Hacker News Reader

Comment by thunderbird120 | Hacker News Reader

The cost per unit has actually come down below modern variants of older generation fighters. Boeing has been trying to get the air force to buy some new F-15Xs over the next few years, this has been controversial to say the least because they would cost more per plane than F-35s while being unable to operate in contested airspace. An ex Boeing CEO as secretary of defense has not eased the controversy to say the least.

View on HN

You can load one of those puppies up with 22 air to air missiles, have a forward F-35 pass along target information, and light them up from the F-15. One team. F-15 is a missile truck that can go Mach 2.2.

Ask because it goes Mach 2.2 it is probably the only fighter vehicle that can launch a hypersonic glide weapon, at least from what the early generation is likely to look like.

It is a bit disengenuous to imply that an F-15 is a "missile truck" that can go mach 2+.

There is no way it will be going anywhere near mach 2 with double rails carrying AIM-120s, let alone 20 of the missiles in total.

In an engagement with an S-400, bits of it will probably end up going at mach 2+.

Not unless you have EA-18Gs and EC-130s raising the noise floor along with lots of disposable drones cluttering the fire control RADAR. And more missile truck F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s carrying AGM-88s to supress/destroy the RADARs and MALDs to add more clutter and become seductive targets.

So the F-35 becomes like a really really fast AWACS on the front lines? I... don't hate that.

Yes, The F-35 is more like a EA-35.

>F-15 is a missile truck that can go Mach 2.2.

High speed missile truck sounds awfully lot like multi track drifting!

Eh, view those cost comparisons with a grain of salt. Something F-35 proponents have been fond of is quoting the flyaway cost of the F-35, against the total procurement cost of legacy aircraft. They'll exclude all the testing, tooling, and r&d costs from the F-35, then exclude the procurement and support costs to finagle a unit cost number.

Meanwhile, the quoted cost for something like a Super Hornet includes support/maintenance and some one-time costs.

As for the F-15X order, that is to supply an Air National Guard squadron, which is currently using old F-15C/D's. They were not slated to switch to F-35's, so the idea was to just supplement with F-15X's in the meantime. IIRC none of the ANG squadrons are switching to the F-35 in the near future.

>they would cost more per plane than F-35s

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26305/f-15x-will-come-...

"Maybe what's more important, is that the F-15X is being designed specifically to slot directly into the USAF's deeply established F-15 infrastructure, even down to seamless pilot conversion. Our sources say it will only take one or two flights per F-15C pilot to convert to the F-15X for the air superiority mission, saving millions on retraining aircrews, not to mention ground crews, that are already intimately familiar with the Eagle. "

Sounds familiar!

It's pretty standard. That's why there are so many letter revisions of military equipment, from small arms to aircraft. It's pretty standard in software design, too, for that matter.

Just because the 737 MAX has a problem doesn't mean the underlying philosophy that directed the design was a poor one. The philosophy is basically, "keep what works, fix what doesn't." It's basic iterative design.

Yes, the new F-15 MAX

Let's hope it's MCAS ships and can read from two AOA sensors

Canopy glass goes edge to edge!

Isn't that what they are saying about the 737 max?

1- Can you link a 2018/2019 source for "F-35 cost < F-15 cost" in particular? Most of the "cost" estimates I've seen for F-35s leave out the engine (another ~$20M last I checked).

2. Given advancements in adversary radars and passive sensors (IRST, etc..), it's not even a given that the F-35 can operate in contested airspace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com