Boeing lands $1.2B deal for eight F-15EX fighter jets

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/13/boeing-f15ex-contract/

by justin66 • 6 years ago

48 88 6 years ago

washingtonpost.com

mikece• 6 years ago

A much better article on this plane is at The Drive:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34568/

justin663• 6 years ago

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.

kevin_thibedeau• 6 years ago

F-22: What am I to you?

jmisavage• 6 years ago

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.

[1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-someone-say-f-22-...

virtue33• 6 years ago

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 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-...

beamatronic2• 6 years ago

IBM mainframe? Does it run COBOL?

hindsightbias• 6 years ago

The Soviets had cloned the mainframe in the 60s. Called EX EVM I think.

torcete• 6 years ago

What role is the F-15EX supposed to cover that is not already covered by the F/A-18 F-22 and F-35?

Trisell• 6 years ago

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-dude• 6 years ago

Like the Max?

Cactus2018• 6 years ago

with new automated flight controls and electronic warfare capabilities.

Would this be good for making a drone version?

greydius• 6 years ago

What role is the F-15EX supposed to cover

The corporate welfare role

Someone1234• 6 years ago

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."

dragonwriter4• 6 years ago

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.

blaser-waffle3• 6 years ago

Nah, that's the F-22 and F-35.

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...

virtue33• 6 years ago

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.”

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/07/13/heres-how-much-mo...

justin663• 6 years ago

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.

Inception2• 6 years ago

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.

rileyteige• 6 years ago

They have a wizzo in every situation

What do you mean here by "wizzo"?

0xffff2• 6 years ago

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.

WesleyLivesay2• 6 years ago

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.

obmelvin• 6 years ago

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.

donaltroddyn• 6 years ago

F-22s aren't being manufactured anymore and would far too expensive for the National Guard units these are going to

The 149th and 199th Fighter Squadrons are ANG and fly the F-22A.

btgeekboy• 6 years ago

This sounds like the thinking that led to the 737MAX produced by the same manufacturer.

uncoder04• 6 years ago

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.

decafninja4• 6 years ago

Wasn't there talk of using the B-1 or even B-52 as an "arsenal ship" like that?

A F-22/35 goes in to find targets, relays them to the bomber, and the bomber slings missiles from BVR.

jasonwatkinspdx3• 6 years ago

You're comparing the stealth configuration of the F-35 to the F-15EX. If the F-35 uses external stores it can carry 14 AIM-120.

tekdude2• 6 years ago

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).

blaser-waffle3• 6 years ago

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.

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.

abrowne• 6 years ago

The ability to carry 22 AIM-9X Sidewinder and AMRAAM medium range air-to-air missiles. Source: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30705691...

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.

hed• 6 years ago

Gotta love that language of being "serviced" by air-to-air missiles. Hah.

dogma11385• 6 years ago

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.

dragonwriter4• 6 years ago

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.

bigpumpkin• 6 years ago

1.Scout with F-22/ F-35s.

2.Don't shoot and blow your cover.

3.F-15EX follows behind, launches their huge barrage of missiles.

paulpan• 6 years ago

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...

mrep• 6 years ago

Sure it's a much better deal than the F-35

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...

rayhendricks• 6 years ago

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.

scoopertrooper• 6 years ago

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!"

https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

runako2• 6 years ago

Rationally, I know these planes have a lot more capabilities than the F-15s that were popular in my youth.

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.

tekdude2• 6 years ago

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...

azinman2• 6 years ago

Is that an opportunity for software to standardize and be able to output different kinds of specs? Or is this something only a human can do?

runako2• 6 years ago

I get all of that, 100%.

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.

dragonwriter4• 6 years ago

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.

SubjectToChange• 6 years ago

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.

cloin• 6 years ago

"A Boeing news release published Monday boasted that engineers would be able to adapt from older F-15 jets to the new F-15EX in a matter of days."

This sounds familiar...

virtue33• 6 years ago

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.

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).

p_l• 6 years ago

The military plane didn't have absurd economical reasons against increased pilot training that 737 MAX had.

dogma11385• 6 years ago

They build a new F-15EX ship it over, take the tail number form the older ones and transfer them over and voila an upgrade.

bgorman• 6 years ago

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.

nradov• 6 years ago

They plan to buy many more but the contract for procurement in future years hasn't been formally signed yet.

nixass• 6 years ago

F15-MAX? I think there's typo

CarbyAu2• 6 years ago

F15-MAXTURBOWTFBBQOMG coming soon to a sky near you! Well, give or take a generation change.

blauditore• 6 years ago

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?

decafninja4• 6 years ago

I imagine there is quite a bit of pork and middlemen rewarding themselves in the pipeline.

dirtyid• 6 years ago

Somewhat related:

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.

antisthenes• 6 years ago

At this point, even the most obtuse observer should realize that military contracts are nothing but jobs programs for the big defense corps.

The actual deliverables seem to be a distant, almost irrelevant goal

castorp• 6 years ago

Boeing will build a new version of its F-15, an older fighter jet developed in the 1960s

Am I the only one that immediately thinks about the 737max disaster where they tried the same thing?

NegativeLatency• 6 years ago

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.

fmajid• 6 years ago

From that well-known loony-leftist, Dwight Eisenhower.

m463• 6 years ago

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."

johnrgrace• 6 years ago

Rumors are he spent several years doing antifa activities in a leadership role.

js2• 6 years ago

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercr...

Rebelgecko• 6 years ago

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

credit_guy• 6 years ago

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.

Boeing lands $1.2B deal for eight F-15EX fighter jets

Related Stories