• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USAF Buying the F15EX

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
164
Points
630
We should go for the F-15EX, which costs more to acquire, costs more operate, yet somehow cheaper and more affordable? What a crazy time to be alive. Don't forget the F-15EX will take much longer to procure and we will need to create a new trade, all for what, because it's somehow the right choice for Canada? Please. There is nothing but doom and gloom on the F-35 because media only makes money with some sensational headlines. Any F-35 cut to numbers is nothing more than politics.
Respectfully have to disagree on this one, Quirky. Or at least have to disagree with your confidence ;)

Both the USAF and RAF have both expressed the operating costs for the F-35 are higher than expected, to the point where the USAF is considering either a clean sheet 4th gen. design, or a batch of new-build F-16's, much like they did the F-15EX.

The reality is that we, along with everyone else, base our decision making on published numbers. And it seems that in the case of the F-35, the published numbers for maintenance / operating costs may not be accurate, as the airframe matures. Increased maintenance on engines, stealth coating, etc etc may be higher than published, simply due to the fact that the aircraft in question didn't have many hours on them at the time of publishing.




I leave it to the guys like SupersonicMax to make the good, informed decisions on which airframe is best for us, and best suites our needs.

There are lots of arguments in favour of the F-35, and I think everybody agrees the F-35 is the best jet in terms of capability, acquisition costs, etc etc. I'm with you on that.

However, that doesn't mean the F-15EX is a bad option by any means, either.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
59
Points
530
The F15EX as a dogfighter with good range will keep the Russians honest in the Arctic.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
170
Points
680
Respectfully have to disagree on this one, Quirky. Or at least have to disagree with your confidence ;)

Both the USAF and RAF have both expressed the operating costs for the F-35 are higher than expected, to the point where the USAF is considering either a clean sheet 4th gen. design, or a batch of new-build F-16's, much like they did the F-15EX.

The reality is that we, along with everyone else, base our decision making on published numbers. And it seems that in the case of the F-35, the published numbers for maintenance / operating costs may not be accurate, as the airframe matures. Increased maintenance on engines, stealth coating, etc etc may be higher than published, simply due to the fact that the aircraft in question didn't have many hours on them at the time of publishing.




I leave it to the guys like SupersonicMax to make the good, informed decisions on which airframe is best for us, and best suites our needs.

There are lots of arguments in favour of the F-35, and I think everybody agrees the F-35 is the best jet in terms of capability, acquisition costs, etc etc. I'm with you on that.

However, that doesn't mean the F-15EX is a bad option by any means, either.
Speaking of updating the F-16, there is the F-21 which is a modern 16.havebt heard much about it though since the prototype flew.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
460
Points
880
Respectfully have to disagree on this one, Quirky. Or at least have to disagree with your confidence ;)

Both the USAF and RAF have both expressed the operating costs for the F-35 are higher than expected, to the point where the USAF is considering either a clean sheet 4th gen. design, or a batch of new-build F-16's, much like they did the F-15EX.

The reality is that we, along with everyone else, base our decision making on published numbers. And it seems that in the case of the F-35, the published numbers for maintenance / operating costs may not be accurate, as the airframe matures. Increased maintenance on engines, stealth coating, etc etc may be higher than published, simply due to the fact that the aircraft in question didn't have many hours on them at the time of publishing.




I leave it to the guys like SupersonicMax to make the good, informed decisions on which airframe is best for us, and best suites our needs.

There are lots of arguments in favour of the F-35, and I think everybody agrees the F-35 is the best jet in terms of capability, acquisition costs, etc etc. I'm with you on that.

However, that doesn't mean the F-15EX is a bad option by any means, either.
The USAF has the luxury of tasking different squadrons for different roles. So for bombing taliban and the like, they need, good loiter time, usable bomb load and good targeting equipment. So a improved F-16 likely can do that at half the purchase and operating costs of a F35
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
164
Points
630
Speaking of updating the F-16, there is the F-21 which is a modern 16.havebt heard much about it though since the prototype flew.
The F-21 was just what it would have been designated under as a sale to India -- no idea why. (Probably has something to do with the offer to have them manufactured locally.)
 

Pikache

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
68
Points
530
More likely Boeing read the RFP and sniffed the political winds and decided it was not worth the effort to get involved with our effed up process with little likelihood of success. The Gulf States have money and simpler process.
And Saudis already operate F15s. Qatar is also buying some. The Israelis might buy a few more too
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
218
Points
680
We should go for the F-15EX, which costs more to acquire, costs more operate, yet somehow cheaper and more affordable? What a crazy time to be alive. Don't forget the F-15EX will take much longer to procure and we will need to create a new trade, all for what, because it's somehow the right choice for Canada? Please. There is nothing but doom and gloom on the F-35 because media only makes money with some sensational headlines. Any F-35 cut to numbers is nothing more than politics.

Not entirely accurate, Quirky. According to a DoD cost assessment, the F-15EX’s operating cost will be $29,000/hr vs $44,000/hr for the F-35A. Flyaway costs are about the same ($80M).

F-15EX was given to OT&E ahead of schedule and two countries already operate a variant that is very close in configuration (F-15SA and F-15QA). It is not unknown territory and is Boeing is planning on fulfilling USAF’s initial order of 76 jets by FY25. Given we’ll see the first Future Fighters in FY25 at the earliest, there would be room for a hypothetical Canadian order.

Also, the backseat responsibilities would fall upon the ACSO trade. We already have ACSOs in non-reciprocal exchanges with the USN and RAAF as WSOs on the Super Hornet. It would not be far-fetched to start putting ACSOs through the USN/USAF pipelines to build an initial cadre.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
466
Points
980
Not entirely accurate, Quirky. According to a DoD cost assessment, the F-15EX’s operating cost will be $29,000/hr vs $44,000/hr for the F-35A. Flyaway costs are about the same ($80M).

F-15EX was given to OT&E ahead of schedule and two countries already operate a variant that is very close in configuration (F-15SA and F-15QA). It is not unknown territory and is Boeing is planning on fulfilling USAF’s initial order of 76 jets by FY25. Given we’ll see the first Future Fighters in FY25 at the earliest, there would be room for a hypothetical Canadian order.

Also, the backseat responsibilities would fall upon the ACSO trade. We already have ACSOs in non-reciprocal exchanges with the USN and RAAF as WSOs on the Super Hornet. It would not be far-fetched to start putting ACSOs through the USN/USAF pipelines to build an initial cadre.
Sorry, but I am a neophyte in this realm. Does $29K per hour mean that this is how much avgas the platform burns, or are we factoring in pilot/back-seater, wear and tear etc etc etc to get to this number?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
170
Points
680
The F-21 was just what it would have been designated under as a sale to India -- no idea why. (Probably has something to do with the offer to have them manufactured locally.)
Part of their argument was that with so many updates it isn't even a F16 any more (their words not mine).

The more we bring up the 15X the more ot sounds like a better choice for a middle power like us, especially since with the USAF and others buying new 15s including the X the lines will be open for some time. Think of it as the eastern block mentality, why create a all new design when you can update an existing one gradually. Worked well for the Mig-29 and SU-27 lines.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
218
Points
680
Sorry, but I am a neophyte in this realm. Does $29K per hour mean that this is how much avgas the platform burns, or are we factoring in pilot/back-seater, wear and tear etc etc etc to get to this number?
There are many different means to account for hourly rates. If you look in the Cost Factor Manual, you’ll see how DND/CAF does it. In the case of the F-35 and F-15, I think it’s safe to assume (given their relatively low figure) they are O&M funds.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
469
Points
980
That's all it is at this point. We can go in circles over it over and over, but it's not happening.
Appreciate your insight from inside the PMO and Cabinet. 👍🏼
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
164
Points
630
Appreciate your insight from inside the PMO and Cabinet. 👍🏼
Quirky is right though.

As much as we'd all like to see the F-15EX as part of the competition, it isn't going to happen. The government, as SSM pointed out, seems to want a refreshed update of our current capability, not an actual upgrade.

The F-35, F-18 SH, and Gripen are the 3 airframes in question. That won't change, even if asking for Boeing to also submit the F-15EX is easily doable.



In terms of capability, the F-35 dominates, hands down. I don't think there is any argument there. Every country that's been presented with the classified data on what it can do, has chosen it. Pilots often spout how they can engage enemy aircraft in ways that weren't remotely possible with the 4th gen. fighters.

The F-15EX would be an interesting aircraft to compare due to it's operating costs, and it's 20,000 hour airframe. That alone might be a huge advantage for us, since replacing our fighters is...well...here we are. :rolleyes:

Gripen is an impressive and dangerous little aircraft, but not suitable for our needs. It's a shame the Rafale pulled out, as that would have been the best Euro option. (My opinion.)



Damnit I wish we could just get rid of all the regulations WE CREATED FOR OURSELVES and just buy what we want, without all the self-created bull****!

The PMO and Cabinet, I imagine, are quite happy to kick this can down the road as far as possible. And when they do select a replacement, it will be a politically safe choice. (I'm thinking Super Hornet, even if they can bring the operating costs of the F-35 down to comparable levels.)

0.02
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
469
Points
980
I’ve learned to never say never. EH-101 was a done deal...until it wasn’t. NH-90 and H225M were available and in production and by the time it was adjusted again and again and again, the MHP SOR could be fulfilled by either....so we went with...the CAD-only H92. I don’t fundamentally disagree with the principles that Quirky and you are aligning your comments; however, Canadian defence procurement is rife with factors that wouldn’t otherwise figure in most sentient beings’ processes.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
164
Points
630
I’ve learned to never say never. EH-101 was a done deal...until it wasn’t. NH-90 and H225M were available and in production and by the time it was adjusted again and again and again, the MHP SOR could be fulfilled by either....so we went with...the CAD-only H92. I don’t fundamentally disagree with the principles that Quirky and you are aligning your comments; however, Canadian defence procurement is rife with factors that wouldn’t otherwise figure in most sentient beings’ processes.
Extremely well said & put. Point well made :ROFLMAO:
 

lenaitch

Full Member
Reaction score
122
Points
580
Simply as an outsider looking in, I tend to agree that the government will consider 'other factors' alongside tactical considerations. If the Gripen or SH ticks enough of their boxes, it could happen. Long-term, they still have to deal with replacing the fleet, other airframes and the NWS that nobody seems to want to talk about. Canadian governments seem to be content spending just enough money to not get laughed out of the room by our allies and maintain a basic level of capability. My wife calls this 'shingle money'; sure the roof needs replacing, but after a few thousand dollars, it looks a whole lot the same.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
72
Points
480
I’ve learned to never say never. EH-101 was a done deal...until it wasn’t. NH-90 and H225M were available and in production and by the time it was adjusted again and again and again, the MHP SOR could be fulfilled by either....so we went with...the CAD-only H92. I don’t fundamentally disagree with the principles that Quirky and you are aligning your comments; however, Canadian defence procurement is rife with factors that wouldn’t otherwise figure in most sentient beings’ processes.
Well said but it isn't limited to defense procurement. It is a government cultural issue. Just look at the pork barreling attached to the covid funds both here and south of the border. You buy what will gain you, the party, the most votes down the road. The only way around it is to remove procurement from the political spectrum and make it a function of a separate and independent body: and I have no idea how you would ever set that one up.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
So really we should be looking forward to the announcement of the WE Charity / Irving Shipyards Tigermoth Interceptor at $300 million per copy....but fully bilingual and coming with all the requisite carbon offsets? Sweet! :giggle:
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
466
Points
980
So really we should be looking forward to the announcement of the WE Charity / Irving Shipyards Tigermoth Interceptor at $300 million per copy....but fully bilingual and coming with all the requisite carbon offsets? Sweet! :giggle:
There will have to be some PR/narrative/branding/focus groups involved here. Tigermoth Interceptor is such an aggressive name. Suggest Beavermoth Inquisitor, to both Canadianize the A/C and signal our completely benign intent, eh?
 
Top