F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2020, 11:04
by jessmo112
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... sia-143867

I know this is an old article from the national interest.
But I want to pick your brains for a minute.
We aren't talking about defection ranges or Sustained turn, those horses are dead.
We arnt talking about The stealthy factor, that horse has been beat to h*ll and back.
I want to focus mainly on aquisition cost and CPFH.
I want to focus on weither or not the F-15 is a good deal or not.
Here are facts.

1. The F-15Ex and the F-35 are basically the same cost.
2. The F-15s numbers seem lower on paper 35k per hour versus 29k per hour.
3. The F-15 is a competant weapons truck but is not stealthy at all, and could be relegated to flying figure 8s over conus.
For the record, I am skeptical about the F-15 having a lower CPFH,

For the cost of the F-15 why didnt the U.S.A F
Buy F-16sv or a cheaper alternative.
You could have Got alot more planes, and not have burden of having 2 engine?

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2020, 12:58
by sferrin
See other thread on F-15EX. This has already been addressed ad nauseum.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2020, 15:25
by mixelflick
Boeing needed an active production line for at least one fighter. That essentially answers your last question. It wasn't going to be the F-16 given it's a Lockheed bird, and they're already building the F-35. In other words, corporate welfare..

Having said that, LM has set the goal of a $25,000 CPFH by 2025. "25 by 25" as it were. For the record, I think they'll not only do it but do it ahead of schedule too, much like the per unit cost falling well below $80 million. At that point, the decision to acquire more than 100 F-15EX's is going to be looking mighty dumb, especially when Boeing goes to bid on PCA/F/A-XX.

My thinking is that they''ll probably win at least one of those, or at the very least be a major sub-contractor. So they'll still be in the fighter business in some capacity, F-15EX new builds or not...

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2020, 22:09
by quicksilver
National Interest and this particular author now repost old articles without pointing out that they are in-fact mostly a reprint of an article they wrote years ago. There was one earlier this week with a headline along the lines of “Test Pilot: the F-35B is a Piece of Crap”.

Well, it was largely a reprint of a 2013 article, and obtw, the test pilot he quoted (an even older guy than I) died in 2017.

This is what substitutes for ‘journalism’ in the 21st century...

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2020, 01:28
by Corsair1963
Pressure on the US Defense Budget is going to increase dramatically in the coming years. Which, is going to put extreme pressure on programs like the F-15EX.


DoD must identify its ‘crown jewels’ in preparation for fiscal uncertainty


As the attention of Congress and senior leaders in the Department of Defense are rightly focused on mitigating the coronavirus pandemic, it is not too soon to begin planning for how the nation and the DoD can recover from this crisis.


The much-needed $2.2 trillion relief package recently passed by Congress — and whatever additional spending is appropriated in the coming weeks and months — comes on top of a preexisting budget deficit of more than $1 trillion for the current fiscal year. When this crisis eventually subsides, the deficit will be at an all-time high and the pressure to cut spending — including defense spending — may also be high. Now is the time to start thinking about the steps the Defense Department can take to better position itself for the post-coronavirus fiscal environment.


Historically, higher deficits put long-term pressure on the defense budget. We saw this in the mid-1980s when the federal deficit peaked at nearly $0.5 trillion (in today’s dollars). Congress reacted at the time by passing the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. This law put in place a set of deficit caps and created an enforcement mechanism known as sequestration. From fiscal 1985 to fiscal 1991, the national defense budget fell by 19 percent in real terms as part of these deficit reduction efforts. And when the Cold War ended, it fell another 18 percent through FY98.


During the depths of the Great Recession in 2009, deficits spiked to $1.7 trillion (in today’s dollars). This led Congress to enact the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resurrected sequestration and put caps on the defense and nondefense parts of the discretionary budget. Despite a series of budget deals that amended the budget caps, the combination of the BCA and the drawdown of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a 22 percent real decline in the national defense budget from FY10 to FY15.


The Defense Department was caught flatfooted in 2013 because of its stubborn refusal to plan for sequestration. It muddled through the across-the-board cuts imposed by sequestration that year by furloughing civilian employees, canceling training and exercises, and deferring maintenance on equipment and facilities. To make matters worse, many of these actions did not save money in the long run; they merely deferred expenses and made long-term costs higher than they would have been otherwise................

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... -troubles/

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2020, 13:56
by mixelflick
Yep, the F-15EX faces a very uncertain future and will likely be squeezed out after 8-16 production versions are funded. Lord knows what they'll do with them if they're built, not going to do the USAF any good. They'll probably be put into a test program carrying outsized hypersonic weapons, just to see if they're compatible with the F-15E airframe.

Otherwise, expect F-35 orders/squadrons to dominate in the next decade. It's the only/best choice, at least until such time as PCA/F/A-XX gets here..

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2021, 15:33
by jetblast16
“We were so confident this jet was going to perform well we went straight to the ATP — maximum afterburner and pulled-up on a 'Viking' — and I had zero problem with that profile and proved it from the start. We went out to what’s called the “Mac North” airspace and executed some flight control checks to make sure the aircraft rig was correct. We climbed up and made sure the jet fuel starter worked on the way up. We got up to 40,000 feet and pushed out to Mach 2. That [speed] is a CFT [Conformal Fuel Tank] limitation. If it was a clean jet we’d go out to Mach 2.5. We did engine checks at 40,000 feet, at 30,000 feet, and then we came down to 20,000 feet and we intentionally shut down the perfectly good engines and then re-started those motors in both primary and secondary mode to prove the reliability of the General Electric GE-129 motors. We had no problems with the re-starts.”


“When that was done — not surprisingly — we had extra gas because that's another big advantage of this platform, the fuel capacity with the CFTs. With that extra gas, Mike Quintini and I decided we deserved a little high alpha maneuvering for our efforts.” Giese says they demonstrated “tailslides and other advanced control and handling maneuvers just to show that this thing is a really good slow-speed fighter in addition to a high-speed fighter.” Giese said he also checked the test instrumentation was “ready to go” so that when the jet is delivered to the customer at Eglin Air Force Base it is immediately available to enter the USAF flight-test program.


“I believe this is the most lethal and survivable jet that's on the market today and I say that because the battlespace effects that this airplane can provide are on par or exceed what you can do with an LO [low observable] platform that has restrictions. This jet has 30,000 lb of things we can put on the wings and the fuselage,” adds Giese. “No one’s going to match that. Then if you marry that up with the radar and the EW system, I would argue — even as a guy that flew the F-22 for 12 years — that this platform produces battlespace effects — which is what the commanders care about — that are equal or better than what an LO platform can do, that’s based on power, size, payload, and capacity.



Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... den-flight

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2021, 15:39
by jetblast16
First flight...15 minutes into it, and the jet reaches Mach 2.0 with CFTs! It still had gas to fly around and do control checks...shut down engines, restart them, pull off high alpha maneuvers, before finally landing.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 03:31
by weasel1962
Its already 20 F-15EX budgeted (8 FY 20, 12 FY 21). Won't be long before the FY22 budget is out. normally Feb release but I suspect by April/May at the latest (1st year new prez). The key person now imho could be John Roth. If the USAF doesn't put it into the budget, then it makes it harder for congress to reinstate (even though they have done so in other programs e.g A10).

If I'm not wrong, John Roth used to head the USAF finance during Trump's time so I doubt if he would change the current template that radically without pressure from the new SecDef. If it goes into the budget, congress will fund it. Boeing's presence in blue states makes it a given.

The decision to replace F-15Cs with F-15EX is not so simple. It would taken quite a long time to come up with the right plan. There will be some risks to change that to the F-35A. The F-15EX annual bugdet isn't that big. Savings will not be material, if any, by switching to the F-35A and if cut fully, doesn't really save that much but leaves a fighter gap (not going to happen). Somehow I don't see the new admin as hasty in their decision making. I can also see USAF prioritizing fighter capitalization above other forms of capitalization. Given a choice, losing A-10s would be preferred to losing F-15EXs. Bottom line, I think a F-15EX buy for FY22 will still happen.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 04:58
by wrightwing
jetblast16 wrote:First flight...15 minutes into it, and the jet reaches Mach 2.0 with CFTs! It still had gas to fly around and do control checks...shut down engines, restart them, pull off high alpha maneuvers, before finally landing.

Well with CFTs it's got over 25,000lbs of fuel, so that gives it a pretty good endurance.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 05:17
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:First flight...15 minutes into it, and the jet reaches Mach 2.0 with CFTs! It still had gas to fly around and do control checks...shut down engines, restart them, pull off high alpha maneuvers, before finally landing.

Well with CFTs it's got over 25,000lbs of fuel, so that gives it a pretty good endurance.


BULL


QUOTE: If it was a clean jet we’d go out to Mach 2.5.


:roll:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 05:18
by Corsair1963
jetblast16 wrote:First flight...15 minutes into it, and the jet reaches Mach 2.0 with CFTs! It still had gas to fly around and do control checks...shut down engines, restart them, pull off high alpha maneuvers, before finally landing.



Who says a tanker wasn't around to top off the tanks???

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 05:30
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:First flight...15 minutes into it, and the jet reaches Mach 2.0 with CFTs! It still had gas to fly around and do control checks...shut down engines, restart them, pull off high alpha maneuvers, before finally landing.

Well with CFTs it's got over 25,000lbs of fuel, so that gives it a pretty good endurance.


BULL


QUOTE: If it was a clean jet we’d go out to Mach 2.5.


:roll:

What's bull? The amount of fuel? >13,000lbs internal plus ~12,000lbs in the CFTs.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 05:51
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:

:roll:

What's bull? The amount of fuel? >13,000lbs internal plus ~12,000lbs in the CFTs.



Bull is they would have taken the F-15EX out to Mach 2.5 If, the aircraft had been clean!

So, I question much of what was said........

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 06:12
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:

:roll:

What's bull? The amount of fuel? >13,000lbs internal plus ~12,000lbs in the CFTs.



Bull is they would have taken the F-15EX out to Mach 2.5 If, the aircraft had been clean!

So, I question much of what was said........

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

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 06:24
by Corsair1963
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

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 06:36
by Corsair1963
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

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 06:41
by Corsair1963
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

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 15:09
by jetblast16
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...

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 16:10
by wrightwing
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 17:16
by basher54321
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/


Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 17:37
by basher54321
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??

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2021, 03:28
by Corsair1963
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2021, 14:16
by sferrin
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2021, 17:50
by wrightwing
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.)

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2021, 15:59
by mixelflick
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2021, 21:41
by Fox1
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2021, 02:13
by weasel1962
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2021, 02:27
by element1loop
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 00:59
by Corsair1963
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)

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 01:06
by Corsair1963
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.........

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 03:03
by madrat
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 03:39
by Corsair1963
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.....

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 06:49
by charlielima223
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".

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 07:19
by Corsair1963
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???

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 09:14
by milosh
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 09:17
by Corsair1963
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 10:35
by milosh
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 10:48
by Corsair1963
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 11:19
by milosh
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 11:32
by Corsair1963
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 13:07
by zero-one
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

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 13:37
by basher54321
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 13:58
by zero-one
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?

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 14:10
by basher54321
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:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 15:02
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:
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


So basically, he's describing the F-15E's performance which has been constantly described as subpar compared to the C model.
Maybe the Flybywire will offer some difference but

so it looks like the ACM hierarchy for the USAF will still be as follows
F-22
F-35A
F-16C
F-15C
F-15EX
F-15E

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 16:03
by jetblast16
May I ask those "experts" who continue to disparage the F-15EX, to please go to another thread. I was hoping we could have a thread about the jet, without politics and how well it compares to the "perfect" F-35. I would like to post pictures and videos of the plane as it evolves. What its future is, is unknown. But I am interested to see what happens with it...if the USAF potentially replaces its F-15Es with the new Eagle.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 16:09
by jetblast16
Remember, the title of this thread is: F-15EX. It is not: The F-35 is Better Than the F-15EX; The F-15EX is a Waste; The F-15EX is Unnecessary and Inferior to the F-35, etc. If you feel that way, why don't you start a thread such as these? Take some initiative; don't pollute this one.


Thanks!

jetblast16

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 16:13
by zero-one
jetblast16 wrote:Remember, the title of this thread is: F-15EX. It is not: The F-35 is Better Than the F-15EX;


Sorry my bad, thats not what I intended to convey with my comments, I was hoping that the F-15EX would be, at least in performance and air to air situational awareness terms, 2nd only to the F-22. Kind of an F-22 if it wasn't stealth kind of plane.

But from what I've been gathering, it looks like its not, I'm hoping I'm wrong

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 16:19
by jetblast16
No worries. You were asking valid questions. We'll see what the latest iteration of the Eagle can do. From what I've been reading it is quite capable in the high alpha regime, and without CFTs, could present a strong opponent in the WVR fight.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 17:21
by charlielima223
@ jetblast16

I agree, as I stated earlier this thread has become more like "I hate F-15EX because F-35".

Getting back to the F-15EX.
IMO I agree with some of the opinions here that the EX is more of a replacement for the Strike Eagle rather than the Eagle. Re-listening to TFPP Strike Eagle ep, the F-15E while kenimatically competent as an air-to-air, lags behind the single seat F-15C in almost every area.

I would make a SWAG and say that compared to the current Strike Eagle, the new fly-by-wire would give the EX better handling characteristics. The more modern avionics would greatly enhance the capability of the pilot and WSO. Personally I would like them to make a "CX"; a new build F-15C with all the benefits of the EX.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 17:43
by basher54321
The SA and QA line was developed from the E which was a much stronger structure than the F-15C and had a much higher 9G design weight as the manuals show.

The FBW and flight testing was integrated and paid for during the SA/QA development however making an assumption as some are that this somehow turns it into a super fighter is just an assumption without some concrete information on what was actually changed. When a pilot flying the QA states it was harder to spin then that is a long standing benefit of FBW - but significantly changing the flight handling without physical changes there is only so much you can do.

Putting a single seat CX into production even if it is just a single seat QA was no doubt out of the picture due to cost which is why it had to be the current production QA.

The E is probably the best baseline - the EX might be lighter or it might be heavier - it might have more thrust if they go with GE-129s or it might not.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 17:45
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
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?

An E model without A2G ordnance, pods, etc....is a beast. The EX with FBW is even more of a beast, as it has carefree handling vs hydraulic controls.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2021, 19:31
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX doesn't fly at Mach 2 clean let alone under a load. (see TEG remarks)


What load exactly? I mean it is very strange if F-15E with only four AIM-120 can reach Mach 2 :?

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 02:54
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX doesn't fly at Mach 2 clean let alone under a load. (see TEG remarks)


What load exactly? I mean it is very strange if F-15E with only four AIM-120 can reach Mach 2 :?



With CFT's it would be limited to Mach 1.4 :|


Which, the F-15EX will always carry!

Plus, anything over Mach 1 is nothing short of a gas guzzler. Which, is why F-15's even with CFT's also carry external tanks! (most of the time) :shock:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 03:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 07:30
by zero-one
charlielima223 wrote: Personally I would like them to make a "CX"; a new build F-15C with all the benefits of the EX.


Me too, an air to air optimized EX, no pound for air to ground, with all the eye watering benefits of a PW-229 or GE-129, all the latest avionics and S.A. you could ask for.

But I said, wait that airplane already exist, its called the F-22, basically the USAF wants a missile truck to target everything the F-22 and F-35 is aiming at. I remember in the last episode of "Dogfights" they were playing with an idea of a B-1R that will act as an arsenal plane to take care of all the BVR shooting while the missiles in the F-22 will be reserved for, defensive purposes or WVR shooting.

I think the F-15EX fits that role better. Having a B-1 in contested air space with fighters is a little risky, if the bandits manage to sneak past, the B-1 is meat on the table, the F-15EX has more of a fighting chance. Never say, "that can't happen"

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 07:39
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
charlielima223 wrote: Personally I would like them to make a "CX"; a new build F-15C with all the benefits of the EX.


Me too, an air to air optimized EX, no pound for air to ground, with all the eye watering benefits of a PW-229 or GE-129, all the latest avionics and S.A. you could ask for.

But I said, wait that airplane already exist, its called the F-22, basically the USAF wants a missile truck to target everything the F-22 and F-35 is aiming at. I remember in the last episode of "Dogfights" they were playing with an idea of a B-1R that will act as an arsenal plane to take care of all the BVR shooting while the missiles in the F-22 will be reserved for, defensive purposes or WVR shooting.

I think the F-15EX fits that role better. Having a B-1 in contested air space with fighters is a little risky, if the bandits manage to sneak past, the B-1 is meat on the table, the F-15EX has more of a fighting chance. Never say, "that can't happen"



The USAF doesn't want it at all and the use of Missile Truck is nothing but PR. It hopes of attracting more 4th Generation Fighters sales. Honestly, doubt we will will ever operate any fighter with 12+ Air to Air Missiles. (or even 10 for that matter)

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 08:57
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:The USAF doesn't want it at all and the use of Missile Truck is nothing but PR.



Well we both know the USAF does not think collectively, I'm pretty sure there are pro F-15EX proponents out there. It does have some benefits, on the top of my head.

1. You can save your precious F-22/35 service life for when crap hits the fan moments. Your typical Bear intercepts over Alaska and super bowl fly overs can be done by F-15s well into the 2040s.

2. No flyzone over Afghanistan or a country that barely has an airforce, why use F-35s for that?

3. In 2035 a rich country who you don't want to sell stealth fighters to wants to buy 40 fighters, if only we had a competitive non stealth....oh wait a minute

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 09:06
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The USAF doesn't want it at all and the use of Missile Truck is nothing but PR.



Well we both know the USAF does not think collectively, I'm pretty sure there are pro F-15EX proponents out there. It does have some benefits, on the top of my head.

1. You can save your precious F-22/35 service life for when crap hits the fan moments. Your typical Bear intercepts over Alaska and super bowl fly overs can be done by F-15s well into the 2040s.

2. No flyzone over Afghanistan or a country that barely has an airforce, why use F-35s for that?

3. In 2035 a rich country who you don't want to sell stealth fighters to wants to buy 40 fighters, if only we had a competitive non stealth....oh wait a minute


5th & 6th Generation Fighters either in service or under development.....

South Korea - KFX
Turkey - TFX
China J-20, J-31, and J-35
Russia Su-57
India - AMCA
etc.



6th Generation

US NGAD & F/A-XX
China (unknown name)
France, Germany, Spain - FCAS
UK, Italy, Sweden - Tempest
Japan - F-X
etc.etc.etc.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 09:56
by zero-one
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 10:14
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote: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.

MAP.jpg

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 10:41
by zero-one
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 10:58
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote: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. :wink:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 11:00
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote: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. :wink:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 11:04
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:
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. :wink:


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

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 11:13
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
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. :wink:


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....

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 11:48
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 14:38
by milosh
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 14:50
by madrat
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 15:24
by zero-one
madrat wrote: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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 17:20
by jetblast16
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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2021, 17:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
milosh wrote: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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 02:21
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 04:22
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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!

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 04:28
by sprstdlyscottsmn
wrightwing wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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.

I am very specifically referring to the times F-15E has been sent on CAP/Air Superiority missions in the past. There used to be a website that listed all known combat loadouts with reference images. I was shocked to see A-A missions flown, more shocked at the TGPs still being carried. Useful for ID I guess.

F-15E AA.PNG

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 06:13
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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!

But they won't be carrying A2G targeting pods at all times (or even most of the time. For an A2A profile, the CFTs should provide plenty of range, without adding EFTs.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 06:16
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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.

I am very specifically referring to the times F-15E has been sent on CAP/Air Superiority missions in the past. There used to be a website that listed all known combat loadouts with reference images. I was shocked to see A-A missions flown, more shocked at the TGPs still being carried. Useful for ID I guess.

F-15E AA.PNG

The EX isn't being bought (initially) to fly the E mission, which is why they'll be flown with only one crewman. This is why it's doubtful they'll be carrying Lantern/Sniper/Litening pods. If they carry a pod, it'll be the IRST21.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 12:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I guess we will have to wait and see... however... the F-15EX seen blading through Star Wars canyon with full AA configuration had everything you say it won't.

message-editor_1529957961706-sa2belly.jpg

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 16:23
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I guess we will have to wait and see... however... the F-15EX seen blading through Star Wars canyon with full AA configuration had everything you say it won't.

message-editor_1529957961706-sa2belly.jpg

That's not the EX. That's the Saudi version (F-15SA).

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 16:44
by zero-one
correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, the USAF is not buying the F-15EX to fill the "high performance" fighter role. They already have that in the F-22.

So if there is a mission where the likelihood of max performing your aircraft is higher than usual,
(i.e. no-fly zone in Syria where Flankers are allowed to get close) then the F-15EX will not be the 1st choice of the USAF for that mission.

Of course Boeing will sell it as a high performance fighter, put 4 missiles on it, no CFTs or EFTs, no pods and the F-15 can hold its own, but thats not it's intended role.

Having said that, we know the EX trumps the C model in avionics and S.A, but what about performance, given that it's basically an air to air configured E model. how will a similarly configured F-15C model compare?

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 17:33
by jetblast16
how will a similarly configured F-15C model compare?


Probably pretty well. It has a much larger 9G envelope, thanks to its reinforced/ redesigned wings (internally) and fuselage, new flight control system, and expanded high alpha performance.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 17:35
by jetblast16

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 17:37
by jetblast16
F110-129-for-F-15EX-hero.jpg

GE’s advanced F110 engine has been significantly improved to adapt to the unique demands of the F-15EX. Built with capability in reserve, the F110 can adapt to changing global threats and mission needs for decades to come.


Source: https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/f110-engine

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 17:39
by jetblast16
Assuming the Air Force proceeds to purchase the "Advanced" Eagle, I am thinking, at least for state-side training and defense, the new jets will probably "just" carry CFTs...no 600 gallon fuel tanks, as the CFTs and internal fuel capacity of the Eagle will probably be sufficient for most sorties (at least air-to-air ones)

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 17:55
by sprstdlyscottsmn
jetblast16 wrote:...the CFTs and internal fuel capacity of the Eagle will probably be sufficient for most sorties (at least air-to-air ones)

This much is true, we have just yet to see it actually happen. The image above with no tanks could very well be a loading process, i.e. load the wing mounted AAMs, then load the EFTs.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 19:34
by jetblast16
The current F110-GE-129 can be converted to the -132 configuration by installing the upgraded blisk fan and afterburner hardware.


Source: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/1842/new-ge-engine-variant-for-emirati-f_16s-(mar.-15).html

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2021, 22:25
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That would be impressive.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2021, 08:32
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, the USAF is not buying the F-15EX to fill the "high performance" fighter role. They already have that in the F-22.

So if there is a mission where the likelihood of max performing your aircraft is higher than usual,
(i.e. no-fly zone in Syria where Flankers are allowed to get close) then the F-15EX will not be the 1st choice of the USAF for that mission.

Of course Boeing will sell it as a high performance fighter, put 4 missiles on it, no CFTs or EFTs, no pods and the F-15 can hold its own, but thats not it's intended role.

Having said that, we know the EX trumps the C model in avionics and S.A, but what about performance, given that it's basically an air to air configured E model. how will a similarly configured F-15C model compare?

It's being bought as an F-15C replacement. It's biggest issue won't be Flankers, but SAMs.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2021, 13:29
by madrat
The cost difference between F110-GE-129 and F110-GE-132 must be significant for them to avoid the substantial boost in MIL.

Is someone worried the F110-GE-132 may be too close to F135 performance? 3-4k pounds of dry thrust would go a long way to boost F-15EX performance as an F-15E supplement. You could justify moving F-15E units out to secondary air defense roles while F-15EX roll into bolter strike missions while we wait for B-21.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2021, 14:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I'm not sure the 132 has any more Mil thrust. Never seen that claimed. But even if it did it would not be close to F135 levels of power.

On the topic of the 1.4M CFT stores limit a few things occurred to me. The whole reason the EX is even happening is because the Saudis paid for the development (pretty sure the SA was the first advanced eagle, I could be wrong). What did this development include? Certifying the FBW, Certifying stations 1/9 for all the munitions to be carried there, and a few other things I am not thinking of at the moment. Point being, they had to do a whole new round of stores carriage and separation tests anyway. They may have decided to not do any testing of the CFT stores, or they may have to expand the envelope. The 1.4M CFT stores limit is no longer a certain quality.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2021, 15:07
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:It's being bought as an F-15C replacement. It's biggest issue won't be Flankers, but SAMs.


Well max performing your aircraft isn't just for dogfights, I think there are times in BVR where you also need to max perform, Certainly when getting shot at by SAMs too I think

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2021, 15:31
by jetblast16
F110-GE-132.png

I read that it produced a maximum thrust of 34,000 LBS during testing. With will & dollars, who is to say that it couldn't be tweaked a bit to produce more thrust and reduce fuel burn? :wink:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2021, 15:42
by jetblast16
The AN/ASG-34 IRST-equipped Legion Pod offers far more robust and automated functionality and can quickly spot and track multiple targets at far beyond visual range. It also provides actual targeting information so the pilot can engage threats using the IRST for targeting alone, or in conjunction with other sensors, which offers important advantages.

This additional means of spotting, tracking, and engaging aircraft passively eliminates the chance of alerting potential opponents that they've been detected, unlike radar that can give away the attacking aircraft's presence and even its location. On top of all this, the IRST provides an alternative to the radar in electronic warfare-heavy (jamming) combat environments and radar-evading design features on stealth aircraft have no effect on the IRST. It depends on the aircraft's infrared signature alone.


Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -in-alaska

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2021, 15:56
by jetblast16
Q5: Can you describe IRST21 and Legion Pod’s performance as compared to legacy systems? How much better is it?
A5: We can share that there are increases in target discrimination and detection as well as enhanced range and tracking capabilities in radar-denied environments. Upgrades of the Block II production system are in development and will provide even greater performance improvements.


Source: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... ystem.html

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2021, 03:39
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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.

I am very specifically referring to the times F-15E has been sent on CAP/Air Superiority missions in the past. There used to be a website that listed all known combat loadouts with reference images. I was shocked to see A-A missions flown, more shocked at the TGPs still being carried. Useful for ID I guess.

F-15E AA.PNG

Again, there's only so much you can extrapolate from F-15E configurations, as their primary mission is A2G, so it's doubtful they'll remove pods for other missions. The EX is primarily being bought to replace F-15Cs, so like I said, they'll carry an IRST pod if anything.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2021, 05:50
by weasel1962
Indonesia is latest to indicate interest in the F-15EX to fly alongside the Rafale. If they do buy it, they would end up with a hodgepodge of fighters like (or even worse than) India.

http://alert5.com/2021/02/19/indonesias ... uy-f-15ex/

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2021, 15:11
by jetblast16
To compete, Pratt would have to integrate its F100 engine with the F-15EX’s digital, fly-by-wire flight control system. The solicitation said that while integration could take place “concurrently” with production, the engine would have to be certified for the aircraft before delivery.


The Air Force set minimum performance parameters for the F-15EX engine:

Maximum thrust: No less than 28,500 pounds
Intermediate thrust: No less than 17,000 pounds
Maximum Diameter: No more than 46.5 inches
Maximum weight: No more than 4,000 pounds
Both Pratt and GE’s engines can meet those requirements.

In a statement, GE Aviation noted that its F110-GE-129 is “the only engine certified for the F-15 Advanced Eagle” and is “ready to serve the U.S. Air Force right now.” The engine increases mission readiness rates and capability because of its “cost-effective, high-performance operation, as well as its safety and reliability,” the company said.


The F110 family has passed 10 million flight hours and some 3,400 have been ordered worldwide, the company said.


Source: https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-o ... mpetition/

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2021, 15:18
by jetblast16
Indonesia will purchase F-15EX jets from Boeing and Rafale fighter aircraft from France between 2021 and 2024, the head of its air force said on Thursday.


According to the meeting’s summary document, Indonesia plans to buy 36 Rafale and eight F-15EX jets, with six of the latter expected to arrive by 2022.


Source: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/i ... ts/2149103

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2021, 03:17
by Corsair1963
IDF/AF puts any F-15 purchase on hold.......(maybe permanently)



It’s Official: KC-46 Tankers And More F-35s For Israel, But No Advanced F-15s For Now

Assisted by U.S. financing, the Israeli Air Force will boost its stealth fleet and overhaul its tanker and rotary-lift capabilities.

By Thomas Newdick February 22, 2021

The War Zone


QUOTE: For now, at least, Boeing’s hopes of selling more F-15s to Israel will have to be put on hold.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... 5s-for-now

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2021, 15:25
by jetblast16
If I were GE, I would throw in the upgrade kits (to the -132 standard) to sweeten the deal :wink:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2021, 21:35
by jetblast16
TOPSHOT-F-15EX-USAF.jpg
the first of these aircraft returned to the air today in St. Louis, Missouri, with a newly applied, F-15C/D-style service color scheme. The markings include the tail codes of Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and its resident 40th Flight Test Squadron, which will be charged with proving out the jet in the months to come.


Reportedly, this was the aircraft’s first flight in the hands of an Air Force test pilot, rather than one from Boeing.


Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... rce-colors

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2021, 21:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Oh cool! It's actually a Light Grey Eagle! I still see the CFT-E pylons sticking out of the shadows too.

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2021, 21:43
by jetblast16
She's (it's) lookin' the part:)

:applause:

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2021, 00:30
by Corsair1963
Honestly, I would have went with a camo that looked to the future. Instead of one looking to the past! Just makes the F-15EX look old...........(just saying)

Re: F-15EX

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2021, 01:54
by madrat
I'd rather them replace F-15E units and send the older jets to do their work. Give the mud movers that shoulder an actual workload the lovin' over a new imagined role.