F-15X für die USAF, Warum nicht einfach mehr F-35? Einstellungen

[Edding321]

Die F-15X soll lt Budget 2020 kommen, 8 Stück für 2020 von insgesamt geplanten 144

https://www.defensenews.com/video/2019/03/1...defense-budget/

[Praetorian]

Das hieße, mindestens sowohl der USAF Chief of Staff als auch der Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hätten den Senat belogen. Ist das deine Version?

[Dave76]

Das hieße, mindestens sowohl der USAF Chief of Staff als auch der Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hätten den Senat belogen. Ist das deine Version?

Lügen? Nein, so direkt würde ich das nicht sagen, aber sie verlassen sich auf Zahlen, welche ihnen von Boeing so präsentiert worden sind, bzw. welche die lange Lebensdauer der Maschinen mit einbeziehen und sie sind natürlich auch politischem Druck ausgeliefert (Shanahan). Aber warum will man denn nun plötzlich 4th Gen. kaufen, obgleich man vorher doch deutlich gemacht hat, dies nicht mehr tun zu wollen?
Zuletzt erklärte ja Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson:

“Our budget proposal that we initially submitted did not include additional fourth-generation aircraft,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told reporters during a Feb. 28 [2019]roundtable at the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium.

Wie erklärst du dir das?

[Praetorian]

aber sie verlassen sich auf Zahlen, welche ihnen von Boeing so präsentiert worden sind

So einfach ist das nicht:

The big question then is how much will these jets cost? Our sources familiar with the discussions say they will cost "less than an F-35 is ever forecast to cost, best case," let alone what it is priced at now. This indicates that Boeing is going to cut the USAF one hell of a deal on these jets, which will help keep the F-15 production line open and Boeing's historic St. Louis plant building fighters well into the latter half of the next decade. This assessment is based on the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's (CAPE) numbers, not just some blue sky pitch from Boeing. These numbers are not projected from hypothetical notions or the dreams of consistently large buys materializing down the line, they take into account hard data from aircraft already being rolled off the production line and flying around the globe. This is the same for the F-15X's projected cost per flight hour that will be spread across the airframe's whopping 20,000-hour design life. For reference, most tactical fighters have a design life of around 8,000 hours
In addition, the F-15X was offered by Boeing to the USAF under a firm, fixed-price contract terms. In other words, if the USAF executes the offer, and the aircraft cost more than what is estimated, Boeing eats that cost directly, just as it has with the KC-46 tanker. There is nearly zero financial risk to the USAF. What it agrees to spend on procuring the capability is exactly what the bill will look like in the end, unless the two parties decide otherwise.
Boeing has been especially aggressive with its bidding on aircraft programs using similar constructs as of late, snapping up the UH-1N replacement contract, MQ-25 carrier-based tanker drone tender, and the opportunity to build the USAF's next jet trainer.

TheDrive War Zone

Der Beitrag wurde von Praetorian bearbeitet: 19. Mar 2019, 21:49

Bearbeitungsgrund: Teil mit Bezug zu einer falschen Studie gekürzt

[Dave76]

aber sie verlassen sich auf Zahlen, welche ihnen von Boeing so präsentiert worden sind

So einfach ist das nicht:

The big question then is how much will these jets cost? Our sources familiar with the discussions say they will cost "less than an F-35 is ever forecast to cost, best case," let alone what it is priced at now. This indicates that Boeing is going to cut the USAF one hell of a deal on these jets, which will help keep the F-15 production line open and Boeing's historic St. Louis plant building fighters well into the latter half of the next decade. This assessment is based on the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's (CAPE) numbers, not just some blue sky pitch from Boeing. These numbers are not projected from hypothetical notions or the dreams of consistently large buys materializing down the line, they take into account hard data from aircraft already being rolled off the production line and flying around the globe. This is the same for the F-15X's projected cost per flight hour that will be spread across the airframe's whopping 20,000-hour design life. For reference, most tactical fighters have a design life of around 8,000 hours
In addition, the F-15X was offered by Boeing to the USAF under a firm, fixed-price contract terms. In other words, if the USAF executes the offer, and the aircraft cost more than what is estimated, Boeing eats that cost directly, just as it has with the KC-46 tanker. There is nearly zero financial risk to the USAF. What it agrees to spend on procuring the capability is exactly what the bill will look like in the end, unless the two parties decide otherwise.
Boeing has been especially aggressive with its bidding on aircraft programs using similar constructs as of late, snapping up the UH-1N replacement contract, MQ-25 carrier-based tanker drone tender, and the opportunity to build the USAF's next jet trainer.

TheDrive War Zone

Gibt es da eine andere Quelle als The Drive/Warzone, bzw. was sind die Details dieser CAPE-Analyse?

Aber selbst wenn wir die Einsparungen jetzt einfach mal für bare Münze nehmen, bleibt immer noch die Frage, warum man jetzt plötzlich neue Legacy-Jets kauft, wo man doch noch vor kurzem sich gegen diese ausgesprochen hatte, und das nicht aufgrund von Kosten, sondern alleine wegen der Fähigkeiten und Zukunftsfähigkeit.