Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/8/2005 3:40:52 PM EDT
Boeing's F-15 tries to stay aloft

By Tim McLaughlin
Of the Post-Dispatch
07/31/2005

Jim Albaugh
(AP)

Boeing Co.'s St. Louis-made F-15 Eagle used to be the sure thing of fighter jet procurement. Now the aging fighter is just a long shot in its own country.

Jim Albaugh, chief executive of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, says the odds are against the U.S. Air Force signing a multiyear deal to buy more F-15s. That assessment isn't surprising as the Pentagon prepares to spend billions of dollars over the next few decades for the F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, two planes under development by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Still, some influential members of Congress say the Air Force needs a hedge against production delays or cost overruns. They believe the F-15 can play an important role in keeping the country's dwindling inventory of fighter jets at a healthy level during the transition to the Raptor and JSF.

One potential scenario has the Air Force buying anywhere from 100 to 144 F-15s as insurance against a slip in the JSF program, according to people familiar with informal discussions that started about two years ago.

That would be a boon for the F-15 program. Production of the storied combat plane will end in 2008, unless Boeing wins more orders. St. Louis defense workers have made more than 1,500 of the F-15s. The first F-15A flight was made in 1972.

Currently, the most hopeful market for more F-15s is Singapore, which could make a decision as early as next month on whether to take the Boeing plane or a French-made fighter in a competition worth an estimated $1 billion.

Albaugh, meanwhile, isn't raising hopes for any big orders from the U.S. Air Force.

"Oh, I think that would be kind of a long shot," Albaugh told the Post-Dispatch in a telephone interview last week. "Obviously, that depends on our customer and what they want to do. Right now, I think that's a real long shot. But I think there's an opportunity for us to extend the F-15 line by winning the competition in Singapore. I think there's an opportunity to get some additional airplanes in Korea. And it would always be nice to have a warm production line in the event our U.S. customers decide they want some more."

If more F-15s are ordered, Boeing would be able to deliver them at whatever build rate is desired by the U.S. Air Force, Boeing said in a statement earlier this month.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, suggested that Air Force fighter procurement needs a boost, especially in the early years of Raptor and JSF production.

"There's only one alternative," Hunter said at a committee hearing earlier this month. "And that's to bridge that gap between that little bitty inventory of aircraft that we're going to have in the future of (Raptors) and Joint Strike Fighters, and that would be to produce more F-15s and F-16s."

Hunter is worried the Pentagon may be writing off the F-15 and F-16 too quickly.

"Would we not need to maintain production on those two aircraft well into the future, even as those lines, at least with the F-15, are going cold here shortly?" he asked at a committee hearing that included Lt. Gen. Stephen G. Wood, the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for plans and programs. "... I don't see another answer."

The Pentagon's current Quadrennial Defense Review will help answer questions about the future of the F-15 as military leaders discuss fighter jet force requirements. But Wood made it clear at the House Armed Services Committee hearing that the F-15 won't be at the forefront of those discussions.

The Air Force will push hard on "articulating the importance" of the Raptor, for example. The Bush administration's defense budget sharply reduced planned deliveries of the Raptor to 179 planes. The Air Force's stated goal calls for getting 381.

When Hunter asked Wood if there's a need to have bridge production of F-15 aircraft, the general said he couldn't rule it out, especially when you assess the uncertainties that come with developing new fighter jets.

"If we can't get more (Raptors) and we have significant slips in the (Joint Strike Fighter) program, we're going to have to continue to look at bridging that, and it's very viable to look into other aircraft," the general said. "But, sir, I would tell you that we're working very hard in the Quadrennial Defense Review to make the case that the nation needs 381 (Raptors) and to keep that line going."
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:49:01 PM EDT
This must have been written by a WA senator or a Boeing executive.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:50:05 PM EDT
I dont see much of a need for the F15E's (with A-10s, F16 bombtrucks, B1s, B52, B2s, F18E/F, etc). We have enough fucking bombtrucks. The F15C, however, is still quite useful. Its still the best interceptor/fighter in our inventory. All it needs is some of those new Brit designed Super AIM120X missles to reach out and touch something.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:19:21 PM EDT
Neither of Washington's Senators has enough brains or common sense between them to put three words together and make sense, let alone an article like this.


Originally Posted By Janus:
This must have been written by a WA senator or a Boeing executive.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:21:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Janus:
This must have been written by a WA senator or a Boeing executive.



+1

The F-15 has been and continues to be one of the most effective fighter/bombers in our arsenal.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:31:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:
I dont see much of a need for the F15E's (with A-10s, F16 bombtrucks, B1s, B52, B2s, F18E/F, etc). We have enough fucking bombtrucks. The F15C, however, is still quite useful. Its still the best interceptor/fighter in our inventory. All it needs is some of those new Brit designed Super AIM120X missles to reach out and touch something.



+1, couldn't of said it better
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:33:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:
I dont see much of a need for the F15E's (with A-10s, F16 bombtrucks, B1s, B52, B2s, F18E/F, etc). We have enough fucking bombtrucks. The F15C, however, is still quite useful. Its still the best interceptor/fighter in our inventory. All it needs is some of those new Brit designed Super AIM120X missles to reach out and touch something.



What does the F-15C do that the F-15E can't? Oh nothing. The F-15E is every bit as potent as the Charlie in the air to air role. Infact its better, it has FLIR which can be given air to air modes and it would have a longer patrol time. Add helmet mounted sights for two crew and its quite deadly.

I think Buying more Strike Eagles is a great idea. The Air Force is never going to get as many JSF and F-22 as it wants, and the F-15E is a useful fighter-bomber.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:36:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 4:37:48 PM EDT by CFII]

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

Originally Posted By CFII:
I dont see much of a need for the F15E's (with A-10s, F16 bombtrucks, B1s, B52, B2s, F18E/F, etc). We have enough fucking bombtrucks. The F15C, however, is still quite useful. Its still the best interceptor/fighter in our inventory. All it needs is some of those new Brit designed Super AIM120X missles to reach out and touch something.



What does the F-15C do that the F-15E can't? Oh nothing. The F-15E is every bit as potent as the Charlie in the air to air role. Infact its better, it has FLIR which can be given air to air modes and it would have a longer patrol time. Add helmet mounted sights for two crew and its quite deadly.

I think Buying more Strike Eagles is a great idea. The Air Force is never going to get as many JSF and F-22 as it wants, and the F-15E is a useful fighter-bomber.



Well, for one it doesnt have a back seater. Its going to be more manuverable. Plus, most mudbug drivers arent trained in pure AtoA combat. More of a cut and run defence. This coming from my dad who fought against AF aircraft for 20+ years. He said the mentality of a F15C pilot and an F15E pilot is way different, and they way they flew showed it. Even fellow F15 pilots rag on mudbug pilots.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:41:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 4:41:43 PM EDT by Winston_Wolf]

Originally Posted By Janus:
This must have been written by a WA senator or a Boeing executive.



... Jim Albaugh is the President of Integrated Defense Systems - the military side of Boeing
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:42:27 PM EDT
The Air Force knows that it can count on the Super Bug to fill the gap.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:42:47 PM EDT
I've got a better idea. Why don't we start building P-51s again. Hell, we can build a couple of hundred for the cost of 1 F-22. After all it's not about the quality of aircraft, but about numbers.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:49:28 PM EDT
The back seat would have nearly ZERO effect on agility. If you take off the cuniform fuel tanks its every bit as agile as a F-15C. Its engines are also have a bit more thrust so it might be even more so.

Training is illrelevant to the machines abilities. Pure fighter jocks like to brag about how they are the best and every other community sucks, but in reality when was the last time they fired more than a handful or shots in conflict? The F-15E can do all the same air to air missions JUST as well as the F-15C and can also do mud moving.

Pure fighters are net to useless for 95% of the conflicts the US is involved in. Why do you think they spent millions of dollars to add and A to the F/A-22 and integrated 1000lb JDAMs to it? So it would be relevent.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:49:42 PM EDT
North American Aviation built the P-51 Mustang, so if we did build the P-51 Mustang again it would be a McBoeing product.


Originally Posted By Janus:
I've got a better idea. Why don't we start building P-51s again. Hell, we can build a couple of hundred for the cost of 1 F-22. After all it's not about the quality of aircraft, but about numbers.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:50:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Janus:
I've got a better idea. Why don't we start building P-51s again. Hell, we can build a couple of hundred for the cost of 1 F-22. After all it's not about the quality of aircraft, but about numbers.


Why not Spads. You should be able to build a couple thousand for $120M it costs for an F-22.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:52:59 PM EDT
Let's bring back the F-4 too!
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:55:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 4:59:52 PM EDT by CFII]

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
The back seat would have nearly ZERO effect on agility. If you take off the cuniform fuel tanks its every bit as agile as a F-15C. Its engines are also have a bit more thrust so it might be even more so.

Training is illrelevant to the machines abilities. Pure fighter jocks like to brag about how they are the best and every other community sucks, but in reality when was the last time they fired more than a handful or shots in conflict? The F-15E can do all the same air to air missions JUST as well as the F-15C and can also do mud moving.

Pure fighters are net to useless for 95% of the conflicts the US is involved in. Why do you think they spent millions of dollars to add and A to the F/A-22 and integrated 1000lb JDAMs to it? So it would be relevent.



Um, neagative ghostrider. The F16 and F18 both have noticeable reductions in performance and stability with the 2 person canopy. There is a reason the F18 trainer is called a "bus".It changes the aerodynamics too much. I cannot see why the F15 wouldnt either. I am NOT saying I dont like the F15E, I love it, in fact I love ALL aircraft. I am just saying there are 13418327 other mud movers in the inventory. We need at least ONE fucking fighter.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:57:35 PM EDT
SPAD? Then we would be using a French aircraft.


Originally Posted By DnPRK:

Originally Posted By Janus:
I've got a better idea. Why don't we start building P-51s again. Hell, we can build a couple of hundred for the cost of 1 F-22. After all it's not about the quality of aircraft, but about numbers.


Why not Spads. You should be able to build a couple thousand for $120M it costs for an F-22.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:32:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
The back seat would have nearly ZERO effect on agility. If you take off the cuniform fuel tanks its every bit as agile as a F-15C. Its engines are also have a bit more thrust so it might be even more so.

Training is illrelevant to the machines abilities. Pure fighter jocks like to brag about how they are the best and every other community sucks, but in reality when was the last time they fired more than a handful or shots in conflict? The F-15E can do all the same air to air missions JUST as well as the F-15C and can also do mud moving.

Pure fighters are net to useless for 95% of the conflicts the US is involved in. Why do you think they spent millions of dollars to add and A to the F/A-22 and integrated 1000lb JDAMs to it? So it would be relevent.



HAHAHAHA...You funny!

The Mudhen has a thrust-weight ratio like the F-4, and perfoms about as well. The conformals never come off, nor do the LANTIRN pods.

Comparing the Eagle to the Mudhen is like comparing Secretariat to a plow-horse. Yeah, they're both horses, but come on...

"Not a pound for air-to-ground."

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:41:56 PM EDT
No, you want a mix of Sopwith Camels and Fokker DVIII's............that should do it good...


Originally Posted By KA3B:
SPAD? Then we would be using a French aircraft.


Originally Posted By DnPRK:

Originally Posted By Janus:
I've got a better idea. Why don't we start building P-51s again. Hell, we can build a couple of hundred for the cost of 1 F-22. After all it's not about the quality of aircraft, but about numbers.


Why not Spads. You should be able to build a couple thousand for $120M it costs for an F-22.


Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:53:30 PM EDT
F-15's can be the back up to the F-35.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:10:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:
The F15C, however, is still quite useful. Its still the best interceptor/fighter in our inventory. All it needs is some of those new Brit designed Super AIM120X missles to reach out and touch something.



Wrong. New airframes are needed also.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:42:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 8:51:42 PM EDT by AeroE]

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
F-15's can be the back up to the F-35.



Okay.

A bird in the revetment is worth two on the board. [Well, that's actually an underestimte, but the reworked metaphor gets messed up otherwise.]
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:44:34 PM EDT
It's just plain Boeing. Not just in name, but culturally.

Sadly, McDonnell Aircraft is long gone. I never did get used to that whole "MDC" thing.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:58:20 PM EDT
I always called a Douglas product "Douglas" and a McDonnell product "McDonnell".

The McDonnell F-4 and the Douglas A-3 come to mind.

As long as F-4's and A-3's, A-4's, DC-3's, DC-5's and DC-9's are still flying then McDonnell and Douglas are still alive, and as long as the DC-10/KC-10/MD-11/MD80/90 and the C-17 are still flying then McDonnell Douglas is still alive.



Originally Posted By AeroE:
It's just plain Boeing. Not just in name, but culturally.

Sadly, McDonnell Aircraft is long gone. I never did get used to that whole "MDC" thing.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:11:32 PM EDT
Heck, there were more people from McDonnell Douglas on the board of directors and holding down VP jobs after the "merger" than there were Boeing people.

And the F-18 still looks like MD took the fuselage from the A-4 Skyhawk forward of the original seperation point, stuck a new tail on it, put F-18 wings on it and put the intakes on the bottom of the wing.

There are still more MD people holding down VP jobs than "pure" lazy "B" people.

Notice how Boeing is using the Douglas logo and the McDonnell logo is nowhere to be found.





But you are right....


Originally Posted By AeroE:
It's just plain Boeing. Not just in name, but culturally.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:45:19 PM EDT
I got an Idea..why doesn't Boeing Purchase a bunch of Mig 29's or Sukhoi 30's, strip out the Avionics Gear and put in more modern electronics then stamp their name on it and sell to the Air Force?

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:49:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
I got an Idea..why doesn't Boeing Purchase a bunch of Mig 29's or Sukhoi 30's, strip out the Avionics Gear and put in more modern electronics then stamp their name on it and sell to the Air Force?




Well, for starters, we build superior fighter airplanes, not 500 hour junkers.

"Strip out" and "put in" is deceptively simple.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:54:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Heck, there were more people from McDonnell Douglas on the board of directors and holding down VP jobs after the "merger" than there were Boeing people.

And the F-18 still looks like MD took the fuselage from the A-4 Skyhawk forward of the original seperation point, stuck a new tail on it, put F-18 wings on it and put the intakes on the bottom of the wing.

There are still more MD people holding down VP jobs than "pure" lazy "B" people.

Notice how Boeing is using the Douglas logo and the McDonnell logo is nowhere to be found.

www.boeing.com.au/History/images/douglas1950.gif

www.seattleu.edu/scieng/engpc/stdntprj/ME051/Boeing_logo_r.gif

But you are right....


Originally Posted By AeroE:
It's just plain Boeing. Not just in name, but culturally.





There is no telling how much money was spent to develop the new logo with elements from both companies. Boeing is extremely sensitive to brand recognition, so the new logo had to be instantly recognizable but add the MDC "World Tour" element.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:09:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
I got an Idea..why doesn't Boeing Purchase a bunch of Mig 29's or Sukhoi 30's, strip out the Avionics Gear and put in more modern electronics then stamp their name on it and sell to the Air Force?




Well, for starters, we build superior fighter airplanes, not 500 hour junkers.

"Strip out" and "put in" is deceptively simple.



I don't know about the Sukhoi-30, but as I recall ,the Mig-29 has a pretty short range, compared to F-15s...they get invovled in one fight, and they'd have to call it a day and go home afterwards, whereas the F15s can keep on patrolling for awhile.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:44:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billclo:
Originally Posted By AeroE:
I don't know about the Sukhoi-30, but as I recall ,the Mig-29 has a pretty short range, compared to F-15s...they get invovled in one fight, and they'd have to call it a day and go home afterwardsget shot down, whereas the F15s can keep on patrolling for awhile.




Fixed it.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:05:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 7:13:06 AM EDT by doorgunner84]

Originally Posted By CFII:

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
The back seat would have nearly ZERO effect on agility. If you take off the cuniform fuel tanks its every bit as agile as a F-15C. Its engines are also have a bit more thrust so it might be even more so.

Training is illrelevant to the machines abilities. Pure fighter jocks like to brag about how they are the best and every other community sucks, but in reality when was the last time they fired more than a handful or shots in conflict? The F-15E can do all the same air to air missions JUST as well as the F-15C and can also do mud moving.

Pure fighters are net to useless for 95% of the conflicts the US is involved in. Why do you think they spent millions of dollars to add and A to the F/A-22 and integrated 1000lb JDAMs to it? So it would be relevent.



Um, neagative ghostrider. The F16 and F18 both have noticeable reductions in performance and stability with the 2 person canopy. There is a reason the F18 trainer is called a "bus".It changes the aerodynamics too much. I cannot see why the F15 wouldnt either. I am NOT saying I dont like the F15E, I love it, in fact I love ALL aircraft. I am just saying there are 13418327 other mud movers in the inventory. We need at least ONE fucking fighter.



Dude... I used to load F-15E's and pull EOR for C,D,&E's. That back-seat isn't going to restrict the turning radius at all. I'm you're talking about adding MAYBE a couple hundred pounds and extending the hight of the canopy in the back by a few inches.

~Dg84
ETA... Check out these pictures of a C model here. www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=9

And then check out this D model here. there's no a whole lot of difference. F-15D
Top Top