F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

What the radius for a clean F-35A vs combat radius for 8 AAMs for an F-15C w CFTs?

Anybody want to speculate on the cost of the F-15X vs the F-35A???

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

What the radius for a clean F-35A vs combat radius for 8 AAMs for an F-15C w CFTs?

Never seen an USAF F-15C fly with two CFT in the real world have you???

That said, with two external fuel tanks. We know the F-35 has far better range......(per former F-15C pilot Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn USAF)

https://youtu.be/QTgDTC8_PM0

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter

What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

Laughable as nobody has recently purchased any model of the F-15 Eagle for under $100 Million. So, we're to believe Boeing can develop and build just "12" of the New F-15X for under that....



As for $95 Million for the F-35A that is not support by US Government or Lockheed Martin Sources....

As I have said over and over again. The USAF is "not" going to purchase the F-15X or any other version of the Eagle. Why because you can't make a case for doing so....

F-15C fact sheet by USAF

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... -15-eagle/

Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks

F-35A fact sheet by USAF

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... htning-ii/

Range: More than 1,350 miles with internal fuel (1,200+ nautical miles), unlimited with aerial refueling

You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.

You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.

We also have first hand accounts that the F-35A has superior range to the F-15C (Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn USAF) and F-15E (Lt. Col. Christine Mau USAF)......

You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.

What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.

You can't compare ferry range, with combat radius. It's also important to note that conventional aircraft have a much larger routing penalty, when it comes to radius. If you want to know the theoretical range of an F-35, consider that it can fly 900 miles on 5,000lbs of fuel (it carries >18,000lbs of fuel.) It's safe to say that it's range is significantly more than 1,350 miles.

What's the source on 900miles? The F-35 basing EIS specified a fuel consumption 11.31lbs per nm for A2A config. That's 818km per 5000lbs. That translates into ~3000km range which less fuel reserve is approx 600nm combat radius that LM has posted from day 1. Spud posted the docs some time back. I should still have a copy somewhere which I'll dig up.

So, you don't believe Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn and Lt. Col. Christine Mau......(former F-15C and F-15E pilots)

Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...

Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...

You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.

Sure, if I compare F-15C and F-15E with the F-35A on internal fuel only, definitely the F-35A clearly out-range both. Now how do I reconcile that with the USAF "lying" about aircraft ranges.... or is the USAF and LM lying after 18 years of range claims?

The best part of the above is reading the F-35As doing a 3000+nm transit and needing 7 air refuels...

The F-15C and F-15E carry about the same internal fuel at ~ 13,500 lbs each. While, the F-35A carries no less than 18,500 lbs. Now the Eagles can carry considerably more external fuel. Yet, to do so takes away from the weapons load it can carry. While, also having a far bigger penalty on performance!

As a matter of fact just to overcome the weight and drag of carrying external fuel tanks. You need "half" the fuel in those tanks. In short only half of the fuel is "useable".

BTW You think the twin F100's or even F110's are more fuel efficient than the single F135 in the F-35???


As for needing 7 air refueling for a 3,000 mile trip. That is hardly what is needed or an accurate representation of the F-35 range. As such transit err on the side of caution. Which, would be no different for the F-15 or any other fighter flying on a similar ferry mission.


Oh, and Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn stated the F-35A had much more range than a F-15C with "TWO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS".

You of course realize they don't need them, they are precautionary (and probably for currency and training). One would do.

They also use them as a training tool for both the Tanker and the Fighter. As the Tanker is going to fly 3,000 miles and only refuel once! Hell, they want the experience (training) and the US Government is already paying for the time (i.e. flight)....