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
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Massie says he assumes some of ‘Trump's friends' are in Epstein files
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he assumes 'at least some of Trump's friends' could be among the many people named in Jeffrey Epstein's files, but said authorities may be hesitant to release information that could name people who actually did nothing wrong. Massie, a cosponsor of a bill that would require the Justice Department to release the Epstein files, is hopeful the measure will come up for a vote when the House returns in September. 'The thing about the files that everybody needs to understand is there are probably lots of names in there who haven't done anything criminal, and so there's a reluctance to release these files because of the embarrassment just having your name on the news in these files. And I always presumed that there were at least some of Trump's friends named in this, and that might be why,' Massie told reporters Wednesday. The Trump administration in recent days has released a number of other files of interest to the MAGA base, including some on Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and others related to Hillary Clinton's email server and the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But if designed to be a distraction, it doesn't appear to be working, as many of Trump's supporters are still demanding to see information on the Epstein case. Massie said he expected anticipation on the Epstein issue to build over the coming recess, noting members may face questions on their position on the files as they head to town halls. 'I think this issue will not dissipate. I think it will grow over the August recess,' he said. He also faulted Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for recessing the House a day earlier than expected rather than taking a vote on the controversial measure. 'I think he's just trying to do Trump a favor, that makes sense? He doesn't want a paper thin sliver of daylight between him and the president, and so that's why he's avoided taking even the symbolic vote on the nonbinding resolution,' Massie said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump ignites chain reaction with early redistricting gamble
The Trump White House is pushing ahead with an extraordinary effort to game the system by redrawing congressional maps ahead of the midterms. Democrats are finding it tricky to fight back. Why it matters: The push to add Republican House seats is sparking a chain reaction as the parties fight tooth-and-nail over the majority. "Why the f**k are we responding and reacting to the other side instead of taking offense on these things?" potential Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke told Democrats this week. But going on offense is easier said than done: Democrats would need a court order or special election in most states where they could try to draw more favorable maps. The big picture: Republicans are hoping to pick off more than a half-dozen Democratic-held seats by redrawing congressional maps ahead of 2026. Redistricting for partisan advantage is nothing new, but it's usually done after the census every ten years. The next one's scheduled for 2030. In Texas, Trump has encouraged Republicans to embark on a redistricting project that he's said could net the party as many as five seats. In Ohio, which is required by law to redraw its House map, party strategists believe they can gain two or three seats. In Missouri, Republicans believe they can pick up another seat. Zoom in: Gov. Greg Abbott and other Texas Republicans were at first hesitant to take up redistricting, the Texas Tribune reported. After Trump's call to Abbott, it appeared on the special session agenda. Texas Democrats have limited options to push back, but have considered breaking quorum to prevent a vote on the issue. Republicans are looking to South Texas after Trump performed well with Latino voters there. It could backfire: Adding Democratic voters to GOP districts to build more Republican districts elsewhere risks turning safe seats into competitive races, said Jon Taylor, department chair and political science professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. The other side: Democrats, led by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have vowed to punch back by drawing roughly as many new Democratic seats. Newsom will need to act fast. In his case, he's suggested calling a special election to green light redistricting ahead of 2026. Newsom hosted California and Texas lawmakers in Sacramento on Friday to plot strategy. Other big Democratic states — such as New York, New Jersey and Illinois — also have redistricting limits in their state constitutions. They'll need courts to help, or push through fast amendments. Between the lines: The White House has no bigger priority in the midterms than keeping the House. " The battlefield is extremely narrow compared to 10 or 20 years ago. To the extent the GOP can widen it, on favorable terms, that's a huge advantage," said Matt Gorman, a former National Republican Congressional Committee official. Should Democrats seize the lower chamber, it would paralyze Trump's legislative agenda for his final two years in office and potentially lead to him getting impeached. Trump was impeached following the 2018 midterms, when Democrats won the House majority. The bottom line: There's already a warning sign for Republicans as they weigh redistricting.
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Oregon's Bold Stand Against Private Equity In Healthcare: What's Next?
Private Equity Has Skyrocketed In Healthcare Complex economic forces shape the U.S. healthcare landscape, with private equity (PE) firms promising efficiency and growth in the medical sector while simultaneously sparking debate. On June 9, 2025, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed Senate Bill 951 (SB 951) into law, representing the most recent and stringent legislative effort to restrict private equity investment in healthcare. What does the rise of private equity mean for healthcare? What will be the impact of Oregon's new law? What are the perspectives of investors and physicians regarding private equity in healthcare? The Rise Of Private Equity In U.S. Healthcare PE refers to investments made by firms or individuals in private companies with the goal of enhancing their value and selling them for a profit. These investments often involve significant control over the company's operations and strategic decisions, typically funded through a combination of investor capital and borrowed funds. In healthcare, the funding structure tends to rely more heavily on borrowed funds. In essence and in broad generalization, PE firms identify a business, believe they can operate it more efficiently, and aim to sell it for a profit. This trend reflects the increasing financialization of medical care. In healthcare, PE investments span a wide range of entities, including hospitals, physician groups, medical practices, fertility clinics, cosmetic clinics, imaging centers and ambulatory surgical centers. PE firms now own 460 hospitals, a 25-fold increase over the past twenty years. From 2010 to 2020, private equity deals in healthcare surged by over 250%. This growth is understandable. Healthcare processes often suffer from significant inefficiencies, and investors view the sector as an attractive opportunity due to its size, valuable fixed assets, and stable demand, which is largely independent of traditional market dynamics. "Private equity has revolutionized the engineering space, and it's clear what's been happening in healthcare isn't working. Private equity rewards high performing entities. Why wouldn't medicine want to lean into that?" says Michael Tobias, Founder Principal New York Engineers and shareholder Eaglestone Private Equity when interviewed for this article. This surge aligns with PE's standard approach: acquiring potentially undervalued assets, streamlining operations for short-term profits, and exiting within 3–7 years through sales or initial public offerings (IPOs). This strategy involves taking on immediate financial risk in pursuit of high returns. In healthcare, PE firms have traditionally focused on consolidating high-margin specialties such as dermatology, ophthalmology, and emergency medicine but are now expanding into more diverse areas of care delivery, including neurosurgery. Why Are Physicians Turning To Private Equity? In certain medical circles, surgeons in the latter half of their careers—typically with 15–20 years of practice—view private equity (PE) as an attractive exit strategy. The costs of operating a medical practice continue to rise steadily, driven by expenses such as staffing, equipment, and regulatory compliance. Meanwhile, reimbursement rates to physicians from insurers, including Medicare and private payers, are consistently declining. Private equity offers a way to mitigate these financial risks and exit the market with significant compensation for the assets built over years of practice. This approach can be highly lucrative for senior shareholders within a group practice. However, it may pose challenges for younger partners, who might face exclusion from the deal or diminished roles post-acquisition. What Are The Risk Of Private Equity In Healthcare? Private equity (PE) firms traditionally target high-margin specialties and procedures in healthcare. A leading article in JAMA reported that, following PE acquisition of hospitals, patient safety incidents increased significantly: a 27.3% rise in falls, a 37.7% increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections, and a doubling of surgical site infections. These outcomes occurred despite hospitals treating younger and more financially secure patients. Concerns arise that these issues stem from PE strategies, such as cost-cutting, staff reductions, and deferred investments, which are often implemented to manage debt. How Is Oregon Limiting Private Equity In Healthcare Senate Bill 951 (SB 951) establishes the most comprehensive state-level barriers to private equity (PE) in healthcare, strengthening the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) doctrine, which prohibits non-physicians from owning or controlling medical practices. Historically, this doctrine was underenforced. The law targets the common structure used by PE for investment, focusing on management service organizations (MSOs) rather than direct PE ownership. MSOs typically handle administrative tasks such as billing and IT, but their contracts often enable indirect operational control. SB 951 closes these loopholes by prohibiting MSOs from interfering in clinical decisions, capping their fees at fair market value, and banning non-compete, nondisclosure, and nondisparagement agreements that restrict physicians or their interactions with patients. SB 951 prohibits PE participation in clinical operations, including hiring, firing, work schedules, compensation, coding decisions, clinical policies, billing collections, pricing, contract negotiations, and, most critically, setting clinical staffing levels and patient interaction time. This legislation essentially undermines the operational influence of PE investments in healthcare. Nationwide Ramifications of Oregon's New Law Oregon's Senate Bill 951 (SB 951) establishes the most stringent state-level restrictions on private equity (PE) in healthcare. Investors must comply with new regulations in a phased approach, with full compliance required by January 2029. Other states may follow Oregon's lead and adopt similar legislation. Recent high-profile health system bankruptcies, some of which involve PE-backed entities, have fueled momentum to strengthen regulations on the corporate practice of medicine in states like California. 'We're at an inflection point in this country when it comes to the corporatization of healthcare,' said House Majority Leader Ben Bowman (D-Tigard, Metzger, S Beaverton), who introduced the bill. 'With the passage of this bill, every Oregonian will know that decisions in exam rooms are being made by doctors, not corporate executives.' What Do Surgeons Have to Say About Private Equity In Healthcare? Brian Gantwerker, MD, a private-practice neurosurgeon in Santa Monica, CA, offers a nuanced perspective on PE in healthcare. "I believe private equity is a good thing in terms of commerce and goods and services outside of the medical field. The main issue is of course that private equity job is to purchase assets load them up with a lot of debt and then sell them off the commoditization of healthcare. Private equity as it is now represents a pump and dump scheme. I think it is possible to have private equity involved in a responsible way where the assets are purchased as part of an agreement with healthcare leaders in their community, and there are certain guidelines that they have to abide by such as keeping it open up to a minimum of five years and knowing and announcing when sale of assets will occur at least 6 to 12 months in advance of that transaction occurring. That way, if things fall through or if the clinic or entity fail, the community will be deprived of that service, but in a way that other services might be set up in advance to help catch those critical patients that may fall through the cracks. Responsible capitalism is possible. When it comes to patients, that must be our north star." John Abrahams, MD, a neurosurgeon at New York Brain & Spine, authored the leading paper on private equity in neurosurgery, published in The Journal of Neurosurgery. He expresses a more pessimistic view when quoted for this article: 'I don't see any benefit in the short or long term.' Dr. Abrahams argues that expected benefits, such as economies of scale, fail to materialize. Private equity (PE) firms often struggle to negotiate better insurance rates due to insufficient outcome data, and growth through acquisitions tends to diminish practice valuation. The risks are clear to practicing surgeons: PE firms impose management fees and may require surgeons to assume debt. In his defining article, Dr. Abrahams writes, 'Private practice neurosurgery is in serious trouble. Recent reports do not support its survival, and as costs increase while reimbursements decrease, new solutions and business models need to be developed. Successful business models need to be shared at a national level so we can all learn the difficult lessons at once and grow with the new knowledge gained. Private equity is not the solution for healthcare, and if you want to learn more about its perils, read the book These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner. It describes in detail how private equity ruins companies in general, as well as gives some examples of failure in healthcare.' What's Next for Private Equity in Healthcare? The Deeper Question Oregon's SB 951, by reinforcing the corporate practice of medicine doctrine, establishes regulatory guardrails to protect the patient-physician trust, potentially curbing excesses while sparking broader debates about the limits of state oversight in complex systems. Caution is always warranted with government intervention, as overly prescriptive laws risk unintended consequences, stifling the entrepreneurial spirit that could address healthcare's inefficiencies and echoing Hayek's warnings against the hubris of centrally planned economies. At its core, the fundamental question persists: Are we content to entrust the stewardship of healthcare—our vital guardian of life and dignity—to entities such as government bureaucracies or distant investors chasing the scraps of crony capitalism, whose contributions and ownership may be mere abstractions. Or, perhaps more appropriately, we should steer reform toward those directly providing and receiving care.
