F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."

The USAF says hypersonic weapons are still in early stages of development, and that it is too early to know which platforms will be able to carry them. "

IMO that reason alone would be enough to justify it.

Other people have already brought up the F-15C/D/E/X is the only asset with a centerline to carry a single large hypersonic weapon. The F-16 has one, but is inadequate.

And?

And...? And I've watched this forum for years, and all you do is parrot what you read in a book or what other people say in other forums. You got put in your place a while back on this forum. And? And I'd like to see something original or new from you at least one time. F-15X and hypersonic weapons has been mentioned here and on other forums many times.

I don't know why a fighter class airplane is the go to for a large hypersonic weapon anyway...

Especially only 80 of them (eventually).

Buy more B-21s if you need them and use SLEP'd F-16s for CONUS

And...? And I've watched this forum for years, and all you do is parrot what you read in a book or what other people say in other forums. You got put in your place a while back on this forum. And? And I'd like to see something original or new from you at least one time. F-15X and hypersonic weapons has been mentioned here and on other forums many times.

Do you really need to have the difference between a bunch of forum posters talking about something (myself included), and an official expressing the sentiment, explained to you? As for "something original" it's not my job to entertain you. If you don't like my posts I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

edit: Oh wow. You've been here a whole three months. Shove off cupcake.

Managing an aircraft fleet is like managing your home finances.
You don't put all your eggs in a single basket.
Pure and simple economics and strategy.

Plus? With that A2A score? It is still a pretty respectable airframe for many years to come.

"Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

So there are multiple questions here:

1. As already mentioned, why is the F-15 seen as the go-to platform to carry a large (~7-8k lb) weapon, rather than a bomber or C-130 or whatever, enough to justify procuring it? It's not that it *can* do it, but that it's sufficiently better than another platform to justify starting a new line.
2. Adapt quickly...over the next 10, 12, or 15 years? What?
3. Here's a more technical question. The F-35's (inner external) hardpoints are rated for 5k lb. Is there some reason why they can't handle 7k or 8k lb? Since the weapons load also affects the plane's maximum G, I don't know if there's some way to avoid overstressing the hardpoint by lowering the max G allowed while carrying the weapon. For example, if the plane is limited to max 7 G while carrying a 5k lb weapon, then why not just limit the plane to 5 G while carrying a 7k lb weapon? The hardpoint is still "seeing" the same 35k lb load in either case.

Managing an aircraft fleet is like managing your home finances.
You don't put all your eggs in a single basket.
Pure and simple economics and strategy.

Of course. Home Finances! That's why they've studiously avoided any real discussion of new build vs. SLEP.
I mean..who needs actual modeling when we have cliches.

For example, if the plane is limited to max 7 G while carrying a 5k lb weapon, then why not just limit the plane to 5 G while carrying a 7k lb weapon? The hardpoint is still "seeing" the same 35k lb load in either case.

It's probably a lot lower than that. And it would be an off-centerline load. And the F-35 isn't even qualified for any 5000lb loads on it's 5000lb pylons. And there's a WHOLE lot more room on the centerline pylon of an F-15 than an inboard pylon of an F-35.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.

Nothing else makes sense. The F-15X is going to cost just as much as an F-35, probably more. It's going to be a whole lot less capable, in any air to air or air to ground mission. And for CON US air defense? These Super Eagles are way, way overkill.

They made a big deal about one of the F-15EX's selling points being it would carry the world's fastest mission computer, or some such verbage. You'd need that for a hypersonic weapon, as you would a platform big enough to carry one or two and carry it to altitude/long distances. Fighting and winning in the SCS with Eagles firing hypersonics could be what they're angling for.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.

Nothing else makes sense. The F-15X is going to cost just as much as an F-35, probably more. It's going to be a whole lot less capable, in any air to air or air to ground mission. And for CON US air defense? These Super Eagles are way, way overkill.

They made a big deal about one of the F-15EX's selling points being it would carry the world's fastest mission computer, or some such verbage. You'd need that for a hypersonic weapon, as you would a platform big enough to carry one or two and carry it to altitude/long distances. Fighting and winning in the SCS with Eagles firing hypersonics could be what they're angling for.

Or a pair of 5000lb weapons with room remaining for lots of gas.

Managing an aircraft fleet is like managing your home finances.
You don't put all your eggs in a single basket.
Pure and simple economics and strategy.

You really dont know anything about aircraft then, or budgets for that matter.

Unfortunately for you I have some experience with both.

Retired now.
Hey? ? I even managed to get old, and grey, LOL.

If I always bought the best of the best?
It would be rather impractical and silly to take the kids to school in an aircraft carrier, would it not?
Tja, a joke deserves a return. LOL.

Unfortunately for you I have some experience with both.

Retired now.

It never shows Vilters. You post some of the most absurd things I've ever read. I never see any of this experience shown in any of your posts. Comparing an annual military fiscal budget and aircraft fleet management to house finances is fairly ridiculous and anyone who's been in the business would know its not the same. like, at all. in fact its so not the same it really shouldn't even rate a mention.

As a fun aside I always get a kick out of the countries who operate just one type of fixed wing fighter telling Americans not to "put all their eggs in one basket" while simultaneously not paying for anymore more eggs, let alone any more baskets themselves. "funny" how that works.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the ability to carry a hypersonic weapon is really what's driving this.

Except they started TBG and HAWC 5 years ago; they would not have been intended for a type that did not yet exist.

[/quote]

As a fun aside I always get a kick out of the countries who operate just one type of fixed wing fighter telling Americans not to "put all their eggs in one basket" while simultaneously not paying for anymore more eggs, let alone any more baskets themselves. "funny" how that works.[/quote]

I am from Belgium, a small country that like most European countries is financially below ground level.

It took a national political miracle to buy "at least" some F-35 to replace our aging F-16 fleet.

So sorry, but we are a rather relatively poor country compared to Germany, France, even the Netherlands.

This is Belgium at its best :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwHotpl9DA