
steve2267 wrote:Within the context of Israel wanting additional F-15's, this desire may very well stem from the need to carry 5,000lb munitions such as the deep penetrating GBU-28.
From the last Weapons Carriage Requirements slide I had downloaded from this forum, the GBU-28 does not appear to be slated for carry by the F-35. So if Israel needs to deliver those somewhere, the F-15 appears to be their ride.
Based on comments by Gunn, Berke, Mau et al, it seems clear that the F-35 has much better legs than the F-15C. However, even if the GBU-28 could be carried by the F-35, and while there does not appear to be any show-stopper preventing the Lightning from being able to do so -- other than dot-your-i-and-cross-your-t's engineering work, it is not clear the F-35 with GBU-28's would have better range than F-15E's hauling one or two GBU-28's with external 600gal tanks. (As I'm editing this post for written clarity... the only thing that causes me pause is... the GBU-28 is quite long: could there by any fitment / separation issues / aero issues with such a long munition extending backwards from the F-35 wing towards the stabilator?)
From what I can tell, an F-15E may be able to haul
- two GBU-28 on STA 2 & 8 with a 600 gal tank on STA 5 for 27430lbs of gas total --OR--
- one GBU-28 on STA 5 with two 600 gal tanks on STA 2&8 for 31510lbs of gas total
I have no idea how far a Strike Eagle could deliver that payload, or how it would compare to an F-35 with two GBU-28's on STA 3&9.
But in the context of why Israel may be interested in more F-15s... it may be to lug GBU-28's around Iran...
Looks like 3 GBU-28s on the new F-15s.
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... poster.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... raphic.pdf
Good to know IF some of the comments on this forum are accurate (present company excepted) that the F-35s have a unrefuelled combat radius greater than 1,100nm and can do loiter of 1-2 hours at 1,000nm from base since they have longer legs than the F-15......
