F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 01:27

disconnectedradical wrote:F-15 may be famous and with excellent record, but this F-15EX is such a waste of money. And not to mention F-35 production capacity is enough to handle the extra aircraft numbers this F-15EX is part of. Not to mention an F-15EX will be much less useful long term.

I'm not fan of restart F-22 production, but even that makes more sense than this whole F-15EX nonsense. So they plan on buying up to 144 F-15EX at average cost $89.7 million. That's $12.9 billion. If they can spend this kind of money on another fighter, why not pitch in some more and restart F-22 production and get a lot more capability? :bang:



I like many agree....

You may want to let your Senators and Congressmen know your views....


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=form&id=16

https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact

https://castro.house.gov/zip-code-looku ... t/email-me

You can also find them on Facebook and Twitter....

(just saying)
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 01:30

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: In all my years, I never dreamed a 40 year old jet would be getting a fresh coat of paint and pushed as a front line fighter.

While I agree it is a waste, it is hardly "a fresh coat of paint". The OML and the APG-82 are about the only things common between the F-15E and the F-15EX. New engines (F110 vs F100), new EW (EPAAWS vs DEWS), the FCS (Full FBW), new cockpit (Wide area displays), and new mission computers.



Maybe more than a fresh coat of paint. Yet, even those upgrades won't help the F-15EX against future 5th Generation Fighters operated by our adversaries......
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 03:24

Corsair1963 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: In all my years, I never dreamed a 40 year old jet would be getting a fresh coat of paint and pushed as a front line fighter.

While I agree it is a waste, it is hardly "a fresh coat of paint". The OML and the APG-82 are about the only things common between the F-15E and the F-15EX. New engines (F110 vs F100), new EW (EPAAWS vs DEWS), the FCS (Full FBW), new cockpit (Wide area displays), and new mission computers.



Maybe more than a fresh coat of paint. Yet, even those upgrades won't help the F-15EX against future 5th Generation Fighters operated by our adversaries......


If you believe that 5th generation fighters will fight each other in a conflict between nation-states, I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 04:38

southernphantom wrote:

Maybe more than a fresh coat of paint. Yet, even those upgrades won't help the F-15EX against future 5th Generation Fighters operated by our adversaries......


If you believe that 5th generation fighters will fight each other in a conflict between nation-states, I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.[/quote]

What??? So, we will never see 5th Generation Fighter vs 5th Generation Fighter??? Really............. :doh:
Offline

gc

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 06:52

https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15e ... er-debate/

Long read on the virtues of F-15EX from a patchwearer Strike Eagle WSO.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 07:23

gc wrote:https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15ex-the-strategic-blind-spot-in-the-air-forces-fighter-debate/

Long read on the virtues of F-15EX from a patchwearer Strike Eagle WSO.


The F-15EX: a backseater jobs program.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 15:50

gc wrote:https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15ex-the-strategic-blind-spot-in-the-air-forces-fighter-debate/

Long read on the virtues of F-15EX from a patchwearer Strike Eagle WSO.


I did not get that sense at all. Thought it was a fairly even handed look at the decision process (however flawed that process has been). The WSO did not recommend the -EX as a gap full for the F-15C retirement, rather the -EX be incorporated into the F-15E squadrons,(edit- he also proposed moving older “E”’s stripped of extra kit to replace -C) and a notional fighter version of the T-X to recap ANG and air defense. I’ll reserve judgement on how practical that is....
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 19:34

I didn't hear him address the cost of multiple logistical supply chains, training, etc....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 00:58

As I've said all along. Just ask any former F-15C/E Pilot now flying the F-35A. If, the USAF should acquire the F-15EX over additional F-35A's. I doubt you would find a single taker.....
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1789
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 01:20

wrightwing wrote:I didn't hear him address the cost of multiple logistical supply chains, training, etc....


Don't think he needs to. No reason why F-15EXs can't use F-15C/E hanger/runways/bases. Existing training mechanisms for F-15C/Es are translatable to F-15EX. What DoD has been saying is that new F-35A squadrons require significant investment into basing infrastructure. That's not needed with 15EX and the basis of DoD's hardsell to congress.

Plus its a backseater jobs program, even though they're not using the back seat.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 06 Jun 2019, 01:25, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 01:25

weasel1962 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I didn't hear him address the cost of multiple logistical supply chains, training, etc....


Don't think he needs to. No reason why F-15EXs can't use F-15C/E hanger/runways/bases. Existing training mechanisms for F-15C/Es are translatable to F-15EX. What DoD has been saying is that new F-35A squadrons require significant investment into basing infrastructure. That's not needed with 15EX and the basis of DoD's hardsell to congress.



Yes, that would save a little money. Yet, the USAF is massively converting to the F-35 anyways. In addition the more equipment and infrastructure they buy into. The lower the overall price...Which, would drive down the cost for the whole F-35 Fleet.

Honestly, when you look at the entire picture. It's not even a contest between the two. :bang:


This could be the very reason the US House. Has decided to limit two F-15EX's for the 2020 Defense Budget. Until the USAF comes up with a detail plan. As to many the numbers just don't add up....
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 01:51

weasel1962 wrote:Plus its a backseater jobs program, even though they're not using the back seat.


A point found nowhere in the article. On the contrary, he wants no fewer than three
new two-seater fighter types: the F-15EX, a stripped-down air-to-air version of the F-15E and
a homeland defense version of the trainer.
Last edited by marauder2048 on 06 Jun 2019, 02:22, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 02:01

didn't hear him address the cost of multiple logistical supply chains, training, etc....


Fundamentally, the F-15EX is a new type which the Air land committee explicitly
recognizes by labeling them as "prototypes" and requiring that the program be
treated as a MDAP.

The slow rate at which the F-15SA is being inducted into the Saudi Air Force
(despite a shooting war where it's needed) is indicative of a new type.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1789
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 04:57

After reading so many articles and posts arguing that the F-15EX shouldn't be bought because its a 40 year old design, its refreshing to read the F-15EX now being a "new type". Should put a health warning that these can cause skull fractures trying to reconcile the 2.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 06:08

weasel1962 wrote:After reading so many articles and posts arguing that the F-15EX shouldn't be bought because its a 40 year old design, its refreshing to read the F-15EX now being a "new type".


What does baseline planform design age have to do with type status?
The standard length C-130J is an old design planform-wise but a new type.

And it was treated as such programmatically.

weasel1962 wrote: Should put a health warning that these can cause skull fractures trying to reconcile the 2.


It's only a danger to the deliberately obtuse.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 20 guests