F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Agreed but I see it more as a F-15C vs F-16C/D rather than vs F-35. The F-35A buys are accelerating so the all legacy sqns will be earmarked for replacement. Its just a question of which goes first. Some people might call it a happy choice having to choose between an F-16C/D or an F-15C on which gets moved first since whichever remains is still a fantastic aircraft.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C. The alternative is using the F-35A in the A2A role. I don't see a right or wrong answer here.

I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.

F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.

Noted. That's why the SLEP starts with F-16.

I'm keeping an open mind but I haven't seen any hard data that supports a different conclusion.

Sorry, that your online sources aren't supported by people that have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A. Yet, what do they know.......

USAF, LM and Boeing doesn't have direct knowledge and actual experience with the F-15C/E and F-35A? Shocking is indeed the word.

The argument for keeping the C is that the -16, which a good multi-fighter would still lack against the capabilities offered by the APG-82s and all the other bells and whistles of the F-15C.

I forgot to address that bit.

That would have been valid logic 2-years ago, but the upgrade of data comms and IRSTs on legacy fleet, and the provision of a massive gusher of situational awareness, makes this not a prohibitive concern. The F-16C/D likewise just got a whole lot more deadly in A2A, so are probably sufficient for the support escort role until more F-35A are built.

I don't see a right or wrong answer here.

I do. The F-16C/D will become second-tier ground attacker and perhaps escort/cover for support aircraft, which slows and complicates for an opponent until F-22A gets there.

One other point here, the cost to operate per hour with a single light-fighter (with bonus A2G) as opposed to a twin heavy-fighter, where more fuel = more dollars spent, and more fuel to do less is not conserving resources efficiently to smooth the transition towards an F-35A force, sooner.

Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...

Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...

Come on, you know why that happens.

Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...

Come on, you know why that happens.

Of course he does but it never stops him..........

Someone should also tell the navy since they keep buying rhinos...

Come on, you know why that happens.

Of course he does but it never stops him..........

Seriously, how is that not "time wasted?"

Just thinking out loud here. If some posters are right that the F-35A's real combat radius is 1000 or 1500nm, then what would be the real combat radius of the F-35B and F-35C? 1000nm and 1650nm?

So what are those senators on the hill complaining of the lack of combat radius on the navy F-35s? They should listen to the USAF pilots.

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?

"turning into unstable airframe" and getting any reasonable benefit from that would mean moving the wings forward, or somehow moving the center of gravity backwards. I don't think there is any reasonable possibility for that with any reasonable cost in F-15, too much structure would have to be changed.

Though AFAIK F-16 was designed in a way that there were two different positions to attach the wings, forward (unstable) position, and a "stable backup position" slightly behind it.
If they would not have gotten the FBW system to work well enough , they could have easily converted it into a stable plane with less performance by moving the wing to the stable backup position.

I too, am interested in F-15X motors.

The 229 would seem the logical choice. Already in the inventory, powerful and efficient. But what of the new, more powerful GE motors in the Saudi F-15SA? If memory serves, the 229 delivers around 25,000lbs of thrust, and the newer GE motors around the 30,000lb mark.

Or is thrust less of an issue in the F-15X than it is in the SA, given the SA has a decided Strike Eagle flavor to it. The X seems to be a purely air to air machine, and as such won't weigh nearly as much as an SA?

Just thinking out loud here. If some posters are right that the F-35A's real combat radius is 1000 or 1500nm, then what would be the real combat radius of the F-35B and F-35C? 1000nm and 1650nm?

So what are those senators on the hill complaining of the lack of combat radius on the navy F-35s? They should listen to the USAF pilots.

Nobody is suggesting that the "real" combat radius of the F-35 is 1,000 to 1,500nm. The combat radius isn't the ferry range divided in half. Nobody is claiming a 3,000nm ferry range, either. 900 miles is 782nm, and no plane flies till it's empty, so part of the the fuel is unusable, in the range calculation.

I too, am interested in F-15X motors.

The 229 would seem the logical choice. Already in the inventory, powerful and efficient. But what of the new, more powerful GE motors in the Saudi F-15SA? If memory serves, the 229 delivers around 25,000lbs of thrust, and the newer GE motors around the 30,000lb mark.

Or is thrust less of an issue in the F-15X than it is in the SA, given the SA has a decided Strike Eagle flavor to it. The X seems to be a purely air to air machine, and as such won't weigh nearly as much as an SA?

The -229s are 29k motors.

I wonder if the 12 plane order could be used as aggressor aircraft. Given how far behind Russia is, they'd be perfect for imitating SU-35, and future SU-35+. Same size, same radar return'ish, really long airframe life, provides better than adversary radar and jamming so can train harder than real fight, etc. Sorta complete overkill for that role though, be cheaper to just rehab existing F-15C.

F-22A and F-35A/B/C are the real deal from here and F-35 can provide data to make the F-16C/D and the F-15E actually useful sooner in a fight to use the legacy A2G, but they can't make the F-15C very useful in A2A, except in a lower threat situation, which the F-15C is still more or less not needed for anyway ... if the F-35A/B/C and F-22A are around.

So the F-16C/D is clearly a more desirable choice to keep longer, and according to guys like Gums they don't lack for range when loaded.

I appreciate your points Weasel, but I think you have this wrong when it comes to the in-practice implications.

Disagree. F-22/F-35 could be forward controllers vectoring in F-15 missile trucks which would be radar silent either outside of an enemy's radar cone detection or inside that cone but protected by the stealth aircraft's EW jamming. The stealth aircraft then passes target tracks through Link 16 for the radar silent F-15 to shoot their missiles to. The advantage of the F-15 over the F-16 in this scenario is twice the missiles and twice the endurance as well as superior high altitude performance which increases missile range.