F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Why use the F-15EX on CONUS duties? Wouldnt ANG F-16s be more than enough for that now that they're getting newer AESA radars?

Becase AESA radar for ANG F-16 doesn't have serious power. APG-83 was design as upgrade for F-16 which don't have AESA capable cooling like F-16 block 60 have. And cooling define radar power.

On other hand F-15 already have more powerful radars which demand better cooling then F-16 older blocks, and F-15EX as it look like will have AESA design cooling.

Russia is fielding LO and VLO cruise missiles. So if you want useful protection from such weapons you will need as powerful as possible radar.

Russia even though have SAMs which have decited radars to deal with low flying missiles and have mass production of cheap to get and maintain multirole Flankers still operate decent fleet of MiG-31 (they have more upgraded MiG-31 then Su-35). Reason is cruise missile interception. MiG-31 exercises are almost always around that.

In the CONUS Air Defense Role the F-16's would be directed by massive land based Radars and/or AWACS.

It's also worth noting F-35A's will also perform in that role with the ANG. As a matter of fact Vermont has already stood up with a full squadron. While, Florida will follow in a couple of years. With more likely to follow....

Lastly, the upgraded F-16's you mention are already used in the very role you're talking about. With ANG Units across the US. Clearly, the USAF / ANG believe it's adequate to the task. As they already perform it!

NORAD radars can't deal with new Russian cruise missiles. Nor can E-3 because it still use 1970s tech radar no big upgrade radar happen. So massive AESA radar which can be fit in F-15EX would be decent solution at least Kh-50 became operational.

Would it make more sense to push F-15EX to replace F-15E and when F-15C retires put older E's in to replace them? The A2A loads would be less stress on the older E airframes. The F-35A should do a better A2A role than any F-15 version for the frontlines. F-15EX wouldn't even play a frontline role in A2G against a near peer but they would do well for CONUS protection until the early F-35A can be relegated to the role. F-15EX would provide plenty of coverage to patch holes in the lines and could swing role to drop bombs in lower threat environments. I'd realistically rather have them burn hours on F-35A for most roles once the numbers get substantial because it is the standard airframe we need to build support for any future conflict.

Why use the F-15EX on CONUS duties? Wouldnt ANG F-16s be more than enough for that now that they're getting newer AESA radars?

More range, bigger radar, more missiles, more speed.

I really doubt CONUS mission is being given priority with the EX. Hell we haven't made it a priority in a LONG time. How many aircraft are on alert, even in the Northeast corridor?

2? 4? 8?

I've never heard of even double digits being in play, at least anytime in the recent past. If they were serious about the CONUS mission, you'd have adequate numbers of aircraft/people devoted to the mission. To me, it looks like they give it lip service. Russia OTOH is damned serious about it, with plenty of Mig-31's devoted to that mission, plus an IADS the US lacks.

Sure, you could momentarily "staff" up and deploy more aircraft/people and weapons. But when was the last time that happened on any great scale? Where are the SAM batteries ringing our cities?? Outside of a few jets on strip alert and some US Army Patriot batteries that deploy here and there, I just don't see it.

9/11 was a good example. Yes, there was an exercise going on that day but it was pathetic what USAF got into the air. A few jets, some of which flew the wrong way. Totally inadequate to combat civilian airliners, nevermind TU-160's and their cruise missiles. Hell some of the jets weren't even armed, with the story being that the pilots were ready to ram into Boeings if they had to.

9/11 was a good example. Yes, there was an exercise going on that day but it was pathetic what USAF got into the air. A few jets, some of which flew the wrong way. Totally inadequate to combat civilian airliners, nevermind TU-160's and their cruise missiles. Hell some of the jets weren't even armed, with the story being that the pilots were ready to ram into Boeings if they had to.

Back then there wasn't any real danger from conventional strike on CONUS. In fact you didn't had that danger even during cold war, Soviet ALCM were strategic weapons.

Also those cold war strategic CMs are lot easier to detect by AWACS then Kh-101 or Kh-50. Kh-101 is design to have stealth RCS at low altitude, Kh-50 is design to have stealth RCS in all altitudes:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy ... rdptsVYut0

NORAD radars can't deal with new Russian cruise missiles. Nor can E-3 because it still use 1970s tech radar no big upgrade radar happen. So massive AESA radar which can be fit in F-15EX would be decent solution at least Kh-50 became operational.

The RSIP and recent Block 40/45 upgrades to E-3 notwithstanding apparently.

Where the F-15EX comes in handy on the CMD front is the surge QRA capabiilty that
supplements an F-16 CAP.

The issue with the outsized loads on the F-15EX on a CAP is:
The Full Story On That Oregon F-15 That Fired Its Missiles Into The Sea Before Landing

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... re-landing

Re: the Oregon Eagle. Two comments from the uninitiated about the apparent currently accepted guidance for their abnormal procedures:

1) In my past at least, the prevalent view of the safest course of action for a gear that would not retract was to leave it down and put the gear handle and the other gear back down....and with 3 safe indications, leave it alone and land. No recycling to retract it....down and not coming up is far better than up and not coming down.

2) Doesn't the Navy regularly make arrested landings on the boat with live AIM-120s and AIM-9s on rails....or do they have get rid of the unused ones prior to every landing?

Of course rocket launchers with rockets in the tubes were a different story.

(And on the old AIM-9 launchers, I seem to recall a deceleration safety pin/mechanism that wasn't removed until the station was selected with the master arm on. But maybe that's aircraft dependent.)

NORAD radars can't deal with new Russian cruise missiles. Nor can E-3 because it still use 1970s tech radar no big upgrade radar happen. So massive AESA radar which can be fit in F-15EX would be decent solution at least Kh-50 became operational.

The RSIP and recent Block 40/45 upgrades to E-3 notwithstanding apparently.

They weren't big radar upgrades but upgrades on computers and comms in E-3. Radar upgrade wasn't consider because USAF expected to replace E-3 with E-10. Then E-10 was scraped and Boeing was awarded to do big radar upgrade but that too was canceled, because of big delays, though maybe something change in last years I didn't fallow it.

They weren't big radar upgrades but upgrades on computers and comms in E-3.

Which resulted in a 2X increase in range.
RSIP was very specifically focused on the low-altitude/low-observable aka cruise missile threat.

The issue with E-3 is not that it can't detect cruise missiles at range. It's the fact that it's a
low density, non-persistent asset that isn't typically assigned to ANG units.

They weren't big radar upgrades but upgrades on computers and comms in E-3.

Which resulted in a 2X increase in range.
RSIP was very specifically focused on the low-altitude/low-observable aka cruise missile threat.

The issue with E-3 is not that it can't detect cruise missiles at range. It's the fact that it's a
low density, non-persistent asset that isn't typically assigned to ANG units.

Well RSIP upgraded original electronics which was based on late 1960s tech, so no wonder better range was achieved but still it isn't not near enough for modern stealth ALCM and SLCM.

Hm I didn't know ANG units don't have E-3? So what they use as AEW?

All the CONUS based E-3s are centrally located at one base and are not quick reaction assets as such. It would take a number of hours for them to get to where they could support Oregon or Massachusetts F-15EXs.

All but 3 E-3s are USAF aircraft. AFRES (not ANG) has an associate E-3 unit colocated with the USAF 552nd, the 513th ACG (under my old fighter unit, now the 507th ARW), which technically 'owns' 3 tail numbers, which I guess means they can paint unit colors on them like the VAANG or HANG or Alaska AFRES F-22s. However, most administrative functions for the 513th (E-3), the 507th (KC-135) and the OKANG 137th (KC-135) are combined for all 3 units at one USAF E-3/E-6/KC-135/ALC base. Busy place. edit: Actually the 137th may still have some administrative functions at the civilian airport across town, their old C-130 base.

E-3s, I can't imagine a worse mission for the ANG, except for drones.

They weren't big radar upgrades but upgrades on computers and comms in E-3.

Which resulted in a 2X increase in range.
RSIP was very specifically focused on the low-altitude/low-observable aka cruise missile threat.

The issue with E-3 is not that it can't detect cruise missiles at range. It's the fact that it's a
low density, non-persistent asset that isn't typically assigned to ANG units.

Well RSIP upgraded original electronics which was based on late 1960s tech,

Late 70's but whatever.

so no wonder better range was achieved but still it isn't not near enough for modern stealth ALCM and SLCM.

This is based on what analysis? In the end, provided you have a CAP with AESA and IRST an AWACS can
trade false alarms for sensitivity and have the CAP refine or reject the detection/track.

After all, the big point of the Block 40/45 upgrade is composite tracks.

For the counter cruise missile threat, this is fine.

It doesn't work so well against stealth aircraft that are highly reactive to emitters and can fight back.

The bigger issue is again that AWACS are low density, non-persistent and if you want good endurance
you absolutely have to have a tanker.

Would it make more sense to push F-15EX to replace F-15E and when F-15C retires put older E's in to replace them? The A2A loads would be less stress on the older E airframes. The F-35A should do a better A2A role than any F-15 version for the frontlines. F-15EX wouldn't even play a frontline role in A2G against a near peer but they would do well for CONUS protection until the early F-35A can be relegated to the role. F-15EX would provide plenty of coverage to patch holes in the lines and could swing role to drop bombs in lower threat environments. I'd realistically rather have them burn hours on F-35A for most roles once the numbers get substantial because it is the standard airframe we need to build support for any future conflict.

Why use the F-15EX on CONUS duties? Wouldnt ANG F-16s be more than enough for that now that they're getting newer AESA radars?

More range, bigger radar, more missiles, more speed.

Honestly, I doubt their is little real difference between the two under real world conditions. Hell, you could even afford to acquire more F-16C/V's than F-15EX's. Which, will fill more of the gaps.

NORAD radars can't deal with new Russian cruise missiles. Nor can E-3 because it still use 1970s tech radar no big upgrade radar happen. So massive AESA radar which can be fit in F-15EX would be decent solution at least Kh-50 became operational.

Those Russian Cruise Missiles are carried mostly by a limited number of Russian Bombers and Submarines. Which, are very vulnerable.......

So, until they have a capable Stealth Bomber or a much larger number of Submarines. I don't see how a very modest number of F-15EX's. Are really anymore help than a like number of F-16V's.

Far better solution is more F-35's.

NORAD radars can't deal with new Russian cruise missiles. Nor can E-3 because it still use 1970s tech radar no big upgrade radar happen. So massive AESA radar which can be fit in F-15EX would be decent solution at least Kh-50 became operational.

Those Russian Cruise Missiles are carried mostly by a limited number of Russian Bombers and Submarines. Which, are very vulnerable.......

So, until they have a capable Stealth Bomber or a much larger number of Submarines. I don't see how a very modest number of F-15EX's. Are really anymore help than a like number of F-16V's.

Far better solution is more F-35's.

NORAD commander:

Russia has posed a nuclear threat to North America for over half a century, but has only recently developed and deployed capabilities to threaten the homeland below the nuclear threshold. Russia continues to hone and flex its offensive cyber capabilities, and its new generation of advanced air- and sea-launched cruise missiles feature significantly greater standoff ranges and accuracy than their predecessors, allowing them to strike North America from well outside NORAD radar coverage.

https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Speec ... e-hearing/

So no need for PAK-DA to launch Kh-101 against CONUS, as you can read Tu-95 and especailly Tu-160 will do just fine. In fact Tu-160M2 upgrade is quite problematic for long range detection, becuase it have RCS reduction measurements applied. Btw there are some Tu-160 which have them already not on same tech level as Tu-160M2 though.

Latest soviet Tu-160 (Tu-160M) had RAM applied for intake:
Tu-160M:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... 624&zoom=2

non M version:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... 160100.jpg

M had special RAM coatings of intakes and ramps, some sources mentioned RAM mesh which is used during subsonic flight.