F-15X as an interceptor

rowbeartoe · by **rowbeartoe** » 23 Mar 2019, 07:02

I'm sure this has been brought up a million times in one format or another, but I'm having difficulty finding the answer in these forums and with the new F-15X it makes sense to me to ask it again but for the X model. Especially if the F-15X will have the engines of the F-15E (Doesn't the C/D have the older less thrust engines?)

So the question is can the F-15X intercept a coastal threat faster than a F-35 (a-c) or F-18 (a-f)? Wouldn't the F-15 C/D, E, or X be faster partially or fully loaded than a lightly or empty loaded F-35 (a-c) or F-18? My guess is that it would be at the 30,000-40,000 feet altitude. At sea level, I'm thinking not much of a difference?

Anyhow- thank you for those who would like to spend time answering this question- You are all the best on the internet.

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 23 Mar 2019, 11:06

Yes, if it was lightly loaded but the usual QRA configuration would equalize the performance.

viewtopic.php?p=408801#p408801

madrat · by **madrat** » 23 Mar 2019, 13:37

F-15X is a heavier class of fighter. It may be faster than F-35A, but it would not beat the F-22A which is closer to its weight.

Fox1 · by **Fox1** » 24 Mar 2019, 01:17

If we indeed build this aircraft, I'd like to see how it would perform with the F110-GE-132 engines. Even a heavier E model based airframe would have to be quite sporty with two 32,500 lb class turbofans pushing it.

juretrn · by **juretrn** » 24 Mar 2019, 12:03

Sprts put a huge amount of effort into this:
download/file.php?id=29290

Modelling drag, fuel burn, missile performance, you name it.
The greatest unknown with the F-15X is which engines are to be used. (my guess is PW-229)

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 24 Mar 2019, 12:09

I think F110-GE-129 engines have been mentioned as an industrial base argument.

mkellytx · by **mkellytx** » 25 Mar 2019, 01:09

marsavian wrote:I think F110-GE-129 engines have been mentioned as an industrial base argument.

It's also what a lot of other USAF aircraft use. Kind of destroys the commonality argument to introduce an engine that only the UAE uses.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 25 Mar 2019, 01:14

madrat wrote:F-15X is a heavier class of fighter. It may be faster than F-35A, but it would not beat the F-22A which is closer to its weight.

I doubt a "Combat Loaded" F-15EX in the Air Superiority Role. Is faster than the F-35A......

Honestly, that is the whole problem with the debate over the F-15EX. As the supporters are making all kinds of "unsubstantiated claims".

Only way we should consider buying the F-15EX. Is after we hold a free and fair Fighter Competition between the two. :wink:

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 25 Mar 2019, 12:19

Unless additional separation tests were performed, any CFT mounted munition is still a 1.4M limit.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 25 Mar 2019, 13:29

Fox1 wrote:If we indeed build this aircraft, I'd like to see how it would perform with the F110-GE-132 engines. Even a heavier E model based airframe would have to be quite sporty with two 32,500 lb class turbofans pushing it.

Those engines have been run all the way up to 36,500lbs thrust. F100-PW-232s up to 37,100lbs thrust.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 25 Mar 2019, 17:11

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Unless additional separation tests were performed, any CFT mounted munition is still a 1.4M limit.

Just checked the flight manual. 1.4 is only applicable to the aim-7f. For amraam, its basic aircraft limit which is Mach 1.8-2.0 for CFT.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 25 Mar 2019, 20:44

mkellytx wrote:
marsavian wrote:I think F110-GE-129 engines have been mentioned as an industrial base argument.

It's also what a lot of other USAF aircraft use. Kind of destroys the commonality argument to introduce an engine that only the UAE uses.

Like that "only 5th generation fighters will be survivable in the future" argument I got to hear for 15 years?

The narratives are irrelevant at this point

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 26 Mar 2019, 00:56

weasel1962 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Unless additional separation tests were performed, any CFT mounted munition is still a 1.4M limit.

Just checked the flight manual. 1.4 is only applicable to the aim-7f. For amraam, its basic aircraft limit which is Mach 1.8-2.0 for CFT.

Those are wing mounted Amraams

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 26 Mar 2019, 01:34

weasel1962 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Unless additional separation tests were performed, any CFT mounted munition is still a 1.4M limit.

Just checked the flight manual. 1.4 is only applicable to the aim-7f. For amraam, its basic aircraft limit which is Mach 1.8-2.0 for CFT.

When does an Eagle ever fly at Mach 1.4+??? (let along Mach 1.8+)

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 26 Mar 2019, 04:15

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Unless additional separation tests were performed, any CFT mounted munition is still a 1.4M limit.

Just checked the flight manual. 1.4 is only applicable to the aim-7f. For amraam, its basic aircraft limit which is Mach 1.8-2.0 for CFT.

Those are wing mounted Amraams

CFT mounted.