mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) (01/19/90)
From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu>
I don't follow the argument that there was no reason to develop the F-15E
because "the Tornado was already available." The Tornado is not in the
USAF inventory, and introducing it into same would have required the USAF
(specifically, Air Force Logistics Command) to acquire a huge collection
of new spares and technical data. By contrast, since the F-15 was already
aboard, the "only" new support required was/is for the different avionics,
weapon hardpoints, software, etc. for the "E" variant.
They probably don't mention this in AE classes (they didn't when I was at
Purdue), but the cost of supporting a major AF weapons-system during its
service life is roughly ten times the cost of initial acquisition, including
R & D. This is why considerations such as the above dominate acquisition
decisions; even if the Tornado were markedly better than the F-15E (which
it probably isn't, since air/ground weapons delivery depends more on
avionics, software, and crew proficiency than on airframe attributes),
the AF would still almost certainly have preferred an F-15 variant. The
same issue influenced the selections of the F-16 by the Air Force and the
F/A-18 by the Navy. Because the F-100 engine was already in the AF
inventory (for the F-15), it was going to be a bunch (about 30%) cheaper,
in life-cycle terms, for the Air Force to support the F-16. For the Navy,
which didn't have anything "in-house" for either plane, the F-16's LC cost
advantage worked out to only about 8%--not enough to offset the disad-
vantage (in terms of crew confidence) of flying a single-engine fighter
long distances over water.
Chip Mayse
cmayse@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Formerly of AF Logistics Command (fighter propulsion systems engrg)
and of Purdue ME Dept. and AFROTC Det. 220