F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Let's not pretend the F-15 is the consolation prize for the F-35.

Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary...

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.

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....

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..

still like to see the F-35A fly 1000nm combat radius unrefuelled but since when facts matter?

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).

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.

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

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?

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...

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.

All newbuild F-15s since 15K has been GE-129s. ADVENT is also retrofit-table to legacy engines...

still like to see the F-35A fly 1000nm combat radius unrefuelled but since when facts matter?

Source and with what payload???

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.