Jump to content

F-15X on the Air Force's Budget Request


VMFA187

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

 


If we are going down this route...

Diaper rash cream (the ones with a ton of zinc oxide) are apparently popular in some of the SOF circles for the inner thigh area and foot hotspots. That and body glide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Must be before your time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must be before your time

Oh no, I’m a total advocate of the Gold Bond video. 

Also I’m a huge fan of the medicated gold bond challenge for new guys.

 

I (and a bunch of other “POGs”) just got a good laugh out of listening to a bunch of “super hooah” Rangers/long tabs nonchalantly talk about which lotion they liked to rub on themselves prior to a road march. Like wtf guys... this is up there with some other very weird stuff you should keep to yourselves.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Oh no, I’m a total advocate of the Gold Bond video. 

Also I’m a huge fan of the medicated gold bond challenge for new guys.

 

I (and a bunch of other “POGs”) just got a good laugh out of listening to a bunch of “super hooah” Rangers/long tabs nonchalantly talk about which lotion they liked to rub on themselves prior to a road march. Like wtf guys... this is up there with some other very weird stuff you should keep to yourselves.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Yet you know all about it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you know all about it.
 
 


This may surprise you, but the warrant community is full of prior enlisted.

Infantry guys are like a weird mix of fraternity and homelessness. SOF guys are that amplified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Now we know why we really conducted a "Light Attack Experiment" - to put $ away claiming we would purchase them... get congressional buy-in/support (bait), and switch to 4.5 gens at the end-game... timing is too good.  OK, I'll put away my tin foil conspiracy hat.

Of course, what did we expect hiring a Boeing dude as the SOD:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/03/13/shanahan-faces-ig-complaint-over-boeing-ties/

“Mr. Shanahan appears to have participated in the decision to include more than $1 billion in federal funds in the 2020 budget cycle for the F-15X fighter aircraft,” the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said in their ethics complaint. “Mr. Shanahan’s reported conduct and comments appear to violate federal regulations and his Ethics Pledge, and CREW therefore requests that you investigate his alleged conduct.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Now we know why we really conducted a "Light Attack Experiment" - to put $ away claiming we would purchase them... get congressional buy-in/support (bait), and switch to 4.5 gens at the end-game... timing is too good.  OK, I'll put away my tin foil conspiracy hat.

Of course, what did we expect hiring a Boeing dude as the SOD:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/03/13/shanahan-faces-ig-complaint-over-boeing-ties/

“Mr. Shanahan appears to have participated in the decision to include more than $1 billion in federal funds in the 2020 budget cycle for the F-15X fighter aircraft,” the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said in their ethics complaint. “Mr. Shanahan’s reported conduct and comments appear to violate federal regulations and his Ethics Pledge, and CREW therefore requests that you investigate his alleged conduct.”

 

With Boeing it's not so much a tin foil hat you need, really more of a helmet...

https://www.investors.com/news/t-x-trainer-jet-contract-boeing-lockheed-t-50a/

They undercut LM/KAI and Leonardo by over 10 billion so there had to be something else in store for the T-X "franchise" (using their term from the referenced article) - Big B was going to be made whole on the other side of the contract by suddenly finding it was a great fit for Light Attack, Aggressor, Nat Guard fighter, etc... not even Boeing with the huge resources it has on hand could deliver the 350+ T-X jets at that much of a discount compared to the others...

The contract is for up to 475 aircraft and mods to the potential extra 125 to light fighter, aggressor or air demo team (maybe) would again give B more business to be made whole again for a ridiculously low bid for the trainers

I don't have a problem with spreading the contracts around to keep the whole industrial base healthy, we should have at least 3 major aerospace companies viable in all areas of defense air/space, but do it more honestly please.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

They’re out to lunch. The EX is pretty good replacement for what the stateside ANG C models do. They want to use F-35 for something the 35 would not be necessary for. In the end, I disagree with their analysis it will be more expensive. Did LockMart pay them to write that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

They’re out to lunch. The EX is pretty good replacement for what the stateside ANG C models do. They want to use F-35 for something the 35 would not be necessary for. In the end, I disagree with their analysis it will be more expensive. Did LockMart pay them to write that?

Possibly - I think it (the EX) depends on whether or not you believe the AF / LM's numbers on the decreasing cost of the F-35 in acquisition, sustainment and operation.  I am skeptical but from the cheap seats with only what I have available on the interwebs, I'll have to take Big Blue at its word.

To me, the Defense One seemed to have a blindspot in its critique of a new build 4+ gen fighter in that seemed to consider / critique it as a stand alone MWS and not see it as part of a team of platforms with specific roles and some overlapping duties on Night 1 and beyond in a peer on peer conflict.  Same for other operations, like deterrence, patrol & prescence missions, etc...

Yeah, an S-400 or other site is going to see it from a distance and until the IADS / A2AD system is destroyed or degraded, that's an issue but during that Phase of the campaign it would likely be doing DCA for the HVAAs which enabled us to use more LO platforms for what they were intended for.  That's just an example of the concept, compliment the LO platforms where even they could use assistance or relief from taskings where their unique characteristics are overkill or not necessary.

Edited by Clark Griswold
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Possibly - I think it (the EX) depends on whether or not you believe the AF / LM's numbers on the decreasing cost of the F-35 in acquisition, sustainment and operation.  I am skeptical but from the cheap seats with only what I have available on the interwebs, I'll have to take Big Blue at its word.

To me, the Defense One seemed to have a blindspot in its critique of a new build 4+ gen fighter in that seemed to consider / critique it as a stand alone MWS and not see it as part of a team of platforms with specific roles and some overlapping duties on Night 1 and beyond in a peer on peer conflict.  Same for other operations, like deterrence, patrol & prescence missions, etc...

Yeah, an S-400 or other site is going to see it from a distance and until the IADS / A2AD system is destroyed or degraded, that's an issue but during that Phase of the campaign it would likely be doing DCA for the HVAAs which enabled us to use more LO platforms for what they were intended for.  That's just an example of the concept, compliment the LO platforms where even they could use assistance or relief from taskings where their unique characteristics are overkill or not necessary.

They’re not buying it for units whose primary mission is night 1 or S-400 territory; their primary is defense of the homeland, where F-35 is quite overkill. Augmenting expeditionary is second.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’re not buying it for units whose primary mission is night 1 or S-400 territory; their primary is defense of the homeland, where F-35 is quite overkill. Augmenting expeditionary is second.  

Copy - just my thoughts to the naysayers

As to the EX itself, my only critique is IMO its role is the long range fighter in our portfolio of platforms and we should accentuate that further

By pushing it to be a bit bigger with more fuel we get a 4+ gen that taxes less on AR resources and provides the best platform for roles like DCA, Sensor/Arsenal and Escort.

Right now open source says it’s Combat Radius is 1100 NM, push that to 1500 NM

If we are truly shifting to deter or fight in areas ruled by the tyranny of distance, we will require some of if not most air assets to have significantly increased operating ranges even considering AR as our enemies know that is critical spot for us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...