F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

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

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4894
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 14:11

marauder2048 wrote:There is a gap between the berm and the door but that's typically, by design, far too small for a
PGM to reliably traverse while missing the berm and hitting the door.

And of course it's a predictable trajectory that's vulnerable to the terminal defenses.


Do you have any pictures? All of them I've seen are flat as a pool table and could be taken out by a Maverick missile punching a hole in the silo lid.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4894
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 14:24

Seems like a good place to post this (did not know SK had GBU-28s):

"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2684
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 14:36

Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
I thought the article was well written/reasoned, but fell apart towards the end..

Not survivable in the current IADS environment? OK. First few days of war maybe. But when those IADS are brought down by F-35's and other aircraft? Once that airspace is secured and IADS laid to waste, somebody's going to have to fly CAPs. Is it going to be cheaper to buy and operate vs. F-35's? Logic tells us the F-35 will be cheaper and more capable. But this will largely be in Congress's hands, and they're anything but logical.

The air force needs 72 airframes a year to modernize the force? Then why not give them the $ to buy them? Otherwise, make due with 60 (or whatever) you're funded for. The fact is we're in this current pickle because of a number of USAF leadership mistakes, and nobody's been held accountable. That's the underlying reason for everything from obsolete airframes to the current pilot shortage...


The article is spot on in my opinion. As you just "can't" make a good case for buying the F-15X. :doh:


WRT those hardened aircraft shelters... Wasn't the other part of the back-story they were built by the French, and the French told us where all of the weak points were? Could have sworn I read something about that..

Other nations like China, N. Korea etc undoubtedly took note, so I wonder what defensive measures they took? Even thicker/beefier HASs?

WRT the F-15X and this article.. yeah, you'd be hard pressed to make an argument for buying them. Cost per flight hour? OK Maybe. But they're not going to be flying much after an S-400 slams into them. Cheaper than the F-35? Only if Boeing decides to sell them at a loss. Favored by various members of Congress? Perhaps in MO, but it's hard to imagine it going the F-15X's way, especially considering how "dispersed" F-35 work is across 48 states.

And capability wise, it's not even close. The only metric where the F-15X wins is in total AMRAAM loadout, and even then we haven't seen how robust the F-35's external AMRAAM carriage is. Maneuverability? F-35 has it all over it. Range? With an internal 6 AMRAAM loadout, I bet it''s more. A LOT more on internal fuel only. And quite possibly the F-35 has better legs than even an F-15X with CFT's. If memory serves, that'll bring the F-15X's total gas to around 25,000lbs vs. the F-35's 18,000. But throw in drag, especially with those quad pack underwing AMRAAM stations and... gonna be whole lotta' drag bringing the F-15X's range down. Ability to ID, prosecute and destroy targets? Please. I love the F-15, and would love to see the penultimate version, if nothing else to compare it to the penultimate Flanker (SU-35). But that would be shortchanging our boys, and no amount of nostalgia is worth putting them at a disadvantage.

Let's build more F-35's..
Offline

gc

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 14:48

sferrin wrote:Seems like a good place to post this (did not know SK had GBU-28s):



This video shows us clearly why RoKAF and RSAF made the right choice to acquire the Strike Eagle instead of some Eurocanards. Decades after introduction into service, Eurocanards are still highly limited in terms of the types of munitions they can carry. No SDB, heavy bunker buster and limited stand off weapons. The Storm Shadow is already greatly outranged by the JASSM-ER.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1858
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 14:59

mixelflick wrote:
WRT the F-15X and this article.. yeah, you'd be hard pressed to make an argument for buying them. Cost per flight hour? OK Maybe. But they're not going to be flying much after an S-400 slams into them. Cheaper than the F-35? Only if Boeing decides to sell them at a loss.


The F-15X is not better than the F-35 and not even Boeing is branding it as such. The selling point of the F-15X is:

1. it will do the the missions where 5th gen F-22s and F-35s are overkill. (i.e. escorting the Bear outside of Alaskan airspace once a month, flying circles around no flyzones announcing to everyone that "Hey we're up here so don't even think about it")

2. It will be cheaper, we always believed Lockheed when they said they can make the F-35 cost $80M in 2019, so why is it hard for us to believe Boeing can offer the F-15X at fixed prices which they promise will be below F-35A prices. This is the same company takes pride in developing the Super Hornet on schedule and within budget if I remember correctly. Yes they also have their share of mismanaged money pits (C-17) but with the upcoming PCA. F-X and NGAD programs ramping up, Boeing cannot afford to look like the bad guy right now.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1109
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 15:10

southernphantom wrote:Crushed stone offers a far higher angle of repose than sediment alone. I'm looking at a surge stockpile of ~4" minus rock with an angle of repose of about 45 degrees right now.


Yeah, thanks, I knew talus was a lot steeper but I've never seen a talus berm, that seems to be something avoided for reasons of rock frags I expect.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1056
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Kentucky

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 19:29

element1loop wrote:
southernphantom wrote:Crushed stone offers a far higher angle of repose than sediment alone. I'm looking at a surge stockpile of ~4" minus rock with an angle of repose of about 45 degrees right now.


Yeah, thanks, I knew talus was a lot steeper but I've never seen a talus berm, that seems to be something avoided for reasons of rock frags I expect.


Yeah, that is not a pretty mental image.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 02:11

zero-one wrote:
The F-15X is not better than the F-35 and not even Boeing is branding it as such. The selling point of the F-15X is:

1. it will do the the missions where 5th gen F-22s and F-35s are overkill. (i.e. escorting the Bear outside of Alaskan airspace once a month, flying circles around no flyzones announcing to everyone that "Hey we're up here so don't even think about it")

2. It will be cheaper, we always believed Lockheed when they said they can make the F-35 cost $80M in 2019, so why is it hard for us to believe Boeing can offer the F-15X at fixed prices which they promise will be below F-35A prices. This is the same company takes pride in developing the Super Hornet on schedule and within budget if I remember correctly. Yes they also have their share of mismanaged money pits (C-17) but with the upcoming PCA. F-X and NGAD programs ramping up, Boeing cannot afford to look like the bad guy right now.


Yet, point here is no way in "hell" can Boeing produce the F-15X for anything close to the $80 Million for a F-35A in 2021. Which, means considering the Eagle is far less capable. The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.....
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 93
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 02:16

gc wrote:This video shows us clearly why RoKAF and RSAF made the right choice to acquire the Strike Eagle instead of some Eurocanards. Decades after introduction into service, Eurocanards are still highly limited in terms of the types of munitions they can carry. No SDB, heavy bunker buster and limited stand off weapons. The Storm Shadow is already greatly outranged by the JASSM-ER.

That's a shame SK was denied the JASSM then. ;)
Online

crosshairs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 02:26

Corsair1963 wrote:
zero-one wrote:
The F-15X is not better than the F-35 and not even Boeing is branding it as such. The selling point of the F-15X is:

1. it will do the the missions where 5th gen F-22s and F-35s are overkill. (i.e. escorting the Bear outside of Alaskan airspace once a month, flying circles around no flyzones announcing to everyone that "Hey we're up here so don't even think about it")

2. It will be cheaper, we always believed Lockheed when they said they can make the F-35 cost $80M in 2019, so why is it hard for us to believe Boeing can offer the F-15X at fixed prices which they promise will be below F-35A prices. This is the same company takes pride in developing the Super Hornet on schedule and within budget if I remember correctly. Yes they also have their share of mismanaged money pits (C-17) but with the upcoming PCA. F-X and NGAD programs ramping up, Boeing cannot afford to look like the bad guy right now.


Yet, point here is no way in "hell" can Boeing produce the F-15X for anything close to the $80 Million for a F-35A in 2021. Which, means considering the Eagle is far less capable. The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.....


They are only buying 12 a year. They will still be building them by the time NGAD starts rolling off the line if they want to replace all the C/D fleet. So obviously they are not buying the X for 20 years to get to roughly 230. Seems like a corporate handout. F-16 would be cheaper and they could probably afford more than 1 a month. The USAF has a problem with the age of the fleet, but 12 shiny new F-15X isn't the solution. It does keep another production line open and suppliers in business, so that could be a strategic decision.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 02:27

The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.


Fine but only Congress can directly stop it now because it's in the budget request and I have not heard a single congressional voice raised against it. Congress are ultimately bean counters which is why F-22/F-14 were such visible targets and F-35 less so now it's got cheaper. F-18 is getting a pass too in this stealth age because of its low price and I suspect F-15X will too if it's priced under $80m i.e. sold at non-profit cost price. You just may have to deal with some new F-15X until maybe the President changes.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1271
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 03:03

I think not every F-15C sqn will convert e.g. 110 sqn converted to B2.

Filling the 2 squadrons at Kadena makes sense. Can avoid continuous F-35 exposure to PLAAF ELINT.

One major F-15 improvement is in anti-ship. Besides the newer AESA radar being able to operate more effectively over water, newer F-15s can fire harps. Imagine if they carry LRASM. PLAN CVs can be targeted within the 1st hour of conflict, even if they are based in Hainan. No air refuel required.
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 04:53

marsavian wrote:
The USAF has no reason at all. To acquire it in the first place.


Fine but only Congress can directly stop it now because it's in the budget request and I have not heard a single congressional voice raised against it. Congress are ultimately bean counters which is why F-22/F-14 were such visible targets and F-35 less so now it's got cheaper. F-18 is getting a pass too in this stealth age because of its low price and I suspect F-15X will too if it's priced under $80m i.e. sold at non-profit cost price. You just may have to deal with some new F-15X until maybe the President changes.



No, only Congress could approve it and they haven't. Plus, future Defense Budgets are very likely to decline. With or without Trump being in office. So, I would expect the F-15X would be an "extremely" hard sell. As for the Super Hornet the USN is just about done buying new jets. Instead they will upgrade existing Block II to Block III. Even then early Block II Super Hornets will start to retire in the early 2030's. So, odds are very good. That the USN will replace them with additional F-35C's. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. As the USN did the same with the Hornet/Super Hornet.
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 05:13

crosshairs wrote:
They are only buying 12 a year. They will still be building them by the time NGAD starts rolling off the line if they want to replace all the C/D fleet. So obviously they are not buying the X for 20 years to get to roughly 230. Seems like a corporate handout. F-16 would be cheaper and they could probably afford more than 1 a month. The USAF has a problem with the age of the fleet, but 12 shiny new F-15X isn't the solution. It does keep another production line open and suppliers in business, so that could be a strategic decision.


The USAF current budget has been delayed due to the recent US Government shutdown. So, we don't even know for sure if the F-15X is in it. In addition even if it is. That hardly means the US House Armed Services Committee would approved it. Which, is controlled by the Democrats.


One thing the members should know. Is the next Election for US President is less than two years away. So, the Democrats are on their best behavior. As a matter of fact they have had no problem. Throwing even their own members under the bus. Which, have behaved badly....As they want to show the country that they have high moral ground.

So, you really think they are going to fund a 40 year old fighter. That cost more than todays State of the Art F-35???

Nonetheless, we will have to wait and see. Yet, I personally doubt it.



QUOTE:
Shanahan is a former Boeing executive who was confirmed as deputy secretary of defense in early 2017. He spent much of the last year focused on reforming internal processes at the Pentagon. Since his ascension to the top role, questions have surfaced about how his previous business ties could influence military decisions.


Inhofe downplayed those concerns, though he did note that those business conflicts have the potential “to become very partisan” when Shanahan testifies before the committee in coming weeks

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... -shanahan/
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 13 Feb 2019, 06:18, edited 1 time in total.
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 05:31

Again as I have said before. The most likely solution to replace the F-15C's. Would be to acquire three additional Squadrons of F-35A's. These would replace one F-15C Squadron at RAF Lakenheath (UK) and two at Kadena (Okinawa Japan).

This while the remaining F-15C Squadrons operated by the ANG. Would be replaced by upgraded F-16's. The latter are available in large numbers and are already going through Service Life Extension Program! (SLEP)

The added bonus of the F-16V. Is it shares some components with the F-35A's.


Quote: The current version, also known as the F-16V, brings together a host of recent developments, including conformal fuel tanks, revised cockpit with two 10- by 10-cm (4- by 4-inch) side displays and a 15- by 20-cm (6- by 8-inch) center pedestal display, auto ground collision avoidance system, advanced helmet-mounted cueing sight, Sniper ATP targeting pod, and Link 16 datalink.

Most importantly, it is the first F-16 with an AESA “E-scan” radar in the form of the Northrop Grumman APG-83. This radar has greater than 90 percent software commonality and more than 70 percent hardware commonality with the APG-81 radar of the F-35. Indeed, much of the Block 70 technology has been drawn from the F-35 program and can continue to benefit from similar updates in the future. It’s not all a one-way street either: F-16V technology such as the Auto-GCAS is finding its way into the F-35.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -left-f-16
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Corsair1963, Google Adsense [Bot] and 23 guests