F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

jetblast16 · by **jetblast16** » 20 May 2020, 19:07

Fine, re-equip F-15EX with F119...

THAT would be interesting..

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 20 May 2020, 19:23

131stfwfan wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:US Air Force cancels GE Aviation sole-source for F-15EX engine, asks for competitive bids

By Garrett Reim|19 May 2020

F-15EX Boeing

The US Air Force is asking for engine proposals for its Boeing F-15EX programme, just a few months after it said it would grant a sole source award to GE Aviation for 480 of the company’s F110 jet turbines.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 46.article

The USAF has 239 F-15C/Ds in operation, according to Cirium fleets data. The service has talked about ordering 144 F-15EX aircraft, although the request for 461 engines may mean the scope of the programme has been enlarged

Rumor around industry is the C/D's will be replaced first, and then the Strike Eagles after. Modifications look slim to none.

I don't see replacing F-15Es with EXs. The Es still have plenty of airframe life, and are getting the new gee whiz avionics/sensors/EW/cockpit displays. I could see re-engining -220 jets, though.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 20 May 2020, 19:37

madrat wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Not sure how good this is..
,
You've got two engine manufacturers working on yesterday's engines, to power yesterday's fighters. I'd much prefer them spending time on the F-119/135 upgrades, and whatever's next for PCA..

Money and resources aren't infinite, and we need the best minds working on our best engines..

Fine, re-equip F-15EX with F119...

They wouldn't fit, or that would be a consideration. Both P&W and GE have shown that their F-100/110 engines are capable of significant thrust growth (i.e. they've demonstrated 37,000lbs of thrust.) Even with the-132/-232 trim, the EXs would be rockets.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 20 May 2020, 19:48

131stfwfan wrote:
The USAF has 239 F-15C/Ds in operation, according to Cirium fleets data. The service has talked about ordering 144 F-15EX aircraft, although the request for 461 engines may mean the scope of the programme has been enlarged

They are asking for fewer engines this time around than the previous solicitation.

madrat · by **madrat** » 20 May 2020, 20:16

wrightwing wrote:
madrat wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Not sure how good this is..
,
You've got two engine manufacturers working on yesterday's engines, to power yesterday's fighters. I'd much prefer them spending time on the F-119/135 upgrades, and whatever's next for PCA..

Money and resources aren't infinite, and we need the best minds working on our best engines..

Fine, re-equip F-15EX with F119...

They wouldn't fit, or that would be a consideration. Both P&W and GE have shown that their F-100/110 engines are capable of significant thrust growth (i.e. they've demonstrated 37,000lbs of thrust.) Even with the-132/-232 trim, the EXs would be rockets.

The problem isn't the engine, it is the airframe. It was engineered for engines that require extending or restarting old designs.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 20 May 2020, 20:49

madrat wrote:

The problem isn't the engine, it is the airframe. It was engineered for engines that require extending or restarting old designs.

Bottom line, F-119s won't fit into an F-15s airframe. They're longer, and have a larger diameter.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 20 May 2020, 23:59

madrat wrote:The problem isn't the engine, it is the airframe. It was engineered for engines that require extending or restarting old designs.

If you want F-15s that's the trade off.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 21 May 2020, 03:54

131stfwfan wrote:
Rumor around industry is the C/D's will be replaced first, and then the Strike Eagles after. Modifications look slim to none.

The plan was for the F-15EX's to replace the F-15C's. Yet, that is still very questionable with the current Cov-19 Crisis and future projected Defense Budgets. Also, states like Florida have been pushing the USAF to replace their ANG F-15C's not with F-15EX's but F-35A's!

As for the F-15E it's highly unlikely they would ever buy enough new F-15EX's to replace both the F-15C and F-15E. Yet, older F-15EX's in the future could be passed on to existing F-15E Units. As their aircraft retire.....

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 21 May 2020, 04:02

wrightwing wrote:
madrat wrote:

The problem isn't the engine, it is the airframe. It was engineered for engines that require extending or restarting old designs.

Bottom line, F-119s won't fit into an F-15s airframe. They're longer, and have a larger diameter.

Even "if" the F119's would fit. It would never happen as it would take to long and cost to much to incorporate them in the F-15EX. Such a proposal is a non-starter from the get go......

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 21 May 2020, 09:46

I think the EX will replace Guard units and free up the 119th F-22's and replace them with F-15s
This may bring back all Raptors to front line squadrons bringing the total to 6 active.

Curious, is it possible, no matter how expensive to bring all 180 Raptors to combat ready status and maybe activate 10 combat ready front line squadrons which was the original plan for the F-22.

madrat · by **madrat** » 21 May 2020, 12:41

sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:The problem isn't the engine, it is the airframe. It was engineered for engines that require extending or restarting old designs.

If you want F-15s that's the trade off.

Exactly. Not everyone caught on that point from the get-go. I was just saying it tongue in cheek. Sarcasm and sardonic humor goes right over peoples heads at times.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 22 May 2020, 01:38

zero-one wrote:I think the EX will replace Guard units and free up the 119th F-22's and replace them with F-15s
This may bring back all Raptors to front line squadrons bringing the total to 6 active.

Curious, is it possible, no matter how expensive to bring all 180 Raptors to combat ready status and maybe activate 10 combat ready front line squadrons which was the original plan for the F-22.

The whole point of getting the F-15EX is to leverage on the similarity to F-15C, minimizing equipment and re-training. It would be strange to u-turn and not utilize this having put this as a primary driver for the business case.

Per CRS, although the buy was for 187, 195 got built. Almost all of them are blk 10 and above which means they are air combat capable. There needs to be WPS, training sqns in peacetime. Its pretty basic. Doesn't mean instructors or test pilots don't get sent into combat or planes in those sqns can't be deployed....if the need arises or if volunteer. Consider that only the best pilots become instructors...not sure if they rotate instructors to units?

I hope some of our more esteemed posters who were instructors can share how that volunteer/deployment process works.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 22 May 2020, 03:17

weasel1962 wrote:The whole point of getting the F-15EX is to leverage on the similarity to F-15C, minimizing equipment and re-training. It would be strange to u-turn and not utilize this having put this as a primary driver for the business case.

Which I always found hilarious because there is not a single system more than skin deep other than the ejector seat that is the same. The structure is that of the E, not the C, and all the engines and avionics are 100% new to F-15C squadrons.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 22 May 2020, 06:06

Probably referring to things as simple as a 209, rather than buying a new 235A. The loaders, test support and other depot maintenance probably share some commonalities.

Don't think anyone thinks its completely the same. The EX probably has quite a few more fancy gadgets.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 22 May 2020, 08:10

weasel1962 wrote:The whole point of getting the F-15EX is to leverage on the similarity to F-15C, minimizing equipment and re-training. It would be strange to u-turn and not utilize this having put this as a primary driver for the business case.

The Air Force just abandoned the Mattis-era readiness goals that were rather central to the putative business case.