F-16.net

wrightwing wrote:The F-15EX was designed to counter an old fleet, that's not being recapitalized fast enough, while bringing capabilities that may not be easy (or desirable) to add on to F-22/35s. Nothing more, nothing less.

I do kinda buy the argument that the quickest way to recap the F-15C fleet is with new buys.
But it's still guesswork between delivery, re-training and standup.

The argument against a Super Hornet SLM approach was time esp. that like the SH SLM, there would be discoveries
during the tear down process that would make the turnaround times difficult to predict.

So the main argument for new buys is that the timelines have better bounds and there was the (IMHO ill-advised*)
especially under the Mattis-era readiness directives that imposed additional time pressure.

* Was looking back on some of the GAO work on mission capable rates: there seems to be a cyclical panic about readiness
every other decade so something like FMC rates/goals only became a DOD directive in 1990.
Even then, ACC didn't have set goals as late as 2002.

wrightwing wrote:Every US aircraft that currently carries AIM-120s, will receive AIM-260s once they're fielded. The AIM-120 is going to go out of production, and be replaced, so you'll absolutely see F-15s (and F-16s) carrying AIM-260s as well as Peregrine/CUDA once those enter service.

I didn't say otherwise. The point is that if the F-15EX buy were driven by CONOPS that was premised on
deep-magazine + advanced AAMs you'd see different investments and timelines.

marauder2048 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:Every US aircraft that currently carries AIM-120s, will receive AIM-260s once they're fielded. The AIM-120 is going to go out of production, and be replaced, so you'll absolutely see F-15s (and F-16s) carrying AIM-260s as well as Peregrine/CUDA once those enter service.

I didn't say otherwise. The point is that if the F-15EX buy were driven by CONOPS that was premised on
deep-magazine + advanced AAMs you'd see different investments and timelines.

Even without quad packs, the EX can still carry a large load out, with the extra wing stations. You're correct that it's not the 22 AAM load out, though.

marauder2048 wrote:There's no POR for hypersonics so quantities are completely up in the air beyond the small number of rapidly fielded
ARRWs which will go to the bombers.

HCSW ("Hacksaw") was cancelled in favor of AARW specifically because the latter could be carried by the F-15.

sferrin wrote:

marauder2048 wrote:There's no POR for hypersonics so quantities are completely up in the air beyond the small number of rapidly fielded
ARRWs which will go to the bombers.

HCSW ("Hacksaw") was cancelled in favor of AARW specifically because the latter could be carried by the F-15.

It was cancelled because they could carry more ARRWs on the bombers which was the threshold req.
This would also distinguish the Air Force effort from the Army and Navy efforts: higher loadout.

It might be capable of carriage on the F-15EX if there's no mass growth which is a nice objective req but
nothing more

mixelflick wrote:So the original F-15 was designed to counter the Foxbat. What specific threat is the F-15EX being designed to counter? To defeat upgraded SU-27/30/35's on some future battlefield? Or alternatively, counter Chinese Flankers and J-10's? It must be as a carrier of large, hypersonic weapons with extreme range. Coupled with its radar, it's the only thing that makes sense to me? It sounds like someone wasn't comfortable with the number of long range A2A weapons carried by the F-22/F-35, and here's your speedy (if non-stealthy), high persistence missile truck (with ginormous AESA)?

Do you suppose F-35A inner pylons couldn't do same? What does a 'ginormous' AESA matter to a VLO flight of 4 x F-35, sharing a data picture of hundreds of AESA and everything else also? IMO, F-15EX is just a stop-gap capability to supply a larger number of fighters sooner which don't need to be the full 5th-gen enchilada to achieve results. This was the original logic (but with a lot of added noise about A2A missile trucks ... which never made any sense to me).

marauder2048 wrote:

sferrin wrote:

marauder2048 wrote:There's no POR for hypersonics so quantities are completely up in the air beyond the small number of rapidly fielded
ARRWs which will go to the bombers.

HCSW ("Hacksaw") was cancelled in favor of AARW specifically because the latter could be carried by the F-15.

It was cancelled because they could carry more ARRWs on the bombers which was the threshold req.
This would also distinguish the Air Force effort from the Army and Navy efforts: higher loadout.

That was one reason. The other was because ARRW could be carried by the F-15 according to Roper. As for weight, 1. we don't know what the ARRWs weight is, 2. Weight growth is a red-herring. If they say, "you can be no heavier than X else we can't carry it" then you either make weight or don't sell any weapons. Munitions aren't like airplanes.

sferrin wrote:
That was one reason. The other was because ARRW could be carried by the F-15 according to Roper. As for weight, 1. we don't know what the ARRWs weight is, 2. Weight growth is a red-herring. If they say, "you can be no heavier than X else we can't carry it" then you either make weight or don't sell any weapons. Munitions aren't like airplanes.

Roper did say:

It’s possible it could go on the F-15, if we don’t experience mass growth, but we haven’t validated that yet.

Given that the potential max loadout on the B-1 is 30 it's going to take practically the entire projected F-15EX
buy to match a handful of B-1s.

If there are mods for bomber suitability or performance or whatever that increase ARRW's mass or
other properties beyond the ability of the F-15EX to carry then it's *very* clear which tradeoff should be made.

marauder2048 wrote:

sferrin wrote:
That was one reason. The other was because ARRW could be carried by the F-15 according to Roper. As for weight, 1. we don't know what the ARRWs weight is, 2. Weight growth is a red-herring. If they say, "you can be no heavier than X else we can't carry it" then you either make weight or don't sell any weapons. Munitions aren't like airplanes.

Roper did say:

It’s possible it could go on the F-15, if we don’t experience mass growth, but we haven’t validated that yet.

Given that the potential max loadout on the B-1 is 30 it's going to take practically the entire projected F-15EX
buy to match a handful of B-1s.

If there are mods for bomber suitability or performance or whatever that increase ARRW's mass or
other properties beyond the ability of the F-15EX to carry then it's *very* clear which tradeoff should be made.

The B-1B loadout is 6. Carried externally.

""My goal would be to bring on at least a squadron’s worth of airplanes modified with external pylons on the B-1, to carry the ARRW [Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon] hypersonic cruise missile," General Ray told Air Force Magazine. He added that the service had contemplated several options for integrating the AGM-183A onto the bombers, "but we believe the easiest, fastest, and probably most effective in the short term will be to go with the external pylons.""




"The service is already in the process of experimenting with external B-1B carriage options. In August 2019, AFGSC and the 412th Test Wing showcased both long bay and external carriage options that would allow the Lancer to haul " larger, heavier munitions, such as hypersonic weapons," according to a release from Edwards Air Force Base in California.

"Currently we can carry 24 weapons internally, now it can be increased to potentially 40 based on what type of pylon we would create,” AFGSC B-1B program monitor Lt. Col. Dominic Ross said in the release. “This gets the B-1 into the larger weapons, the 5,000 pounders. It gets it into the hypersonics game as well.” (I think this paragraph is a bit misleading. They can currently carry 24 JASSM/SRAM sized weapons. Not the much larger, heavier ARRW.)

The goal of the Lancer upgrade, Ray reportedly said during a phone call hosted by the Defense Writers Group following his conversation with Air Force magazine, is to enable the B-1B to carry at least six ARRW hypersonic missiles while leaving the aircraft's bomb bay open to haul conventional missiles like the Joint Air to Surface Stand-Off Missiles-Extended Range (JASSM-ER), as well as the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)."

The B-1B loadout is 6. Carried externally.

That's with no bomb bay modifications. 31 was the total number of some hypersonic weapon (possibly HAWC).
But it doesn't alter the fundamental point. Even if they only carry say four internally that's still 10 weapons
per bomber. They are converting at least one squadron (18 aircraft). That's 180 weapons.

The F-15EX makes absolutely no sense as a carrier relative to one B-1 squadron. Even if it's strictly six weapons
per bomber that's still the equivalent of 108 F-15EXs; you won't see numbers like that in the inventory for about
10 years.

A lot of jibber jabber in this thread. Im stickin' with Eagles.

jetblast16 wrote:A lot of jibber jabber in this thread. Im stickin' with Eagles.

Crazy Beagle demo, most aggressive I've seen. I'm not sure if it's just the way he's flying it, different (more liberal) rules at MAKS or something else...but he absolutely tore it up.

If we're getting performance like that now, I can only imagine what the full up EX will look like.

element1loop wrote:

mixelflick wrote:So the original F-15 was designed to counter the Foxbat. What specific threat is the F-15EX being designed to counter? To defeat upgraded SU-27/30/35's on some future battlefield? Or alternatively, counter Chinese Flankers and J-10's? It must be as a carrier of large, hypersonic weapons with extreme range. Coupled with its radar, it's the only thing that makes sense to me? It sounds like someone wasn't comfortable with the number of long range A2A weapons carried by the F-22/F-35, and here's your speedy (if non-stealthy), high persistence missile truck (with ginormous AESA)?

Do you suppose F-35A inner pylons couldn't do same? What does a 'ginormous' AESA matter to a VLO flight of 4 x F-35, sharing a data picture of hundreds of AESA and everything else also? IMO, F-15EX is just a stop-gap capability to supply a larger number of fighters sooner which don't need to be the full 5th-gen enchilada to achieve results. This was the original logic (but with a lot of added noise about A2A missile trucks ... which never made any sense to me).

F15EX is a Stop-Gap to...stop Boeing(military) going bankrupt ?

This Air Force Magazine article is fairly speculative but one future option to replace the F-15Es is to buy more F-15EXs. Up until now, I believe upgrading the F-15Es was the only option on the table.

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-15ex-coul ... usaf-says/

talkitron wrote:This Air Fore Magazine article is fairly speculative but one future option to replace the F-15Es is to buy more F-15EXs. Up until now, I believe upgrading the F-15Es was the only option on the table.

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-15ex-coul ... usaf-says/

That would be a huge mistake to replace the E fleet with EXs. The USAF would be far better off with 400 more F-35s vs 400 F-15EXs.