F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

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 by that time most F-16s and F-15 will have been retired and withdrawn from front line service .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

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 by that time most F-16s and F-15 will have been retired and withdrawn from front line service .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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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...

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.

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.

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".

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...

LOL