we can't say without analysis how much of that is strictly for those 38 as opposed to others before and after in the current multiyr contract, or whether the GFE component is the same. If you can provide the accounting analysis to show those numbers are comparable (and also go through the details of the Singapore, Korea and Malaysia contracts/offers to explain why the per plane in those is 20% higher for the F-15) then we'll have a solid basis to say what relative F-15 and F-18 costs are. If you want to have a make believe discussion based on just assuming numbers and comparability, which is what it has been up to now, that's not interesting.

 

*2.822bil requested for 38. source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessements, pg 5, as of last month http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Ar...05.CmprAuth.pdf

 

Joe

Edited November 16, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Guest pfcem]

Your guess is completely wrong.

 

The per-unit cost of a navalised F-15E would still be more than an F/A-18F because of the fact that the bits that would make the F-15E "navalised" would cost more than the difference in cost.

 

Have you looked at the preliminary cost differences between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the concept of a Navalised Typhoon? Though I'm away from my books (Keep doing your economics homework kids!), The offhand total I remember was nearly 30 million extra per plane. It won't take much of an imagination to determine that the costs would be comparable to navalise the F-15E...

247169[/snapback]

I do not have the exact numbers but IRC navalized Mig-29s & Su-27s cost <<<$5million more than their land based derivatives.

 

The Rafale M costs ~$6million more than the Rafale C.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRRafale.htm (315 FF [$56.12] vs 282 [$50.24] FF)

 

The F-35C is expected to cost ~$10million more than the F-35A.

Edited November 16, 2005 by pfcem

[5150]

Back to my point.

 

Either the F-15A/C structure & landing gear can handle the 81,000 lbs GTW of the F-15E, or the F-15E had its structure & landing gear strengthened to handle 81,000 lbs GTW or the F-15E can not handle 81,000 lbs GTW.  Which is it?  I know the answer.  Do you?  I thought it was "common knowledge".

247177[/snapback]

 

You really have no clue as to what I was getting at, do you? That's unfortunate, but I'm starting to realize that you can't be helped in that regard.

 

Do you know what is involved in navalizing an aircraft? It goes a bit beyond weights.

[yak_v]

navalized Mig-26

 

Don't you mean Mig-28 ?

 

 

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal3...ger/gal2870.htm

 

Vladimir

Edited November 16, 2005 by yak_v

[Guest pfcem]

You really have no clue as to what I was getting at, do you? That's unfortunate, but I'm starting to realize that you can't be helped in that regard.

 

Do you know what is involved in navalizing an aircraft? It goes a bit beyond weights.

247202[/snapback]

Yes I do.

 

It has been done.

(You are acting like it has never been done before & nobody has any idea what is involved.)

 

The end result is added weight & costs.

 

Again, I am saying we would have been better off navalizing the F-15E than developing the "essentially all new" F/A-18E/F. It would have taken a lot less to navalize the F-15E than it took to develope the "essentially all new" F/A-18E/F.

[Guest pfcem]

So give the source for the numbers so we can see if it is apples v apples. I already told you $65mil for the F-15 doesn't buy the whole plane (major equipment is accounted for separately), and from past small scale procurements of them (in late 90's) additional money would be appropriated in future years, so not a meaningful number. The headline number for F-18's in fy06 is $74.3mil*  but again we can't say without analysis how much of that is strictly for those 38 as opposed to others before and after in the current multiyr contract, or whether the GFE component is the same. If you can provide the accounting analysis to show those numbers are comparable (and also go through the details of the Singapore, Korea and Malaysia contracts/offers to explain why the per plane in those is 20% higher for the F-15) then we'll have a solid basis to say what relative F-15 and F-18 costs are. If you want to have a make believe discussion based on just assuming numbers and comparability, which is what it has been up to now, that's not interesting.

 

*2.822bil requested for 38. source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessements, pg 5, as of last month http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Ar...05.CmprAuth.pdf

 

Joe

247184[/snapback]

Since you will probably not be satisfied with anything that does not directly show the unit cost of both the F-15E & F/A-18E/F on the same page I will see if I can find one.

[Jeff]

How much money did they save navalizing the F-17?

[Guest pfcem]

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c223.htm

F-22, F-18E/F, JSF, and V-22: A Trip Report to Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Bell-Textron

by a Member of Congressional Staff

 

January 13, 1999

 

Comment: #223

It is interesting to compare the F-18E/F to the Air Force's preferred fighter/bomber, the F-15E: the F-18E/F has substantially less payload, less range, less avionics, and it very probably is less of a performer aerodynamically—as a dogfighter. And, yet, at $80 million-plus per copy, the F-18E/F costs more than the F-15E, at approximately $60 million per copy.

 

***

 

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/referenc...ices/BOEING.htm

F/A-18E/F (US NAVY)

Price (USD) 54000000

 

F-15E (USAF)

Price (USD) 45000000

 

***

 

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/f...998_weabook.pdf

F/A-18E/F

1997___012___$2,094.8 = $174.6 each

1998___020___$2,191.6 = $109.6 each

1999___030___$3,034.6 = $101.1 each

 

F-15E

1997___006___$0275.2 = $047.5 each

1998___003___$0170.0 = $056.7 each

1999___003___$0165.0 = $055.0 each

 

***

 

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/f...999_weabook.pdf

F/A-18E/F

1997___012___$2,038.1 = $169.8 each

1998___020___$2,112.8 = $105.6 each

1999___030___$2,897.2 = $096.5 each

 

F-15E

1997___006___$0247.0 = $041.2 each

1998___005___$0232.0 = $046.4 each

1999___000___$0000.0 = $000.0 each

 

***

 

It is worth noting that the 1997-1999 timeframe were last years of USAF F-15E procurement but the 1st years of USN F/A-18E/F procurement so the F/A-18E/F cost are misleading.

 

Here are more recent numbers for the F/A-18E/F.

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/def...000_weabook.pdf

F/A-18E/F

1998___020___$2,106.4 = $105.3 each

1999___030___$2,870.6 = $095.7 each

2000___036___$2,854.2 = $079.3 each

 

***

 

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/f...004_weabook.pdf

F/A-18E/F

2002___048___$3,100.3 = $064.6 each

2003___046___$3,208.1 = $069.7 each

2004___042___$3,031.2 = $072.2 each

 

***

 

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/f...006_weabook.pdf

F/A-18E/F

2004___042___$3,044 = $072.5 each

2005___042___$2,979 = $070.9 each

2006___038___$2,822 = $074.3 each

 

There are reports that the FY 2005 budget includes one F-15E at a cost of $65million but I could not find it listed in any of the budget pdfs from dod.mil.

Edited November 17, 2005 by pfcem

[Ken Estes]

I do not have the exact numbers but IRC navalized Mig-29s & Su-27s cost <<<$5million more than their land based derivatives.

 

The Rafale M costs ~$6million more than the Rafale C.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRRafale.htm (315 FF [$56.12] vs 282 [$50.24] FF)

 

The F-35C is expected to cost ~$10million more than the F-35A.

247193[/snapback]

 

Now we are becoming interesting. When will we know, and by what criteria, that the navalization [what a word!] of the MIG-29 or SU-27 was a success? I could say the same for Rafael, but I am not anti-Frog and they at least are doing honest ship ops, have been for decades.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Do you remember how much of that was production cost & how much was development cost? Obviously, the latter per unit would depend on how many units it was spread over, but I presume they had a number in mind.

247183[/snapback]

 

According to what I've got (it was a brochure I got from BAE Syetems when I sent off for information about the Tornado for a paper in High School), the production costs were estimated at about 10-13 million more (The brochure doesn't give the exact details, but navalisation entails strengthening the undercarriage (and points on the fuselage also), software upgrades for operating over the ocean (don't know exactly what would be different, other than...), addition of anti-shipping capabilities, as well as the arrestor hook and possibly slightly enlarging the wing and adding flaps for better low-speed operation. However, I found this...

 

The second application, FJCA was a more promising project. The biggest issues in this case are strengthening the landing gear and fuselage to allow arrested recovery of the aircraft and the marinisation of certain potential areas of corrosion. In the case of the former BAE Systems devised some novel solutions. For take-off the Typhoon's excellent short field performance combined with a ski jump ramp should allow for relatively short deck take-offs, removing the need for catapults. For recovery a number of studies were carried out, for example one looked at the use of fans to blow air across the deck while the aircraft lands. This would decrease the required landing velocity and therefore reduce the forces on the aircraft fuselage upon arrest. Other investigations examined linking the Typhoon's FCS to the pitch and roll of the carrier. This would allow automated flared landings to be carried out again reducing stresses on the aircraft.

 

Following an in-depth study of the various options available for FJCA; JSF, Naval Eurofighter, Rafale, F-18E/F or an entirely new aircraft the British MoD decided JSF (as either the STOVL or CV variant) was the best candidate. Unless something critical happens to JSF it looks unlikely that a navalised Eurofighter will ever operate from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier.

 

FWIW

[BansheeOne]

For recovery a number of studies were carried out, for example one looked at the use of fans to blow air across the deck while the aircraft lands. This would decrease the required landing velocity and therefore reduce the forces on the aircraft fuselage upon arrest.

 

Interesting idea, a carrier creating it's own headwind even when not moving. I guess it would have to be directed at an angle up for the fans to be below the deckline and the openings being flush.

 

If you build up enough windspeed (needs lots of power, probably nuclear), aircraft could presumably touch down almost vertical like the old Fieseler Storch. But the effect likely wouldn't extend, in aircraft terms, very far behind the ship, and I'd hate to be a crewman on a deck with a 100 kts + artificial gale going over it ...

[Chris Werb]

Yes I do.

 

It has been done.

(You are acting like it has never been done before & nobody has any idea what is involved.)

 

The end result is added weight & costs.

 

The end result is also, almost invariably, a really crappy plane. The Spitfire was a superb land based fighter - but a terrible carrier aircraft. I can come up with many carrier aircraft that made excellent and highly competitive land based ones without any alterations (F-4, A-7, A-4, A-1, F4U, F/A-18, Buccaneer...) but it's very hard to come up with a land based plane that has made the transition to successful carrier use without a total redesign. The only examples I can think of of high performance fixed wing carrier planes based on a land-based original were the NA Furies from the FJ-2 onwards. The most Sabre-like of the Furies, the FJ-2s were actually delivered to the USMC for land-based operation. From then on the plane bore less and less resemblance to a land-based Sabre. Maybe the DH Sea Venon is a better candidate, but I'd have to look at what was done to navalise it (I'm waiting for King to tell me the Venom night-fighter was actually a Sea Venom converted for land-based operation ).

[Rickshaw]

Brown says the Seafire was an excellent fighter - not a really good carrier plane, in that its landingon was shite and it wasn't really robust enough but once in the air, it still retained the thoroughbred nature of its landbased forebear.

 

I'd suggest that the Hawker Fury/Sea Fury was a successful conversion from a land to a carrier based aircraft. The Mosquito/Sea Mosquito is another (and twin-engined at that!). The Venom/Sea Venom would also qualify. Then there was Harrier/Sea Harrier.

 

If we want to include training aircraft then we'd have to look at the Shooting Star/Seastar and the BAE Hawk/Goshawk.

[Panzermann]

But all of these from land to sea-use conversions were done by the British and not the US of A. Probably they should give all of this kind of project to the Brits.

[Chris Werb]

Brown says the Seafire was an excellent fighter - not a really good carrier plane, in that its landingon was shite and it wasn't really robust enough but once in the air, it still retained the thoroughbred nature of its landbased forebear.

 

Exactly. Most of the early ones were very quickly lost to landing accidents.

 

I'd suggest that the Hawker Fury/Sea Fury was a successful conversion from a land to a carrier based aircraft. 

 

Granted, but I'd like to know just how much of the Sea Fury airframe was the same as the land-based plane. I thought it was actually a derivative of the Tempest - the Fury was a biplane IIRC. (Late edit - there was a monoplane fury - I must remember not to post from work! )

 

The Mosquito/Sea Mosquito is another (and twin-engined at that!). 

 

I'm not sure to what extent the Sea Mosquito was 'successful'.  The Sea Hornet might have been a better example.

 

The Venom/Sea Venom would also qualify.  Then there was Harrier/Sea Harrier.

 

If we're including VTOLs I could throw in about thirty helicopters!

 

If we want to include training aircraft then we'd have to look at the Shooting Star/Seastar and the BAE Hawk/Goshawk.

 

The TV-1 Seastars were exclusively land-based - the TV-2 was essentially a new plane, and not a very successful one.  By the time they'd finished making the Hawk carrier capable, the Goshawk was also essentially a new plane.

 

If we're looking at CTOL jet fighters/attack aircraft the Venom/Sea Venom is pretty much all there is in the West.  What I admit I'd forgotten about various recent Soviet/Russian designs for their carriers but I'm not sure to what extent they were modified or purpose built.

 

247372[/snapback]

[seahawk]

247418[/snapback]

 

 

Well hsitory shows that it is much easier to convert a carrier optimized fighter into a good landbased one, then vice versa. In US service their have been some succesfull fighters that were a NAvy project an became popular with landbased units. Starting with the F4U Cirsair and ending with the F-14 Tomcat (landbased in Iranian service). And not to forget the wonderfull F-4 PhantomII and the A-7 Corsair II.

On the other hand there are few succesfull conversions of landbased aircraft. The Seafire - not a good carrier fighter, when it comes to the things one needs for carrier ops. The Seafurry maybe. And even in moden times the SU-33, well the jurry is still out on that plane.

 

The F-15 imho is not suitable to become a carrierplane. If it would have been, the F-14 would not have been needed. the landig gear is rather fragile, as is the span to which the gear is attached. The wings are not designed to folded and the approach spped is rather high. The F-15 is the better plane compared to the Super Bug, but the Super Bug might be the better carrier plane.

[tankerwanabe]

I was under the impression that everything on a modern "Navalized" aircraft has to be (1) shock proof, and (2) corrosion proof.... rather than just strenghten the landing gears.

 

This especially includes the sensitive avionics and electronics, and even the engines themselves. I even recall reading somewhere that Navalized engines tend to eat more birds and other goodies and has to be built for that.

[Chris Werb]

The Seafurry maybe.

 

It sounds cute!

[CaptLuke]

How much money did they save navalizing the F-17?

247241[/snapback]

 

This is an argument that keeps coming around: the argument was made that buying more F14s was actually cheaper than the cost of developing and fielding the F18.

[gewing]

This is an argument that keeps coming around: the argument was made that buying more F14s was actually cheaper than the cost of developing and fielding the F18.

247651[/snapback]

 

 

It probably was. I suspect that even the reliability/ease of repair differential could have been addressed for less than the development of the E/F.