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

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3224
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post27 Jul 2018, 23:46

Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:If the article is accurate, it would appear that the USAF may in fact be interested. Whether Boeing can deliver at below $95m remains to be seen. They might be able to, with an order of 235.



USAF has "NO" interest is acquiring any more F-15's...."PERIOD"

You've already expressed this opinion. No more reminders will be necessary. Thank you.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jul 2018, 23:52

Then the discussion is over until the USAF places an order for New F-15's.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3224
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 00:01

The discussion is over, when everyone stops talking. I think most agree that F-15Xs aren't likely. That's another matter entirely, than whether any consideration has been discussed. In any case, you don't get to decide for everyone else, when they're done.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 03:00

I wasn't trying to decide for everyone. Just point about the whole line is absurd in my opinion..... :?



Remember, the USAF would like more funding for the F-35A and would like to retire it's existing fleet of F-15C's. So, now are we to believe they would go out and buy new F-15's! :shock:
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 06:07

You tube video on the same story..............it takes about 1 1/2 minutes before some one starts talking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ2g5VmYVOw
Vietnam veteran (Combat Engineer) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline

Fox1

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 06:09

It sounds like any interest is mostly in using the F-15X in the air sovereignty role, with a secondary ground attack capability which the C model lacks. I would not mind seeing the Air Force purchase a couple hundred of these for such purposes, so long as it doesn't take away from F-35 buys. It might actually make better long term sense to buy new F-15s as opposed to trying to upgrade old, worn out C models or using upgraded and likewise aging F-16s for the role. A new build F-15 with the features of the Saudi F-15SA model would be quite sufficient for defending U.S. air space or performing stand-off strike missions, while being cheaper and easier to maintain and fly. I'm just not sure there is enough service life left in the legacy fleet to warrant any significant upgrades. Once you start talking structural modifications and the like, you're probably just better off going with new builds, especially if you get the unit cost down into the $85 million range they seem to be implying.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2246
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 06:36

Sounds like a troll story by Russians
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 08:12

Surprising so many have short memories....


Remember F-15SE....


The USAF was supposedly interested in it too! :?
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 11:29

One major disadvantage the F-15 will always have is that you're basically using 1960's air frame sciences.
You can change the innards all you want, AESA, Barracuda EW Suite, Internal IRST maybe even DAS.
but it'll never be a real VLO aircraft,

some might argue that you don't always need VLO and the teen series fills that nitch perfectly.

To that I say, the F-15 is a stable air frame, did they even manage to make the Eagle unstable? because if you can be seen, the need for you to turn and burn is that much more relevant than if you're nearly invisible. Yeah the F-15 is no slouch, but except for high altitude maneuvering at high speed, the Eagle is out turned by a lot of the unstable airframes that came after it.

Then again some would argue that you won't need to turn and burn very much in today's network centric battlefield with helmet cued aiming and networked SA from all around.

Well, what about efficiency and persistence, is the Eagle's SFC with the latest PW-299 or GE-129 engines superior to it's stablemates with the same engine?

To me the Eagle's airframe has become its weakest asset. It was state of the art in 1976, but a lot has been learned from it and thanks to it, airframe design has advanced so much since then.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 408
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 13:50

Corsair1963 wrote:The USAF was supposedly interested in it too! :?


Can you link to articles claiming ongoing plans and particular squadrons that might be replaced?
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 14:08

Pretty sure that the F-15 you buy today is a completely different animal then when it first flew.

Some airframes are hard to improve upon, just like the good old A-4 and F-5E. Some of these still give the "best BANG for the BUCK."

About the F-15, F-35 AND F-22.


There is not a country in the world that has ANYTHING like them in ANY numbers servicable.

A few F-27 left and right (wonder how many of these can fly versus being "combat ready" in any numbers.)
A few Migs, even rarer to find any of these still 100% combat ready. And what's more, they"ll burn their engines at first contact and drop out of the sky without firing a single bullet.

A few Rafales and Tiffys, both combat ready fleets can be counted single handed + a bit of tax. (Not worth the cost of the alu that went in them.)

With our fleet of F-16, F-15, F-18, F-35 and F-22 we are in pretty good shape for my, and my kids lifetimes.
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1074
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 15:50

Corsair1963 wrote:Surprising so many have short memories....


Remember F-15SE....


The USAF was supposedly interested in it too! :?


The F-15SE was a completely infeasible project that never developed beyond an internal bay before being shelved. It would have required quite a lot of money to have been invested into its development before an operational version was finalized, if an operational version was finalized. The F-15X leverages off-the-shelf technology from the Saudi and Qatari buys. You are comparing apples and oranges.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 428
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 21:13

PROS:
-MIGHT be cheaper to buy a few new F-15s compared to upgrading/maintaining decades old F-15Cs
-Would be a great missile/bomb truck
-Will keep Boeing in the fighter business and prevent the Air Force from having an all-LM fighter force
-Tech is already developed and it leverages an already active production line

CONS:
-It would be cheaper to just buy more F-35s
-F-16s could do many of the proposed roles and the F-16 fleet is younger

I’m betting it doesn’t happen. It would be cheaper to use F-16s to perform the F-15X’s proposed missions.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 21:34

Correct, the F-16 fleet is younger.

If I had any say in the matter? I would drop the F-15C, and "IF" I was looking for a missile truck? ? ?
I would re-open the books on the F-16XL and continue with an all F-16 fleet. in support of the stealth fleet

Single engine, logistical support everywhere, cheaper fuel burn, spares and qualified personal all over the place.

Won't happen, too simple, too logical, too easy, too cheap. No pockets to fill.
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Jul 2018, 23:51

X marks the spot!
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests