F-15 Eagles Win Big In Supersized Defense Spending Bill
It should be noted that the Democrats still have the opportunity to amend the bill before it is sent to the House Budget Committee, although the packaging of the deal under the 'reconciliation' process is designed to speed its progress and avoid a filibuster.
Of the $7.2 billion for tactical airpower, the biggest winner is the F-15EX, with this program earmarked to get an additional $3.1 billion 'to increase production.'
The F-15EX, which at this stage of its career is primarily an air superiority platform, was approved for full-rate production in June of last year. Most recently, the Air Force had said it wants to buy 98 F-15EX aircraft, although the numbers have been subject to various changes throughout the life of the program.
The 98-aircraft fleet is just about sufficient for five operational squadrons of 18 aircraft, plus a handful of training and test aircraft. Previously, there were plans to cap the number of F-15EXs at 144 jets.
We have reached out to the Air Force for clarity on the wording in the bill, since it's not immediately clear if the funds allocated are for additional aircraft production, beyond the 98, or whether they will be used to accelerate production of the aircraft already in the program of record. The unit cost of an F-15EX has been pegged at between $90 and $95 million in recent years. If the money in question is strictly for more airframes, it would buy between 32 and 34 jets, but funds for additional personnel and infrastructure would also have to come from other sources.
In addition to being good news for the F-15EX, the proposed spending plan includes $127.46 million 'to prevent the retirement of F–15E aircraft.' What exactly this entails is immediately clear, as the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2025 Fiscal Year, which was signed into law in December 2024, already blocked the retirement of any F-15Es Strike Eagles until October 1, 2027, at the earliest. That came in response to an Air Force plan to retire 119 of its 281 F-15Es, or roughly half of the Strike Eagle fleet, by Fiscal Year 2028, which quickly proved to be controversial, to say the least.
The Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA does make exceptions for 'individual F-15E aircraft that the Secretary of the Air Force determines, on a case by case basis, to be no longer mission capable and uneconomical to repair because of aircraft accidents, mishaps, or excessive material degradation and non-airworthiness status of certain aircraft.'
Additional funding could help the Air Force pay to maintain the F-15Es it is now legally required to keep in inventory, or avoid divesting individual jets it might otherwise decide are too costly to keep flying. It might also allow the service to upgrade and sustain the aircraft beyond 2027.
The F-15Es that had been on the chopping block were the surviving examples powered by the older Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220E turbofan engines, with the remaining 99 aircraft being equipped with more powerful F100-PW-229s.
As far as the Air Force is concerned, it needs to retire older F-15Es to help free up resources for its future modernization plans, but lawmakers have been concerned about dwindling numbers of available tactical aircraft if this were to happen.
At the same time, the F-15Es are arguably the Air Force's most in-demand tactical jets thanks to their highly desirable blend of speed, range, payload capacity, crew size, and other capabilities. Furthermore, with the F-15EX entering service primarily in the single-pilot air-to-air role, there's no like-for-like replacement in the pipeline.
In the meantime, work continues to upgrade the F-15E, with the most significant recent development involving the installation of a sophisticated new radar warning and electronic warfare suite, the AN/ALQ-250 Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, or EPAWSS, which you can read more about here.
Aside from funds for the F-15EX — the Air Force's newest in-service fighter — and the well-established F-15E, the newly proposed spending package also adds funds for next-generation airpower programs. Both the F-47 crewed sixth-generation fighter and the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program get more funds to accelerate development and production: $678 million and $400 million, respectively.
The Navy's sixth-generation fighter, the F/A-XX, also gets a boost from lawmakers, with another $500 million to accelerate that program.
In terms of older assets, the bill on the table now also allocates just over $361 million to prevent the retirement of older block F-22s. Like the F-15E, the F-22 has long been threatened with axing a portion of its fleet as the Air Force seeks to prioritize other programs.
In the past, the Air Force has argued that upgrading its 32 older Block 20 F-22s — almost a fifth of the current Raptor fleet — would be prohibitively expensive, but this proposal has been met with notable pushback. Last summer, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made clear its concerns about the Air Force's plans to discard those older F-22s in a report that we discussed at the time.
Beyond tactical jets, the proposed legislation includes $4.5 billion to help accelerate the B-21 Raider stealth bomber program. There has been growing talk in recent months about potentially increasing purchases of the bombers beyond the current program of record for 100 aircraft. This also follows Northrop Grumman's disclosure earlier this month of a $477 million loss on the B-21, which was described as 'largely relating to higher manufacturing costs.' The company announced a nearly $1.2 billion loss on the Radier last year, which was blamed on a combination of 'macroeconomic disruptions' and 'higher [than] projected manufacturing costs.'
Elsewhere, the bill includes $440 million to increase C-130J production and $474 million to increase EA-37B Compass Call production. Finally, lawmakers propose to allocate $160 million to accelerate nacelle improvements for the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft.
Returning to the F-15EX and F-15E portions of the reconciliation bill, there remain questions about exactly how these funds will be used. In particular, there is a lack of clarity about F-15EX production numbers and how long a portion of the F-15E fleet will be protected from retirement. Overall, however, lawmakers have firmly made their position clear when it comes to the continued utility of the two closely related tactical air assets.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Block Vote to Release Epstein Files
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican lawmakers have blocked a move that could have forced President Donald Trump's administration to release the files on the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's death and investigation. All but one of the GOP members of the House Rules Committee voted against a Democrat amendment that would have allowed Congress to vote on whether the files should be made public or not. Republicans in the House Rules Committee just stopped an amendment that, if passed, would force Congress to vote on whether the Trump Administration should release the Epstein files. What are they hiding? — Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (@RepTeresaLF) July 15, 2025 The amendment, introduced by Californian Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, was voted down 5 to 7 on Monday evening. Khanna posted on X, formerly Twitter, saying: "Rules voted 5-7 to block the full House from voting on my amendment to have a FULL release of the Epstein file. People are fed up. They are fed up. Thanks Rep. Ralph Norman. Need to put the American people before party!" Rules voted 5-7 to block the full House from voting on my amendment to have a FULL release of the Epstein file. People are fed up. They are fed up. Thanks @RepRalphNorman. Need to put the American people before party! — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) July 15, 2025 The Epstein case has remained a lightning rod in American political discourse, fueling conspiracy theories and mistrust in governmental institutions over the past several years. The controversy reignited after the Justice Department's recent memo concluded there was no evidence of a client list or blackmail materials, contradicting previous statements. Tesla CEO Elon Musk previously claimed in a now-deleted post that Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files, and he called on Trump to release the files "as promised." Trump, who has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, has tried to move the conversation away from the issue and there is no evidence that Trump is mentioned in any unreleased files related to the sex offender. Jeffrey Epstein pictured in 2017. Jeffrey Epstein pictured in 2017. New York State Sex Offender Registry/AP This is a developing story. More to follow.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The megabill's Medicaid cuts shocked hospitals, but they may never happen
And 2028 is not only an election year, but a presidential one. 'Are they really going to want to cut rural hospitals in an election?' asked Chris Mitchell, head of the Iowa Hospital Association. 'We're going to talk to our delegation early and often about the impact of these cuts and how looming cuts down the road impact how hospitals run in the interim.' Heartening for hospital executives is a now-long history of Congress delaying or repealing the painful parts of major legislation. Congress, for example, never allowed a tax on high-end 'Cadillac' insurance plans in 2010's Affordable Care Act to take effect, and rescinded a tax on medical devices. 'We saw it with the Affordable Care Act, and we will certainly see it with this bill,' predicted Ben Klein, a former Democratic Senate aide and founding partner of Red+Blue Strategies, a lobbying firm that counts major hospital groups and systems among its clients. Congress' habit of revisiting painful cuts also guarantees a multiyear windfall for K Street, the Washington corridor where many lobbyists have their shops. Lobbyists with ties to Trump or Republicans in Congress have already seen a surge in revenue this year. Several state-based hospital associations say they will ramp up meetings with lawmakers to stress the need for an off-ramp before the 2028 elections. Even before the megabill's enactment, some Republicans in competitive districts were suggesting Congress may need to tweak a provision restricting states' ability to extract more money from the Treasury if it causes problems for hospitals. 'If it looks like we have issues and we're not comfortable, we can change it,' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said before the House voted to pass the bill last week. 'Things are subject to change. We're going to have different members of Congress. We're going to have a new president. Things are going to be different.' If the lobbyists are successful in undoing the cuts — which mostly target Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income people — it'll mean the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will be even more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office expects: $3.4 trillion in deficit spending over a decade. That will have ramifications across the U.S. economy, exposing Americans to higher interest rates and slower economic growth, budget experts warn. 'If they are successful in getting these reductions delayed, modified, scaled back, … it will be a tax on future generations,' said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and longtime GOP Senate budget aide. But that's a deal hospital executives — who have predicted the cuts could threaten some facilities' survival — are willing to take. Delays and cuts States use two tools to get higher Medicaid payments from the federal government. The first is a tax on hospitals and other providers. States use the tax revenue to pay their share of Medicaid, which offers insurance to more than 70 million low-income Americans. Hospitals don't mind because states cover the tax with bigger Medicaid payments. Conservative advocates of reining in the practice say it amounts to 'money laundering' because states with bigger Medicaid budgets qualify for larger federal contributions. That can also free up money in state budgets to pay for other things, like coverage for undocumented immigrants. But states and hospitals say the tax is vital because Medicaid reimbursements don't cover the true costs of care. The megabill incrementally lowers the rate states can levy from 6 percent of patient revenue to 3.5 percent. In 2028, the cuts start to phase in at 0.5 percent and continue for several years until reaching 3.5 percent. The new law permits the 10 red states that have chosen not to take advantage of a provision in Obamacare encouraging them to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people to keep their taxes but not increase them. Restricting the provider taxes will hit hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients hard, their advocates say. Second, the bill targets a wonky financial tool states use to boost hospitals' Medicaid revenue called state-directed payments. The tool enables states to boost the rates privately run managed care plans, which contract with states to cover Medicaid patients, reimburse providers. States have ordered higher rates for chronically underfunded hospitals and facilities. In some cases, states have required the plans to pay providers at commercial rates, which are much higher than those paid by Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Overall the bill will cut more than $1 trillion in health spending over the next decade, with the majority coming from Medicaid. This includes not just the state cuts but also the effects of other provisions, such as new rules requiring some Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or attend school. Hospitals are trying to figure out how to make up funding gaps that could reach billions of dollars — and warning their representatives and senators of what's ahead. States could raise income taxes or find ways to shed Medicaid enrollment to help contain costs, hospital executives said. In West Virginia, facilities may delay construction projects or cut services, said Jim Kaufman, president and CEO of the West Virginia Hospital Association. Some areas that could be targeted are obstetrics or pediatric care, which are already in short supply in rural areas. 'One out of every two births is covered by Medicaid,' he said. Getting grandfathered Lawmakers are likely to hear more in the coming months about the impacts on their local hospitals. The industry has always been a powerful one in Washington since hospitals care for lawmakers' constituents and also employ many of them. The Iowa Hospital Association's Mitchell said lawmakers may think twice once they see the consequences of the cuts. 'We won't be talking theoretically,' he said. 'Unless there's intervention, we know how things will shake out.' Republicans did include a $50 billion relief fund for rural hospitals to stretch out over five years. Details on how that money will be distributed remain scant as states await guidance from the Trump administration. But it is unlikely to fully offset the losses, several hospital groups said. That's because rural hospitals serve mostly Medicare and Medicaid patients and the rates the government pays are usually far less than what private insurers do. In Virginia, large hospital systems in urban areas might get a sixth of their revenue from state-directed payments. For rural facilities, it is closer to a third, said Julian Walker, vice president of communications for the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association. Advocates for rural hospitals, as well as urban ones that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients, are highlighting their vulnerability. Larry Bucshon, a Republican lobbyist and former heart and lung surgeon who served seven terms representing an Indiana House district, said he expects Congress will have to do more to help them. 'There is going to have to be some work done to say, 'Well, we need to have more grandfathering,'' he said. Still, lobbyists for hospitals said they aren't taking that for granted. They point out that the Paragon Health Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank, made the case for changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments and that many Republicans believe strongly that Medicaid costs have grown too rapidly and that some states provide benefits to people who don't need them. That threatens the program's stability, Republicans said during the megabill debate. 'They may not be as from the Paragon Institute work inside the White House and have been pushing for these changes that have now become enshrined in law,' a lobbyist for multiple hospitals, granted anonymity to speak freely on the situation, said. At the same time, any changes going forward will likely need bipartisan support and Democrats might not be eager to help Republicans out of a jam if the GOP finds itself trying to stop unpopular provisions from taking effect in an election year. 'I don't want to hear Jeff Van Drew, or any Republican from New Jersey, or any Republican in this House telling me that they're going to correct bad things that they did today,' said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) after the final megabill House vote last week. Still, Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he wants to reverse the Medicaid cuts. 'I'm determined to ultimately reverse all the terrible things they've done to Medicaid, to the ACA, to make health care less affordable, more costly,' Pallone said.
Business Wire
2 hours ago
- Business Wire
HDFC Bank Limited Form 20-F for the Year Ended March 31, 2025 Available Online
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE : HDB) filed its Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2025 on July 14, 2025. Filings made by HDFC Bank Limited with SEC are available from the SEC's EDGAR database via the direct link to its website located under "About Us/Investor-relations/SEC Filings" on HDFC Bank's website, or via Shareholders/Members of the Bank may also write to Mr. Ajay Agarwal, Company Secretary & Group Head – Secretarial & Group Oversight, HDFC Bank Limited, 4 th Floor, HDFC House, H T Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020, India, requesting a hard copy of the completed audited financial statements free of charge.
