F-15EX

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

allesmorobranna

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2021, 01:48

Unread post10 Nov 2022, 22:21

wrightwing wrote:
allesmorobranna wrote:It is just a matter of time how the false glory of the F-15EX elliminating. This false glory was obvious since the beginning, as the F-15EX was nothing else, but an exact copy of the F-15QA from the almost done manufacturing line in St.Louis.
Boeing would not like to give up and close this line, so they just offer, what they already had in 2018. To provide the "cost effective" solution, they did not touch the design, but offered as a completely customized USAF-related brand new technology.
The "new" F110GE129 engines are 30 years old, new in the USAF inventory, but only for the Eagle community. The USAF was the first oprator of this GE129 engines in their good old F-16C block 50.
Everything around this F-15EX is about the fancy marketing bullshit. Mach 2.5 capability. Yes, it was the design limit of the Eagle back in the late 60's, early 70's, for a clean F-15A, but not available for a twin seater strike variant with CFTs and pylons, weapons, etc.
Hypersonic missile capability, Loyal Wingman capability, latest and greates mission computer, twin seater. For who? The ANG? They are still suffering the pilot shortage, while their main goal is the homeland air defence. So how relevant a hypersonic missile for them?
The USAF would like to purchased a single seater F-15CX, even this kind of modification was not so "cost effective" since McDD closed the single seater manufacturing line back in 1987. It would be good for the USAF, but not comfortable for the manufacturer.
The F-15EX story is a typical example of the post 2000 military-industrial complex attitude: the military will purchase, what the industry will offer them, the main driver is what the industrial complex could provide for the highest profit.
For example, if the USAF is looking for a drone, because it is just 5 million dollar, so it is cheaper than a 50 million jet, the industry will add the features more and more, until the price will reach the 50 million.
Nowadays, the needed capabilies is coming from what the manufacturer suggest to order, than what the military really requires.
Money talks.


Which $5 million drones have turned into $50 million?
As for the F-15EX, we can debate the merits of the USAF buying them, but the notion that an F-15CX could've been built faster and cheaper is simply ridiculous. Defense contractors aren't just building gee whiz items, with the hopes that the military buys them. We wouldn't have bought any new F-15s if that were the case.


That drone-thing was just an example, how the american military-industrial complex is doing the pricing.
The re-start of the single seater fuselage manufacturing would not be a rocket science, especially, if the former proposal in the late-80's/early 90's for the F-15F was actually a single seater version. And the func fact, it had a twin seater canopy!
Nowadays defence contractors are deeply embeded into the Pentagon by their own officiers. These officiers have their precious promises from the contractors for after the military service, so they are working for that money.

Their job is simple, generating demands, but regaring to the offers. And the cheapest offer is always what the Industry already has. But who said that it must be cheap after all? The highest profit is always between the lowest cost and the highest price.
The former world champion was the late McDonnell Douglas (which is actually still acting under the name of Boeing), but the Lockheed Martin also a good candidate for the gold medal.
This lobby system is built up for the fluently arranged demands and offers relationship.
This is how the Pentagon's demand is always what the Industry suggest to.

The Boeing would not like to close the F-15 manufactruing line after the F-15QA. So they start a heavy lobby work to save it by a fancy, but causeless domestic order. Even, if the USAF did not looking for a new 4th gen fighter. It was clear back then. While suddenly, in the Pentagon, lot of military analysists and officiers came up with the importance of the ordering of the F-15EX. That whas suspicious, how the USAF pushed the whole concept to the ANG. This shows really, how welcomed was the EX-deal really.
The one and only reasonable 4th gen remained in the USAF inventory, the F-16. The last valid F-15 order was back in 2000-2001.
The story is simple. The Super Horner is struggling, the block III is still not secured yet, in 2018, the B737MAX had several issues, the B777-9 also, there was no any further order in the horizon after the F-15QA.
The only chance to keep the Boeing Co above the surface, if they force the Pentagon to order something expensive. Anything. The EX-deal is this. Not needed, but enough expensive to save the firm in the stock exchange world.
And the rest is the marketing bullshit about the "cost-effective" solution.
Same old stories: KC-46 Pegasus, the ridicuolus CH-53K "upgrade", where a modernization program took more money than a new one, while the first prototypes had those issues, what were completly unacceptable in the modern, digitalized design environment. To save the T408 program, GE offered the unwanted 7500 HP engines to the Chinook block III program. The airframe and the drivetrain could not handle it. Don't worry! Just a quick study and the T408 become the most perfect solution to the hot&high requirements. While the dedicated ACRB program for the CH-47F block III was unable done the flight tests without crazy resonance issues. Let me ask: where was the extended flow and infinite element R&D before they realized that the actually built in blades have unacceptable resonance attitude?
What was the main driver behind the ACRB program or the T408 integration? Was the Pentagon eager to ordering these things, or just the Industry pushing the Pentagon to support these latest and greatest technologies and developments?

So the F-15EX is not based on a valid customer demand, it is a typical manufacturer pushing.
Offline

pigmode

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2015, 20:28

Unread post11 Nov 2022, 18:42

Great post and thanks for restating the core of the theory of the "military industrial complex". That is the revolving door where high ranking officers secure post retirement corporate positions, by *often* pushing the interests of the arms industry over those of the armed services of which they belong.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 9097
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Nov 2022, 08:52

China reportedly has 200 J-20's with the J-35 waiting in the wings and that doesn't even touch on their new Stealth Bomber. Yet, some still want to debate the merits of buying F-15EXs???


:doh:
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1996
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Nov 2022, 13:57

Corsair1963 wrote:China reportedly has 200 J-20's with the J-35 waiting in the wings and that doesn't even touch on their new Stealth Bomber. Yet, some still want to debate the merits of buying F-15EXs???


:doh:


Even if that isn't case, didn't Ukraine shows "value" of non stealths?

I mean if there is gram of gray matter in Russkies heads they will invest a lot in Su-75. Make it cheap it is still far better option then super Flanker.

On other hand US have lean serial production of F-35, it can if they need more performances invest in something like F-35D, but Boeing is big so we must buy F-15EX.

Btw I don't buy at all arsenal carrier thing. Look S-70 ucav for example. Something similar US could done quite fast so you have arsenal carrier. You need thing which can use AESA radar at max so F-35 don't need to endanger itself? Just put AESA radar in ucav.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1996
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post28 Nov 2022, 18:11

Su35 heavy AAMs.jpg


Another reason why F-15EX is nonsense. So Flankers (in this case Su-35 but also Su-30MKI test fired R-37) with LRAAM becoming reality and they can carry quite a number of those.

X-31 which is SEAD is heavier and draggier then R-37 and R-37 replacement is in development if earlier official info is true it is based on 9M96 SAM missile (small missile of S-400 or main S-350 missile) which is lighter and less draggy then R-37.

So even if F-15EX get LRAAMs it will not have noticeable advantage over Flanker with air launched 9M86, on other hand F-15EX from what I know don't have any RCS treatment, Su-35 is mentioned do have RAM and in future will have engine with integrated radar blocker.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5605
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post28 Nov 2022, 19:44

The F-15EX does have a massively capable EW suite though. The F-35 is often thought of as being 80% of the capability of a Growler. The EPAAWS is the same LRUs as the Barracuda but without the larger antennas integrated into the F-35 body. So think of it as 5th gen signals processing with 4th gen emitters (granted EPAAWS does seem to have more emitters than DEWS).
"Spurts"

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

disconnectedradical

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1292
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post28 Nov 2022, 21:30

The thing is USAF is not even procuring F-35s as much as Lockheed Martin can produce, only ordered 40 this year when up to 60 just for USAF can be supported by the manufacturing. They’re doing this because they want to wait for Block 4, but frankly even a Block 3 F-35 is better than an F-15EX, and the yearly buy rate of the F-35EX is about the same as the additional F-35 airframes that Lockheed Martin can produce right now.

About the vaunted Su-35 and MiG-31 with the R-37 missile, frankly the F-35 and F-22 internal bays can hold a similar 1,000 lb class missile, or even a 700 lb missile like an ESSM. This can easily make mincemeat of Su-35s. And an F-22 with an air-launched ESSM or the AMRAAM-AXE would completely overmatch the MiG-31.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1880
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post29 Nov 2022, 00:10

milosh wrote:
Su35 heavy AAMs.jpg


Another reason why F-15EX is nonsense. So Flankers (in this case Su-35 but also Su-30MKI test fired R-37) with LRAAM becoming reality and they can carry quite a number of those.

X-31 which is SEAD is heavier and draggier then R-37 and R-37 replacement is in development if earlier official info is true it is based on 9M96 SAM missile (small missile of S-400 or main S-350 missile) which is lighter and less draggy then R-37.

So even if F-15EX get LRAAMs it will not have noticeable advantage over Flanker with air launched 9M86, on other hand F-15EX from what I know don't have any RCS treatment, Su-35 is mentioned do have RAM and in future will have engine with integrated radar blocker.


F-15EX can already carry an impressive complement of air-to-air missiles. Did you miss this fun little picture?
Image

Just last year the USAF recorded it longest air-to-air hit with an F-15C firing an AMRAAM.
https://theaviationist.com/2021/04/14/u ... sile-shot/

Mind you the F-15EX will be carrying the AMRAAM and will most likely get its successor/replacement, the AIM-260 which is supposed to have more reach than the latest AIM-120.

Unfortunately the F-15EX doesnt have any radar reducing methods that Boeing or the USAF mentioned. However its EPAWSS makes this Eagle more survivable than it's predecessors. When the EX was tested during exercise Northern Edge in Alaska and Black Flag in Nevada, the EPAWSS showed very promising results especially when integrating with other platforms in a larger force package.
Besides how much smaller can a Flanker's RCS really get with just a few RAM treatments. Its not like Hornet to Super Hornet where you can see some noticable changes to reduce its radar signature. Yeah I have been hearing about Flankers with radar blockers for some time now... how much longer before it becomes a reality? The combat performance of the Su-35 over Ukraine hasn't been all that impressive as of late.

keep trying.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 9097
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Nov 2022, 00:26

I doubt we would ever see a western fighter with 12+ air to air missiles under actual combat conditions.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1292
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post29 Nov 2022, 08:29

Corsair1963 wrote:I doubt we would ever see a western fighter with 12+ air to air missiles under actual combat conditions.


Based on what? I’m not supporting the F-15EX, but it can easily carry 12 missiles because of the two additional wing pylons that use the same launchers and adapters. So it’s not some exotic rack that hasn’t been tested yet.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 9097
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Nov 2022, 09:59

disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I doubt we would ever see a western fighter with 12+ air to air missiles under actual combat conditions.


Based on what? I’m not supporting the F-15EX, but it can easily carry 12 missiles because of the two additional wing pylons that use the same launchers and adapters. So it’s not some exotic rack that hasn’t been tested yet.



Based on the fact that carrying such a large number of missiles would completely exhaust your weapon stocks in no time at all! If, heard comments from actual combat pilots. That laugh at the mere suggestion of carrying such large weapon loads in the real world....


I believe Billie Flynn was one of them.....(if memory serves me) :|
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3621
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post29 Nov 2022, 13:36

I'm sure the rack will be modular and not limited to AIM-120. There is no point in that. Would be more useful for other weapons, especially in bomb truck mode.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1880
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post30 Nov 2022, 08:04

Corsair1963 wrote:
Based on the fact that carrying such a large number of missiles would completely exhaust your weapon stocks in no time at all! If, heard comments from actual combat pilots. That laugh at the mere suggestion of carrying such large weapon loads in the real world....


I believe Billie Flynn was one of them.....(if memory serves me) :|


I have also heard other combat pilots say that they wish they had more arrows to sling... so who is right? :shrug:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2676
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Nov 2022, 17:53

Not sure if this has been discussed, but will the F-15EX, which will be assigned to dedicated air superiority squadrons, be carrying the same CFTs as the F-15E.
From the photos that we have, it looks like it will be, so we can expect the same levels of performance with regular F-15Es
(not great)


The Strike Eagle, by contrast, is lucky to get any noticeable G at all, even momentarily. If you look back at the picture, you’ll notice the conformal fuel tanks. Trying to maneuver with those on is like trying to run in ski boots. For long air to ground missions they’re nice. For high G fighting they’re crippling.

‘This is borne out nicely, because we often support both the F-15E and F-22 basic courses, and a popular way we support them is being the bad guy for ACM (2v1) fighting. There are two of them vs one of us, but in exchange we usually get to start behind them, so they have a problem to solve.



‘When fighting the Raptors, it’s usually everything I can do to stay alive. I use full afterburner, I’m on the limiter, it’s exhausting, and they still usually get me. If nothing else they can drive me to the floor and just win by physics. Especially if I’m fighting the instructor pilot it’s a matter of time. The Strike Eagle, by contrast, is very easy to fight. When we fight them, we don’t use afterburner at all and it’s still trivial. If I wanted to, I could win every 2v1 in a matter of seconds because their jet just can’t point at me. I get to start behind them and they have no way to get me away from there.

‘When we coordinate the day before the Raptor instructors usually say something along the lines of “Do whatever you want. I’d like to see your best shot and we’ll figure it out.” The Strike Eagle instructors usually say “please don’t use AB, and line up behind me but switch to the student so I can see what he does, and if you end up 1 circle with me just stay neutral so I can see what he does, and don’t call kills, and if you get in a developed fight with the student just let him eventually get to your control zone so we don’t waste gas, and, and, and, ….”’

-Rick Scheff (F-16 aggressor pilot)

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-f- ... NfkOC_LbxQ

Offline

pigmode

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2015, 20:28

Unread post30 Nov 2022, 18:07

[quote="zero-one"]Not sure if this has been discussed, but will the F-15EX, which will be assigned to dedicated air superiority squadrons, be carrying the same CFTs as the F-15E.
From the photos that we have, it looks like it will be, so we can expect the same levels of performance with regular F-15Es
[quote/]

I thought probably not in the first 2-3 weeks in the SCS. There probably missile truck duty and/or KC46/P8A escort.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: basher54321 and 26 guests