Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
VMFA187

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, skibum said:

Gold Bond

"A golden breath mint for my balls!" 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guard Eagle Drivers:  What's the story on the F-15X from what you're hearing?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Guard Eagle Drivers:  What's the story on the F-15X from what you're hearing?  

 

img_5812-0.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, YoungnDumb said:

A few weeks ago wasn't it 20, then 12, now 8.  At this rate it'll be 2 by the time we actually get them delivered

Don't worry, those two will cost as much each as the original 20, so no under execution problem

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Don't worry, those two will cost as much each as the original 20, so no under execution problem

And built by Boeing, so will also need to be torn apart and rebuilt upon “acceptance”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the DoD forcing the AF to buy against its will Big Blue going all in on the two-seat F-15EX variant, is the CONOP to use the second seat on the regular for a WSO or second pilot as part of the basic crew... or just for B-Course IPs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's alot of CSO slots in to fill in Oregon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2020 at 10:28 PM, 12xu2a3x3 said:

that's alot of CSO slots in to fill in Oregon.

Nah, the ANG can't afford twice the officers.  It'll be flown single seat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, EvilEagle said:

Nah, the ANG can't afford twice the officers.  It'll be flown single seat.  

 

Control grade nightmare!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t wait for all the C model dudes having to fly with a WSO.  After a few sorties they’ll realize they can’t do it all and it’ll be fine. But the briefs will be comical the first few months.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...