F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 03:34
by talkitron
This article uses anonymous sources to say that the USAF is considering the F-15X at a cheap, fixed price from Boeing. It would replace F-15Cs in five Air National Guard and three active duty squadrons. Fun times!

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 04:50
by popcorn
'Cheap' and F-15 are a contradiction in terms.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 05:16
by geforcerfx
popcorn wrote:'Cheap' and F-15 are a contradiction in terms.

But what does the air force consider cheap any more? If they order these, plus have the orders from foreign military sales production rate could get them down around or under $100 million. Since they have decades of experience with the jet it's a easy injection of newer more capable air frames.

I don't mind the plan, there are def missions a nice 4th gen can still do for the USAF and allow us to save hours on the raptors and deploy more F-35's abroad. If they can for sure network seamlessly with the F-35 and F-22 then this will be a great missile truck.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 05:49
by chucky2
I don't get if they want this as a multitasking airframe, why they'd make it single seat. I know I've watched a video or read a transcript of an interview with a F-35 pilot that said something to the affect, The plane itself is easy to fly, it's working the systems that is a challenge. I took that to mean that sorting through the wealth of info and making decisions was what was challenging the pilot. It would seem to me that having a GIB, whoops, PersonIB, helping with that would be advantageous.

How much worse if you use a current F-15D model, flown with just the pilot, is performance compared to the C model? Is it really that much worse?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 05:50
by Corsair1963
Laughable as the USAF has no interest in the F-15X. Hell, it would like to retire it's current F-15C Fleet.


Plus, does anybody believe you could purchase a brand new F-15X for $80-85 Million??? Which, will be the price of your average F-35A in a couple of years.


:lmao:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 06:46
by wrightwing
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 07:08
by quicksilver
C’mon man...

Tyler Rogoway — hipster ‘reporter’ who hasn’t reported diddly since he got his new gig at ‘the drive’ — writes a rambling ‘exclusive’ devoid of named sources or even where or by whom those sources might be employed — and you swallow it as credible (i.e. not talking points from Boeing or the Air Guard guys who have long-standing ‘close’ relationships with that company)??

Whomever his ‘sources’ were, they are smart enough to know that this guy is eager to deliver something/anything right now, and he has virtually no editorial oversight (as the quality of the writing suggests). I really like the part about hundreds of hush-hush conversations. Were there secret handshakes to get into the Mouseketeer Clubhouse too?

You guys are smarter than this. C’mon. :roll:

F-35 is proving so capable that it may put the Eagle mafia out of business — and they know it. And, as suggested by other(s) above, Eagle unit cost won’t sniff anything less than $95-100M (except where ‘hush-hush’ conversations happen) and that’s before we talk about total ownership costs.

C’mon...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 07:39
by sferrin
They could have had the F-15 MANX decades ago. They didn't want it then and they don't want it now. And Tyler Rogoway? Anybody posting his BS should be ashamed of themselves.

post-9221-0-61629000-1342189284.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 08:09
by talkitron
I agree Rogoway is not a trusted source. However, Boeing has landed a massive Super Hornet block III sale to the Navy under similar terms. Note how the article goes out of its way to argue that F-15X would not take away from F-35 buys or even F-15E upgrades. I find this entirely plausible in a political situation where the national debt is apparently not a binding constraint on military spending. Most of the spending craziness has been with the Navy (355 ship fleet, Super Hornets) but there is no reason the Air Force cannot benefit.

The F-15X buy could be curtailed if Democrats take over and hold the line in defense spending increases. Nothing is locked in stone.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 12:37
by quicksilver
Block III SHs are an industrial trial base decision that keeps St Louis and certain USG activities viable until there is a new start for FA-XX/NGAD. They are also cost competitive; Eagles are not cost competitive — NRE paid for by others, or not.

Oh, and it looks like mr hipster’s ‘story’ (regurgitation of BA talking points) isn’t such an ‘exclusive’ this morning —

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2 ... d-topstory

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 14:31
by mixelflick
Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...

Having said that, never under-estimate the Eagle mafia in the USAF. Like a comfortable old shoe, they may just slip into it if the situation calls for it. And the most likely situation is without question, a truncated F-35 buy. They're already talking about it, and if one big foreign buyer opts out... could be a slipper slope.

We shall see. I LOVE the F-15 but let's be honest - it's best days are behind it...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 09:52
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...


It isn't similar because Su-35 is dirt cheap in comparison with Su-57 and Su-57 isn't finish yet (without new engine it is more less pointless). New F-15 would cost same or maybe higher then F-35 and F-35 is more less finished.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 15:58
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...


It isn't similar because Su-35 is dirt cheap in comparison with Su-57 and Su-57 isn't finish yet (without new engine it is more less pointless). New F-15 would cost same or maybe higher then F-35 and F-35 is more less finished.


SU-57 has an established price tag? I've seen estimates, but nothing concrete. It uses the same engines and avionics as the SU-35, which are by far the most expensive parts of any airframe.

How much more expensive is it?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:25
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Would be sad if we started procuring upgraded F-15's vs. F-35's IMO. This would be equivalent to what the Russians are doing today, albeit we already have a true stealth fighter in production and their PAK FA is a bust. They only have one option - build more upgraded Flankers...


It isn't similar because Su-35 is dirt cheap in comparison with Su-57 and Su-57 isn't finish yet (without new engine it is more less pointless). New F-15 would cost same or maybe higher then F-35 and F-35 is more less finished.


SU-57 has an established price tag? I've seen estimates, but nothing concrete. It uses the same engines and avionics as the SU-35, which are by far the most expensive parts of any airframe.

How much more expensive is it?


Su-35s are ~$65M+. I've seen estimates of $100M+ for the Su-57.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:41
by Corsair1963
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"

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:46
by wrightwing
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:52
by Corsair1963
Then the discussion is over until the USAF places an order for New F-15's.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 00:01
by wrightwing
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 03:00
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 06:07
by edpop
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

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 06:09
by Fox1
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 06:36
by madrat
Sounds like a troll story by Russians

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 08:12
by Corsair1963
Surprising so many have short memories....


Remember F-15SE....


The USAF was supposedly interested in it too! :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 11:29
by zero-one
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 13:50
by talkitron
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?

5

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 14:08
by vilters
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 15:50
by southernphantom
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 21:13
by icemaverick
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 21:34
by vilters
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.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 23:51
by jetblast16
X marks the spot!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 03:09
by That_Engine_Guy
The USAF won't even spend the money to outfit their Eagle fleet with the newest PW-229 engines, why would they spend 10x more for new airframes?

Some ANG F-15s did get re-engined, and they came from ANG F-16s that received new engines that the GUARD lobbied Congress to get in their "combat coded" Vipers. The ANG F-15 fleet had it's readiness and capabilities greatly enhanced by hand-me-down engines that were almost 20 years old! If it wasn't for the ANG getting $$ directly from Congress, the USAF would have NEVER paid for ANG aircraft (that the USAF didn't want anymore in the first place....) to receive engine upgrades.

You're talking about the same USAF that has flown B-52s with outdated engines for the last 40 odd years. New engines would have paid for themselves way before now in fuel savings alone, not to mention maintenance costs of TF33 engines over the last 30 years. Now that they are 50 years old, the USAF is kicking the idea around again.... They should have done it the first time I saw the proposal kicked around in the mid 1990's when there were still hundreds of them flying.

Moral of my story; USAF typically isn't interested in 'upgrades' to their aircraft if it's going to exceed 25% of the aircraft's value; I highly doubt they're going to allocate funds/procurement of "legacy" aircraft if they cost even 75% of what the F-35 is costing. If the USAF had stood it's ground, and not paid politics with the F-22, we may still have Raptors rolling off the line, maybe the F-22B, and I'm sure they'd be less than $100M each; but then they couldn't have justified "waiting" for the more advanced F-35 to enter service 20 years later. Making future bets with money they had already invested in the Raptor.

Enter the aircraft "shortage" we have now, with "old aircraft" because NOBODY can stick with a program in the face of questions from the political hacks that know nothing of combat readiness or aviation in general.

Any Eagle driver out there would be "intrested" in a new Eagle, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.
For that matter any Viper driver out there would be "interested" in a new Viper, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 15:42
by mixelflick
Fox1 wrote: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.


Not so sure about the air sovereignty thing. Do you really need new build F-15's carrying 16-22 AMRAAM's for this role? Sounds to me more like they want these F-15's as missile trucks, flying alongside F-22's...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 21:48
by elvis1
mixelflick wrote:
Fox1 wrote: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.


Not so sure about the air sovereignty thing. Do you really need new build F-15's carrying 16-22 AMRAAM's for this role? Sounds to me more like they want these F-15's as missile trucks, flying alongside F-22's...


The missile truck role is really about the only real advantage the F-15 has over the F-35. It can can carry a large load at higher altitude and at higher speeds providing better boost for missiles. With stealth, the F-35 can get closer to adversary (negating the altitude / speed advantage of the F-15); however, it cannot remain stealthy while carrying a large load in Beast Mode. This gives the F-15 an advantage in the missile truck role. Newer F-15X would serve as good support for 5th gen aircraft until another high/fast/long range jet (with stealth) entered service (FB-22 style PCA); however, the F-15 makes little sense outside of the missile truck support role, unless you didn't have access to a true 5th gen fighter.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 22:16
by talkitron
elvis1 wrote:The missile truck role is really about the only real advantage the F-15 has over the F-35. It can can carry a large load at higher altitude and at higher speeds providing better boost for missiles. With stealth, the F-35 can get closer to adversary (negating the altitude / speed advantage of the F-15); however, it cannot remain stealthy while carrying a large load in Beast Mode. This gives the F-15 an advantage in the missile truck role. Newer F-15X would serve as good support for 5th gen aircraft until another high/fast/long range jet (with stealth) entered service (FB-22 style PCA); however, the F-15 makes little sense outside of the missile truck support role, unless you didn't have access to a true 5th gen fighter.


Israel might be disagreeing as the IAF is rumored to be buying a version called the F-15IA. They are using US military aid to pay for this but they certainly could instead use this aid to buy more F-35As. It is possible the IAF will use the F-15IA only as a missile truck, but I doubt it. Maybe the newer F-15s have a range / persistence advantage over the F-35A? Here is the Israel story:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-lo ... rm-boeing/

Take this with a grain of salt:

The F-15s being considered in the deal, to be dubbed IA for “Israel Advanced,” according to Israel Hayom, would be an upgraded version of the old plane that would include certain stealth capabilities, such as radar-absorbing paint and internal weapons carriage.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 22:32
by hythelday
Israel's adversaries do not have credible air forces to justify F-15 as a missile truck companion to the F-35. Even if Iran orderes a whole lot of Flankers today, Israel would still have the pole position.

If this report (that has already been floated around and caused so many rustled jimmies in the Israel thread) turns out to be true, then it'll have more to do with Eagles A-G prowess rather than anything else.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 04:07
by Corsair1963
lrrpf52 wrote:

F-15X is a pipe dream like the Phantom 2000 or Super Phantom was.


Honestly, wasn't that long ago that Boeing was trying to sell us on the F-15SE (Stealth Eagle). Which, came to nothing. So, why would the F-15X being any different??? :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 07:14
by aaam
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
Moral of my story; USAF typically isn't interested in 'upgrades' to their aircraft if it's going to exceed 25% of the aircraft's value; I highly doubt they're going to allocate funds/procurement of "legacy" aircraft if they cost even 75% of what the F-35 is costing. If the USAF had stood it's ground, and not paid politics with the F-22, we may still have Raptors rolling off the line, maybe the F-22B, and I'm sure they'd be less than $100M each; but then they couldn't have justified "waiting" for the more advanced F-35 to enter service 20 years later. Making future bets with money they had already invested in the Raptor.

TEG


In defense of USAF and the F-22, it wasn't a matter of standing their ground. Congress and DoD wanted the F-22 stopped. There was no question about it . It was going to happen, come hell or high water. Right or wrong became secondary, It became a matter of, "Who's in charge here". USAF was, "...made an offer they couldn't refuse". Heck! The Secretary of the Air Force and the USAF Chief of Staff were fired for trying to continue the F-22 (the official nuclear incident explanation was a smokescreen for press consumption). The message was received and understood.

As Kenny Rogers once said, "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em".

BTW, this isn't the only time such a thing has happened.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 08:08
by Corsair1963
That_Engine_Guy wrote:The USAF won't even spend the money to outfit their Eagle fleet with the newest PW-229 engines, why would they spend 10x more for new airframes?

Some ANG F-15s did get re-engined, and they came from ANG F-16s that received new engines that the GUARD lobbied Congress to get in their "combat coded" Vipers. The ANG F-15 fleet had it's readiness and capabilities greatly enhanced by hand-me-down engines that were almost 20 years old! If it wasn't for the ANG getting $$ directly from Congress, the USAF would have NEVER paid for ANG aircraft (that the USAF didn't want anymore in the first place....) to receive engine upgrades.

You're talking about the same USAF that has flown B-52s with outdated engines for the last 40 odd years. New engines would have paid for themselves way before now in fuel savings alone, not to mention maintenance costs of TF33 engines over the last 30 years. Now that they are 50 years old, the USAF is kicking the idea around again.... They should have done it the first time I saw the proposal kicked around in the mid 1990's when there were still hundreds of them flying.

Moral of my story; USAF typically isn't interested in 'upgrades' to their aircraft if it's going to exceed 25% of the aircraft's value; I highly doubt they're going to allocate funds/procurement of "legacy" aircraft if they cost even 75% of what the F-35 is costing. If the USAF had stood it's ground, and not paid politics with the F-22, we may still have Raptors rolling off the line, maybe the F-22B, and I'm sure they'd be less than $100M each; but then they couldn't have justified "waiting" for the more advanced F-35 to enter service 20 years later. Making future bets with money they had already invested in the Raptor.

Enter the aircraft "shortage" we have now, with "old aircraft" because NOBODY can stick with a program in the face of questions from the political hacks that know nothing of combat readiness or aviation in general.

Any Eagle driver out there would be "interested" in a new Eagle, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.
For that matter any Viper driver out there would be "interested" in a new Viper, that is natural, but the USAF is not going to spend money on them.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG


Only way the USAF is going to keep the A-10 and/or F-15C. Is if Congress forces them too! In short by the numbers you can't make a case for either. Only a political decision could change that.... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 20:39
by sferrin
aaam wrote:BTW, this isn't the only time such a thing has happened.


Blackbird and Tomcat come to mind.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 22:46
by aaam
sferrin wrote:
aaam wrote:BTW, this isn't the only time such a thing has happened.


Blackbird and Tomcat come to mind.


Tomcat is indeed one of the instances where this happened. In the case of Blackbird, AF wanted the F-12B as their interceptor to replace F-106. In that case, Congress supported the AF to th extant that they even funded the bird. McNamara wanted to force USAF to use more of his darling, the F-111, as its next interceptor and impounded the F-12B funds. it seemed likely that Congress was going to overrule him, so he ordered the Blackbird production line destroyed. This not only had the desired effect of preventing the F-12B from ever coming to fruition, it also precluded any possibility of any further production of any version of the Blackbird. I believe there were going to be three more SR-71s built as replacement birds, but that became impossible.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 11:36
by zero-one
I remember back then, mid to late 2000s, everyone was thinking future combat would be against insurgents and terrorist in caves. The word "non-state" actors became the new buzz word.

Almost every single weapons system being was being geared towards fighting "cave men" with no high end equipment.
*LCS
*Hi-Mars
*Zumwalt
*All them drones.

They we're all being described as a shift away from "cold war mentalities" where 2 rival forces go up against each other.
Instead they would be lighter, less armed, but more easily deployable than their counterparts.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 14:04
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:I remember back then, mid to late 2000s, everyone was thinking future combat would be against insurgents and terrorist in caves. The word "non-state" actors became the new buzz word.

Almost every single weapons system being was being geared towards fighting "cave men" with no high end equipment.
*LCS
*Hi-Mars
*Zumwalt
*All them drones.

They we're all being described as a shift away from "cold war mentalities" where 2 rival forces go up against each other.
Instead they would be lighter, less armed, but more easily deployable than their counterparts.


Excellent point!

Now that these non-state actors have been marginalized, we're going back to defending large swaths of land/ocean vs. a near peer adversary. The new defense budget seems to reflect that (thankfully), but we missed the F-22 boat (and presumably other weapons systems) thought to be "cold war relics". The next war is almost always different than the last, but it's likely going to be with China. Russia wouldn't last long and it'd have to resort to nukes sooner or later. China has the numbers, the tech is improving and the will to impose its authority over said large swaths of land/ocean.

Relative to airpower, the F-35 and increasing numbers of autonomous, unmanned platforms will be necessary to offset the Chinese quantity. We're still ahead quite a bit in most areas qualitatively, but damn - F/B-22's rolling off the production line would be a nice hedge against a LOT of unforseen "issues". Personally, I hold out hope the F-23 survived in some black program. Even a small force of 50-100 jets would make a big difference, especially in less than an all out war in the South China sea...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 02:12
by madrat
F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 09:39
by zero-one
In the case of the F-35, it was so versatile that they we're able to sell it to congress as a true post cold war fighter for striking "non state" actors that are hiding inside other countries.

You need to strike a terrorist cell in Pakistan but are hesitating in asking for permission as they may have a mole. No problem. F-35s can get in, drop bombs and get out.

But now that we are returning to peer adversary conflicts, the F-35 can accurately locate air and ground assets better than anything else, shoot them or share targeting info to other shooters making them more effective.

So peer adversary with high end threats or cave men hiding inside other countries. the F-35 delivers

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 13:26
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.


Have you seen the black budget? It exceeds Great Britain's total annual defense spending. I think it's pretty well established a lot of this is for work on things like the RQ-180, but there are undoubtedly others. I didn't say it was likely, I said I was holding out hope.

And the size of that black budget affords me a whole lot of hope... :)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 01:09
by jetblast16
USAF has "NO" interest is acquiring any more F-15's...."PERIOD"


But I have interest in watching them :twisted:


Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 22:38
by sinusoiddelta
I noticed some interesting features I noticed looking at the F-15E vs SA vs X vs 2040c
Image
The 2040c concept had fairly drastic changes to both the left and right wing root/cannon geometry. The F-15SA has similar looking “ears” on either side of the canopy. Does anyone have an idea what their purpose might be?

The F-15X concept has less drastic reshaping at the right wing root but appears as though it may not have a cannon at all.

Sorry if this has been brought up before!

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 02:27
by sferrin
ECM. Singapore (F-15SG) has them too.

maxresdefault.jpg


5l-image-F-15SG.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 06:21
by Corsair1963
The USAF isn't buying the F-15X......(again for the thousand time) :doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 15:37
by SpudmanWP
They are part of the ESM, Rafale has a similar layout.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 16:00
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.


Perhaps, but consider this...

The US "Black" budget is as large (or larger) than the entire defense budget of Great Britain. That's a lot of buckaroos, and not all of them are going toward stealthy flying wing ISR type aircraft. The YF-23A demonstrated phenomenal speed, agility but especially supercruise. In fact, it was said that it could fly an entire mission in super-cruise. The Raptor isn't capable of this, nor is the F-35. Nor is any other US platform that you can name.

A small force of 50 or so F-23A's would generate an incredible set of capabilities for the USAF, in the same way the F-117 did (total of 59 produced). Could be easily absorbed by that black budget, and would also be a nice hedge against F-35 program delays, which would have been occurring in spades right around the time this F-23A would have become operational.

The fact YF-23A performance specs are to this day still classified should tell us something. Nearly 30 years ago, it flew with capabilities still unrealized today. I rather doubt the USAF just sat on them, nevermind developed them further...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 17:09
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:F-23, Huh? A hush program just like the fictitious XB-70 prototype converted to a space launch system. Wishful thinking.


Perhaps, but consider this...

The US "Black" budget is as large (or larger) than the entire defense budget of Great Britain. That's a lot of buckaroos, and not all of them are going toward stealthy flying wing ISR type aircraft. The YF-23A demonstrated phenomenal speed, agility but especially supercruise. In fact, it was said that it could fly an entire mission in super-cruise. The Raptor isn't capable of this, nor is the F-35. Nor is any other US platform that you can name.

A small force of 50 or so F-23A's would generate an incredible set of capabilities for the USAF, in the same way the F-117 did (total of 59 produced). Could be easily absorbed by that black budget, and would also be a nice hedge against F-35 program delays, which would have been occurring in spades right around the time this F-23A would have become operational.

The fact YF-23A performance specs are to this day still classified should tell us something. Nearly 30 years ago, it flew with capabilities still unrealized today. I rather doubt the USAF just sat on them, nevermind developed them further...


They didn't do anything with the YF-12, XB-70, Skybolt, or ASALM, so doing nothing with the YF-23 wouldn't be unprecedented.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2018, 14:18
by mixelflick
Not entirely true..

The YF-12A's weapons systems eventually made their way into the F-14. And NASA continued using it as well as various Blackbird iterations for high speed/high altitude research. Ditto for the XB-70.

"Despite the accomplishments of the XB-70, time was running out for the research program. NASA had reached an agreement with the Air Force to fly research missions with a pair of YF-12As and a "YF-12C," which was actually an SR-71. These represented a far more advanced technology than that of the XB-70. In all, the two XB-70s had logged 1 hour and 48 minutes of Mach 3 flight time. A YF-12 could log this much Mach 3 time in a single flight.:"

We are told both died with NASA. Perhaps. But the data collected undoubtedly made its way into other programs, and its a safe bet at least some of it found its way back into the black world. You don't just ditch aircraft and associated technologies that are so cutting edge. And there's at least one suspicious quote out there from the YF-23A team that it "continues to fly today, in one form or another".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 06:02
by Corsair1963
What happen to the USAF interest in the F-15X??? :lmao:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 13:53
by jetblast16


The old girl still has some life in her :D

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 09:59
by edpop

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 11:17
by Corsair1963
Please, we've been over this again and again. The USAF has no interest in the F-15X and is not going to buy it.... :?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 14:01
by mixelflick
edpop wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdF-wpGbg70


12 new F-15X sounds like a test/evaluation squadron, not an operational capability. It probably doesn't even go this far, as the Pentagon may be looking for a price quote, vs. real aircraft. I love the F-15 and salivate at Boeing building the penultimate air to air version, but there's no point IMO. The F-35 does almost everything better and cheaper (total AAM loadout and cost per flight hour, off the top of my head).

I spoke with an F-35 pilot at this year's Great New England Airshow. He came from F-15's and said, "90% of what I can do in this airplane, I could never do in the F-15...". An F-16 pilot at the same show said his radar couldn't detect 2 F-35's that were 12 miles away. And that was after ground control told him where to look...

Speaks volumes..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 04:49
by weasel1962
Looks like Boeing's building a sales pitch around the carrying capabilities of the F-15X.

The USAF benefits from long ranged AAMs that are too big to fit into the internal bay. External mounting on F-35 really defeats the whole purpose of the F-35 in the first instance and even then the F-15X can carry 20+ AAMs. So ta-da... the quintessential missile truck.

12 just enough to test the concept. Longer range AAMs can be develop which will benefit the PCA. Win-win. Then in the 9th inning, pitch for more F-15Xs after the initial 12.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 05:35
by SpudmanWP
If you are betting the farm on a concept that at best might be used one or twice in your lifetime, then you have failed in defining a need for your airframe.

You don't need F-15X to "test the concept". Put some on some F-15Es.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 06:36
by weasel1962
12 F-15X is not "betting the farm". If I'm not wrong the X has 2 extra wing stations. Boeing is pitching an E upgrade as well so Boeing isn't dumb enough to bet their farm on the success of the X either.

If the X is "too expensive", hey there's that upgrade program by the way....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 07:30
by SpudmanWP
By "betting the farm", I meant that the only reason they give for buying it over current systems.

They should develop the missile and tactics before determining what platform will carry it. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 07:39
by weasel1962
Boeing's not in the AAM building business so there's no cart, only a horse. Its an old horse with claims it can win the grand derby and it can carry carts that's too wide or heavy for other younger stealthier one horse powered horses.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 07:49
by SpudmanWP
You are making my point for me.

The DoD (Not the USAF) is pushing this buy for the sake of keeping the line open. It's not about tactics or need. Now you are starting to see its supporters come up with an unproven niche for it to fill where the customer (the USAF) does not want it as it does not fit in the operational plan that they are developing.

bth, You is describing the cart before the racing commision has even ruled on what the race will look like, the distance, etc.

Corporate welfare, pure and simple.

It reminds me of the LCS program. They designed & built the ships before the modules were done and now there are a ton of problems with the modules. Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work. They need to make the systems stable and THEN build the ships around them, not the other way around.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 09:17
by geforcerfx
SpudmanWP wrote: Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work. They need to make the systems stable and THEN build the ships around them, not the other way around.


I thought the guns worked fine, just not going to be able to buy enough ammo with the massive class numbers reduction to make it cost effective to use.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 11:16
by weasel1962
SpudmanWP wrote:You are making my point for me.

...


I agree with what you have stated. If Boeing doesn't even try to make a case, they're not going to get any welfare. Can't fault them for trying.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 16:59
by SpudmanWP
I do fault them for trying, the pols in DC for accepting the bribes, and the "leadership" in the Pentagon who are layering their nest in preparation to move to the private sector after retirement.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:35
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work.


The only reason they, "don't work" is because after cutting the class to 3 units the unit cost of the ammo is such that they don't want to produce it.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:48
by SpudmanWP
They also down-gunned the secondaries and had no "plan-B" for the primaries (to shot normal 155mm Excalibur rounds).

I'm reminded of the saying "Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance"

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 22:54
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:They also down-gunned the secondaries and had no "plan-B" for the primaries (to shot normal 155mm Excalibur rounds).

I'm reminded of the saying "Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance"


Yeah. The USN definitely didn't cover itself with glory in the way they handled the Zumwalt. They could still turn it around but I doubt there is anybody who wants to touch it. :(

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 02:27
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Boeing's not in the AAM building business.


They were one of the DARPA T-3 contractors. For the missile truck concept to be remotely useful
against a high-end threat (anything with even basic HAVE GLASS signature reduction will have a first-look, first-shot advantage over the F-15X) you'll need the same AARGM-ER class (or bigger) missile.

The only plausible utility for the F-15X is in the cruise missile defense role but a lot of MQ-9s
with IRSTs and AIM-9X/CUDA/MHTK might be just as good.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 05:58
by Fox1
When it comes to the F-15X, it sure seems like everyone takes an extreme position on it. Either it will be the greatest thing ever (for supporters) or completely obsolete and useless (for the critics). I don't find either of those extreme positions to be valid. Such an aircraft certainly has limitations in a 5th generation fighter world. But it is also far from useless.

It would perform the homeland air sovereignty mission quite well. A big jet that can carry a lot of fuel and missiles, with good range and a powerful AESA radar are an ideal platform for such a mission. You don't need an F-22 to do that mission. It's not going to be tangling with the Su-35, the J-20, the J-31 or Su-57. It will be intercepting Bear bombers or shooting down cruise missiles launched by said Bear bombers in the event of hostilities breaking out. Otherwise, it will be intercepting and investigating wayward civilians in their Cessna or Beechcraft that get too close to something sensitive. For CONUS air defense, an F-15 variant will work just fine. You don't need a 5th generation fighter tied up performing such missions.

Otherwise, they would also remain quite useful in the stand-off ground attack mission. With weapons like the JASSM-ER, the F-15X can hit targets from distances well outside the engagement range of Russian S300 and S400 systems. In any war with a credible adversary, much of the early action is going to involve such strikes. Even with stealthy aircraft, you aren't going to send them right down main street. Anytime we are facing a credible air defense threat, we will exercise extreme caution, as we did during the Syria strikes last April. The F-15 can carry certain weapons that don't fit inside the F-35's weapons bay or that aren't well suited to use by the F-35. Though it is far more limited now that it once was, the F-15 is still capable of playing a role in today's air forces. Why else would countries like South Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Qatar be buying them? And why would Israel, which is currently receiving the F-35 into inventory be planning for an additional F-15 buy? Obviously they think it is still quite a useful platform that performs some task really well, otherwise they'd be buying a 100% F-35 fleet going forward. To me, that is a clue.

I am all aboard with the F-35. I think it is an awesome aircraft with immense capabilities. We need it. And we need it in numbers, as quickly as we can produce them. But I'm also not against keeping a second fighter type in production because I've never liked keeping all my eggs in one basket. Outside the F-35, the F-15 is the second most capable overall fighter the United States has in production. PCA is still years away, so it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to see us add some additional new build F-15 aircraft to our inventory. If nothing else, they'd be better than the worn out hulks we continue to fly now that should be retired to the Boneyard.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 06:54
by marauder2048
A US exit from the INF treaty greatly reduces the need for air-launched standoff from fast jets.
And it's not like there's a shortage of JASSM compatible airframes in the US inventory now.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia bought the F-15 because they were not allowed to buy the F-35. Singapore bought
the F-15 before the F-35 was available. South Korea is buying the F-35 and Japan is looking to sell their F-15s
in order to purchase more F-35s.

Israel is considering new F-15s because the IAF lost the argument with the the ground forces + Boeing is able
to bundle tankers, attack helicopters, V-22 and heavy transport helicopters.

If there's really a persuasive F-15 argument then $1.2 billion would zero-time between 40 - 60 F-15Cs all of
which already have AESAs and can carry a large number of missiles.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 19:56
by SpudmanWP
There are two other major reasons why Israel is getting (notice I did not say "buying") the F-15I+.
    --Boeing will dev & upgrade all the existing Israeli F-15Is to the same standard as part of the "sale".
    --The sale includes tankers and large helicopters which all come from the same manufacturer. Big discounts when you "buy" that much.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 19:58
by wrightwing
geforcerfx wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote: Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work. They need to make the systems stable and THEN build the ships around them, not the other way around.


I thought the guns worked fine, just not going to be able to buy enough ammo with the massive class numbers reduction to make it cost effective to use.

The guns work. The ammo is too expensive, so they aren't buying any.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 20:01
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:They also down-gunned the secondaries and had no "plan-B" for the primaries (to shot normal 155mm Excalibur rounds).

I'm reminded of the saying "Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance"


Yeah. The USN definitely didn't cover itself with glory in the way they handled the Zumwalt. They could still turn it around but I doubt there is anybody who wants to touch it. :(

They should remove the guns, and figure out how to use the space for more VLS tubes.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 21:57
by madrat
They just need a cheaper round to run through them. Settle for less range than original, but keep its high RoF. It's not exactly useless without LRAP.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 02:16
by 131stfwfan
marauder2048 wrote:A US exit from the INF treaty greatly reduces the need for air-launched standoff from fast jets.
And it's not like there's a shortage of JASSM compatible airframes in the US inventory now.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia bought the F-15 because they were not allowed to buy the F-35. Singapore bought
the F-15 before the F-35 was available. South Korea is buying the F-35 and Japan is looking to sell their F-15s
in order to purchase more F-35s.

Israel is considering new F-15s because the IAF lost the argument with the the ground forces + Boeing is able
to bundle tankers, attack helicopters, V-22 and heavy transport helicopters.

If there's really a persuasive F-15 argument then $1.2 billion would zero-time between 40 - 60 F-15Cs all of
which already have AESAs and can carry a large number of missiles.


Qatar's situation is true, they can't have the F-35 so instead the 4th gen programs all get a stimulus, but they also evaluated the F-15 in late 2009- The order has been in the works longer than the F-35 was even a possibility.

Not true for Saudi Arabia, who started asking for the new Eagles in 2007. As soon as the final ones are delivered, look for an F-35 buy about three-four years later, depending on their situation at the time. They will most likely be approved.

Israel also wanted more F-15's but as other's have posted on here when you are not directly 'buying' something you will take what is given. The U.S. needed another firm export customer for the F-35 in 2010, so why would they turn that down? Yes, the combo package helps, but as you wrote the F-15 is better for the ground forces than an F-35I.

Japan is selling half of their F-15's, and working with the U.S. to heavily upgrade/modify the other half. Again, there's a key reason for that.

Let's not pretend the F-15 is the consolation prize for the F-35. They are two separate missions and needs. One could argue drones, Tucanos, and F-16's would fulfill the role equally as well, but then you gut an entire community. If it were that easy the A-10 would have been retired already.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 03:38
by marauder2048
131stfwfan wrote:but as you wrote the F-15 is better for the ground forces than an F-35I.


Although the architect of it has since resigned, the IAF seems to have
lost the argument to the ground forces (which haven't achieved much in a long time)
with respect to doctrine; their F-15s are going to be reduced to flying TELs which is a
questionable use of fast jets for a country with vulnerable airfields.

131stfwfan wrote:Japan is selling half of their F-15's, and working with the U.S. to heavily upgrade/modify the other half. Again, there's a key reason for that.


Aside from Boeing's inside track with Japanese aerospace?
Japan at least sensibly recognizes their airfield vulnerability problem.

131stfwfan wrote:Let's not pretend the F-15 is the consolation prize for the F-35.


Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary...

131stfwfan wrote:They are two separate missions and needs. One could argue drones, Tucanos, and F-16's would fulfill the role equally as well, but then you gut an entire community.


You seem to be arguing for doctrine-by-inertia which history has a bad habit of punishing.

Cruise missile defense (CMD) is about the only area where (if you insist on fast jets) the
F-15 has an edge by virtue of stowed kills. For NORAD operations you still have to solve the
OTH detection problem which is going to require some type of persistent airborne asset which
if it's a drone you might as well arm.

For expeditionary operations, the F-15's (any stripe) high fuel consumption in max endurance makes
it much less suitable for CMD and you aren't likely to have the deep inventories of AAMs required to exploit
the F-15s greater magazine depth. And the OTH detection problem remains.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 02:36
by Corsair1963
First, the USAF isn't buying the F-15X plain and simple. Second, there is no mission that the latter could perform better than the F-35A. Which, explains the first part....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 13:28
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:First, the USAF isn't buying the F-15X plain and simple. Second, there is no mission that the latter could perform better than the F-35A. Which, explains the first part....


I largely agree.

But doesn't the high cost per flight hour of the F-35A play into this? Comparatively speaking, the F-15 (any variant) should be lower. Surely, over the life of the airframe (pretty dramatic, from what I've read for the F-15X) this has some bearing?

Or do you propose the cost per flight hour of the F-35 will come down with maturation?

Total number of missiles carried and cost per flight hour (and aircrew training) seem to be the F-15X's value proposition. I'm just wondering what your take is on those 3?

Many thanks..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 16:20
by weasel1962
still like to see the F-35A fly 1000nm combat radius unrefuelled but since when facts matter?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 17:01
by SpudmanWP
The CPFH of the F-35A is on par with the F-15E now and will be headed even lower as the depots come online and early LRIP jets are brought up to 3F. By this time next year the CPFH of the F-35A should be lower than the F-15E and nothing Boeing can do will change that. The SAR estimates that the lifetime average CPFH of an F-35A will only be 14% above an F-16C.

Here is a historical chart of RCPFH (a subset of CPFH covering fuel and maintenance) that covers several US fighters from the 1st year the F-35 appeared in the list to today. It is the only annual CPFH number that is published (ie not a lifetime estimate).

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 17:28
by zerion
sferrin wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Or the DDG-1000 where they built the ships around the guns.. which don't work.


The only reason they, "don't work" is because after cutting the class to 3 units the unit cost of the ammo is such that they don't want to produce it.

The ammo is underperforming on range badly enough for them to consider removing the guns entirely.

madrat wrote:They just need a cheaper round to run through them. Settle for less range than original, but keep its high RoF. It's not exactly useless without LRAP.

Raytheon proposed adapting Excalibur with or without rocket boost but the navy doesn’t seem interested in developing a new round for the guns. You need the extra range to help keep the ship safe.

But :offtopic:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 08:05
by zero-one
Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 17:10
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?


Lightly loaded, it should. But it isn't designed to be lightly loaded, it's designed to carry considerably more air to air weaponry. Now some of that could be offset by using more powerful engines, and I'd suggest something in the neighborhood of 30,000 - 32,000lbs of thrust being optimal.

It's salivating to think about: New, more powerful motors. 16 to 24 AMRAAM's/9x's. New, more powerful radar, EW suite and infra-red search and track. But even with all that, it won't be an F-35. It won't have the sensors, SA or stealth. If it's AMRAAM PK is comparable, it's only because it can carry more of them, but then again will have to dispatch more for the same PK. And it will cost more, so I can't see why they're requesting these 12.

The only logical conclusion? There are still elements of the "Eagle" Air Force that remain in positions of power. That's the only reason I can come up with. That, and perhaps they're doing it to keep Boeing in the fighter game...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 21:44
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?

They'll have the -229 motors, at the very least. They're based on the latest Saudi/Qatari F-15s, but with a single seat cockpit.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 02:05
by weasel1962
All newbuild F-15s since 15K has been GE-129s. ADVENT is also retrofit-table to legacy engines...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:08
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:still like to see the F-35A fly 1000nm combat radius unrefuelled but since when facts matter?




Source and with what payload???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:12
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Lightly loaded, it should. But it isn't designed to be lightly loaded, it's designed to carry considerably more air to air weaponry. Now some of that could be offset by using more powerful engines, and I'd suggest something in the neighborhood of 30,000 - 32,000lbs of thrust being optimal.

It's salivating to think about: New, more powerful motors. 16 to 24 AMRAAM's/9x's. New, more powerful radar, EW suite and infra-red search and track. But even with all that, it won't be an F-35. It won't have the sensors, SA or stealth. If it's AMRAAM PK is comparable, it's only because it can carry more of them, but then again will have to dispatch more for the same PK. And it will cost more, so I can't see why they're requesting these 12.

The only logical conclusion? There are still elements of the "Eagle" Air Force that remain in positions of power. That's the only reason I can come up with. That, and perhaps they're doing it to keep Boeing in the fighter game...


Sorry, I've seen nothing that supports the F-15X or any version of the Eagle. Offers superior performance either lightly loaded or heavily loaded vs F-35A. Just another one of the many misconceptions when comparing a 4/4.5 Generation Fighter with the F-35.

:bang:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:13
by weasel1962
What the radius for a clean F-35A vs combat radius for 8 AAMs for an F-15C w CFTs?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:14
by Corsair1963
Anybody want to speculate on the cost of the F-15X vs the F-35A??? :wink:


fg18-23978_003-f35_91deliveries.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:22
by weasel1962
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:31
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:What the radius for a clean F-35A vs combat radius for 8 AAMs for an F-15C w CFTs?



Never seen an USAF F-15C fly with two CFT in the real world have you???

That said, with two external fuel tanks. We know the F-35 has far better range......(per former F-15C pilot Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn USAF)

https://youtu.be/QTgDTC8_PM0

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:34
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter

What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.



Laughable as nobody has recently purchased any model of the F-15 Eagle for under $100 Million. So, we're to believe Boeing can develop and build just "12" of the New F-15X for under that....

:lmao:

As for $95 Million for the F-35A that is not support by US Government or Lockheed Martin Sources....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:36
by Corsair1963
As I have said over and over again. The USAF is "not" going to purchase the F-15X or any other version of the Eagle. Why because you can't make a case for doing so....


:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 06:24
by weasel1962
F-15C fact sheet by USAF

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... -15-eagle/

Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks


F-35A fact sheet by USAF

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... htning-ii/

Range: More than 1,350 miles with internal fuel (1,200+ nautical miles), unlimited with aerial refueling

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 08:37
by wrightwing
You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 09:44
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.



We also have first hand accounts that the F-35A has superior range to the F-15C (Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn USAF) and F-15E (Lt. Col. Christine Mau USAF)......

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 10:03
by weasel1962
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.


What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 10:07
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.


What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.


So, you don't believe Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn and Lt. Col. Christine Mau......(former F-15C and F-15E pilots) :wink:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 10:28
by weasel1962
Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:24
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...


You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:26
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...




The F-15C and F-15E carry about the same internal fuel at ~ 13,500 lbs each. While, the F-35A carries no less than 18,500 lbs. Now the Eagles can carry considerably more external fuel. Yet, to do so takes away from the weapons load it can carry. While, also having a far bigger penalty on performance!

As a matter of fact just to overcome the weight and drag of carrying external fuel tanks. You need "half" the fuel in those tanks. In short only half of the fuel is "useable".

BTW You think the twin F100's or even F110's are more fuel efficient than the single F135 in the F-35??? :doh:


As for needing 7 air refueling for a 3,000 mile trip. That is hardly what is needed or an accurate representation of the F-35 range. As such transit err on the side of caution. Which, would be no different for the F-15 or any other fighter flying on a similar ferry mission.


Oh, and Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn stated the F-35A had much more range than a F-15C with "TWO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:30
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.


They also use them as a training tool for both the Tanker and the Fighter. As the Tanker is going to fly 3,000 miles and only refuel once! Hell, they want the experience (training) and the US Government is already paying for the time (i.e. flight)....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:36
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.


They also use them as a training tool for both the Tanker and the Fighter. As the Tanker is going to fly 3,000 miles and only refuel once! Hell, they want the experience (training) and the US Government is already paying for the time (i.e. flight)....


That's what I was referring to. Plus it of course depends if F-35A pilots are flying to maximize range, or just to get there quickly.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 11:45
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.


They also use them as a training tool for both the Tanker and the Fighter. As the Tanker is going to fly 3,000 miles and only refuel once! Hell, they want the experience (training) and the US Government is already paying for the time (i.e. flight)....


That's what I was referring to. Plus it of course depends if F-35A pilots are flying to maximize range, or just to get there quickly.


Honestly, many reasons like keeping the F-35 pilots active. As flying for long hours is very fatiguing. You need something to keep you awake....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 18:03
by mixelflick
Pretty sure they use modafinil for that. It's an interesting drug. Not a stimulant (which were used plenty prior), but it keeps you alert/sharp for hours and hours.

Modafinil is a controlled substance/prescription only in the U.S.. But it's precursor (Adrafinil) is not. Takes a little longer to kick in (about 40-45 minutes), but you get the same effect.

Fun stuff :mrgreen:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 18:21
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.


What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.

Image

The source is an F-35 pilot talking about the amount of fuel it took to fly from Florida, to the Oshkosh airshow. There are other F-35 (prior F-15)pilots that have said the F-35 has more range than an Eagle with external fuel tanks, and by a good margin. The number of refuelings isn't based upon a "need." It's based upon keeping a certain fuel state for emergencies, and for proficiency training.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ight-stuff

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 00:52
by weasel1962
wrightwing wrote:The source is an F-35 pilot talking about the amount of fuel it took to fly from Florida, to the Oshkosh airshow. There are other F-35 (prior F-15)pilots that have said the F-35 has more range than an Eagle with external fuel tanks, and by a good margin. The number of refuelings isn't based upon a "need." It's based upon keeping a certain fuel state for emergencies, and for proficiency training.


Thanks for sharing. I have no doubt the F-35A is more fuel efficient than the eagle but by a factor of 2+? What is being claimed is an engine efficiency that is way more fuel efficient by 200% over the previous generation. If one is comparing 25k lbs of fuel (3 tanks) vs 18k lbs of fuel, possibly. But add 9500lbs in the CFTs, there's no range comparison.

Also disagree on the second point. If its 3000nm range, one doesn't need 7 air refuels for a 3000nm transit.

Its smoke and mirrors. I can understand the USAF (and its pilots) pushing for more F-35As, but clearly its PR rather than fact. The F-35A does not have a 3000nm range, not even close.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 00:58
by Corsair1963
Question isn't that the F-35A has a 3,000 mile range. It's how the F-35A compares to the F-15C/E/X with a given payload and range.

This claim that the Eagle has superior range and payload either clean or dirty isn't supported by facts. Just another one of the many F-35 misconceptions.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:15
by weasel1962
We seem to have a difference in definition of what is fact vs claim.

To me, what is fact is when there is a F-15 flight manual that indicates 10.45 lbs per nm fuel burn for optimum long range cruise (with 4 AIM-7s) that translate into 3000+nm range on a 34000 lb fuel load. What is also fact is when the USAF and Boeing being the manufacturer claims range of the same and a combat radius in excess of 1000nm.

To me, what is a claim is when the USAF says that the F-35A has a range of 1200nm, LM briefs in 20 documents all stating a combat radius of 600nm but a poster claiming that all the docs posted by LM and USAF are wrong, based on selective and distorted reading of what pilots have claimed, and stating categorically that the F-35A has a longer combat radius than the F-15 w CFTs.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:25
by weasel1962
It'd be also fun to see claims of the combat radius of an F-35A lugging 7 x 2000lbers...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:26
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:We seem to have a difference in definition of what is fact vs claim.

To me, what is fact is when there is a F-15 flight manual that indicates 10.45 lbs per nm fuel burn for optimum long range cruise (with 4 AIM-7s) that translate into 3000+nm range on a 34000 lb fuel load. What is also fact is when the USAF and Boeing being the manufacturer claims range of the same and a combat radius in excess of 1000nm.

To me, what is a claim is when the USAF says that the F-35A has a range of 1200nm, LM briefs in 20 documents all stating a combat radius of 600nm but a poster claiming that all the docs posted by LM and USAF are wrong, based on selective and distorted reading of what pilots have claimed, and stating categorically that the F-35A has a longer combat radius than the F-15 w CFTs.


Most of the original data for the F-35 was wrong and we know that for a fact. Likely because those numbers were "predictions" not hard numbers. To add to that we have first hand accounts from very respected pilots. With first hand experience. So, honestly don't understand what you don't get???

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 01:41
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:It'd be also fun to see claims of the combat radius of an F-35A lugging 7 x 2000lbers...



As I have posted before the F-35A/C could easily carry 6 - 2,000 lbs JDAMs, 2 - Amraams, and 2- Sidewinders with ease. (well under gross) Hell, it can even go supersonic with that load. While, an F-15E Strike Eagle with just "5" - 2,000 lbs JDAMs, 2- Amraams, and 2-Sidewinders. Plus, Targeting / Nav Pods and External Fuel would be at GROSS! It also has far more drag and suffers much more of a "performance penalty" than the F-35.

F35GBU31.png




F15ELO.jpg

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:09
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The source is an F-35 pilot talking about the amount of fuel it took to fly from Florida, to the Oshkosh airshow. There are other F-35 (prior F-15)pilots that have said the F-35 has more range than an Eagle with external fuel tanks, and by a good margin. The number of refuelings isn't based upon a "need." It's based upon keeping a certain fuel state for emergencies, and for proficiency training.


Thanks for sharing. I have no doubt the F-35A is more fuel efficient than the eagle but by a factor of 2+? What is being claimed is an engine efficiency that is way more fuel efficient by 200% over the previous generation. If one is comparing 25k lbs of fuel (3 tanks) vs 18k lbs of fuel, possibly. But add 9500lbs in the CFTs, there's no range comparison.

Also disagree on the second point. If its 3000nm range, one doesn't need 7 air refuels for a 3000nm transit.

Its smoke and mirrors. I can understand the USAF (and its pilots) pushing for more F-35As, but clearly its PR rather than fact. The F-35A does not have a 3000nm range, not even close.


The number of refuelings aren't based upon the F-35s range. They're based upon safety margins for diverts, loiter, etc..

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:18
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:We seem to have a difference in definition of what is fact vs claim.

To me, what is fact is when there is a F-15 flight manual that indicates 10.45 lbs per nm fuel burn for optimum long range cruise (with 4 AIM-7s) that translate into 3000+nm range on a 34000 lb fuel load. What is also fact is when the USAF and Boeing being the manufacturer claims range of the same and a combat radius in excess of 1000nm.

To me, what is a claim is when the USAF says that the F-35A has a range of 1200nm, LM briefs in 20 documents all stating a combat radius of 600nm but a poster claiming that all the docs posted by LM and USAF are wrong, based on selective and distorted reading of what pilots have claimed, and stating categorically that the F-35A has a longer combat radius than the F-15 w CFTs.

Again, you're comparing ferry range of the F-15 vs combat radius of the F-35. The ferry range with 2 CFTSs and 3 EFTs, is longer than the F-35s range. The combat radius with payload, is a lot less than the ferry range, though. Much of the difference is due to routing. An F-15 won't fly the same route/altitude as an F-35, in combat (unless it's completely permissive airspace.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:39
by weasel1962
Actually no I'm not. The range of the F-15C with CFTs and 3 tanks isn't very much different w 4 AIM-120s and 4 AIM-9s. The drag of the AAMs don't actually reduce the range as much. What affects combat radius significantly more is when lugging 2000lb-ers e.g. F-15Es.

ANG F-15Cs will fly exactly the same route for CAP as F-35As. I don't see why not. Agree it may be different for A2G for threat avoidance but that's again assuming there's no threat suppression.

The real impact kicks in is when the afterburner kicks in/mil-power and that's both the F-35A shines because of the fuel efficiency and has a disadvantage in terms of TW.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 02:57
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Actually no I'm not. The range of the F-15C with CFTs and 3 tanks isn't very much different w 4 AIM-120s and 4 AIM-9s. The drag of the AAMs don't actually reduce the range as much. What affects combat radius significantly more is when lugging 2000lb-ers e.g. F-15Es.

ANG F-15Cs will fly exactly the same route for CAP as F-35As. I don't see why not. Agree it may be different for A2G for threat avoidance but that's again assuming there's no threat suppression.

The real impact kicks in is when the afterburner kicks in/mil-power and that's both the F-35A shines because of the fuel efficiency and has a disadvantage in terms of TW.


The F-15C/E will have considerably more drag under any similar load than the F-35. Especially, the F-15E Strike Eagle as it will always carry external fuel and usually Nav/ Targeting Pods. This greatly effect not just the performance but the range of the Eagle.

As for the Amraams and Sidewinders not having much drag. Jon Beelsey says otherwise. As he was quoted as saying even Amraams (AIM-120's) have a big impact on performance. When carried externally........

https://youtu.be/96Kx6b7oKA8

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:15
by weasel1962
of course the F-15 has considerably more drag than the F-35. Yet with all the drag of carrying 2 CFTs and 3 tanks, it still reaches 3400nm.

Its a real testament of what PR means. Get a pilot to say the F-35A is magic plane and voila...hook, line, sinker.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the drag index of a AIM-120 on an F-15 is 1.7 on a CFT station, 2.3 on a wing station and 2.1 for an AIM-9. That has a major impact, all of less than 1% on the range. For comparison, the CFT drag number is 20.1 or a 600 gal tank is 12.2.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:16
by element1loop
wrightwing wrote:The combat radius with payload, is a lot less than the ferry range, though. Much of the difference is due to routing. An F-15 won't fly the same route/altitude as an F-35, in combat (unless it's completely permissive airspace.)


And that's where the comparative range discussion becomes moot.

First, the F-35 can remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes, even under full internal load.

Second, the F-35's planning system is thus much more likely to produce a very fuel-efficient optimal routing plan (speed vs altitude, ISA, wind-modelling, AOA change, etc) which sips the least cruise fuel to obtain the desired TOT, given also that the clean cruise speeds will be much higher, and will probably descend and climb half as much as an F-15E is likely to need to do, on a different flight profile.

Third, the F-35 will not need (and will avoid using) A/B thrust, due its light internal load (compared to available payload) and its clean configuration. Plus there’s the need to reduce thermal signature and maintain stable aspect control.

The loaded F-15E does not have the ability to rule-out potentially protracted use of A/B so needs a much larger buffer to keep a reserve viable, thus reducing its practical combat range substantially, in high-threat areas. The F-15E will necessarily avoid penetration, so needs standoff (and its range will gain benefits) but needs supports, or else it's unable to participate until the area is made benign via F-35s efficiently penetrating and controlling it.

So stated range is not that comparable in practice, and once F-35A does its thing the tankers can come in closer and the range and external drag becomes less of a hindrance for both types.

But I think we can all see the potential for F-35A to much better manage its fuel flow in combat in that, and to go relatively further as a result of better fuel management options, unless those are also being pushed hard to maximize radius. And at the beginning of a fight they probably will be pushed hard ... so which jet do you want more of in there?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:25
by weasel1962
No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:27
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


Were you not both also discussing CFTs, bags plus LGBs and minor AAM loads, comparatively?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:27
by h-bomb
weasel1962 wrote:of course the F-15 has considerably more drag than the F-35. Yet with all the drag of carrying 2 CFTs and 3 tanks, it still reaches 3400nm.

Its a real testament of what PR means. Get a pilot to say the F-35A is magic plane and voila...hook, line, sinker.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the drag index of a AIM-120 on an F-15 is 1.7 on a CFT station, 2.3 on a wing station and 2.1 for an AIM-9. That has a major impact, all of less than 1% on the range. For comparison, the CFT drag number is 20.1 or a 600 gal tank is 12.2.


Not per the USAF:
Range: 2,400 miles (3,840 kilometers) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ike-eagle/

But they are just posting PR BS here:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... htning-ii/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:28
by weasel1962
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


Were you not both also discussing CFTs and LGBs and minor AAM loads?


F-15C w LGBs? Which air force?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:30
by weasel1962
h-bomb wrote:Not per the USAF:
Range: 2,400 miles (3,840 kilometers) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ike-eagle/

But they are just posting PR BS here:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... htning-ii/


Strike eagle. See earlier link also by USAF for F-15Cs. Having to do a lot of reposting continuously so apologies if I just do a referral.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:42
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


And why would one want an F-15C CAP, when you can have and F-35A CAP? Six BVR missiles with VLO, EOTS and DAS not going to cut it?

The justification has to be for the F-15C to exist in service at all. And also to justify some imaginary need to obtain an F-15X (in any numbers) with CFT on the basis of A2A and AAM numbers 'advantage'. The F-15X would need all those weapons just to put the other guy off their game, and be lucky to get kills and survive.

But the F-35A is able to engage closer unseen, auto-organize a multi-axis ambush unseen, and fire weapons in numbers and timing sufficient to decimate an opposing flight quickly, from different directions unseen, and the remnant, if there is one, still has no SA. So are they sticking around or prosecuting anything at that point? So are more AAMs needed? Or are just more F-35As needed?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:45
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:No disrespect but that's an A2G discussion. Legacy CAP at low levels only?

Wondering why the F-15C can't remain HIGH-HIGH-HIGH and maximize range and optimal altitudes also?


Were you not both also discussing CFTs and LGBs and minor AAM loads?


F-15C w LGBs? Which air force?


This was part of the discussion:

viewtopic.php?p=408362#p408362

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:46
by weasel1962
Hell, I totally agree. F-35A is a better plane, no doubt and that's the plane I'd take for CAP vs a F-15C (or X) if I was a pilot.

Just don't like people denigrating a legacy unfairly just to sell more planes. The F-15 flies further. That's a simple fact by virtue of the crazy fuel loads it carries. Doesn't make the F-35 a lesser plane.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 03:55
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Hell, I totally agree. F-35A is a better plane, no doubt and that's the plane I'd take for CAP vs a F-15C (or X) if I was a pilot.

Just don't like people denigrating a legacy unfairly just to sell more planes. The F-15 flies further. That's a simple fact by virtue of the crazy fuel loads it carries. Doesn't make the F-35 a lesser plane.


An F-15E can theoretically fly further due crazy fuel loads, but not necessarily in practice in combat from here.

The C is much more doubtful and the A2A-capability-only is not a great reason to keep it around (and you would hope an F-15X is much more useful than that).

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:03
by weasel1962
Agreed but I see it more as a F-15C vs F-16C/D rather than vs F-35. The F-35A buys are accelerating so the all legacy sqns will be earmarked for replacement. Its just a question of which goes first. Some people might call it a happy choice having to choose between an F-16C/D or an F-15C on which gets moved first since whichever remains is still a fantastic aircraft.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C. The alternative is using the F-35A in the A2A role. I don't see a right or wrong answer here.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:04
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Hell, I totally agree. F-35A is a better plane, no doubt and that's the plane I'd take for CAP vs a F-15C (or X) if I was a pilot.

Just don't like people denigrating a legacy unfairly just to sell more planes. The F-15 flies further. That's a simple fact by virtue of the crazy fuel loads it carries. Doesn't make the F-35 a lesser plane.



LOL :lmao:

HELLO, the F-15 doesn't fly further.......Yet, feel free to go tell Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn (USAF), the Commander of the 33rd Operational Support Squadron at Eglin AFB, FL and Lt. Col. Christine Mau (USAF), Deputy Commander of 33rd Fighter Wing Operations Group also from Eglin AFB. Which, are both ex Eagle Drivers. (F-15C and F-15E respectively) That you "know" more than them.......

:doh:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:15
by weasel1962
I don't claim to know more than pilots. Just stating facts which are supported by USAF, manufacturer data, a lot of F-35 presentations that show combat range and a simple explanation reconciling what the pilots stated to the data. Still haven't read anything that is contradictory.

What however is clearly debunked is that the F-35A is way better in every conceivable role the F-15 can do which is not the case nor what the pilots have suggested (which you appear to say "supports" your stance).

Just wanted to state that I'm not the first to claim the other party is crazy which is what you have just done (same as in the past). So run along and complain to the mods again.......that's incredibly christian...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:18
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Agreed but I see it more as a F-15C vs F-16C/D rather than vs F-35. The F-35A buys are accelerating so the all legacy sqns will be earmarked for replacement. Its just a question of which goes first. Some people might call it a happy choice having to choose between an F-16C/D or an F-15C on which gets moved first since whichever remains is still a fantastic aircraft.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C. The alternative is using the F-35A in the A2A role. I don't see a right or wrong answer here.


I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.

F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:20
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:I don't claim to know more than pilots. Just stating facts which are supported by USAF, manufacturer data, a lot of F-35 presentations that show combat range and a simple explanation reconciling what the pilots stated to the data. Still haven't read anything that is contradictory.

What however is clearly debunked is that the F-35A is way better in every conceivable role the F-15 can do which is not the case nor what the pilots have suggested (which you appear to say "supports" your stance).

Just wanted to state that I'm not the first to claim the other party is crazy which is what you have just done (same as in the past). So run along and complain to the mods again.......



Sorry, that your online sources aren't supported by people that have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A. Yet, what do they know....... :shock:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:23
by weasel1962
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Agreed but I see it more as a F-15C vs F-16C/D rather than vs F-35. The F-35A buys are accelerating so the all legacy sqns will be earmarked for replacement. Its just a question of which goes first. Some people might call it a happy choice having to choose between an F-16C/D or an F-15C on which gets moved first since whichever remains is still a fantastic aircraft.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C. The alternative is using the F-35A in the A2A role. I don't see a right or wrong answer here.


I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.

F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.


Noted. That's why the SLEP starts with F-16.

I'm keeping an open mind but I haven't seen any hard data that supports a different conclusion.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:24
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, that your online sources aren't supported by people that have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A. Yet, what do they know....... :shock:


USAF, LM and Boeing doesn't have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A? Shocking is indeed the word.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:31
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C.


I forgot to address that bit.

That would have been valid logic 2-years ago, but the upgrade of data comms and IRSTs on legacy fleet, and the provision of a massive gusher of situational awareness, makes this not a prohibitive concern. The F-16C/D likewise just got a whole lot more deadly in A2A, so are probably sufficient for the support escort role until more F-35A are built.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:42
by element1loop
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I don't see a right or wrong answer here.


I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.


One other point here, the cost to operate per hour with a single light-fighter (with bonus A2G) as opposed to a twin heavy-fighter, where more fuel = more dollars spent, and more fuel to do less is not conserving resources efficiently to smooth the transition towards an F-35A force, sooner.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:44
by weasel1962
Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 04:58
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...


Come on, you know why that happens.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 05:04
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...


Come on, you know why that happens.



Of course he does but it never stops him..........

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 05:52
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...


Come on, you know why that happens.


Of course he does but it never stops him..........


Seriously, how is that not "time wasted?"

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 10:04
by weasel1962
Just thinking out loud here. If some posters are right that the F-35A's real combat radius is 1000 or 1500nm, then what would be the real combat radius of the F-35B and F-35C? 1000nm and 1650nm?

So what are those senators on the hill complaining of the lack of combat radius on the navy F-35s? They should listen to the USAF pilots.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 12:08
by hkultala
zero-one wrote:Will the F-15X offer any significant performance advantages over the F-15C?
It was reported to have fly-by wire, so it will be possible to turn her into an unstable airframe.
Do they still make the old F-100-PW-220Es? or will she have the newer 229 motors?


"turning into unstable airframe" and getting any reasonable benefit from that would mean moving the wings forward, or somehow moving the center of gravity backwards. I don't think there is any reasonable possibility for that with any reasonable cost in F-15, too much structure would have to be changed.

Though AFAIK F-16 was designed in a way that there were two different positions to attach the wings, forward (unstable) position, and a "stable backup position" slightly behind it.
If they would not have gotten the FBW system to work well enough , they could have easily converted it into a stable plane with less performance by moving the wing to the stable backup position.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 16:00
by mixelflick
I too, am interested in F-15X motors.

The 229 would seem the logical choice. Already in the inventory, powerful and efficient. But what of the new, more powerful GE motors in the Saudi F-15SA? If memory serves, the 229 delivers around 25,000lbs of thrust, and the newer GE motors around the 30,000lb mark.

Or is thrust less of an issue in the F-15X than it is in the SA, given the SA has a decided Strike Eagle flavor to it. The X seems to be a purely air to air machine, and as such won't weigh nearly as much as an SA?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 19:00
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:Just thinking out loud here. If some posters are right that the F-35A's real combat radius is 1000 or 1500nm, then what would be the real combat radius of the F-35B and F-35C? 1000nm and 1650nm?

So what are those senators on the hill complaining of the lack of combat radius on the navy F-35s? They should listen to the USAF pilots.

Nobody is suggesting that the "real" combat radius of the F-35 is 1,000 to 1,500nm. The combat radius isn't the ferry range divided in half. Nobody is claiming a 3,000nm ferry range, either. 900 miles is 782nm, and no plane flies till it's empty, so part of the the fuel is unusable, in the range calculation.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 19:09
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:I too, am interested in F-15X motors.

The 229 would seem the logical choice. Already in the inventory, powerful and efficient. But what of the new, more powerful GE motors in the Saudi F-15SA? If memory serves, the 229 delivers around 25,000lbs of thrust, and the newer GE motors around the 30,000lb mark.

Or is thrust less of an issue in the F-15X than it is in the SA, given the SA has a decided Strike Eagle flavor to it. The X seems to be a purely air to air machine, and as such won't weigh nearly as much as an SA?

The -229s are 29k motors.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 19:38
by chucky2
I wonder if the 12 plane order could be used as aggressor aircraft. Given how far behind Russia is, they'd be perfect for imitating SU-35, and future SU-35+. Same size, same radar return'ish, really long airframe life, provides better than adversary radar and jamming so can train harder than real fight, etc. Sorta complete overkill for that role though, be cheaper to just rehab existing F-15C.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 00:02
by marsavian
element1loop wrote:F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.


Disagree. F-22/F-35 could be forward controllers vectoring in F-15 missile trucks which would be radar silent either outside of an enemy's radar cone detection or inside that cone but protected by the stealth aircraft's EW jamming. The stealth aircraft then passes target tracks through Link 16 for the radar silent F-15 to shoot their missiles to. The advantage of the F-15 over the F-16 in this scenario is twice the missiles and twice the endurance as well as superior high altitude performance which increases missile range.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 01:29
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:
element1loop wrote:F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.


Disagree. F-22/F-35 could be forward controllers vectoring in F-15 missile trucks which would be radar silent either outside of an enemy's radar cone detection or inside that cone but protected by the stealth aircraft's EW jamming. The stealth aircraft then passes target tracks through Link 16 for the radar silent F-15 to shoot their missiles to. The advantage of the F-15 over the F-16 in this scenario is twice the missiles and twice the endurance as well as superior high altitude performance which increases missile range.


In the early days of the F-22 they did this in an exercise and the F-15s doing so cleaned everybody's clocks. (Maybe they still do this. . .probably.)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 01:46
by element1loop
marsavian wrote:
element1loop wrote:F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around. So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.


Disagree. F-22/F-35 could be forward controllers vectoring in F-15 missile trucks which would be radar silent either outside of an enemy's radar cone detection or inside that cone but protected by the stealth aircraft's EW jamming. The stealth aircraft then passes target tracks through Link 16 for the radar silent F-15 to shoot their missiles to. The advantage of the F-15 over the F-16 in this scenario is twice the missiles and twice the endurance as well as superior high altitude performance which increases missile range.


I question the premises of this whole 'scenario'.

There's some real and anticipated need for this?

And even if there were a need for it for say 2-years of bridging capability (which I think is already covered from 2020 anyway) the F-35 fleet is set to grow by 360 new jets every 2-years. So there goes the presumed ‘need’ for F-15C, or F16C/D, for front-line A2A mix in 2021. That mix requirement is going to evolve very quickly after the current year is over.

And why should the F-22A or F-35A need or want to be 'forward controllers' for F-15Cs even prior to that? Do we think the initial squadrons of 5th-gens will empty their missile load and fail to get sufficient kills to decisively stymie an air attack? Or that there will be insufficient follow-on 5th-gens coming in, within minutes, to replace them? Will the OPFOR presume there will be no more 5th gens from that point?

In two years the USAF alone is going to have hundreds of F-22As and F-35As available to fight that way. Let's say there's 200 5th-gens with an average of 6.5 AAM missiles per jet, or 1,300 missiles per flight cycle of that force. That conservatively equates to a kill potential of ~325 opposing fighters per flight cycle of that force (presuming 4 missiles expended per kill). What opposing force could sustain that battle for a week, and hope to win? And that's from USAF F-35A FOC time-window forward.

And it's the F-35A that's the adjunct to the smaller fleet of F-22As. The F-15C was that and now the F-35A's growing numbers are supplanting it. USAF FOC of F-35A will be the final part of the replacement of F-15C within that F-22A A2A support role. That was made clear years ago. Hence the higher numbers of F-35A to be bought for the USAF. Thus the prior Hi-Lo mix paradigm is fading away due to the relative lack of F-22A and the better than expected F-35A A2A result, plus the lack of need for it when you have BVR air dominance coming from both types.

Achieving VERY high BVR missile range is also moot with the F-35A as they can flank, ambush and kill unseen, as a stealthy wolf-pack, against non-alerted opponents, from 40 to 80 km BVR radius with excellent pk and energy killing. Just fly to not get closer and fight to not be seen.

Thus the supposed speed and altitude BVR ‘advantage’ of mixing in F-15s has also become moot – that’s a 4th-gen consideration and will be increasingly operationally inconsistent with a rapidly evolving 5th-gen CONOPS

But if more missiles were actually required (which I currently don't accept) F-35A could carry them externally too, and could be made to do so long before you could build an F-15X. So much for that aircraft. Consequently an F-15 "magazine depth" argument is misguided and not a solution to anything, including with respect to keeping the F-15C longer. It’s back of the bus now and in a few more years it will be dead wood – and time to go.

Plus even the F-16C/D will be on the ground when a large-scale stealth fight gets rolling. Having those in the air and forwards would just provide early-warning markers (same applies to F-15C so where's its 'magazine' when you want it? Going to sacrifice/compromise surprise?).

Plus an OPFOR will be almost all 4th-gens with low SA and getting totally reamed by 5th-gens. It’ll be a long time until that changes. And the F-35A could do both A2A and A2G Day-1, Hour-1. If the OPFOR don’t know where you are then you can do that, plus complete your attack mission, especially when using an AIM-120D as you won't even need to use the afterburner to throw it within the NEZ. And even if it missed do they know where you are? No. So keep on truckin'.

The only sensible question is how do you get more F-35A faster and retire legacy A2A sooner and save more money in the process?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 01:47
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
In the early days of the F-22 they did this in an exercise and the F-15s doing so cleaned everybody's clocks. (Maybe they still do this. . .probably.)


How did that work given that the F-22 is only now Link-16 receive? IFDL gateways on the F-15s?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 02:15
by marsavian
F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.

So along with this high altitude air superiority dedicated hunting pack capability the F-15X could also provide high kinematic continental defense against incoming missiles and long range bombers. Could the F-35 do the job as well ? Mostly yes but why waste an F-35 standing by just for air defense and superiority when it is more suited to deliver payloads on contested battlefields ? Sure it is a Boeing political ploy to prolong the life of the F-15 but the F-15 still is one hell of an interceptor and if it can basically back up F-22 in its air superiority tasks it will not be a useless new aircraft even if it is non-stealthy.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 02:40
by element1loop
marsavian wrote:F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.

So along with this high altitude air superiority dedicated hunting pack capability the F-15X could also provide high kinematic continental defense against incoming missiles and long range bombers. Could the F-35 do the job as well ? Mostly yes but why waste an F-35 standing by just for air defense and superiority when it is more suited to deliver payloads on contested battlefields ? Sure it is a Boeing political ploy to prolong the life of the F-15 but the F-15 still is one hell of an interceptor and if it can basically back up F-22 in its air superiority tasks it will not be a useless new aircraft even if it is non-stealthy.


This is still not taking into account the total effect of a large penetrating VLO F-35 attack force. It will positively eat up an OPFOR with DEAD and ground attack OCA, much faster and more persistently than the legacy force ever did, along with far better sensors and weapons that are basically immune to weather, noise and obscurants and a faster engagement cycle, with more decisions being made from cockpits.

And will the USA be fighting alone in such a large-scale fight? Very unlikely. But we'll necessarily presume it is. I would then agree that until about 2021, the F-15C will have a place working with the F-22A to provide support. And because of the potential for multi theatre fighting, it may have a place to do it until about 2023.

At which point there will be more than enough upgraded F-22A and initial implementations of Block 4 on hundreds of US F-35s of all types, to not need the legacy A2A fleet to support F-22A at all, so I would have all F-15Cs in storage from end of 2023. The A2G effect of that many penetrating Bk3f and Bk4 F-35s can eliminate the bulk of the A2A threat on the ground and render the whole grand BVR battle scenario a nothin'-burger.

As it's supposed to.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 03:48
by marauder2048
marsavian wrote:F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.



I'm sure the F-22/F-35 force is going to just *love* having hot, flying corner reflectors betraying their position; the
geometry for the missile truck arrangement is going to be obvious to a high-end adversary.

I also like this battlefield where the F-35 is compelled to fly around with no external stores but the F-15X can
fly around with impunity.

marsavian wrote:the F-15X could also provide high kinematic continental defense against incoming missiles and long range bombers.


So could SLEP'ed F-15Cs at a fraction of the cost of new builds.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 03:49
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
In the early days of the F-22 they did this in an exercise and the F-15s doing so cleaned everybody's clocks. (Maybe they still do this. . .probably.)


How did that work given that the F-22 is only now Link-16 receive? IFDL gateways on the F-15s?


Voice.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 03:51
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:F-35 will be kept busy doing ground attacks in any serious sustained conflicts like F-16 was in the Gulf Wars with the F-22/F-15 force providing air cover and superiority. In stealth ground attack mode the F-35 will only carry two AMRAAM which they probably wouldn't even use if they can help it to avoid alerting the enemy.



I'm sure the F-22/F-35 force is going to just *love* having hot, flying corner reflectors betraying their position; the
geometry for the missile truck arrangement is going to be obvious to a high-end adversary.


Why would they? They wouldn't be flying in formation. F-22s would be miles away, sitting up at 65k ft.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 04:56
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:Why would they? They wouldn't be flying in formation. F-22s would be miles away, sitting up at 65k ft.


Sure but you have a very observable F-15 flight that's responding to threat movement that's
beyond the range of the flight's organic sensors. That threat movement (along with comms analysis)
could be deliberately contrived to help tease out the unseen AWACS.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 08:51
by weasel1962
Can always put a freedom 550 on an F-15X instead of a U2 or global hawk. Might be a better platform to go into battle with.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08 ... hawk-uavs/

Forgot too, Talon Hate.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 10:35
by marauder2048
The Air Force rightly regards gateways as band-aids which is why only 4 Talon Hate pods were purchased;
it's an fairly limited capability.

Shouldn't an essentially new build/new type have integrated MADL/IFDL antennae?
That's always been the pitch for the ease of enhancing non-LO, legacy designs.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 11:06
by popcorn
Another possibility not requiring a gateway ... L3 Communications' Chameleon waveform demoed as part of Project Missouri. It utilizes existing the L-band antenna on fighters to transmit and receive data transmissions spread within in background noise,

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 01:51
by vilters
Modern warfare is not WW2 any more.

First waves are cruise missiles only.

Then send in the lot of F-15/F-16/F-18 to keep the remaining enemy radars/fighters/ busy so you can find out where these cruise missiles attacks survivors are.

Let the F-35 go in lower and do guerilla style prime target attacks and the clean-up of the leftovers.
Unseen in, unseen out.
All the enemy sees is the rest of their assets blowing up...

Let the F-22 stay at 65K + and do the "on site organization/coordination", and "emergency help here and there.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 03:13
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
So could SLEP'ed F-15Cs at a fraction of the cost of new builds.



Yes, and the USAF doesn't even want to do that! Speaks volumes in my book..... 8)

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 06:38
by element1loop
vilters wrote:Modern warfare is not WW2 any more.

First waves are cruise missiles only.

Then send in the lot of F-15/F-16/F-18 to keep the remaining enemy radars/fighters/ busy so you can find out where these cruise missiles attacks survivors are.

Let the F-35 go in lower and do guerilla style prime target attacks and the clean-up of the leftovers.
Unseen in, unseen out.
All the enemy sees is the rest of their assets blowing up...

Let the F-22 stay at 65K + and do the "on site organization/coordination", and "emergency help here and there.


Nah, disagree.

Cruise weapons plus MALDs to provide EA and then simulate legacy jets, with the F-35 maxing its altitude to keep well away from GBAD. That provides a much better footprint for sensors and comms, plus almost no cloud, precipitation and lower turbulence, plus far better fuel burn for more distance and much better loiter. Plus a much lowered thermal-signature in cold air cooling the airframe and skin. Plus far better weapon application parameters and range, plus more vertical standoff. And altitude can be converted quickly into speed to get somewhere, and it's much harder for any SAM to track, lock or hit. And much easier to kill a SAM's engagement radar, or a VHF sensor. And to hunt for and locate IADS elements. Even a snap-shot of AIM-120D or AIM-9X-3 at precisely located sensors from altitude would often be enough.

If you go down low you just get more disadvantages that far outweigh the presumed advantages, and the effective enema sensor footprints are all much greater volumes at lower altitude, and overlap more, and the number of weapons enema can use on you goes up sharply.

And it remains to be seen how well VHF can operate against area-EA from so many potential noise-floor altering sources. Not that well I expect. Plus HF and VHF emitters will effectively be 'fixed' first-wave cruise missile targets, so getting tracked becomes just a weapon management issue.

So it's EO that's the lingering quiet potential problem for the F-35, and that's much better to defeat if you're high as possible, in cold air with a fighter DIRCM and EA.

Legacy jets are ...................... --> "... back of the bus ...".

2c

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:05
by zero-one
I think the USAF is interested not because the F-15X is better than the F-35 in any way, shape or form but simply because its cheaper.

Not to buy because the F-35 already went below the $90M mark which I think the F-15X can't do. I'm talking about operation and life cycle cost.

Lets face it, we don't need to be stealthy in every single mission. In fact there are missions where you want your presence to be known. Sure putting the Loony lenses will do that, but every minute in the air the F-22/35 spends is a minute worth of unnecessary battering on the RAM coatings.

I think the F-15x will fill a niche role. by the year 2030+ the USAF will be made up mostly of 5th gens. But who does the occasional Tu-95 intercepts? who takes down the pesky Su-22 that decided to breach the no fly zone. by that time most F-16s and F-15 will have been retired and withdrawn from front line service . Using the F-22's precious flight hours on that will be overkill.

Plus I read a report before that says a team of F-15s and F-22s actually produced better results than a team made up of either type

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 13:17
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:I think the USAF is interested not because the F-15X is better than the F-35 in any way, shape or form but simply because its cheaper.

Not to buy because the F-35 already went below the $90M mark which I think the F-15X can't do. I'm talking about operation and life cycle cost.

Lets face it, we don't need to be stealthy in every single mission. In fact there are missions where you want your presence to be known. Sure putting the Loony lenses will do that, but every minute in the air the F-22/35 spends is a minute worth of unnecessary battering on the RAM coatings.

I think the F-15x will fill a niche role. by the year 2030+ the USAF will be made up mostly of 5th gens. But who does the occasional Tu-95 intercepts? who takes down the pesky Su-22 that decided to breach the no fly zone. by that time most F-16s and F-15 will have been retired and withdrawn from front line service . Using the F-22's precious flight hours on that will be overkill.

Plus I read a report before that says a team of F-15s and F-22s actually produced better results than a team made up of either type


That would make sense if they were buying 24-36 copies per year until they had around 200+ for those missions. But the buy looks limited to a dozen here and there and Boeing isn't capable or producing much more than 1.25 airframes per month. PCA will be flying while they are trying to stock up on new F-15s.

Seems like a jobs program for Boeing.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 14:13
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:
That would make sense if they were buying 24-36 copies per year until they had around 200+ for those missions. But the buy looks limited to a dozen here and there and Boeing isn't capable or producing much more than 1.25 airframes per month. PCA will be flying while they are trying to stock up on new F-15s.

Seems like a jobs program for Boeing.


Well the plan could be, buy 12 for evaluation
Buy another 36 in 2025+ if you like it
buy 48 in 2030 when F-15Cs start being retired.

by 2035+ you'll have 96 F-15Xs making up your low end air superiority squadrons.
They'll do all the mundane task "unworthy" of the F-22/35's time.

-No fly zones
-intercepting the bears
-routine fly bys
-some aggressor training maybe. (F-22s and F-35s don't make good target practice)

Point is, You don't need all your soldiers to be Navy Seals, you still need some good old fashioned Infantry men from time to time.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 14:58
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
That would make sense if they were buying 24-36 copies per year until they had around 200+ for those missions. But the buy looks limited to a dozen here and there and Boeing isn't capable or producing much more than 1.25 airframes per month. PCA will be flying while they are trying to stock up on new F-15s.

Seems like a jobs program for Boeing.


Well the plan could be, buy 12 for evaluation
Buy another 36 in 2025+ if you like it
buy 48 in 2030 when F-15Cs start being retired.

by 2035+ you'll have 96 F-15Xs making up your low end air superiority squadrons.
They'll do all the mundane task "unworthy" of the F-22/35's time.

-No fly zones
-intercepting the bears
-routine fly bys
-some aggressor training maybe. (F-22s and F-35s don't make good target practice)

Point is, You don't need all your soldiers to be Navy Seals, you still need some good old fashioned Infantry men from time to time.


Yeah, that point isn't lost on me that you don't require 5th gen stealth fighters for every mission, especially homeland defense. However, we don't live in a society with unlimited defense budgets and the USAF could just as easily ramp up production of the 35A and outpace the theoretical buys of the 15X. And the costs of the 35 are coming down.

Furthermore, the USAF doesn't require the purchase of 11 or 12 15X to evaluate them. We build the bloody things. Don't need to by a half squadron to evaluate for a year or two. Our pilots already have flown the Saudi spec F-15 and the Korean Slam Eagle.

You may not need a seal team 6 member for every infantry fighter, but that is exactly what the F-15X is. If you want a low cost option to the F-35, then look to the F-16 if you want to fly a jet with an american flag in low intensity hot spots. We have (what is it) about 900 F-16s? We have about 175 F-15C? Its probably time to let the majestic lady finally go.

I will admit I am not up to speed on F-16 costs, but the new ones coming off the line must surely be cheaper than the F-15X. Someone please tell me if I am incorrect - I am just assuming a single to be cheaper than a twin.

And back to the buys. That's a pathetic buy rate to buy a whopping 95 copies 16 years from now. You do the math; that's an average of 6/yr. The USAF can ramp up production of the 35A to about 20 more a year over the 60 or so it is buying.

Then there is the cost of training pilots to fly an additional type. Maintaining a training wing. Simulators. Depot. Ect. The entire logistics costs of maintaining another type. All the adds up and would be cheaper than simply buying more F-35A.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 15:19
by zero-one
I'm telling ya its the RAM coatings.
F-35s are cheap to buy but those RAM coatings are added, unnecessary cost for a lot of missions.

Maybe theres a lot of reasons.
5th gens work best when they work with 4th gens. There was a report where the F-22/F-15 combo achieved a lot more kills than a pure F-22 flight

So the USAF may want to keep flying F-15s alongside F-22s for the duration of the F-22's life. Heck if the Stealth/Non Stealth combo remains relevant in 2050+ We might even see F-15s being produced to fly along side PCA. By 2072 it'll be flying it's "100 years of service demo"
The F-15 could be the B-52 of the fighter world. It's not the best at anything, but when you need a low end, its perfect.

Think about it, If the Stealth + Non Stealth Combo works so well, give me another option where we can keep non stealth assets in the air 2030 onwards

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 15:30
by crosshairs
I will tell you what works better than a Stealth + Non Stealth combo, is a Stealth + Stealth combo.

There is no reason to continue buy aluminum/titanium radar reflectors just because they have AESA and can carry 20 amraam. The only thing is the F-15 has a center station that can carry some pretty big and heavy items that the 35 *probably* can't carry. Perhaps hypersonic missiles. That's the only logical reason to buy a few dozen of the F-15X.

The F-35 is capable of carrying an impressive load of AAMs and when the day is done, the crews can take off the pylons and you have a stealth AC again.

If RAM is expensive and not needed in low intensity areas like middle east where no one has got stealthy anything, then don't maintain the RAM in the field while deployed.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 18:05
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:I will tell you what works better than a Stealth + Non Stealth combo, is a Stealth + Stealth combo.


I just spent the last few hrs looking in vein for the report that has an airmen's testimony where F-22s working with F-15s achieved greater success than just F-22s.

A lot of speculation was discussed about that statement, but the consensus was, F-15s were used to lure bandits to F-22 kill zones.

If you think about it, Operation Bolo was the same way. Migs didn't want F-4s, so they had to be fooled into thinking the F-4s were F-105s. In today's case, why would bandits even fly CAP if they can't see the 5th gens.

You'll need something to lure them out to play. You cant always bomb all the airfields.
sure you can put externals on an F-35 to do that job, but you're still paying for the RAM coating's maintenance later.

crosshairs wrote:The only thing is the F-15 has a center station that can carry some pretty big and heavy items that the 35 *probably* can't carry. Perhaps hypersonic missiles. That's the only logical reason to buy a few dozen of the F-15X.


The reason why you're struggling with this is because you're looking for an area where the F-15 is better than the F-35 to justify why they need it. You wont find it.

The reason why they need it is closer to the reason why they keep the B-52 around. The B-1 can do everything better but at higher operating cost.

crosshairs wrote:If RAM is expensive and not needed in low intensity areas like middle east where no one has got stealthy anything, then don't maintain the RAM in the field while deployed.

They'll still have to do periodic RAM maintenance.

What happens in 2030 beyond when the F-15C and F-16Cs have reached the end of their service lives
Are you suggesting that the USAF purposely maintain a squadron of poorly maintained F-35s to carry out these missions.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 23:26
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:The reason why they need it is closer to the reason why they keep the B-52 around. The B-1 can do everything better but at higher operating cost.


F-15X is more expensive to buy and operate compared to F-35A + F-22A combo.

There was a large existing B-52 fleet that could be upgraded (for many decades). Was there money to buy more B-1? B-52 could survivably do most of the same jobs with long-range standoff weapons plus sufficient withdraw and tail-chase speed, from far enough out to be viable, if it had good regional SA, updated in flight. The other guy will run out of fuel chasing, while the targets still get hit. So B-1 was for the stuff the B-52 couldn't get to, faster in (if needed) and faster out (if needed), and thus for other target sets.

F-15C is needed because they exist now and sufficient F-35A don't yet, which is a temporary situation. I'd say F-15X has Buckley's chance of being acquired in numbers. I see it as a 'competitive' option that keeps LM pushing F-35A price down, and speed of build up, and other program numbers improving for a rapidly growing fleet approaching FOC.

And if the F-35 production were somehow ... disrupted ... there's a bridging option.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 23:31
by SpudmanWP
zero-one wrote:I think the USAF is interested not because the F-15X is better than the F-35 in any way, shape or form but simply because its cheaper.

Not to buy because the F-35 already went below the $90M mark which I think the F-15X can't do. I'm talking about operation and life cycle cost.


There is no evidence to state that the F-15X is any cheaper for CPFH. In fact, the available info all points to the F-35A being cheaper.

Here is the latest RCPFH annual numbers. Note that the F-35A is on a trend getting cheaper while the F-15E is not. For FY2019, they are basically the same but as Depots come inline, the F-35A will be getting significantly cheaper but there is nothing that will drive the F-35E any cheaper.

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 00:05
by Corsair1963
Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 14:52
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....


In that case then, the F-15X would be ideal for Canada... :mrgreen:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 15:08
by crosshairs
The F-15X is a waste of money if it supposed to save money by simply having American
jets with an American flag on them. It's a waste because the F-35 is damn near the same cost and is better.

Please check the latest costs of the latest F-16s. Much, much more affordable than the F-15X per copy
and also less money per flight hour.

The last bact of 16s that I can find being ordered were 16 jets for $1.1B. That is HUGELY less expensive
than the F-15X and the new block 70 with AESA and conformal fuel tanks are awesome machines. Let's have
those intercept the Russians off the coast of Big Sur instead of $100M overkill F-15X.

The 16 is also less per hour to operate. The USAF and ANG are full of 16s so maintenance issues
will not be wha they are with a few hundred 15C/D/E.

If this is really about low cost for homeland defense and missions where there are no 5th gen LO
enemy aircraft or S400 systems to contend with, then the latest spec 16 is the cheap and effective way
to do it.

It also won't take 16 years to build 96 like the F-15X.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 23:01
by popcorn
crosshairs wrote:The F-15X is a waste of money if it supposed to save money by simply having American
jets with an American flag on them. It's a waste because the F-35 is damn near the same cost and is better.

Please check the latest costs of the latest F-16s. Much, much more affordable than the F-15X per copy
and also less money per flight hour.

The last bact of 16s that I can find being ordered were 16 jets for $1.1B. That is HUGELY less expensive
than the F-15X and the new block 70 with AESA and conformal fuel tanks are awesome machines. Let's have
those intercept the Russians off the coast of Big Sur instead of $100M overkill F-15X.

The 16 is also less per hour to operate. The USAF and ANG are full of 16s so maintenance issues
will not be wha they are with a few hundred 15C/D/E.

If this is really about low cost for homeland defense and missions where there are no 5th gen LO
enemy aircraft or S400 systems to contend with, then the latest spec 16 is the cheap and effective way
to do it.

It also won't take 16 years to build 96 like the F-15X.


If only the F-16 was.built by Boeing it would be a done deal. :devil:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 02:27
by Corsair1963
Honestly, Boeing doesn't even need F-15 production anymore. After winning the contract for the USAF T-X and the USN MQ-25A. So, this story that the US Government is ordering more Eagles to keep the line going is also "BS".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 02:28
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....


In that case then, the F-15X would be ideal for Canada... :mrgreen:



LOL :lmao:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 02:49
by Corsair1963
New Pentagon chief under scrutiny over perceived Boeing bias

Concerns about Patrick Shanahan’s Boeing ties have re-emerged since President Donald Trump said he may be running the Pentagon ‘for a long time.’

Shanahan's ties to Boeing came under renewed scrutiny in December, when Bloomberg reported that Shanahan had urged the Air Force to add $1.2 billion to its fiscal 2020 budget to purchase 12 Boeing F-15X fighters.

Military experts seemed baffled by the F-15X decision, arguing that the jet, because it lacks the F-35’s stealth capability, is ineffective against enemies like Russia and China, which have sophisticated air defense technologies.

“They simply lack the survivability to fly into harm’s way and make it home against the military equipment that’s built by China and Russia — identified as the two pre-eminent threats in our national security strategy,” retired Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told POLITICO.

Air Force leaders have said publicly they are not interested in purchasing more F-15s, raising questions about the Pentagon's request to purchase the planes now.

In September, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told Defense News that the service needs to spend its money on stealthy, fifth-generation F-35s — and that buying even an advanced fourth-generation fighter such as the F-15X, which isn’t as stealthy, was not in the cards.

“This is a real head-scratcher for me,” retired Air Force Col. J.V. Venable, a senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation, told POLITICO.”


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... on-1064203

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 05:06
by popcorn
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, Boeing doesn't even need F-15 production anymore. After winning the contract for the USAF T-X and the USN MQ-25A. So, this story that the US Government is ordering more Eagles to keep the line going is also "BS".


The primary driver in any business is to maximize profits. There can never be enough profit.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 05:53
by element1loop
What they really need though is to invest in another product, I'd be having a close look at in-house VLO tactical probe tanker design, as that one's a no-brainier force-multiplier, if you can make it work, and it will sell like hot cakes.

And if it came to a need for extra missiles loitering in the area, even the LO MQ-25 has a weapon bay, and the pod can be removed, plus it has the wings for high-altitude loiter.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 06:17
by weasel1962
Edited.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 17:01
by mixelflick
element1loop wrote:What they really need though is to invest in another product, I'd be having a close look at in-house VLO tactical probe tanker design, as that one's a no-brainier force-multiplier, if you can make it work, and it will sell like hot cakes.

And if it came to a need for extra missiles loitering in the area, even the LO MQ-25 has a weapon bay, and the pod can be removed, plus it has the wings for high-altitude loiter.


I would agree. Boeing building new F-15's is like Mig building new Mig-29's.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 17:19
by quicksilver
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Which, is the whole point really! That the F-15X would be more expensive to own and operate than the existing F-35A. While, being vastly less capable....


In that case then, the F-15X would be ideal for Canada... :mrgreen:



LOL :lmao:


+1 :applause:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2019, 04:54
by weasel1962
Interesting factoid that Korean Airlines has been maintaining the F-15s based out of Kadena for the past decade (see below). Understand a contract award in 2018 to continue that maintenance for another 9 years but haven't seen a press release on this...would be useful to know the details.

https://www.robins.af.mil/News/Article- ... -ceremony/

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 16:54
by mixelflick
Any fantasy that the USAF would be ordering new F-15X airframes is just that - a fantasy. The latest leaked Luke 2019 demo clip should put an end to that, assuming the results of Red Flag already hadn't.

The aircraft's performance truly is "eye watering": A tight as hell power loop, followed by a pedal turn WHILE MAINTAINING ALTITUDE was quite frankly, jaw dropping. And this is the least impressive of its attributes. I was once a big time F-35 doubter, but have to admit - LM has accomplished something extraordinary.

When an F-16 pilot told me, "You can't see it" I asked for an example. He said during a recent exercise he had no idea where the F-35 was, until it hit him. At one point, ground control told him you have 2 F-35's at you 1 o'clock, 12 miles. He said he pointed the radar in that direction and.... whole lotta' nothin'. At 12 miles!

Seeing these Raptor like maneuvers is just the icing on the cake, and no F-15 can even come close. So I say retire the F-15C's and let their 104-0 air to air combat record rest. It can go down undefeated, and properly enjoy a wonderful retirement. The F-35 is the future, and no F-15 derivative can come close (either in capability or price). And I am a HUGE F-15 fan...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 17:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:The aircraft's performance truly is "eye watering": A tight as hell power loop, followed by a pedal turn WHILE MAINTAINING ALTITUDE was quite frankly, jaw dropping.

It was losing altitude the entire maneuver. It temporarily seems to hang in place for a period when the velocity vector was pointed at the camera. Only a Mode 4 F-35B or a Harrier could do a "helicopter turn" while maintaining altitude, only one of which can do a power loop, neither of which can do both back to back.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 18:41
by SpudmanWP
mixelflick wrote:The latest leaked Luke 2019 demo clip should put an end to that

The problem is that this has never been about performance but has been a mixture of bean-counting and Corporate Welfare.

On the bean-counting side, that argument failed as soon as the F-35A dropped under $90 mil and it's CPFH dropped below the F-15E's.

The only thing left is Corporate Welfare.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 00:31
by vilters
When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?
It will outclass all other competition.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 00:42
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?
It will outclass all other competition.

That's right now.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 01:01
by vilters
wrightwing wrote:
vilters wrote:When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?
It will outclass all other competition.

That's right now.


Not yet, servicability is still on the low side.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 02:16
by madrat
Actually that is at its peak. Serviceability is normally an inverse relationship to time.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 09:13
by zero-one
This quote was mentioned here:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21808&start=2910

But I think it fits more appropriately here.

ricnunes wrote:With all of this combined with all that was mentioned before, I fail to realize in how or in where the F-15C can be any better than the F-15E against enemy aircraft, apart from having a potentially slightly better agility (if any that is).


So we can agree that the E model has superior avionics and EMC to the C variant.

But what if we can get the best of both worlds? The C variant's kinematics with the E's electronics. That could very well put the Eagle back on the top of the 4th gen food chain. Cause lets face it the Eagle as it is, is at the bottom, among high end air superiority 4th gens (i.e. Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35). Remember Col. Fornlof said that the Su-30 is a bit better than the Eagle (using his hands to illustrate the capability gap).

Will the F-15X be an air superiority focused Eagle or a multi role Strike Eagle? I think its the former because once the C retires in the 2040 timeline, the US will be left with just the F-22 as its sole air dominance focused platform. (we don't know if PCA will be ready in relevant numbers by then)

Yes I know the F-35 and F-16 can do it too but hear me out.
Theres a difference between a squadron that trains almost exclusively for air-air and a squadron that simply includes air to air in their training syllabus.

The F-35 is too good of a strike platform to assign it to a squadron that will simply train and perform air to air missions like the F-15C does now. It's literally using just 40% of the F-35's intended capabilities.

So if the F-15X turns out to be an F-15C with F-15QA avionics and sensors and engines but has the weight of an F-15C, then you got urself a plane that will give even the Typhoon and Su-35 (what I consider the 2 best 4th gen air superiority platforms) a run for their money both BVR and WVR

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 13:21
by madrat
In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

Seems silly to play yesterdays game in tomorrow's reality.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 14:18
by zero-one
madrat wrote:In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

Seems silly to play yesterdays game in tomorrow's reality.


thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible. I mean, do ground troops always get all the air support they requested for?
Theres a massive number of CAS and CAS capable platforms available. If ground troops can't get all the CAS they want in relatively small conflicts like the ones in the middle east. What more in a non-nuclear conflict with a Peer adversary like China.

Anyway, heres my point. Do you agree that the F-15C still has a niche to fill post 2040.
Why:
-You don't need Stealth for every mission (i.e. Air national guard duties)
-The F-35 still needs periodic RAM maintenance even if you never use it's stealth capabilities

However the F-15Cs, built in the 80s will be way past their service lives post 2040. So the USAF simply wants to keep a small fleet of F-15s for post 2040 ANG squadrons, but they can't buy brand new F-15Cs with 80 tech, so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs that are currently being produced and call it F-15X. Thats what this is.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 14:53
by botsing
zero-one wrote:thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible.

It's silly to train for that once in a lifetime situation while you can put that same training-time into preparing for actual real life combat.


zero-one wrote:so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs

Cost alone would be a reason:
SpudmanWP wrote:On the bean-counting side, that argument failed as soon as the F-35A dropped under $90 mil and it's CPFH dropped below the F-15E's.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:02
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
madrat wrote:In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

Seems silly to play yesterdays game in tomorrow's reality.


thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible. I mean, do ground troops always get all the air support they requested for?
Theres a massive number of CAS and CAS capable platforms available. If ground troops can't get all the CAS they want in relatively small conflicts like the ones in the middle east. What more in a non-nuclear conflict with a Peer adversary like China.

Anyway, heres my point. Do you agree that the F-15C still has a niche to fill post 2040.
Why:
-You don't need Stealth for every mission (i.e. Air national guard duties)
-The F-35 still needs periodic RAM maintenance even if you never use it's stealth capabilities

However the F-15Cs, built in the 80s will be way past their service lives post 2040. So the USAF simply wants to keep a small fleet of F-15s for post 2040 ANG squadrons, but they can't buy brand new F-15Cs with 80 tech, so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs that are currently being produced and call it F-15X. Thats what this is.


Just because you don't need stealth for ANG duties, if the cost of the LO platform is the same as or cheaper than the non-LO aircraft, then why not fill the ANG units with stealth?

F-4 Phantoms could easily fill ANG duties for homeland defense. Should the US have kept the Phantom in production just for to catch the occasional Cessna that flies off course? Or to intercept Russians on the West Coast? Why do we have F-22s doing that? You don't need a stealthy supercruiser to catch a bomber.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:07
by mixelflick
It may also be that the F-35 has such dramatic advantages air to air that training exclusively on the air to air mission isn't warranted. I mean, if they can't see you, but you can see them and possess the means to reach out and touch them... there's not a lot of dogfighting that'll be going on.

On the other hand, I like the idea of a unit training JUST for air to air. I'm not certain why we couldn't devote some F-35 squadrons to that mission? They're going to be cheaper, check. They're going to be more capable, check. They're going to retain their air to ground capability if needed, check. Should just be a matter of switching out the pilot given an air to air or air to ground mission.

Am I missing something, or is it not just that simple?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:21
by zero-one
botsing wrote:It's silly to train for that once in a lifetime situation while you can put that same training-time into preparing for actual real life combat.

training for that once in a lifetime situation is what every Nuclear armed unit does all the time.
But I think you may have misunderstood the statement. so lets recap:
madrat wrote:
In what scenario does an F-15C face an Su-35S without support from allied and stealth assets?

zero-one wrote:
thats difficult to imagine but I wouldn't say impossible.

botsing wrote:
It's silly to train for that once in a lifetime situation while you can put that same training-time into preparing for actual real life combat.


so I wasn't talking about training. I was simply trying to justify why the USAF may be interested in the F-15X. Not everything can be solved by buying more F-35s

Anyway I should have been more confident with my answer, because it actually happens often:
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/08/ ... 17-Belarus

The United States has dispatched warplanes to patrol the skies over the Baltic region in an attempt to reinforce its allies from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against what Washington regards as an alleged “Russian threat,” as Moscow is gearing up for major military drills.

Lithuania's Defense Ministry announced in a statement that seven US Air Force F-15 Eagle fighter jets had already landed in the country’s northern Siauliai military airbase, adding that the newly arrived fleet would begin to conduct the mission of air police over the Baltic States from September 1.


No mention of F-22s or F-35As or Bs ready to swoop in if the Flanker-E/S shows up.

zero-one wrote:so why not buy upgraded F-15QAs and F-15SAs
Cost alone would be a reason:


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter
Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

In addition, our sources tell us that F-15X cost-per-flight-hour has been deeply investigated both by Boeing and by third parties by leveraging metrics from legacy F-15 operations and those of late-model Strike Eagle derivatives and even other fighters in the USAF's inventory. The final figure is said to be around $27,000 per flight hour.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 16:23
by zero-one
Some new insights on the cost of the F-15X

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

In addition, our sources tell us that F-15X cost-per-flight-hour has been deeply investigated both by Boeing and by third parties by leveraging metrics from legacy F-15 operations and those of late-model Strike Eagle derivatives and even other fighters in the USAF's inventory. The final figure is said to be around $27,000 per flight hour.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2019, 17:33
by SpudmanWP
vilters wrote:When enough F-35 are on the order books and the spare parts bins filled, and the maintenance costs starts to come down?

RCPFH (which is fuel & maintenance) has been coming down since day one. For FY2019 they seemed to have called a mulligan and just increased virtually everything across the board for inflation only instead of recalculating real-world costs. For FY2019 the RCPFH of an F-35A is just above the F-15E.

Image

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:31
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Some new insights on the cost of the F-15X

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

In addition, our sources tell us that F-15X cost-per-flight-hour has been deeply investigated both by Boeing and by third parties by leveraging metrics from legacy F-15 operations and those of late-model Strike Eagle derivatives and even other fighters in the USAF's inventory. The final figure is said to be around $27,000 per flight hour.


If the price is indeed going to be lower, then it can mean only 1 of 2 things..

1.) It's going to be devoid of any new motors, significant enhancements in radar/EW etc (Not much more capable than an F-15C) OR..

2.) It's going to cost Boeing $, not make them $.

It may well be that Boeing is shooting for #2, in an effort to keep the production line open to sell F-15SA like aircraft to other nations. It may also be their attempt to keep a foot in the fighter game, because if F-15 orders dry up - then their only project of note is the SH, and the sunset on that airframe is within view now too.

I rather agree that if the price for an F-35 is similar or lower than any F-15, we're better off buying the F-35 - even for less demanding missions. It might not need stealth in that environment, but what about combat deployments? The F-15's here in MA are responsible for the air defense of the entire Northeast. Yet, I've seen them deployed in air superiority missions to hotspots around the globe.

If that's going on, why wouldn't you want an F-35? It integrates better into an increasingly F-35 centric world, has worlds better performance and is going to be relevant for a hell of a lot longer.

If they do the F-15X, I hope it's the penultimate Eagle. But with better options, not for the USAF. Give them to say South Korea if they're looking for something to beef up their air superiority fleet. There's nothing North Korea is going to counter them with that can compare, and if the Chinese get involved then US F-35's will be right there.

My 2cc's...

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:45
by mixelflick
Plus, let's not be like Canada..

"Flying, fighting and investing in today's aircraft, tomorrow... " :mrgreen:

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:59
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:
1.) It's going to be devoid of any new motors, significant enhancements in radar/EW etc (Not much more capable than an F-15C) OR..


Well hold on, they already said their baseline for the F-15X is the F-15QA and SA. Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

But if thats the case then it will be:
5th gen SA
4th gen Observability
4th gen kinematics
4th gen price

I wonder if it can compete with an AESA equipped Typhoon both BVR and WVR?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:39
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
5th gen SA



Only thing seen so far on the F-15X is a hodgepodge of different pods and a lot of cost cutting which to me would say 4 Gen Sensor Fusion and also nothing like EODAS which is massive.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:43
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?


The figures supposedly leaked to said bloggers that (they say) are going to appearing the budget request was for 12 x F-15X at $1.2Billion. Don't know what that entails but it looks about right doesn't it. :D

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
basher54321 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?


The figures supposedly leaked to said bloggers that (they say) are going to appearing the budget request was for 12 x F-15X at $1.2Billion. Don't know what that entails but it looks about right doesn't it. :D

Which was explained above that Boeing would eat the losses. They cannot make them at ~$80M, but they will sell them at ~$80M.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 19:32
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote: Is it possible for them to make the F-15QA at around $80M... Who knows.

F-15SK was $100M in 2006, why would the SA or QA be cheaper now?


Well I'm not sure how the politics work but exports seem to be more expensive than local purchases all the time.

Australia bought their 24 SHornets for...what was it $6 billion. The USN got theirs for $75M each.

Now I know economies of scale made each unit cost more because they are buying so few. And the Aussie deal had upgrade and weapons support and all that.

But perhaps Boeing knows what their doing. You don't become the largest aviation company ever if you're not a business genius. So if they say they can sell it bellow F-35 prices and are confident enough to offer fixed price contracts. Then hey maybe they know something we don't.

I'm just worried at what Qatar, SArabia and Singapore would say if they found out that Boeing can make advanced F-15 variants for $75M each instead of the $250M they were buying from. Cause if you think about it the US will buy around the same number of birds as those countries.
So the whole economies of scale excuse won't work anymore.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 21:37
by SpudmanWP
While FMS sales are at the same price that the US Gov pays for these items, FMS packages contain much more than the plane itself and will often contain parts, multi-year support & training, transport services, weapons, spares, etc.

These items are also in the US budgets, but will be spread across multiple services, line items, and budget years.

This is why it's nice to have FMS sales bids that cover multiple platforms for the same bid as it gives us a chance to get a hit of the "actual" cost of platforms in an apples-to-apples comparison.

Btw, there is a big difference between "knowing what you are doing" and "knowing who to payoff... er I mean lobby".

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 23:44
by vanshilar
zero-one wrote:Some new insights on the cost of the F-15X

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A....Boeing will offer the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.


Uh it's not a new insight, it was published (and discussed) half a year ago. Not only that, but Boeing (or the author) was unwilling to give an actual number, or even a range of possible numbers, for the price. The way Tyler wrote it, it seems like Boeing was saying it'll be cheaper than the F-35, with Tyler inserting that the F-35 is $95 million. Not that Boeing said it would be under $95 million. Big difference.

Sounds like salesman "whatever price they're offering, we'll do it for less!" talk until they give a firm number.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 01:29
by vanshilar
weasel1962 wrote:Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...


I'm a bit late to the party but this comes up every now and then. Like many misleading statements, it carries with it a grain of truth, but what the truth reveals when you look into it is actually in the opposite direction of what the statement implies.

(As an aside, another example is when DOT&E Gilmore said the F-35's loiter time was very short compared with the A-10, but he used the Marines F-35B in his comparison. When you use the Air Force F-35A instead with its extra 5000 lb of fuel, to make a proper comparison with the Air Force A-10, using Gilmore's own numbers and with some very simple calculations, you get that...the F-35A's loiter time should be similar to the A-10's. But it gets there in half the time.)

In this case, as already mentioned above, for transatlantic crossings the guys are concerned about protecting the aircraft as a valuable asset, not to set any endurance records. So fuel levels are kept high enough such that at any point in the trip, with whatever fuel the aircraft has onboard and with no further refuelings, it can make it to the nearest airbase along with an additional reserve of fuel. From out in the middle of the ocean.

The plane is also accompanied by a tanker and rescue aircraft (such as a C-130). So the group does not fly at the F-35's most efficient (cruising) speed; it flies at a speed that saves the most fuel for the group as a whole, barring any other restrictions. So the F-35 is flying heavy (since frequently topped off with fuel in case of a divert) and also flying slow (for the sake of the other aircraft in the formation), compared to its most efficient speed. Hardly the parameters that one uses to compare for ferry range.

You're probably referring to the USAF's first transatlantic flight. Perhaps you noticed that articles discussing it said it took close to 8 hours. Do you really think the F-35 really needs to be refueled nearly once per hour in combat use? With a stated fuel burn of roughly 80-100 pounds per minute and a 18,000-lb tank, it can last roughly three hours in the air. That should've clued you in that these refuelings were strictly for safety and were precautionary, not because of necessity.

In fact, perhaps you should look at the first transatlantic flight, which was done by Italy. An article for it:

https://sldinfo.com/2016/02/ninja-discu ... ian-style/

In it, the pilot says that if he flies high, he can make it from Azores to Canada, presumably without refueling -- because he then says if he goes low he'll need one refueling. It's 2600 miles from the Azores to St John's (the closest part of Canada to the Azores). He does say "after 30 minutes after takeoff" so if you want to infer that he means if they refuel right after takeoff (and no more refueling after that), that's fine, knocking say ~200 miles off that distance. So you're looking at a ferry range of somewhere over 2000 miles right there.

As already mentioned above, when unspecified, the meaning of "range" is unclear; it could refer to a one-way ferry range assuming straight line travel at optimum altitude/speed the whole way, all the way down to combat radius meaning travel both to and from (cutting the range in half), with weapons, combat maneuvering, and oftentimes with altitude restrictions which are going to be less than optimum for range. Thus, combat radius is roughly one-third of ferry range as a rule of thumb. People have already brought up several quotes from pilots directly comparing the F-35's range favorably to the F-15, and its official combat radius is 669 nm for an air-to-ground mission (so that includes to and from, carrying bombs which are heavier than missiles, combat maneuvering, and usually involves a non-optimal altitude restriction in its flight profile). Why do you hang on to ">600 nm" when it clearly means it's more than that and there are multiple statements that it's significantly greater?

Although a 3000-nm ferry range is often stated for the F-15, the F-15C manual I have says that the ferry range with 3 EFT's is 1933/2144 nm without CFT's or 2294/2582 nm with CFT's, depending on if the EFT's are dropped as they get used up or not. Guess maybe they later came out with bigger EFT's or something.

Re: F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 14:55
by mixelflick
I thought the F-15 could complete an Atlantic crossing with no air to air refueling? Seem to recall it being a requirement, given getting more to Europe would have been a priority if trouble kicked off. Obviously not optimal and probably takes 3 bags plus CFT's, but I'm positive that's what I read. Whether they achieved that or not I'm not sure. I bet if push came to shove though, they could pull it off.

As for the F-35, great legs all around. The fact people are even comparing it to a Strike Eagle speaks volumes. Much, much bigger jet and probably the air force's longest range tactical aircraft. The F-35 flies clean, so I don't think there's any question it out ranges an Eagle in that configuration. In fact, I'm positive I heard an F-35 pilot (Chip Burke?) say it out-ranges an Eagle with 2 bags.

Strong statement IMO, and it's just getting better when more fuel efficient engines get here...