11 ms·
Boeing lands $1.2B deal for eight F-15EX fighter jets
- Drunkfoowl 6y agoWe really need to buy 8 fighter jets right now for over $1Billion. Definitely a higher priority than Americans not being able to afford rent. /s
- capableweb 6y agoI'm sure you folks could spend your money on something better than more murder-machines. But, 1 billion doesn't get you very far. Taking just 10% of the population of the US (328.2 million) and giving them an equal share of the 1 billion is just $30 per person, so doesn't get you very far. You'd be better off dismantling your whole war machine instead, and reinvesting it in the humans inside your country, rather than focusing on killing people outside of it.
- ericmay 6y ago> You'd be better off dismantling your whole war machine instead, and reinvesting it in the humans inside your country, rather than focusing on killing people outside of it. Sure, except: > We're drawing down troops from Germany, SK, Japan, etc. "You isolationists! You're abandoning NATO! Trump is a Russian Asset!" > We recently bombed this bad terrorist guy who was mutilating children "You murderers! How dare you violate another country's sovereignty. You're the reason the world sucks!" It's so exhausting.
- curiousgal 6y agoAs if those two things are mutually exclusive. Just like the healthcare debate, what if I told you that you can have both a private system and a public system?
- kube-system 6y agoThe US operates one of the worlds largest public healthcare systems. 21% of hospitals in the US are owned by the government. And 64% of US healthcare spending is paid for by the government.
- capableweb 6y ago> one of the worlds largest public healthcare systems Bypassing the fact that the US is a large country so many things will be "worlds largest" without actually carry any significance, being the worlds largest public healthcare system and also one of the worst in the world, says a lot about what a failure it is.
- kube-system 6y agoThat is exactly my point; the failure of our system is not because Americans are unaware of the concept of public healthcare.
- syshum 6y agoWhat if I told you the US already has both a private and public system.... What if I told you that nothing short of exclusive government run healthcare will ever be acceptable to the socialists that make up a large percentage of the people calling for "universal healthcare, and any private system would be deemed "unfair"
- ericmay 6y ago> As if those two things are mutually exclusive. Why would they be mutually exclusive? What exactly is the U.S. doing in Germany, or Japan, or Bahrain? If the U.S. tries to slow operations of "bombing terrorists", then that necessarily means that there is not much use for those bases. I'd be fine keeping some bases in Europe and in Asia (Japan, SK, Australia, Philippines, etc.) basically for the purposes of helping to train our allies and for joint maneuver training, but do we really need so many bases around the world? And if we're going to do that, how should the costs be split? I think people like to pretend these bases are solely for U.S. benefit, but every time we try to leave there's a huge uproar over it. Just like now in Germany when Trump said he was going to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops. Germany didn't say: "please do, we don't really need them" as I'm sure you certainly noticed. > Just like the healthcare debate, what if I told you that you can have both a private system and a public system? The only way that this is even remotely similar to the healthcare debate is the subsidization of drugs for most of the rest of the world (similar to defense). When the US (not if) switches to single-payer drug prices across the world will go up, and availability for new vaccines and therapy will be reduced. The amount of which is to be seen. Besides that, there is legitimate discussion on the pro and cons of single-payer and I find myself wavering between the two. But the overarching thing that matters here is that it's an internal US matter. Frankly, I don't see why it should be anyone else's business what we decide to do. People spending all this time talking about it should focus more on their own countries and improving them instead.
- virtue3 6y agowarmachine is the only thing we do best. So nahhhhhh.
- beamatronic 6y agoIf we want to fight something so bad, why don't we fight unemployment, ignorance, and homelessness.
- virtue3 6y agoBecause america doesn't fight wars it cant win :(
- kube-system 6y agoThe CARES act was 2,000 times larger.
- PenguinCoder 6y agoWas still a corporate bail out.
- kube-system 6y ago$560 billion went directly to individuals, or 467 times as much as Boeing's deal in the article. If you are looking for an example of how the government prioritizes Boeing ahead of people who can't pay their rent, this is not that.
- mikece 6y agoA 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 6y agoThis 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.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoF-22: What am I to you?
- jmisavage 6y agoThe main problem with the F-22 is that restarting production will cost $10 billion all on its own. Then each jet would be $200 million. [1] The F-15 is still produced in various configurations for our allies so any change/upgrade is going to be much cheaper. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-someone-say-f-22-restart-air-force-said-no-69686 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-someone-say-f-22-...
- virtue3 6y agoF-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-f-22-raptors-wont-hit-80-percent-mission-capable-target-on-time https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28659/air-force-admits... 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-an-f-22-raptors-crumbling-radar-absorbent-skin-are-fascinating https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29218/these-images-of-...
- beamatronic 6y agoIBM mainframe? Does it run COBOL?
- rangibaby 6y agoHAL 9000
- hindsightbias 6y agoThe Soviets had cloned the mainframe in the 60s. Called EX EVM I think.
- torcete 6y agoWhat role is the F-15EX supposed to cover that is not already covered by the F/A-18 F-22 and F-35?
- Trisell 6y agoUnder the terms of the deal, Boeing will build a new version of its F-15, an older fighter jet developed in the 1960s, with new automated flight controls and electronic warfare capabilities. The newer model, known as the F-15EX, will be designed to carry heavier weaponry than smaller, stealthier jets like the F-35. The Air Force is looking for a bomb/missile truck. They already have extensive experience with the F-15, and retraining(pilots/maintainers) and retooling to use the smaller f-18 would most likely cost as much or more as this deal. Also given military structure you would have to spin up a whole new command and maintenance Wing for the new type. Where the f-15 will just get added to an existing f-15e wings.
- the-dude 6y agoLike the Max?
- Cactus2018 6y ago> with new automated flight controls and electronic warfare capabilities. Would this be good for making a drone version?
- numpad0 6y agoQF-4 and QF-16 exists for target practices but they don’t use them for any combat drone-y roles
- justin66 6y agoThe possibility of some fighters going unmanned and under the control of the ground or of another fighter in some scenarios has been discussed in other places, yes. It sounds like it's still in the planning stages.
- greydius 6y ago
- runako 6y agoRationally, 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 6y agoI 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 6y agoIs 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 6y agoDefense 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.
- gumby 6y agoThe pentagon has been trying for decades to shift as much as possible to COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) supply with limited success. In their defense they have some exotic requirements; not just things like warplaenes but simply buying things that will continue to be available for n years into the future. Also in their defense: the contractors go out of their way to paperwork their way out of anything standard. This is like med device companies who try to wedge a “consumable” into their otherwise single-purchase device. But the biggest problem is the military themselves who can’t write specs that could be satisfied by anything COTS, adding random requirements because they aren’t subject to the usual fit-for-purpose constraints of a business. And Congress also gets to weigh in, which, while crucial, often doesn’t help...
- cloin 6y ago"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 6y agoyeah, 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-designed-military-forerunner/ https://qz.com/1718506/boeings-737-max-mcas-has-better-desig... (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 6y agoThe military plane didn't have absurd economical reasons against increased pilot training that 737 MAX had.
- beamatronic 6y agoAh, you've found the solution. The military should go into the passenger business!
- dogma1138 6y agoThey build a new F-15EX ship it over, take the tail number form the older ones and transfer them over and voila an upgrade.
- bgorman 6y agoWhy 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 6y agoThey plan to buy many more but the contract for procurement in future years hasn't been formally signed yet.
- blauditore 6y agoI'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 6y agoI imagine there is quite a bit of pork and middlemen rewarding themselves in the pipeline.
- nixass 6y agoF15-MAX? I think there's typo
- CarbyAu 6y agoF15-MAXTURBOWTFBBQOMG coming soon to a sky near you! Well, give or take a generation change.
- dirtyid 6y agoSomewhat related: >US May Need to Nationalize Military Aircraft Industry, USAF Says https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/07/us-may-need-nationalize-military-aircraft-industry-usaf-says/166894/ https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/07/us-may-need-nati... 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.
- antisthenes 6y agoAt 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
- castorp 6y ago> 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?
- NegativeLatency 6y agoEvery 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 6y agoFrom that well-known loony-leftist, Dwight Eisenhower. /s
- m463 6y agoHe 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."
- johnrgrace 6y agoRumors are he spent several years doing antifa activities in a leadership role.
- js2 6y agohttps://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercrossofiron.htm https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercr...
- Rebelgecko 6y agoAn interesting counterpoint when a nun wrote to a NASA asst administrator and suggested that NASA be shut down so that its budget could be repurposed to help feed and clothe the poor. Not all of the arguments apply to military spending, buy some do: https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/ https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/ TBH I think it's a moot point anyways. Maybe federal budgets were a zero-sum game during the Eisenhower Administration, but I don't think that's been the case for a long time
- credit_guy 6y agoI was hungry and not fed, cold and not clothed ( * ). Living behind the Iron Curtain. And because of all those guns that America kept making, those warships she kept launching and rockets she kept firing, the Iron Curtain eventually fell, and I'm not hungry and cold anymore. ( * ) I was not literally hungry, but our food options were extremely limited. Clothes the same. And shoes. As for cold, that I was. Many, many cold winter nights with no heating and oh, so many times, no electricity.