F-16.net

Corsair1963 wrote:

marsavian wrote:

The F-15EX is nothing but a paper airplane at the moment.

No it exists for it is only a rebadged/reacquired F-15QA. What is paper at the moment is additional external fuel for the F-35.

While, the F-15EX would be similar to the F-15QA/SA. It still has a number of "improvements" and doesn't physically exist. (FACT)

Such as?

Coarsiar1963 wrote: Nonetheless, you can't make a good case for the F-15EX over the F-35A based on merit. This is supported by senior USAF Leadership. Which, are already on the record. Stating they didn't want anymore 4th Generation Fighters. Including the New F-15X Eagle....(by name)

Hell, we have a number of former F-15C/E Pilots now flying the F-35A and love it. Go ask them if they would rather have the F-15X over the F-35..........

You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.

sferrin wrote:
F-15Es have been around for decades. Strengthening pylons for heavy loads has been looked at before:

None of those launch velocities are supersonic though (ALASA was 800 ft/s)
and the F-15E does very little supersonic launch which is the claimed advantage for the F-15EX.

sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.

My problem is:

The only payload hauling advantage in the high-end fight is standoff; the end of the INF treaty pretty
much ends the need to do standoff from fast jets.

1. TELs are cheaper to own and operate,
2. TELs have better pre-launch survivability
3. TELs an reload faster
4. the SRMs for the weapons themselves don't incur the cost and other penalties needed to
handle the under-wing/high-speed/high-altitude release environment from fast-jets.
5. TELs are a weapons system previously operated by the Air Force

marauder2048 wrote:

sferrin wrote:
F-15Es have been around for decades. Strengthening pylons for heavy loads has been looked at before:

None of those launch velocities are supersonic though (ALASA was 800 ft/s)
and the F-15E does very little supersonic launch which is the claimed advantage for the F-15EX.

But are they claiming supersonic launch with the large hypersonic weapons or just with AAMs?

marauder2048 wrote:

sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.

My problem is:

The only payload hauling advantage in the high-end fight is standoff; the end of the INF treaty pretty
much ends the need to do standoff from fast jets.

1. TELs are cheaper to own and operate,
2. TELs have better pre-launch survivability
3. TELs an reload faster
4. the SRMs for the weapons themselves don't incur the cost and other penalties needed to
handle the under-wing/high-speed/high-altitude release environment from fast-jets.
5. TELs are a weapons system previously operated by the Air Force

I don't disagree with those points. (And they'll probably have TELs for them as well.) Aircraft bring versatility and uncertainty to the mix though. With TELs you either need to first fly them (or ship them) in theater before you can use them, or have much larger missiles ($$$). With TELs missile range is what it can fly from the TEL. Carried by an F-15 you get to add the aircraft's range to the missile.

sferrin wrote:

marauder2048 wrote:

sferrin wrote:
F-15Es have been around for decades. Strengthening pylons for heavy loads has been looked at before:

None of those launch velocities are supersonic though (ALASA was 800 ft/s)
and the F-15E does very little supersonic launch which is the claimed advantage for the F-15EX.

But are they claiming supersonic launch with the large hypersonic weapons or just with AAMs?

They were claiming that the F-15EX's supersonic launch capability would permit a reduction in booster size for
the hypersonic weapons. Which is silly because HAWC/TBG began with several aircraft (B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-35)
which don't typically perform supersonic launches.

sferrin wrote:
I don't disagree with those points. (And they'll probably have TELs for them as well.) Aircraft bring versatility and uncertainty to the mix though. With TELs you either need to first fly them (or ship them) in theater before you can use them, or have much larger missiles ($$$). With TELs missile range is what it can fly from the TEL. Carried by an F-15 you get to add the aircraft's range to the missile.

The F-15 is going to need the same heavy lift aircraft for sustainment that would ferry in the TELs.
I don't see the F-15s self deploying with big, heavy and very expensive weapons either.

The question is: is the much large missile cost offset by aircraft compatibility cost for the booster stack/bgv?

I suppose I could see instances where you wouldn't get permission to base a TEL in a host nation but could
get permission to base an F-15.

marauder2048 wrote:The F-15 is going to need the same heavy lift aircraft for sustainment that would ferry in the TELs.
I don't see the F-15s self deploying with big, heavy and very expensive weapons either.

The question is: is the much large missile cost offset by aircraft compatibility cost for the booster stack/bgv?

I suppose I could see instances where you wouldn't get permission to base a TEL in a host nation but could
get permission to base an F-15.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. Consider that Russia has both TELs (Iskander) and air-launch (MiG-31 / Kinzhal) For variants of the same missile.

The Russians also don't have the large combat coded bomber fleet or the transport fleet
that, as has been shown in MDA testing, can toss ASBMs.

It always strikes me that very long range standoff doesn't utilize the fighter's main strength
in excellent organic sensors and agility.

sferrin wrote:

marauder2048 wrote:The F-15 is going to need the same heavy lift aircraft for sustainment that would ferry in the TELs.
I don't see the F-15s self deploying with big, heavy and very expensive weapons either.

The question is: is the much large missile cost offset by aircraft compatibility cost for the booster stack/bgv?

I suppose I could see instances where you wouldn't get permission to base a TEL in a host nation but could
get permission to base an F-15.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. Consider that Russia has both TELs (Iskander) and air-launch (MiG-31 / Kinzhal) For variants of the same missile.

Capture.PNG

TEL.jpg

What missile is that? It looks strange

sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.

No, you're missing the point. As any weapon heavier than 5,000 lbs would be carried by Bombers. (B-1B, B-2A, and B-21) Which, like the F-35 are "vastly" more survivable than the F-15EX.


Plus, the recent news that the real price of the F-15EX is $131 Million each not $80. May have just put the issue to bed.....

Corsair1963 wrote:

sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.

No, you're missing the point. As any weapon heavier than 5,000 lbs would be carried by Bombers. (B-1B, B-2A, and B-21) Which, like the F-35 are "vastly" more survivable than the F-15EX.


Plus, the recent news that the real price of the F-15EX is $131 Million each not $80. May have just put the issue to bed.....

I don't think some people understand what its like to pilot a small fighter that is laden with fuel bags and 10,000 pounds of external bombs (its going to carry other things on the wing stations) and several hundred pounds of AAMs. Then fly that pig dog inside space controlled by the other side not knowing where and when a pop-up threat emerges. The F-15 is an absolute pig in this configuration and that fuel gauge ticks down lower and lower mighty fast. Then toss in routing on top of that. Good grief its anything but ideal. A bone is more nimble and faster and less reliant and tankers. And if the threat level is so low that its feasible for an F-15 to survive, then its also safe for a 52 to do that mission. The 21 can't come soon enough.

There is no case for the X.

Plus, the recent news that the real price of the F-15EX is $131 Million each not $80. May have just put the issue to bed.

No, it will still require active Congressional pushback to kill this DoD idea.

marauder2048 wrote:The Russians also don't have the large combat coded bomber fleet or the transport fleet
that, as has been shown in MDA testing, can toss ASBMs.

Wut?



Russia: New Kinzhal Aero-Ballistic Missile Has 3,000 km Range if Fired from Supersonic Bomber

"Russia is claiming that the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aero-ballistic missile will have a range of 3,000 km aboard the Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire supersonic bomber."

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... nic-bomber

Corsair1963 wrote:

sferrin wrote:
You're missing the point (again). If it comes to hauling larger weapons the F-15 beats the F-35 hands-down. This is not even a question.

No, you're missing the point. As any weapon heavier than 5,000 lbs would be carried by Bombers. (B-1B, B-2A, and B-21) Which, like the F-35 are "vastly" more survivable than the F-15EX.

I'd be interested to hear how the B-1B would be "vastly more survivable" than an F-15X give the B-1B cannot even carry 5,000lb class weapons. Also, the B-2A and B-21 are "vastly more survivable" than the F-15E, F-16, etc. We still have those. Lastly, you still haven't explained how either the B-2A or B-21 are more survivable than an F-15X when it's carrying a hypersonic STAND-OFF weapon.