F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 12 Sep 2019, 05:49

vilters wrote:What?
8? ?
Is that one for each museum in 50 years? Or how did they calculate that number?

Ah, 2 test AC; Probably one to test the static pressure system and one for the dynamic pressue system.

And somebody puts that on paper? A toilet lady does a better job.

Or do they need airframes to test the 737 AOA probes?

Will be a long time before the first F-15EX Squadron ever stands up.....When it does it's going to look mighty old! :shock:

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 12 Sep 2019, 09:58

Won't the EX just merge into the C squadrons, isn't that the whole point of it ?

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 12 Sep 2019, 12:38

marsavian wrote:Won't the EX just merge into the C squadrons, isn't that the whole point of it ?

I still can't believe we're building this thing, but it sounds like it won't be stopped so..

Has Boeing finalized the F-15EX design? Sounds like it'll be along the lines of the F-15SA so... what are we talking here?

1.) Up-rated, higher thrust GE/P and W engines. If so, what's the new air to air configured thrust to weight ratio?
2.) Able to carry 16-22 AAM's? I imagine it'll sling the new AIM-260, as they both should be coming online at the same time..
3.) More internal fuel?
4.) Fly by wire/new flight software
5.) Brand new glass cockpit, with new radar, E/W systems etc.

I'd love for the Eagle to match the Flanker's internal fuel capacity and get thrust vectoring engines, but it is what it is I guess.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 12 Sep 2019, 13:08

I can't believe it either but it's not like the line wasn't still building aircraft. The more I think about it the more I wonder if at least part of the thinking is, "we need to keep as many lines active as possible in the event the world starts to get REALLY crazy".

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 12 Sep 2019, 17:41

mixelflick wrote:Won't the EX just merge into the C squadrons, isn't that the whole point of it ?

I still can't believe we're building this thing, but it sounds like it won't be stopped so..

Has Boeing finalized the F-15EX design? Sounds like it'll be along the lines of the F-15SA so... what are we talking here?

Boeing page on the F-15EX:
https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

looks like an SA with USAF specific changes.

12 certified A-A points, same GE-129 engines, same fuel I expect. Same FBW as SA, cockpit might be new or might be on current F-15s anyway.

The USAF F-15EX will be a two-seat aircraft, aligned with the Advanced F-15, and will be powered by the same General Electric F110-GE-129 Improved Performance Engines. It will be ready almost immediately to roll off the active production line in St Louis, Missouri, with a few of the USAF F-15E’s latest modernization elements sprinkled in. The exercise brings about cost avoidance by using existing spares chains and support equipment. It also facilitates ease of transition, not taking a squadron off-line for an 18 to 30-month re-equipping and training phase.
The F-15EX will have a large area cockpit display and digital Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS).

Because partly of the foreign investment in the new displays and management of the systems, everything can be run from the front seat of the EX — the missionized rear cockpit can be optionally occupied by a weapons systems offi cer. All talk to date has centered on the two-seat EX, not a spin-off single-seat F-15CX. In fact, the USAF has said that F-15C units receiving F-15EXs will operate them with the rear seat unoccupied. Porting the Advanced F-15 into a single-seat CX would require some sort of re-certifi cation of the complex fly-by-wire system, and although the two aircraft retain the same overall dimensions, any risk incurred from new testing may prove unacceptable. The F-15EX is the preferred out-of-the box solution, initially at least. In fact, the first F-15EXs will likely go straight into test, in order to support the existing USAF EPAWSS initiative.

The F-15EX minimizes the training burden for an already overstretched system that is trying to maximize pilot production and retention. Transitioning an F-15C pilot to an F-15EX will be very straightforward as Boeing uses USAF pilots to deliver new Eagles that are currently coming o ff the St Louis production line.

The F-15EX will directly replace F-15Cs in both active-duty and Air National Guard units, although Goldfein says exact fielding plans still rest with Congress. Plans call for the initial two jets to be provided on a fast timeline to provide extra capacity for the EPAWSS test work, with subsequent aircraft destined for the USAF Weapons School at Nellis AFB, Nevada, and a few joining training activities for the initial conversion process. A source familiar with the discussions told Combat Aircraft that no specific F-15EX testing is planned.

combataircraft.net Oct 2019

outlaw162 · by **outlaw162** » 13 Sep 2019, 01:50

USAF F-15EX, USMC F-18F.....what they need is an optional fuel tank that's shaped like a WSO and can be strapped in the backseat.

vilters · by **vilters** » 13 Sep 2019, 12:38

At least it has a gun.

Better then a pilot key his mike and yell : "Bang- Bang- Bang, you are dead".

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 13 Sep 2019, 12:56

vilters wrote:At least it has a gun.

Better then a pilot key his mike and yell : "Bang- Bang- Bang, you are dead".

do those exist?

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 13 Sep 2019, 15:27

Thank you for the links to the EX...

So the new engines put out nearly 60,000lbs of thrust in full afterburner... Which is around 10,000lbs more thrust than the current F-100's. I took the following figures from the F-15QA page, insofar as weight is concerned..

45,000 lb (20, 411 kg) class 81,000 lb (36, 700 kg) max gross takeoff

So I'm guessing around 50 to 55,000lbs for a fully loaded/air to air configured bird? If so, that's going to have a pretty sprightly thrust to weight ratio! Even assuming it's configured with 2 CFT's and a dozen AMRAAM's, it's going to be a beast - even compared to the F-15C.

But even so.. I still can't believe we're buying this thing. And they're talking about buying over 100 of them! Boy, I sure am glad we stopped F-22 production at 187/sarcasm off. God, we could have been sitting pretty with 350 F-22's right now. Instead, we're ramping up production of.... the aircraft the F-22 was supposed to replace :doh:

Which means.. the F-15 will likely go down in history as the B-52 of air superiority - it just won't die. Dunno who's laughing harder: The boys at McDonnell Douglas/Boeing or the Russians/Chinese.. :bang:

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 13 Sep 2019, 16:12

Playing devil's advocate here ...

.... F-22 was expensive to buy and to maintain. If there was such a big demand for it the earlier block training F-22 would be brought up to later block combat coded status but that would be expensive to do to, ~$50m per plane. It's flawed in that it has no IRST or DAS like F-35. It also does not carry any serious load externally like F-15EX. Discuss ...

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 13 Sep 2019, 16:19

marsavian wrote:Playing devil's advocate here ...

.... F-22 was expensive to buy and to maintain. If there was such a big demand for it the earlier block training F-22 would be brought up to later block combat coded status but that would be expensive to do to, ~$50m per plane. It's flawed in that it has no IRST or DAS like F-35. It also does not carry any serious load externally like F-15EX. Discuss ...

They could add an IRST if it needed it. DAS is not magic. Carries as much as it needs to externally. (It's not meant as a strike aircraft.)

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 13 Sep 2019, 16:55

It would also be expensive to update the computer/network/software systems. I love the F-22 as much as any enthusiast but one can't but help feel, using a motoring analogy, it's a bit of an expensive ageing classic Ferrari to own and maintain.

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 13 Sep 2019, 17:17

mixelflick wrote:Thank you for the links to the EX...

So the new engines put out nearly 60,000lbs of thrust in full afterburner... Which is around 10,000lbs more thrust than the current F-100's. I took the following figures from the F-15QA page, insofar as weight is concerned..

USAF F-15Es used/use both the F100-PW-220 (25Klbs ea) and the F100-PW-229 (29K lbs ea) - don't know the current ratio of each.

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 13 Sep 2019, 17:22

outlaw162 wrote:USAF F-15EX, USMC F-18F.....what they need is an optional fuel tank that's shaped like a WSO and can be strapped in the backseat.

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 13 Sep 2019, 17:29

basher54321 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Thank you for the links to the EX...

So the new engines put out nearly 60,000lbs of thrust in full afterburner... Which is around 10,000lbs more thrust than the current F-100's. I took the following figures from the F-15QA page, insofar as weight is concerned..

USAF F-15Es used/use both the F100-PW-220 (25Klbs ea) and the F100-PW-229 (29K lbs ea) - don't know the current ratio of each.

3 squadrons out of 8 use the F100-PW-229

viewtopic.php?p=417826#p417826

333rd FS "Lancers" - F100-PW-220
334th FS "Fighting Eagles" - F100-PW-220
335th FS "Chiefs" - F100-PW-220
336th FS "Rocketeers" - F100-PW-220
389th FS "Thunderbolts" - F100-PW-220

391st FS "Bold Tigers" - F100-PW-229
492nd FS "Madhatters" - F100-PW-229
494th FS "Panthers" - F100-PW-229