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: 7136
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 01:06

sferrin wrote:
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.


What did I say....I said the "extra" power has virtually no impact on top speed. I "didn't" say it didn't improve acceleration.........
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2895
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 03:03

Corsair1963 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
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.


What did I say....I said the "extra" power has virtually no impact on top speed. I "didn't" say it didn't improve acceleration.........


I doubt I'm the only one who sees hyperbole here....

Seriously, guy, you should have just stepped back from the argument.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7136
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 03:39

madrat wrote:
What did I say....I said the "extra" power has virtually no impact on top speed. I "didn't" say it didn't improve acceleration.........


I doubt I'm the only one who sees hyperbole here....

Seriously, guy, you should have just stepped back from the argument.



The case to acquire the F-15EX over just more F-35 's is weak and well established. So, I am one of that last persons that needs to step back.....
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1288
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 06:49

IMO this thread has become less of talking about the F-15EX and what it can do and more like, "I dont like F-15EX because F-35".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7136
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 07:19

charlielima223 wrote:IMO this thread has become less of talking about the F-15EX and what it can do and more like, "I dont like F-15EX because F-35".



If, some make a case for the F-15EX. Then what do you expect???
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 09:14

Speed is important for hypersonic missiles. For example F-15EX can get to Mach 2 without problem, so in future it can carry some smaller hypersonic missiles which don't need booster at all because it can launch it at Mach 2, that is enough for ramjet which act as booster for scramjet in that scenario.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7136
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 09:17

milosh wrote:Speed is important for hypersonic missiles. For example F-15EX can get to Mach 2 without problem, so in future it can carry some smaller hypersonic missiles which don't need booster at all because it can launch it at Mach 2, that is enough for ramjet which act as booster for scramjet in that scenario.



The F-15EX isn't going to go Mach 2 with any large hypersonic missile........... :?


Clearly, you didn't read any of the remarks from TEG.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 10:35

Corsair1963 wrote:
milosh wrote:Speed is important for hypersonic missiles. For example F-15EX can get to Mach 2 without problem, so in future it can carry some smaller hypersonic missiles which don't need booster at all because it can launch it at Mach 2, that is enough for ramjet which act as booster for scramjet in that scenario.



The F-15EX isn't going to go Mach 2 with any large hypersonic missile........... :?


Clearly, you didn't read any of the remarks from TEG.


Clearly, you don't pay attention :?

Whole point of speed is not to needed to carry booster at all.

Instead booster & scramjet combo you have dual ramjet but you need high launch speed.

F-15EX could carry without noticable drag increase, four mini hypersonic AAM (replace AIM-120) on R/CT and L/CT and if such weapon isn't achievable then two longer hypersonic missiles each on R/CT and L/CT, it would need some modding of pylon but nothing hard to be done.

Ideal would be it get F132 engines then it could carry hypersonic AAMs on wing pylons and still be able to fly Mach 2.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7136
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 10:48

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
milosh wrote:Speed is important for hypersonic missiles. For example F-15EX can get to Mach 2 without problem, so in future it can carry some smaller hypersonic missiles which don't need booster at all because it can launch it at Mach 2, that is enough for ramjet which act as booster for scramjet in that scenario.



The F-15EX isn't going to go Mach 2 with any large hypersonic missile........... :?


Clearly, you didn't read any of the remarks from TEG.


Clearly, you don't pay attention :?

Whole point of speed is not to needed to carry booster at all.

Instead booster & scramjet combo you have dual ramjet but you need high launch speed.

F-15EX could carry without noticable drag increase, four mini hypersonic AAM (replace AIM-120) on R/CT and L/CT and if such weapon isn't achievable then two longer hypersonic missiles each on R/CT and L/CT, it would need some modding of pylon but nothing hard to be done.

Ideal would be it get F132 engines then it could carry hypersonic AAMs on wing pylons and still be able to fly Mach 2.


If, you're talking about a small missile the F-35 could carry them too! The F-15EX would have to still carry such missiles externally with CFT's, Target/Nav Pods, Pylons, and likely external fuel tanks. Regardless, even with a very light load it wouldn't exceed Mach 1.4-1.5 less than a F-35.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 11:19

Corsair1963 wrote:If, you're talking about a small missile the F-35 could carry them too! The F-15EX would have to still carry such missiles externally with CFT's, Target/Nav Pods, Pylons, and likely external fuel tanks. Regardless, even with a very light load it wouldn't exceed Mach 1.4-1.5 less than a F-35.


Not gone work, as I wrote you need Mach 2 speed if you really want dual ramjet missiles to use. Those don't need booster.

F-15EX to use dual ramjet would drop fuel tanks and probable I doubt it would have anything else then fuel tanks and hypersonic missiles.

F-35 can carry some possible hypersonic missile but F-15EX is lot more flexiable platform for those, which is card on which Boeing play too:
https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

In fact F-15EX with its 7-8k lb single weapon capability could probable carry something like Kindzal, it is probable lighter variant of Iskander which is 8.4k lb heavy.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7136
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 11:32

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:If, you're talking about a small missile the F-35 could carry them too! The F-15EX would have to still carry such missiles externally with CFT's, Target/Nav Pods, Pylons, and likely external fuel tanks. Regardless, even with a very light load it wouldn't exceed Mach 1.4-1.5 less than a F-35.


Not gone work, as I wrote you need Mach 2 speed if you really want dual ramjet missiles to use. Those don't need booster.

F-15EX to use dual ramjet would drop fuel tanks and probable I doubt it would have anything else then fuel tanks and hypersonic missiles.

F-35 can carry some possible hypersonic missile but F-15EX is lot more flexiable platform for those, which is card on which Boeing play too:
https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

In fact F-15EX with its 7-8k lb single weapon capability could probable carry something like Kindzal, it is probable lighter variant of Iskander which is 8.4k lb heavy.



The F-15EX doesn't fly at Mach 2 clean let alone under a load. (see TEG remarks) Also, while it could carry a larger weapon (over 5,000 lbs) on there inner pylons vs the F-35A. I personally have my doubts they would ever carry such a load. As one the range would be limited. As the inner pylons are generally reserved for external fuel tanks. Plus, Heavy Bombers (B-1's, B-2's, B-52's, and the new B-21) are already planned for such weapons and far better suited to carry them and in far greater numbers.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2381
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 13:07

Been out of the loop for a while,
just few questions for anyone who might know.

What's the difference between the F-15QA and F-15EX? The way I understand it, the USAF is piggy backing on the F-15QA production line to get more assets for "volume support" due to the lack of F-22s.
If so then all this praise for the F-15EX by Chief Test Pilot Matt “Phat” Giese is basically just a description of what the F-15QA can do.

The F-15QA is an advanced mudhen, but the way I understand it, the EX will be assigned to Air superiority squadrons, will the F-15EX be closer to a Mudhen performance wise or will it be closer to an Eagle or will it be something entirely different

Thanks in advance :D
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2154
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 13:37

Basically yes - justification seems to be given to refresh the F-15CD fleet that are running out of flight hours - only way to keep the cost down would be to use existing production model I gather.

F-15 System Program Office puts commonality to the F-15QA as 90-95% and main difference is the EW system (EPAWSS) and a software suite.(not allowing for other upgrades during lifetime) - and presumably USAF markings!

The F-15QA was apparently the most advanced F-15E up to this point with FBW and extra wing pylons. F-15QA performance would be closest to F-15E with PW-229 maybe.

Read they would use them with single pilots as the Cs but remains to be seen.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2381
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 13:58

basher54321 wrote:
The F-15QA was apparently the most advanced F-15E up to this point with FBW and extra wing pylons. F-15QA performance would be closest to F-15E with PW-229 maybe.


Yeah thats my other question, the GE-129 and PW-129 have roughly the same ballpark performance with one engine having marginal advantages and disadvantages in certain parts of the envelope, but basically the same.

So since the E has been flying with 229s since the beginning and since the QA is basically an E model with advanced avionics and the EX is basically a QA with 5% difference, then the F-15EX should fly just like an F-15E. Same airfoil, same thrust, comparable weight. Where is all this praise for the EX's performance coming from?
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2154
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 14:10

zero-one wrote: Where is all this praise for the EX's performance coming from?


People have to sell the concept thus some will be putting out positive information to make it sound good - but on the face of it there is nothing really new about it.

I remember outlaw once nearly made the F-100D sound good :salute:
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests