F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

[marsavian]

They could upgrade F-15C's for less

A full SLEP will cost $30m not including AESA/ECM/computer/display etc upgrades. If Boeing are offering a brand new F-15X for just around twice that then the latter is more cost-effective as you will be getting a brand new airframe with FBW and outer wing pylon use.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-437587/

[SpudmanWP]

The official premise of the USAF is not to buy whats better than the F-35. They want to buy whats cheaper and what can be produced faster.

The F-15X fails on both of those accounts.

Less flyaway cost than the F-35 and with a $27,000 CPFH

While they can take a loss on the production (unlawfull?), they can't control CPFH very well unless they do the work (and take another loss).

Lockheed has a limit on how many planes they can deliver per year.

Yup, over 225 per year and they are nowhere near that now.

The F-15X is a single seat F-15SA. Done. Easy. The F-15SA is an E on steroids.

So it's a mashup of two existing designs (the F-15C and SA). How well did Boeing do when they tried that on the KC-46?

A full SLEP will cost $30m not including AESA/ECM/computer/display etc upgrades.

That was for a FULL SLEP that pushed the service life into the 2040's. If they only wanted the 2030's then it was only $1 mil per.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

OK thank you.

But what is the difference between and F-15E CFT and F-15C EFT? I wasn't aware there was a difference?? And related, how much of a maneuvering penalty does the F-15C have when carrying them??

It's tempting to slap them on, bringing internal fuel to that of a Flanker. But I wouldn't want to enter a dogfight with them, IF they degrade performance that much..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).

[quicksilver]

One more time — The F-15 is less capability for MORE money.

This has been posted before. Boeing offered a fixed contract. Less flyaway cost than the F-35 and with a $27,000 CPFH

Plus they can deliver it sooner. The General said he needs to replenish capacity now.

Lockheed has a limit on how many planes they can deliver per year.

Meanwhile you got another giant aerospace company out there with assembly lines going cold.

So the contractor claims; and you choose to believe it. I’ll give you a pass since you’ve never been in that arena.

[quicksilver]

This is too perfect right now...

https://www.airforcetimes.com/off-duty/ ... rd%20Brief

[crosshairs]

OK thank you.

But what is the difference between and F-15E CFT and F-15C EFT? I wasn't aware there was a difference?? And related, how much of a maneuvering penalty does the F-15C have when carrying them??

It's tempting to slap them on, bringing internal fuel to that of a Flanker. But I wouldn't want to enter a dogfight with them, IF they degrade performance that much..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).

Sometime in the early 80s I saw a chart comparing the drop tank drag to CFT drag, and CFTs were superior.

[sferrin]

OK thank you.

But what is the difference between and F-15E CFT and F-15C EFT? I wasn't aware there was a difference?? And related, how much of a maneuvering penalty does the F-15C have when carrying them??

It's tempting to slap them on, bringing internal fuel to that of a Flanker. But I wouldn't want to enter a dogfight with them, IF they degrade performance that much..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).

Sometime in the early 80s I saw a chart comparing the drop tank drag to CFT drag, and CFTs were superior.

Same here. Better maneuverability with CFTs instead of tanks as well.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

From the F-15A-1

Two CFTs with missile launchers
Weight Empty : 2487
Weight Full : 12,001
DI : 4

610 Gallon Fuel Tank
Weight Empty : 320 lb
Weight Full: 4,285 lb
DI: Centerline 12.2
Wing (no CFT) 5.5
Wing (CFT) 6.0

So I was a bit off on wing tank drag vs CFT drag. I must have been thinking of the -E CFT with a DI of 20. So the CFT itself weighs 2,487lb, more than three empty tanks plus the centerline pylon (W 399 DI 3.3) but has roughly the same Drag as a centerline pylon alone.

It also carries ~9,500lb fuel, similar to two and a half 610s.

Thanks for making me double check.

[southernphantom]

From the F-15A-1

Two CFTs with missile launchers
Weight Empty : 2487
Weight Full : 12,001
DI : 4

610 Gallon Fuel Tank
Weight Empty : 320 lb
Weight Full: 4,285 lb
DI: Centerline 12.2
Wing (no CFT) 5.5
Wing (CFT) 6.0

So I was a bit off on wing tank drag vs CFT drag. I must have been thinking of the -E CFT with a DI of 20. So the CFT itself weighs 2,487lb, more than three empty tanks plus the centerline pylon (W 399 DI 3.3) but has roughly the same Drag as a centerline pylon alone.

It also carries ~9,500lb fuel, similar to two and a half 610s.

Thanks for making me double check.

Good data, thanks for posting it up! That is a very convincing argument in favor of C- CFTs

[mixelflick]

OK thank you.

But what is the difference between and F-15E CFT and F-15C EFT? I wasn't aware there was a difference?? And related, how much of a maneuvering penalty does the F-15C have when carrying them??

It's tempting to slap them on, bringing internal fuel to that of a Flanker. But I wouldn't want to enter a dogfight with them, IF they degrade performance that much..

The CFT for the F-15C only has "c" clamps for AA missiles, four in total, while the CFT for the F-15E has the clamps plus twelve pylons for munitions. CFT-C has a DI of 5 and CFT-E has a DI of 20. The performance penalty is roughly the same on the C as carrying wing tanks (which is always done).

Sometime in the early 80s I saw a chart comparing the drop tank drag to CFT drag, and CFTs were superior.

Thanks.

So we know the LA ANG was using CFT's as an experiment. Was there any verdict there? I'd think carrying around all that extra gas would dramatically improve persistence in the OCA mission, plus allow for up to 12 AMRAAM's or 10 plus 2 9x's. Given the new BVR doctrine and the 9x's HOBS capability, will ANG Eagles adopt the CFT's?

As much internal fuel as a Flanker with up to twice the air to air loadout would go a long way toward bringing back the F-15's advantages IMO. The engines are presumably less thirsty than their Russian counterparts too. I'd just like to know what current Eagle drivers think? They all seem to favor flying with two wing tanks...

[sferrin]

Just for reference :

[quicksilver]

John Venable at Heritage, on the F-15X idea. You may recall his survey a couple years ago of F-35 pilots who came from other aircraft types.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake

[southernphantom]

John Venable at Heritage, on the F-15X idea. You may recall his survey a couple years ago of F-35 pilots who came from other aircraft types.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake

That article is a pathetic joke for a variety of reasons.

[quicksilver]

John Venable at Heritage, on the F-15X idea. You may recall his survey a couple years ago of F-35 pilots who came from other aircraft types.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake

That article is a pathetic joke for a variety of reasons.

Well, enlighten us...

[F-16ADF]

The achilles heel of the F-15