[Goose]

I've very mixed feelings about the F-15EX over more F-35s. On the one hand, it is somewhat cheaper than the F-35, but if stealth is so important these days, how is it even acceptable to have non-stealth airframes? Maybe it makes sense to have a small portion of stealth aircraft at the leading edge of attacks and fill in with cheaper non-stealthy platforms behind, but the F-35 only costs about $10M less than an F-15EX, and 8 F-35s would provide more capability than 10 F-15EXs. It used to be the F-35 cost per flight hour were crazy high, but have now come down. Is Congress and the military really falling on their swords over a $10M per plane difference and not considering the bigger picture of capability per dollar spent? And if you are spending $70M for a plane and you lose $70M if it is shot down, isn't it worth spending $80M to have a far less chance of being shot down than the $70M option?

The F-15EX is a bomb truck, which the F-35 cannot be because in order to remain stealthy it must carry all it's weapons internally. Some weapons don't fit the bomb bay, so it can't carry them at all. Other weapons have to be "modified", which is expensive and usually involves some compromises. The theory is to use F-35s for the DEAD plan that will reduce the missile threat to tolerable levels and then allow the 4.5 gen "fighters" to operate successfully. These fighters carry more tons of bombs that a B-17 did. They are definitely FINO. Bomb-load wise, 10 F-15EX are much more useful than 8 F-35. The F-15EX carries almost twice the bomb load of an F-35.

Unfortunately, the F-15EX is as costly as it is because they aren't going to build that many of them. The NRE has to be spread over a small number of airframes. It is also necessary "corporate welfare". A big problem with the F-35 was that is sucked up the fighter budget for all three services for years, and it continues to do so. That "side effect" was great for Lockheed, but it had the very real risk that there would be no viable competitors going forward. Belatedly, some people realized that probably wasn't a good position for the military to be in. This was a foreseeable concern at the start of the F-35 program, but congress didn't seem to care much. They thought the "savings" of a common fighter were worth the danger of having only one vendor existing at the end of the program. Unfortunately, the F-35 program created a "too big to fail" problem that gave the vendor the upper hand, destroying most if not all of the benefit of a single fighter. Add to that the basically incompatible requirements of the three users and the fact the air force didn't give a **** about commonality or program cost (they just wanted their airplane) and you kind of have the worst of all worlds. Fortunately, the technologists were able to deliver a good product at a much higher price. It could have been an F-111 re-run.

A big advantage the F-35 has is its ability to control companion drone aircraft in addition to its own fighting capability. The F-15EX can't do this, and I know unmanned drones are cheaper than manned craft, so F-35s can also expand the number of air assets more economically. passing on more F-35s for more F-15EXs doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

In the future. maybe. As of now, we don't have a "loyal wingman" or a bomb truck drone. Arguably, for the bombing mission, you are equally well off flying the drone from Indian Springs (OK, Creech AFB for the youngsters) with no F-35 involved. It is an RF link either way and the chairs are more comfortable in Nevada.

[Goose]

I've very mixed feelings about the F-15EX over more F-35s. On the one hand, it is somewhat cheaper than the F-35, but if stealth is so important these days, how is it even acceptable to have non-stealth airframes? Maybe it makes sense to have a small portion of stealth aircraft at the leading edge of attacks and fill in with cheaper non-stealthy platforms behind, but the F-35 only costs about $10M less than an F-15EX, and 8 F-35s would provide more capability than 10 F-15EXs. It used to be the F-35 cost per flight hour were crazy high, but have now come down. Is Congress and the military really falling on their swords over a $10M per plane difference and not considering the bigger picture of capability per dollar spent? And if you are spending $70M for a plane and you lose $70M if it is shot down, isn't it worth spending $80M to have a far less chance of being shot down than the $70M option?

The F-15EX is a bomb truck, which the F-35 cannot be because in order to remain stealthy it must carry all it's weapons internally. Some weapons don't fit the bomb bay, so it can't carry them at all. Other weapons have to be "modified", which is expensive and usually involves some compromises. The theory is to use F-35s for the DEAD plan that will reduce the missile threat to tolerable levels and then allow the 4.5 gen "fighters" to operate successfully. These fighters carry more tons of bombs that a B-17 did. They are definitely FINO. Bomb-load wise, 10 F-15EX are much more useful than 8 F-35. The F-15EX carries almost twice the bomb load of an F-35.

Unfortunately, the F-15EX is as costly as it is because they aren't going to build that many of them. The NRE has to be spread over a small number of airframes. It is also necessary "corporate welfare". A big problem with the F-35 was that is sucked up the fighter budget for all three services for years, and it continues to do so. That "side effect" was great for Lockheed, but it had the very real risk that there would be no viable competitors going forward. Belatedly, some people realized that probably wasn't a good position for the military to be in. This was a foreseeable concern at the start of the F-35 program, but congress didn't seem to care much. They thought the "savings" of a common fighter were worth the danger of having only one vendor existing at the end of the program. Unfortunately, the F-35 program created a "too big to fail" problem that gave the vendor the upper hand, destroying most if not all of the benefit of a single fighter. Add to that the basically incompatible requirements of the three users and the fact the air force didn't give a **** about commonality or program cost (they just wanted their airplane) and you kind of have the worst of all worlds. Fortunately, the technologists were able to deliver a good product at a much higher price. It could have been an F-111 re-run.

A big advantage the F-35 has is its ability to control companion drone aircraft in addition to its own fighting capability. The F-15EX can't do this, and I know unmanned drones are cheaper than manned craft, so F-35s can also expand the number of air assets more economically. passing on more F-35s for more F-15EXs doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

In the future. maybe. As of now, we don't have a "loyal wingman" or a bomb truck drone. Arguably, for the bombing mission, you are equally well off flying the drone from Indian Springs (OK, Creech AFB for the youngsters) with no F-35 involved. It is an RF link either way and the chairs are more comfortable in Nevada.