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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7258
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 06:24

wrightwing wrote:Well they do take clean jets up to M2.5 on check flights, so it's not an entirely implausible statement.



No they don't.......... :?


Hell, a Mach 2 Test Flight would be nothing short of extremely rare! Honestly, I don't know if the developmental versions of the F-15C/E. Were tested out of Mach 2.5
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7258
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 06:36

QUOTE:


Elite 2K

Posts: 2322
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 16:03
Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Post16 Jan 2010 05:14

mustang65 wrote:
It seems really silly that it is only limited to a minute above Mach 2.3 when it was designed for Mach 2.5



It was done to fill a contractual obligation. Plain and simple.

Part of the USAF contract said, the FX (Now F-15) WILL achieve MACH 2.5

The contract didn't say how long, or by what means.

During testing (With V-MAX) engaged the YF-15s with their YF100 engines did reach MACH 2.5; which enabled McD to get the contract but....

When USAF test pilots started to 'test' the EAGLE at MACH 2.5, and maintenance was performed after MACH 2.5 runs were 'tested' it was found to be really REALLY bad for the airframe/engines.

When you find bad things during testing, IE engine damage, melted parts, cracked parts, sheet-metal begin pulled from rivets, missing hardware, etc... you impose limits. That is what testing is for.

Example; my car has an engine that is capable of pushing it well over 100MPH, the speedometer says so, and so does Car & Driver Magazine. I know it, the OEM knows it, and C&D has reported it, but; The owners manual (IE - flight manual) specifically states, operating the car beyond legal limits may be dangerous, and that racing the car on a track is hard on the engine/drivetrain and voids the warranty. I've even driven it at 100MPH but only for a few seconds. (In a straight, well secluded stretch of back-road.) I can tell everyone I have a 100MPH car. Sure I can make it go faster/longer if I put more $$ into it with a turbo, new computer, tires, brakes, cool steering wheel, etc... but why? It's already a 100MPH car. It's not feasible or needed for every day use as my daily driver.

What you're talking about with MACH 2.5 and the F-15, is like the upper/right .1% of the flight envelope that will only be used .00001% of any Eagle's usable life-span on average. It was only put there to make a point. "We have a super-fighter that can, if we want it too, fly at MACH 2.5"

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=13446&start=90

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7258
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 06:41

QUOTE:

IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2.5+ interceptor it had it. the F-12B was just that. (canceled due to expence)
IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2+ bomber, it had that too (4 times), the B-70 (canceled and left to the XB-70), the B-58 (in service 9 years), the B-1A (canceled and made slower/stealthier in the B-1B), and the F-111 (Retired in 1993)

You may have not noticed, but newer aircraft (with modern, more efficient, higher thrust engines) are getting SLOWER; why? it's cheaper in the long run. Less fuel burnt, longer duration/distance flight, easier on the aircraft and it's systems.

It's not a matter of what the windscreen is made of, or what alloy or composites the wings are made of; it's the OVERALL design, form, fit and function of the aircraft.

Thing is this; no jet can outrun a modern AIM. "Top-Speed" just isn't what it was in the 50s and 60s. Some modern jets can't even make MACH 2 without peeling off their expensive coatings, or damaging sensors/stores.

We've already stated an F-15 COULD do a few minutes at MACH 2.5 when it was new (or young). They HAD to do MACH 2.5 to reach the contract requirements for the USAF. Is it good for them? No. Is it done often? No. Is it applicable in combat? Hardly. I too have read the flight manual and it clearly states "1 minute transient" between MACH 2.3 and 2.5. This too may have changed since the 2 November 2007 'in-flight breakup' of an F-15C of the MO ANG. (which was G-related not speed, but still indicates the 'strength' of the aging airframes)

If you owned your own F-15 and wanted to fly it to MACh 2.5 for 5 minutes; no problem; 10 minutes? Give it a try. If you have the fuel the motors will provide the power. You're the one taking the risk and paying the maintenance costs to fix it. If you and the Eagle survive.

TEG

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=13446&start=120
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 781
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 15:09

YAWN.. Lol.

No offense or is it, offence? I'll listen to the experts who actually design, build, maintain, and fly the jet, some of whom have actually flown the F-22.

You missed the point...entirely. They took a new jet on its maiden with heavy and somewhat draggy conformal fuel tanks and reached Mach 2. They also shut both engines down and restarted them a couple of times...in flight.

The idea that the F-15(E)(X) is somehow incapable of providing modern battlespace effects, is nonsense. If that were the case, the USAF would be retiring their F-15Es...their F-16s...
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3724
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 16:10

Corsair1963 wrote:QUOTE:

IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2.5+ interceptor it had it. the F-12B was just that. (canceled due to expence)
IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2+ bomber, it had that too (4 times), the B-70 (canceled and left to the XB-70), the B-58 (in service 9 years), the B-1A (canceled and made slower/stealthier in the B-1B), and the F-111 (Retired in 1993)

You may have not noticed, but newer aircraft (with modern, more efficient, higher thrust engines) are getting SLOWER; why? it's cheaper in the long run. Less fuel burnt, longer duration/distance flight, easier on the aircraft and it's systems.

It's not a matter of what the windscreen is made of, or what alloy or composites the wings are made of; it's the OVERALL design, form, fit and function of the aircraft.

Thing is this; no jet can outrun a modern AIM. "Top-Speed" just isn't what it was in the 50s and 60s. Some modern jets can't even make MACH 2 without peeling off their expensive coatings, or damaging sensors/stores.

We've already stated an F-15 COULD do a few minutes at MACH 2.5 when it was new (or young). They HAD to do MACH 2.5 to reach the contract requirements for the USAF. Is it good for them? No. Is it done often? No. Is it applicable in combat? Hardly. I too have read the flight manual and it clearly states "1 minute transient" between MACH 2.3 and 2.5. This too may have changed since the 2 November 2007 'in-flight breakup' of an F-15C of the MO ANG. (which was G-related not speed, but still indicates the 'strength' of the aging airframes)

If you owned your own F-15 and wanted to fly it to MACh 2.5 for 5 minutes; no problem; 10 minutes? Give it a try. If you have the fuel the motors will provide the power. You're the one taking the risk and paying the maintenance costs to fix it. If you and the Eagle survive.

TEG

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=13446&start=120

You do realize that there's a pretty big difference between an F-15A ( or a 35 year old F-15C) powered by F-100-100/200/220, and a brand new model with considerably stronger structures and GE F-110-129s, right. Nobody's suggesting that M2.5 (or M2) is operationally relevant.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2233
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 17:16

Some interesting details can be found in the first photos of the F-15EX, which are useful also for a comparison with the F-15C that will be replaced by the new fighter.
The first F-15EX built for the U.S. Air Force took to the skies for its maiden flight on Feb. 2, 2021. The aircraft flew only with its primer paint and a small serial number (20-0001) on its twin tails, a common practice for the first flight of any newly built aircraft that leaves the production line. It will receive its final colors and insignias at a later stage, after completing functional checks and certifying the airworthiness.

https://theaviationist.com/2021/02/10/h ... st-flight/

When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2233
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 17:37

jetblast16 wrote:The idea that the F-15(E)(X) is somehow incapable of providing modern battlespace effects, is nonsense. If that were the case, the USAF would be retiring their F-15Es...their F-16s...





For fans of nostalgia and F-15 fans this is no doubt a great laugh but the politics behind this were iffy to say the least and also public ally the USAF certainly never wanted these. Plenty might have been perturbed if the USAF was buying brand new F-4s in the 1990s for example for air superiority!

Former USAF secretary Heather Wilson put out a statement saying the USAF would never buy 4 Gen aircraft. Now typically your only job in that position is to look good not release something that makes them look stupid a few months later when a politician overrides them.

Acting Defense Secretary at the time and former Boeing exec Patrick Shanahan got these into production and was later investigated after a complaint. He was also reportedly later let go with the same excuse all fired Execs leave with - something like "personal family issues". :D

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/03/un ... b-on-hold/


It is difficult to get excited about this F-15QA with a few mods - are we certian an F-15C with CFTs couldn't check flight to Mach 2 like thirty years ago??
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7258
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 03:28

wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:QUOTE:

IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2.5+ interceptor it had it. the F-12B was just that. (canceled due to expence)
IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2+ bomber, it had that too (4 times), the B-70 (canceled and left to the XB-70), the B-58 (in service 9 years), the B-1A (canceled and made slower/stealthier in the B-1B), and the F-111 (Retired in 1993)

You may have not noticed, but newer aircraft (with modern, more efficient, higher thrust engines) are getting SLOWER; why? it's cheaper in the long run. Less fuel burnt, longer duration/distance flight, easier on the aircraft and it's systems.

It's not a matter of what the windscreen is made of, or what alloy or composites the wings are made of; it's the OVERALL design, form, fit and function of the aircraft.

Thing is this; no jet can outrun a modern AIM. "Top-Speed" just isn't what it was in the 50s and 60s. Some modern jets can't even make MACH 2 without peeling off their expensive coatings, or damaging sensors/stores.

We've already stated an F-15 COULD do a few minutes at MACH 2.5 when it was new (or young). They HAD to do MACH 2.5 to reach the contract requirements for the USAF. Is it good for them? No. Is it done often? No. Is it applicable in combat? Hardly. I too have read the flight manual and it clearly states "1 minute transient" between MACH 2.3 and 2.5. This too may have changed since the 2 November 2007 'in-flight breakup' of an F-15C of the MO ANG. (which was G-related not speed, but still indicates the 'strength' of the aging airframes)

If you owned your own F-15 and wanted to fly it to MACh 2.5 for 5 minutes; no problem; 10 minutes? Give it a try. If you have the fuel the motors will provide the power. You're the one taking the risk and paying the maintenance costs to fix it. If you and the Eagle survive.

TEG

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=13446&start=120

You do realize that there's a pretty big difference between an F-15A ( or a 35 year old F-15C) powered by F-100-100/200/220, and a brand new model with considerably stronger structures and GE F-110-129s, right. Nobody's suggesting that M2.5 (or M2) is operationally relevant.


All of that "extra" power has virtually no impact on top speed.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 14:16

Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:QUOTE:

IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2.5+ interceptor it had it. the F-12B was just that. (canceled due to expence)
IF the USAF wanted a MACH 2+ bomber, it had that too (4 times), the B-70 (canceled and left to the XB-70), the B-58 (in service 9 years), the B-1A (canceled and made slower/stealthier in the B-1B), and the F-111 (Retired in 1993)

You may have not noticed, but newer aircraft (with modern, more efficient, higher thrust engines) are getting SLOWER; why? it's cheaper in the long run. Less fuel burnt, longer duration/distance flight, easier on the aircraft and it's systems.

It's not a matter of what the windscreen is made of, or what alloy or composites the wings are made of; it's the OVERALL design, form, fit and function of the aircraft.

Thing is this; no jet can outrun a modern AIM. "Top-Speed" just isn't what it was in the 50s and 60s. Some modern jets can't even make MACH 2 without peeling off their expensive coatings, or damaging sensors/stores.

We've already stated an F-15 COULD do a few minutes at MACH 2.5 when it was new (or young). They HAD to do MACH 2.5 to reach the contract requirements for the USAF. Is it good for them? No. Is it done often? No. Is it applicable in combat? Hardly. I too have read the flight manual and it clearly states "1 minute transient" between MACH 2.3 and 2.5. This too may have changed since the 2 November 2007 'in-flight breakup' of an F-15C of the MO ANG. (which was G-related not speed, but still indicates the 'strength' of the aging airframes)

If you owned your own F-15 and wanted to fly it to MACh 2.5 for 5 minutes; no problem; 10 minutes? Give it a try. If you have the fuel the motors will provide the power. You're the one taking the risk and paying the maintenance costs to fix it. If you and the Eagle survive.

TEG

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=13446&start=120

You do realize that there's a pretty big difference between an F-15A ( or a 35 year old F-15C) powered by F-100-100/200/220, and a brand new model with considerably stronger structures and GE F-110-129s, right. Nobody's suggesting that M2.5 (or M2) is operationally relevant.


All of that "extra" power has virtually no impact on top speed.


Yeah it does. It means the engines don't have to work as hard to get there. It means you get there quicker.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3724
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 17:50

sferrin wrote:


Yeah it does. It means the engines don't have to work as hard to get there. It means you get there quicker.

And the stronger airframes/wings address the concerns the older aircraft had (and flight restrictions they have.)
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4333
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Feb 2021, 15:59

Could someone please define, "produces battlefield effects that are equal or better than what an LO platform can do, that’s based on power, size, payload, and capacity.” "Produces Battlefield Effects" is pretty broad, LOL.

Seems he/Boeing chose his words very carefully there.
Offline

Fox1

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16

Unread post12 Feb 2021, 21:41

mixelflick wrote:Could someone please define, "produces battlefield effects that are equal or better than what an LO platform can do, that’s based on power, size, payload, and capacity.” "Produces Battlefield Effects" is pretty broad, LOL.

Seems he/Boeing chose his words very carefully there.


I would assume he's referring to a variety of the F-15EX's strengths...powerful radar, huge payload and good range, as well as the ability to carry pretty much every weapon in the inventory.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post13 Feb 2021, 02:13

The terms arose out of EBO or effects based operations. I understand EBO itself was created in 1991 by Lt Gen Deptula as a new concept of air planning as used in Desert Storm. The effects (of EBO) on a battlespace would thus define battlespace effect. It is a pretty broad term.

If one considers that a F-35's networking and situation awareness is supposedly next gen, that alone would make it difficult to surpass. However there are too many other variables, e.g. squadron availability, pilot training, combat range, tanker reliance/availability etc that would not be easily calculated. In some cases, it could depend on the battlespace itself. There could be some battlespace that might lend to F-15's technical advantages but I wouldn't assume all. To be fair, don't think Boeing has suggested this.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Feb 2021, 02:27

Could someone please define, "produces battlefield effects that are equal or better than what an LO platform can do, that’s based on power, size, payload, and capacity.” "Produces Battlefield Effects" is pretty broad


Define the enemy and the geography of that battle too.

We have been through the range and weapon load options/details of F-35A enough to know that claim is obvious BS.

F-15(E)X was proposed because the USAF needed more fighters, sooner, than more F-35A could be produced. That's it. And only 144 of them thus far. It was also stated the number of F-35 production number, funding and USAF commitment would not be affected by the F-15'X', that these were extra fighters, and was no reflection on the F-35A's capability ... words to that effect were the justification for it.

So it can not replace F-35A, as the high-end strikefighter of the 2030's. That is a total fantasy and spin, however, it can produce strong strike effects on Day-2, and possibly even for part of Day-1, with the right mix of weapons, tactics and planning. And thereafter it would be quite effective and still survive (same as what is expected of F-16 and Euro-canards, nothing new there), with 5th gen protection and system-of-systems supports and superior SA and EW.

If that makes the USAF and the alliance fight so much stronger, good, no problem with that.

But this absolute cr_p that it's equal to or better than a LO platform like F-22A or F-35A, is as annoying (and pathetic) as it is deceitful and obviously not true.

But that does not mean F-15EX can't be very deadly and effective in an increasingly 5th-gen dominated force. Superhornet will be too, and so will a much more capable F-15EX. It's a valid combat capability and a real part of deterrence for decades to come. But the people making those statements need to ease up on their Olympic-level, "Go-for-Gold" hand-waving effort.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7258
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 00:59

element1loop wrote:
Could someone please define, "produces battlefield effects that are equal or better than what an LO platform can do, that’s based on power, size, payload, and capacity.” "Produces Battlefield Effects" is pretty broad


Define the enemy and the geography of that battle too.

We have been through the range and weapon load options/details of F-35A enough to know that claim is obvious BS.

F-15(E)X was proposed because the USAF needed more fighters, sooner, than more F-35A could be produced. That's it. And only 144 of them thus far. It was also stated the number of F-35 production number, funding and USAF commitment would not be affected by the F-15'X', that these were extra fighters, and was no reflection on the F-35A's capability ... words to that effect were the justification for it.

So it can not replace F-35A, as the high-end strikefighter of the 2030's. That is a total fantasy and spin, however, it can produce strong strike effects on Day-2, and possibly even for part of Day-1, with the right mix of weapons, tactics and planning. And thereafter it would be quite effective and still survive (same as what is expected of F-16 and Euro-canards, nothing new there), with 5th gen protection and system-of-systems supports and superior SA and EW.

If that makes the USAF and the alliance fight so much stronger, good, no problem with that.

But this absolute cr_p that it's equal to or better than a LO platform like F-22A or F-35A, is as annoying (and pathetic) as it is deceitful and obviously not true.

But that does not mean F-15EX can't be very deadly and effective in an increasingly 5th-gen dominated force. Superhornet will be too, and so will a much more capable F-15EX. It's a valid combat capability and a real part of deterrence for decades to come. But the people making those statements need to ease up on their Olympic-level, "Go-for-Gold" hand-waving effort.


Totally false as Lockheed Marton could easily meet the demand for more F-35's. Hell, the USAF is only buying just a few F-15EX's this year alone. In addition the JSF has additional F-35 Production in Itlay and Japan if needed. (not needed)
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: viperzerof-2 and 29 guests