
Boeing lands $1.2B deal for eight F-15EX fighter jets - justin66
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/13/boeing-f15ex-contract/
======
mikece
A much better article on this plane is at The Drive:

[https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34568/](https://www.thedrive.com/the-
war-zone/34568/)

~~~
justin66
This article is about the contract with Boeing (it's in the title and
everything), the other article does not mention the contract with Boeing and
appears to be about the engine contract.

------
runako
Rationally, I know these planes have a lot more capabilities than the F-15s
that were popular in my youth.

But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as
much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper.

~~~
tekdude
I used to work in a DoD acquisitions role (as sort of an engineering analyst).

It's not the actual planes or engineering design work that costs so much
money. Most of the time, the companies building the systems know what they're
doing. (Not always though... I saw some awful stuff...)

The real costs come from all of the work necessary to get those systems
through the government's testing and certification processes. Typically, each
individual subsystem has to be checked by a different DoD agency that
specializes in that kind of technology. That means dozens or hundreds of
similar but different documentation packages need to be created, reviewed,
revised, and signed off...

~~~
azinman2
Is that an opportunity for software to standardize and be able to output
different kinds of specs? Or is this something only a human can do?

~~~
bigtones
Defense is as much about creating and maintaining jobs as it is about building
war machines. The military-industrial complex is very politically motivated to
keep jobs over any real need for efficiency gains.

------
NegativeLatency
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies
in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who
are cold and are not clothed.

~~~
fmajid
From that well-known loony-leftist, Dwight Eisenhower.

/s

~~~
m463
He did write with remarkable candor when leaving office.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial
complex."

------
torcete
What role is the F-15EX supposed to cover that is not already covered by the
F/A-18 F-22 and F-35?

~~~
WesleyLivesay
Seems mostly like a stopgap to me. This is meant to replace a bunch of old
F-15 C/Ds which are aging out of their operational life. The -18s are Navy,
and so using them in the Air Force to replace existing -15s would be pricey on
the logistics side, F-22s aren't being manufactured anymore and would far too
expensive for the National Guard units these are going to, and the F-35s just
aren't available in large enough numbers yet. The -15 has also turned into a
very versatile aircraft, and it a lot cheaper to operate than a -35.

Part of the reason these old aircraft stick around is due to the very low risk
involved with upgrades. We have -15s, we know they work very well, we know how
to fix them, we know what to do with them.

~~~
donaltroddyn
> F-22s aren't being manufactured anymore and would far too expensive for the
> National Guard units these are going to

The 149th and 199th Fighter Squadrons are ANG and fly the F-22A.

~~~
WesleyLivesay
You are absolutely correct, I should have been more clear that I meant they
would be too expensive to go to the number of ANG squadrons that currently fly
the C/D, I think they would have to double current F-22 numbers.

------
bgorman
Why make an order for only eight? It seems wasteful for a country like the US
to order so few. Either you need a lot more, or you don't need them at all.

~~~
nradov
They plan to buy many more but the contract for procurement in future years
hasn't been formally signed yet.

------
blauditore
I'm honestly wondering why those planes are so expensive. If it's mostly human
work, 1.2 billion is (very) roughly 1000 highly-skilled people employed for
two full years. This feels out of proportion, even for bleeding-edge
technology.

Does someone here know a bit more about the breakdown of costs?

~~~
decafninja
I imagine there is quite a bit of pork and middlemen rewarding themselves in
the pipeline.

------
antisthenes
At this point, even the most obtuse observer should realize that military
contracts are nothing but jobs programs for the big defense corps.

The actual deliverables seem to be a distant, almost irrelevant goal

------
dirtyid
Somewhat related:

>US May Need to Nationalize Military Aircraft Industry, USAF Says

[https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/07/us-may-need-
nati...](https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/07/us-may-need-nationalize-
military-aircraft-industry-usaf-says/166894/)

Probably not serious consideration at this point, but the salient TL;DR: it's
hard to retain talent and industrial base when there's so few engineering
projects. Talent leaves if they only get to do 1 major project throughout
their career. So here's busy work. Some of it might be productive. Though I'm
sure has more to do with Boeing needing more dough after losing 60 orders this
month, 800 so far this year.

------
nixass
F15-MAX? I think there's typo

~~~
CarbyAu
F15-MAXTURBOWTFBBQOMG coming soon to a sky near you! Well, give or take a
generation change.

------
cloin
"A Boeing news release published Monday boasted that engineers would be able
to adapt from older F-15 jets to the new F-15EX in a matter of days."

This sounds familiar...

~~~
virtue3
yeah, except they don't have to go through the FAA this time >_>. /s

What drove me nuts about the 737 fiasco, is that the military version of a 767
had a similar issue that was easily overridden by just... moving the stick.

[https://qz.com/1718506/boeings-737-max-mcas-has-better-
desig...](https://qz.com/1718506/boeings-737-max-mcas-has-better-designed-
military-forerunner/)

(the military aircraft is based on the 767 which only has rudimentary fly-by-
wire for the spoilers along the wing, so everything else is hydraulic like the
737).

~~~
p_l
The military plane didn't have absurd economical reasons against increased
pilot training that 737 MAX had.

~~~
beamatronic
Ah, you've found the solution. The military should go into the passenger
business!

------
kevin_thibedeau
F-22: What am I to you?

~~~
virtue3
F-22 is the greatest plane in the US arsenal. It's unhackable (because the IBM
mainframe powering it is so old, it would be difficult for the chinese or
russians to attempt to do so). And -nothing- can currently beat it in a 1v1.

The issue, however, is we can barely keep 50% of the already existing raptors
operational. [https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28659/air-force-
admits...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28659/air-force-
admits-f-22-raptors-wont-hit-80-percent-mission-capable-target-on-time)

The raptor is, unfortunately, not the future due to costs and maintenance (tho
the f-35 is having the same maintenance issues with the stealth coating.
Hopefully it's not as bad.)

[https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29218/these-images-
of-...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29218/these-images-of-
an-f-22-raptors-crumbling-radar-absorbent-skin-are-fascinating)

~~~
beamatronic
IBM mainframe? Does it run COBOL?

~~~
rangibaby
HAL 9000

------
castorp
> Boeing will build a new version of its F-15, an older fighter jet developed
> in the 1960s

Am I the only one that immediately thinks about the 737max disaster where they
tried the same thing?

