F-15EX

That doesn't answer the question, If the F-22 is overkill to enforce a no flyzone over Afghanistan or intercept the Tu-95 over Alaska, having 6th gen doesn't make it okay.

That doesn't answer the question, If the F-22 is overkill to enforce a no flyzone over Afghanistan or intercept the Tu-95 over Alaska, having 6th gen doesn't make it okay.

Afghanistan does share a small part of their boarder with China.......and even Pakistan may acquire 5th or 6th Generation Fighters in the future.

First off, I'm not pro F-15EX, I'm not against it either, It's okay to have, its fine not to have.
But I can see why, some in the USAF may want it.

Imagine its 2040, the USAF is purely 5th gen with some 6th gens around, The Russians are still flying bombers over Alaska, and country X still using helicopters and possibly Mig-21/29s over a place where the USAF is enforcing a no fly zone.

Do we need Stealth for that mission, not really, in fact it would be better for them to see us to make our presence known. So we fit Luny lenses on our F-35s, so we foot the bill on Stealth coating maintenance for a mission where we don't need stealth at all. If only we had 4th gens lying around for these low threat missions.

First off, I'm not pro F-15EX, I'm not against it either, It's okay to have, its fine not to have.
But I can see why, some in the USAF may want it.

Imagine its 2040, the USAF is purely 5th gen with some 6th gens around, The Russians are still flying bombers over Alaska, and country X still using helicopters and possibly Mig-21/29s over a place where the USAF is enforcing a no fly zone.

Do we need Stealth for that mission, not really, in fact it would be better for them to see us to make our presence known. So we fit Luny lenses on our F-35s, so we foot the bill on Stealth coating maintenance for a mission where we don't need stealth at all. If only we had 4th gens lying around for these low threat missions.

What happen if you need stealth in 2040 and you don't have it....Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

First off, I'm not pro F-15EX, I'm not against it either, It's okay to have, its fine not to have.
But I can see why, some in the USAF may want it.

Imagine its 2040, the USAF is purely 5th gen with some 6th gens around, The Russians are still flying bombers over Alaska, and country X still using helicopters and possibly Mig-21/29s over a place where the USAF is enforcing a no fly zone.

Do we need Stealth for that mission, not really, in fact it would be better for them to see us to make our presence known. So we fit Luny lenses on our F-35s, so we foot the bill on Stealth coating maintenance for a mission where we don't need stealth at all. If only we had 4th gens lying around for these low threat missions.

What happens if you need stealth fighter in 2040 and you don't have it? Oh, just wait and let me fly back home to get my 5th or 6th Generation Stealth Fighter....Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

What happens if you need stealth fighter in 2040 and you don't have it? Oh, just wait and let me fly back home to get my 5th or 6th Generation Stealth Fighter....Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Nobody is replacing F-22s or F-35s with F-15EX, the EX is there to fill a niche role, its not F-35 or bust

What happens if you need stealth fighter in 2040 and you don't have it? Oh, just wait and let me fly back home to get my 5th or 6th Generation Stealth Fighter....Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Nobody is replacing F-22s or F-35s with F-15EX, the EX is there to fill a niche role, its not F-35 or bust

What happens when your F-15EX encounters a Chinese J-20 or Russian Su-57 in 2030-40....

What happens when your F-15EX encounters a Chinese J-20 or Russian Su-57 in 2030-40....

Luckily thats what the F-22 is for, the USAF does not send the B-52 anywhere close to where double digit SAMS or Flankers may be encountered and its worked well so far. Same logic here.

How many times was the B-52 called upon in Iraq or Afghanistan, just imagine if the only bomber the USAF has is the B-2. They would be forced to use the B-2 for everything.

I don't get why F-15E is limited just to Mach 1.4 with four AIM-120 on CFT, drag and power isn't problem to go noticable faster. Maybe something with CFT hardpoints?

But I don't see why that couldn't be solved, I mean F-15E demonstrator had first flight little more then four decades ago.

5th generation platforms do that job better, too. And often times so do newer drones. We have operational numbers and service life left in the old 4th gen airframes so it makes sense to use 4th generation until 5th gen service numbers overtake the 4th gen. But lets not kid the 4th gen is better.

5th generation platforms do that job better, too.

Nobody is arguing that, this is the reason why I hate it when people who want to defend the F-35 against the "can't turn" crowd use words like, "It was never built to dogfight"

Sorry but the F-35 in a combat configuration is a better dogfighter than the F-16 in a similar configuration,
It has so many other strengths, but it can still do that, and do it well.
there is nothing the F-35 can't do better than the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18.

The argument is, cheaper, if money is no object, then use the F-22 for everything, No fly zone in Somalia, lets shave off 200 hours off the F-22's 8000 hour life span to do that, hey, at least if a J-20 miraculously appears, we're ready.

What happens when your F-15EX encounters a Chinese J-20 or Russian Su-57 in 2030-40....

Who is to say, assuming the USAF actually buys the upgraded Eagle, that a future variation of it won't detect such "stealthy" platforms at considerable range...

Obviously, in a perfect world, we would have bought ~400 Raptors and continued to upgrade them... The F-35 would have been easier to field and taken less time and money... a sixth gen platform would be further along or at least in early EMD phase, but we don't live in a perfect world. And the US of A is heavily debt burdened, with some of these new platforms taxing even its ability to field.

There seems to be a tacit realization of this, at least with some of the Air Force brass...the cold hard truth of incredibly expensive weapons taking either too much time to field or proving difficult to upgrade/ update.

I don't get why F-15E is limited just to Mach 1.4 with four AIM-120 on CFT, drag and power isn't problem to go noticable faster. Maybe something with CFT hardpoints?

But I don't see why that couldn't be solved, I mean F-15E demonstrator had first flight little more then four decades ago.

This has been described ad-nauseum previously. The short version is that the F-15E uses a different CFT than the F-15C. When qualifying and certifying the new CFT they only tested up to 1.4M. The reason could be money or that the F100-PW-220 engines couldn't get it much faster with a load anyway. The reason is immaterial however, as 1.4M was the placard limit set for all CFT mounted AAMs on the F-15E CFT regardless of the motors installed.

Relevance to the F-15QA/SA/IA/EX?

It uses the same CFT as the F-15E. So unless the Qataris or Saudis funded an AAM envelope expansion test, the 1.4M limit remains. I would like to think they did, but I have zero evidence of this.

1.4 is with CFT mounted weapons. And yes, historical evidence says all combat ops, even air to air, are done with wing mounted drop tanks and targeting pods.

Not if they're flying A2A missions, which being F-15C replacements, they'd be doing more often than not.

1.4 is with CFT mounted weapons. And yes, historical evidence says all combat ops, even air to air, are done with wing mounted drop tanks and targeting pods.

Not if they're flying A2A missions, which being F-15C replacements, they'd be doing more often than not.

The F-15EX's will always carry CFT's and often external tanks too!