It must be great times for the pentagon: a blockhead in the white house who’ll spend any amount on “defensive” weaponry, and law-makers from both parties that will sign any check so long as it’s for wars. Shopaholic heaven!
So what if the F-35s didn’t turn out to be very good for any purpose except a single very expensive stealth strike against another high tech nation? We can supplement them with a new plane, by calling it a new version of an old plane and making it sound like it’s not a new design. [bloom]
The U.S. Air Force outlined a five-year plan that showed the extent of the Pentagon’s push to bring back Boeing Co.’s F-15 fighter in an upgraded version, a $7.8 billion investment that would jump from eight of the planes next year to 18 each year through 2024.
While Lockheed Martin Corp.’s newer F-35 would get $37.5 billion over the five years, the more advanced plane would still take a hit. The service now plans to buy 48 F-35s each year from fiscal 2021 through 2023 instead of the 54 previously planned.
The F-15 was an “air superiority fighter” – an aircraft designed to knock down other aircraft. It totally makes sense to buy a load of those because 99% of what the air force does anymore is drop bombs on civilians who can’t shoot back, through skies that have been swept clean of aircraft by the fact that the target cannot afford anything expensive. The defensive capability of late-generation capitalism: our airplanes are so expensive nobody can afford to fight.
Meanwhile, another $20bn or so is being devoted to the B-2 bomber, and dog knows what else.
General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that Pentagon officials decided to buy the F-15X partly because it’s “slightly less expensive for procurement than the F-35, but it’s more than 50 percent cheaper to operate over time and it has twice as many hours in terms of how long it lasts.”
That’s a very clever roundabout back-handed damning with faint praises way of saying the F-35 is an overpriced hangar queen. So, since it is, let’s buy some other stuff too! I’m surprised they haven’t resurrected a 2.0 version of the A-10.
So the F-15X initiative is not some cold-call Boeing pitch, it was born out of hundreds of ever-strengthening discussions between various stakeholders within USAF and the aircraft manufacturer. All parties involved had worked hard not to disclose the talks out of respect for ongoing procurement programs and the USAF’s stated needs.
In other words:
“Daddy look what I found, can I keep it?”
The various stakeholders did whatever they could to protect the money-valve, which is jammed in the full “on” position.
They are also painfully aware of the “Sinclair effect”: if it becomes known that you have a better version of a product in the works, it may cannibalize sales of the current version, while customers delay purchasing until you’ve got a product that is not crap better. Surely the big customers already know. It’s not the death-knell for the F-35, because the US is going to buy loads of all the airplanes, but foreign purchases of the F-35 will, I predict, dry up: [wib]
Israel is asking the United States for a squadron of advanced F-15 Strike Eagles and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors as part of a “compensation package” for lifting American sanctions on Iran. The package would be worth more than $3.1 billion according to reports.
Wait, what? Is the US going to get the money back now that Trump has put sanctions back in place?
That’s not without precedent when it comes to Israel – the United States is subsidizing its purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter. Tel Aviv is paying for its first batch of 19 F-35s entirely out of the military aid that the United States provides it with. The country has thus far ordered 33 F-35s while securing a special deal to integrate domestic components onto those jets – a consideration that hasn’t been offered to any other nation participating in the program. It also has the option of buying 17 more jets under the contract.
“Those planes you gave us the money to buy from you aren’t very good, so we want more money so we can buy more planes from you.” That’s doing ‘economic stimulus’ the right way.
I can’t help thinking that a lot of the love for the F-15 (and all that type of hardware in general) is from a bunch of pencil-neck politicians in suits who still get a boner when they think about “Top Gun” (and yes, I know those were F-14s, but I don’t expect them to).
sonofrojblake@#1:
I think they just get all drooly weak in the knees when they think of how expensive and fancy the gear is.
Errrm, ahhh… the A-10 Warthog is an actual, functional, close-air-support platform. Its replacement is an F-16 Electric Jet (dogfighter) with bombs and AGMs tacked on.
An A-10 v.2.0 would be a good idea, which is why the Fighter Mafia doesn’t like it.
fusilier, wearing his very old Air Fairy 2nd LT. cover
James 2:24
fusilier@#3:
An A-10 v.2.0 would be a good idea, which is why the Fighter Mafia doesn’t like it.
What they really need is Project Ares, but they didn’t like it the first time because it wasn’t expensive enough.
Marcus Ranum @#2
Since the F-22 is even moar expensive and fancy than the F-15, why not buy them? (Yeah, probably which lobbyist spent the most money.)
fusilier, who wonders why spell-check didn’t flag “moar,” but is flagging “buy?”
James 2:24
fusilier@#5:
Since the F-22 is even moar expensive and fancy than the F-15, why not buy them?
Too expensive to operate!
Nice pic – I hadn’t known the Society of Jesuits now operates an air force.
Amazing all the perks that come with having their own Pope.
Pierce R. Butler @#7
Well, ya gotta keep those 33rd Degree Masons in check somehow.
fusilier, this time wearing his Knights of Columbus* cap
James 2:24
*Ok, so I’m a few decades in arrears on dues….
Even if they did shoot back, it wouldn’t do them much good. I tried making this point to a Libertarian, who was talking about the almighty strife the US gubmint would be in if they tried to confiscate his guns. I pointed out that his ‘well-regulated militia’ wasn’t going to have much of a hope against drones, but he still fancied his chances.
Is that a F-15? It looks like it carries some bombs on the main body behind the tanks. So it already *is* a fighter/bomber?
I wonder when USA goes the way of the soviets and collapses under its own financial weight. Oh right, they will just rate them self AAAA+ with special stars.
avalus@#10:
Is that a F-15? It looks like it carries some bombs on the main body behind the tanks. So it already *is* a fighter/bomber?
That is correct: the air force is unable to resist putting bombs on anything that flies. Because bombing defenseless targets is what the air force does best.
Nobody needs an “air superiority fighter” F-15, not when there are F-22s and F-35s around (if they are flying that day) – the F-15 is just a highly maneuverable and extremely expensive bomb-sled.
When in doubt … “Add More Bombs” is the air force version of Kerbals “Add More Boosters”.
This is depressing, such a terrible waste of time, manpower and resources just to blow pleople and things to smithereens.
avalus@#12:
This is depressing, such a terrible waste of time, manpower and resources just to blow pleople and things to smithereens.
An F-15 has a heck of a carbon footprint, too. 60,000lb/hr. A 747 can fly for 20hr on the same amount of fuel.
PS: USA! USAAAA!
I can never get my head around the numbers whenever they come up. Eight brand new planes, or maybe eighteen. Throw in the F35s and you have the air equivalent of one USSR anniversary parade. And the first set only costs eight billion dollars!
This immediately reminded me of a BBC article I read on the flooding in Mozambique just today. It mentioned that last time (~20 years ago) this happened an international effort managed to mobilise six British helicopters to assist with rescuing survivors.
Yes, aircraft are expensive and difficult to maintain. But if a superpower pays billions for a handful of modern planes or “international efforts” rally a squadron at most that simply can’t be right. The numbers must be wrong. Well, they ought to be wrong anyway. It’s just so … unimpressive.
Regarding the discusson over various uprades, has anyone approached the Pentagon with a proposal for an updated Spitfire yet? It’s rumoured to have won the Battle of Britain, so war-wise it has a track record miles ahead of anything built since. No matter what you do, it can’t possibly be more expensive than anything else on the drawing boards. (Is that a disadvantage?) And it’ll be perfect for US military misadventures: Nostalgic, ineffective against any legitimate military target and great for strafing civilians.
In fact, let’s scratch that idea and go back to basics by building a stealthed Sopwith Camel Mk XLII with solar-powered eletronics, IoT and a lamentation-enhancing battle visor!
—
I had no idea you could request refunds over lifted sanctions and have questions.
1) Where do I apply for my personal refund? Don’t worry, I live in a foreign country nominally allied with the US and can pretend to be very upset by the US briefly honouring a deal to lift sanctions before reneging. Clearly I’m eligible.
2) Do I have to order US products (“store credit”) or can I take cash? If not, does it have to be military hardware? I’m sure there are some interesting things in the NASA catalogue.
3) If I get stuck with the military crap, will the US a) train me to use it and/or b) store it for me while I wait for the ebay auctions to expire? By the way, who pays for shipping and sorts out customs?
“60,000lb/hr” What? How? Where do they store that on that pla…oh right, in-flight-refueling.
*goes away swearing heavily*
I wonder if we could avoid climate change by just grounding/defueling all militaries.
avalus@#15:
60,000lb/hr” What? How? Where do they store that on that pla…oh right, in-flight-refueling.
*goes away swearing heavily*
Yup. And inflight refuelling is extra inefficient because you have a great big jet liner full of fuel that has to get up there and loiter in the right place. This is why I was laughing about the F-35 having such a short strike range. It’s a piece of shit that can’t do anything other than hit defenseless targets (because a defended target would mean you have to defend the gigantic line of tankers)
I wonder if we could avoid climate change by just grounding/defueling all militaries.
I don’t remember if I did a posting about that, or if it was just a comment over at Mano’s, but I believe that one thing we humans could do that would be effective against global warming would be a 15 year moratorium on all military activity and spending, world-wide. Just stop – we could resume fighting after 20 years, assuming civilization survives. During the 15 year haitus every country could use the money they’d otherwise waste on military activity to re-tool their infrastructure.
I believe I mentioned somewhere else that the US Air Force is burning a quarter million gallons of jet fuel a month supporting Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen.
That is a serious proposal. Impractical, I know, but it would work better than the other impractical proposals, like getting America to rein in its carbon emissions.
I remember that, Marcus. It may have been a comment on one of your posts. Or this may be my brain trying to be helpful by filling in gaps with undeclared guesswork.
Marginally more realistic than a 15-year break would be to convince the major powers (and “defence” industry) that renewables are a strategic must-have. It’s not too far from the truth as any tank commander running low on petrol would probably confirm. Once you get that idea drilled into the right heads you could watch all that military money work its magic.
It wouldn’t be some small companies trying to build a “proof of concept” electric single-seater airplane with two hours flight time per charge. It would be hydrogen-powered aircraft with sufficient range to lug heavy bombs across a continent, decimate a couple of schools and get back again. They’d be launched from a solar/wave-powered* carrier that uses the surplus energy to hydrolyse the fuel from ocean water. And tanks would run on methane or syngas generated directly from your occupying army’s waste management system – carbon neutral, of course, just like the base construction using locally sourced materials.
All that’s missing is biodegradable munitions. Especially mines. The world would already be a much nicer place if those just quietly turned to mould after six months in the ground, wouldn’t it?
As an added bonus, all this could be summarised with the wonderfully horrific oxymoron “sustainable warfare,” although great military minds may struggle to see the contradiction
*In this strange alternate reality military minds are somehow opposed to sticking big, dangerous and vulnerable nuclear reactors on ships.
“Sustainable warfare” just made my day. Thank you komarov :D
Sidethought: Just like “green warfare”, a … word-thing that gets thrown around in explosives chemistry papers (the bastards).