F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6913
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 03:45

weasel1962 wrote:So people should advise their congressmen not to buy the F-15X. Buy F-16s instead...as Corsair1963 says is so much better. lol.



Actually, what I said was upgraded F-16's are better than the existing F-15C's. Which, are worn out and not fully equipped.


I also said upgraded F-16's would be "adequate". I didn't say they would be superior in every aspect to the F-15EX or even F-15C's.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4937
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 04:25

madrat wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The Enclosed Weapons Pod (not CWB, that was the F-15 Silent Eagle EFT replacement) actually has a large drag profile. Quite large for something that carries four AMRAAMs. From the ASH brief the EWP has roughly the same drag as two JSOWs and a CL Tank

650+nm range listed for 17,000lb fuel internal and CL with 2xJSOW
650+nm range listed for 17,500lb fuel internal and CFT with single EWB



Copy that. I found DI of 8 midboard and DI of 10 centerline for JSOW. Fuselage AIM-120 is DI 4 and most carriage AIM-120 are DI of 3 or 4, plus DI of pylons + launchers. So EWP is likely less - if even by a small margin - drag overall.

Centerline Tank, 19+1 (pylon)
JSOW, midboard 8+6.5 (pylon) x 2
EWP Drag Index 49 WITH pylon.

AIM-120 fuselage mount 4 x 2
AIM-120 wing mount 4 x 2
LAU-127 2 x 2
Low Drag Outboard Pylon 5 x 2
4x AIM-120 drag from four missiles, two pylons, and two launchers, 30
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 04:39

So the main difference being airframe life between F-15C and F-15EX...but what someone fails to understand is that if one replaces the ANG F-15Cs with "new" F-16s, that's essentially saying the "new" F-16s are better than the F-15EX. But of course that someone doesn't appear to realize what he is implying...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6913
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 04:58

weasel1962 wrote:So the main difference being airframe life between F-15C and F-15EX...but what someone fails to understand is that if one replaces the ANG F-15Cs with "new" F-16s, that's essentially saying the "new" F-16s are better than the F-15EX. But of course that someone doesn't appear to realize what he is implying...



What you fail to understand??? Is upgraded F-15C's and F-16C's would be an "adequate" replacement for the existing F-15C's operated by the ANG in the Air Defense Mission. Which, you yourself made clear with the remarks of the F-15EX being adequate to defend against Bears, Blinders, Civil Airliners, and Propeller Planes post 2030! (your words)


What does buying new F-15EX's get you over upgraded F-15C's and F-16C's other than a much higher price tag??? What maybe longer service life??? Why do we need a life span of 30 years for the F-15EX vs 10 years for upgraded F-15C's and F-16C's. When both will be obsolete in the next decade?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:02

Since obviously you are too slow to grasp simple logic. Let me connect the dots for you.

The USAF intends to replace the F-15Cs with F-15EX, not F-16s, not F-35s. You are claiming that F-16s are a better option to replace the F-15Cs. Doesn't that mean that the F-16s are better than the F-15EX?

If that is not the case, then following that logic, the F-15EX is the better choice. If that's the case, doesn't that contradict what you have just stated that the F-15EX is not "adequate"?

lol. Highly intelligent stuff we are encountering today...
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1418
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:30

weasel1962 wrote:
Each FAST pack can carry an additional 849 US gallon of fuel. Alternatively, sensors such as reconnaissance cameras, infrared equipment, radar warning receivers and jammers, laser designation, and low-light TV cameras can be carried in place of some of the fuel in these packs. The FAST packs were first tested on an F-15B on July 27, 1974. They can be installed or removed in 15 minutes on the ground.


...adding 2 hours to find the manual, 1 hour to read it, another hour to understand it, 30 mins to practice....sure it takes a few hours.



Which are of course not representative of the modern, production CFTs.
The typical figure you'll see quoted is 90 minutes for install and check-out. The reality is 2 hours installation
and about the same for removal.

CONFORMAL FUEL TANKS (CFTs) FOR THE F-15
CFTs are streamlined fuel tanks attached to the sides of the
F-15 fuselage, with an empty weight of about 2,000 pounds and a
total fuel capacity of approximately 9,750 pounds per set.
The CFTs attach to the aircraft in a manner that enables rapid
installation and removal (about 90 minutes are required to
install and check out CFTs)


https://tinyurl.com/uxvodfd
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:42

The installation process takes longer than removal because of the checks. I understand the connections aren't that much different excepting the production CFTs had more stores capability. I'm given to understand the reality is under an hour and much shorter with a well trained crew but I'll leave that to the crew chiefs to confirm. Better from the horse's mouth than relying on these paper numbers.

Having said that, I would acknowledge that CFT installation and removal are far less frequent than EFTs, making this a point less relevant operationally.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6913
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:47

weasel1962 wrote:Since obviously you are too slow to grasp simple logic. Let me connect the dots for you.

The USAF intends to replace the F-15Cs with F-15EX, not F-16s, not F-35s. You are claiming that F-16s are a better option to replace the F-15Cs. Doesn't that mean that the F-16s are better than the F-15EX?

If that is not the case, then following that logic, the F-15EX is the better choice. If that's the case, doesn't that contradict what you have just stated that the F-15EX is not "adequate"?

lol. Highly intelligent stuff we are encountering today...


What are you smoking??? I said if the mission is to replace the F-15C in the Air Defense Role. The first choice would be more F-35's. The second choice would be upgraded F-15C's and/or F-16C's. Which, would be "adequate" until the latter is replace with additional F-35's.

Further, that the only real benefit of New F-15EX's over upgraded F-15C's or F-16C's. Is a longer service life. Yet, considering all 4th Generation Fighter will be obsolete in a decade or so. That hardly justify the added cost of acquiring new F-15EX's.

Simple fact is the USAF is only getting the F-15EX for "political" reasons and not based on merit or what the USAF says it really needs....

Yet, you hardly have to take my word. As it has been extensively reported on.........
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 06:58

The reality however is different because the first choice for replacing the 15Cs now happens to be the 15EX, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6913
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 07:09

weasel1962 wrote:The reality however is different because the first choice for replacing the 15Cs now happens to be the 15EX, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.



That wasn't the first choice.....no matter how much you may wish otherwise. :wink:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 07:15

I have absolutely no wish esp since the decision doesn't impact me one bit. However, the decision is that the F-15EX is being bought to replace the F-15Cs. Just stating facts.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6913
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 07:19

weasel1962 wrote:I have absolutely no wish esp since the decision doesn't impact me one bit. However, the decision is that the F-15EX is being bought to replace the F-15Cs. Just stating facts.




I am stating facts also. That the USAF didn't and doesn't want the F-15EX. While, there is no merit to acquire it....(my whole point)
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 13:01

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The Enclosed Weapons Pod (not CWB, that was the F-15 Silent Eagle EFT replacement) actually has a large drag profile. Quite large for something that carries four AMRAAMs. From the ASH brief the EWP has roughly the same drag as two JSOWs and a CL Tank

650+nm range listed for 17,000lb fuel internal and CL with 2xJSOW
650+nm range listed for 17,500lb fuel internal and CFT with single EWB
....
Centerline Tank, 19+1 (pylon)
JSOW, midboard 8+6.5 (pylon) x 2
EWP Drag Index 49 WITH pylon.

AIM-120 fuselage mount 4 x 2
AIM-120 wing mount 4 x 2
LAU-127 2 x 2
Low Drag Outboard Pylon 5 x 2
4x AIM-120 drag from four missiles, two pylons, and two launchers, 30


I was definitely adding up my pylon numbers incorrectly for a quad AIM-120 arrangement. I think I added in a second LAU-115 rather than identifying it as a twin. I was also equating the EWB's DI to be similar to a drop tank, which your DI of 49 completely throws the comparison out of line with. The centerline 480 gallon tank I figured was comparable at DI of 19-22 depending on carriage of other tanks.

Wouldn't the JSOW also require NAV/targeting pods adding DI 12 x2. The twin JSOW being around a DI of 33 (+19 for CL tank) should be higher to make the EWB number work out closer, but doesn't quite work out either. Is your DI 49 number not including NAV/targeting, too? I would assume EWB with that high of number to be all three.

Edit: I forgot to add CFT numbers. What is DI for them? Its not in NATOPS manual.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 13:17

weasel1962 wrote:Highly intelligent stuff we are encountering today...


Consider the source. :wink:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 13:19

Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I have absolutely no wish esp since the decision doesn't impact me one bit. However, the decision is that the F-15EX is being bought to replace the F-15Cs. Just stating facts.




I am stating facts also.


you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-37224536.png
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests