F-15X: USAF Seems Interested
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
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?
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)
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
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......
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?
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
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.............
- Active Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12
https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15e ... er-debate/
Long read on the virtues of F-15EX from a patchwearer Strike Eagle WSO.
Long read on the virtues of F-15EX from a patchwearer Strike Eagle WSO.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
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.
- Active Member
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47
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....
- Elite 4K
- Posts: 4457
- Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22
I didn't hear him address the cost of multiple logistical supply chains, training, etc....
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
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.....
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
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.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
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.
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....
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
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.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
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.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
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.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests