F-15EX (is useless)

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.

Is the F-15EX really unnecessary?

Yes
10
31%
No
22
69%
 
Total votes : 32

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5172
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post27 Apr 2021, 13:36

KamenRiderBlade wrote:I swear, Boeing most have a Lobbyist bribing somebody high up the chain of command or somebody high up in the USAF to get them to buy the F-15EX.

Like acting Secretary of Defense Patrick M Shannahan, a 30 year Boeing veteran? Pretty sure he has the job when the first 8 were ordered.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4543
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Apr 2021, 14:17

ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:They should have just upgraded existing F-16's to the V Standard as F-35A's replaced them. That would have made much more sense and been at least fairly cost effective. Hell, they could have even just upgraded the existing F-15C's as planned. Either one would be better than buying new F-15EX's.


You are of course correct but the problem is that the F-16 (including the -V of course) is Lockheed Martin and not Boeing like the F-15EX.

The only reason why the F-15EX is being procured is to keep the Boeing flight production lines opened, period!
There's nothing that the F-15EX can do better than the F-35A (specially for the money that the F-15EX costs), period again.


I'm not so sure upgrading F-16's or re-building/upgrading F-15C's is the right solution..

In the former, yes they'll probably cost less than said F-15's. But they are certainly less capable in the BVR arena, and thus not optimal for the USAF's "first look, first shot, first kill" playbook. You're never going to get a more powerful radar in the F-16's nose, nor as much power out of it for various things, nor carry as many weapons - particularly if you're slinging AMRAAM's. At least compared to the Eagle/its potential for such things..

WRT to the latter, the F-15C's airframe is to quote 1 pilot I spoke to, "brittle". "That's how we have to fly them anyway", was precisely what he said. Sure you could reinforce the airframe, give it new wings etc.. You could put a newer, bigger radar in
, maybe EPAWS and a few other gizmos. But all of that is incredibly spendy, and wouldn't include the new GE motors, two additional weapons stations or the EX's new fly by wire system or a GIB to manage more complicated missions, control loyal wingman drones and whatever else is planned for him. As a result, you'd be paying almost as much to retrofit these F-15C's vs. buying new, and they'd be consideraby less capable. So I think if your stated objective is to "refresh the F-15C fleet", the best way to do that is build new F-15's. And lets not forget, most of these new capabilities were paid for by our allies. Not sure if the F-16V is in the same boat, but if it is I haven't heard about it.

I do agree keeping the Boeing production lines open played a roll. Probably a big one. Quite honestly though, Boeing needs to get on the stick with a low obvervable design of their own. Yes, they're in the mix on NGAD (and presumably the Navy's F/A-XX) but they have a LOT of ground to cover to be considered as a player in the LO/VLO fighter world.

Anyway, we should have just built more F-35's instead of the EX. Just like we should have built the YF-23A, Tomcat 21 and kept building the F-22. But these are the choices that've been made, and like it or not that's what we have to go to war with..
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post27 Apr 2021, 15:15

mixelflick wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:They should have just upgraded existing F-16's to the V Standard as F-35A's replaced them. That would have made much more sense and been at least fairly cost effective. Hell, they could have even just upgraded the existing F-15C's as planned. Either one would be better than buying new F-15EX's.


You are of course correct but the problem is that the F-16 (including the -V of course) is Lockheed Martin and not Boeing like the F-15EX.

The only reason why the F-15EX is being procured is to keep the Boeing flight production lines opened, period!
There's nothing that the F-15EX can do better than the F-35A (specially for the money that the F-15EX costs), period again.


I'm not so sure upgrading F-16's or re-building/upgrading F-15C's is the right solution..

In the former, yes they'll probably cost less than said F-15's. But they are certainly less capable in the BVR arena, and thus not optimal for the USAF's "first look, first shot, first kill" playbook. You're never going to get a more powerful radar in the F-16's nose, nor as much power out of it for various things, nor carry as many weapons - particularly if you're slinging AMRAAM's. At least compared to the Eagle/its potential for such things..

WRT to the latter, the F-15C's airframe is to quote 1 pilot I spoke to, "brittle". "That's how we have to fly them anyway", was precisely what he said. Sure you could reinforce the airframe, give it new wings etc.. You could put a newer, bigger radar in
, maybe EPAWS and a few other gizmos. But all of that is incredibly spendy, and wouldn't include the new GE motors, two additional weapons stations or the EX's new fly by wire system or a GIB to manage more complicated missions, control loyal wingman drones and whatever else is planned for him. As a result, you'd be paying almost as much to retrofit these F-15C's vs. buying new, and they'd be consideraby less capable. So I think if your stated objective is to "refresh the F-15C fleet", the best way to do that is build new F-15's. And lets not forget, most of these new capabilities were paid for by our allies. Not sure if the F-16V is in the same boat, but if it is I haven't heard about it.

I do agree keeping the Boeing production lines open played a roll. Probably a big one. Quite honestly though, Boeing needs to get on the stick with a low obvervable design of their own. Yes, they're in the mix on NGAD (and presumably the Navy's F/A-XX) but they have a LOT of ground to cover to be considered as a player in the LO/VLO fighter world.

Anyway, we should have just built more F-35's instead of the EX. Just like we should have built the YF-23A, Tomcat 21 and kept building the F-22. But these are the choices that've been made, and like it or not that's what we have to go to war with..



Everything F-16 is cheaper than F-15 including the V upgrade. And the F-16s in the USAF are indeed newer. like the Gripen though the "low cost comes at a price" the larger fighter can do more overall. But buying F-16s would as you point out defeat the purpose of keeping the Boeing line going which has been publicly and officially stated (not some cockamamie internet conspiracy theory) to be one reason to keep the line open.

I personally think its time to cut the BS and just let LM take the lead with fighters and stop pretending Boeing which has never won a fighter contract that wasn't with McAir products specalize in other fields. The reason Northrop Grumman won with B-21 was they basically said "were the only company thats ever made a flying wing stealth bomber" and they magically won. LM is the only company thats made 5th generation fighters (though Boeing and NG were big subcontractors on both, and NG is a big subcontractor on Super Hornet as well) its basically corporate welfare. And all the people that fret about "eggs in one basket" We already do that with plenty of other things. I have no idea why we have to keep Boeing on board so we can be treated to failures that don't get picked, but continue to haunt us

Image

Boeing doesn't innovate. They take designs from decades ago and just endless improve them from 737s to F-15s, its just the same trash recycled endlessly. And even then they botch it. Block III CFTs whoops! don't work! 737Max software--oops!

But we have to keep feeding them! instead of realizing that LM does better fighters, and Boeing does better big jets. hey and one day, these guys are gonna fix that KC-46 I tells ya. They're gonna pop out a 6th generation fighter that puts everyone else to shame.

Image

Boeing innovation. Parked.

I'm sure theyre NGAD proposal will be an F-15 variant of some sort :mrgreen: ha.ha.ha.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 906
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post27 Apr 2021, 17:19

NGAD - Not Grumman and Douglas lol

F-15EX(cuse) :mrgreen:

Sorry, had to go there.
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 906
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post27 Apr 2021, 17:26

Man-oh-man, I sure do miss ole' McDonnell Douglas...

Pretty much an evolved F-35 (full Block 4 configuration) with a variable cycle engine is the gold standard...but that is a few billion dollars and years away.

The F-15EX(F) basically has the RCS of an oil tanker...but is pretty capable at certain missions and can most definitely take over the homeland defense mission, which is debatable, as I am sure it will get dragged in to the next overseas conflict our country is embroiled in.

I mean, shoot!! I want the below!!! But when is THAT supposed to happen? If you think the below is going to happen soon, be cost-effective, and be on time or schedule, I have a bridge to sell you:)

AFRL_NGAD_concept_profile_shot.png
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2679
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post27 Apr 2021, 23:14

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I swear, Boeing most have a Lobbyist bribing somebody high up the chain of command or somebody high up in the USAF to get them to buy the F-15EX.

Like acting Secretary of Defense Patrick M Shannahan, a 30 year Boeing veteran? Pretty sure he has the job when the first 8 were ordered.

How did they let that guy be the acting Secretary of Defense?

There should be some obvious "Conflicts of Interest".
Offline

magnum4469

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 18:27

Unread post28 Apr 2021, 01:50

Could this be the reason why the F-15EX is being purchased by the USAF??? Maybe this blog should be retitled "F-35 is USELESS!!"
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/us-ad ... 7WQCUrGYl8
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7794
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Apr 2021, 06:44

magnum4469 wrote:Could this be the reason why the F-15EX is being purchased by the USAF??? Maybe this blog should be retitled "F-35 is USELESS!!"
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/us-ad ... 7WQCUrGYl8



Most the the critics of the F-35 have motives against it. Something we rarely talk about........(Competitors, Politicians, Hostile Nations, etc.)

That would love to see it fail......Which, is why the criticism is endless and always will be. That is until the NGAD becomes a real threat!


Here's a good example.........House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, recently referred to the F-35 Program as a “rathole” and news reports shouted it to the top of their lungs!

Yet, few even said anything about the fact. That Smith is the representative of the 9th District in Washington. To be specific the area around Renton. So, what is in Renton...............BOEING! They have their main plant there that build B737's, B747's, and P-8's! Which, is a big share of their business.

Funny, that virtually none of the articles that posted Rep Smiths negative comments about the F-35. Brought up his clear conflict of interest and his bias on the subject matter.

As I always say about the Media. It's not so much what they tell you, it's what they DON'T!
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5716
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 Apr 2021, 13:17

magnum4469 wrote:Could this be the reason why the F-15EX is being purchased by the USAF??? Maybe this blog should be retitled "F-35 is USELESS!!"
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/us-ad ... 7WQCUrGYl8


Or maybe, "some people are idiots". :doh:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2996
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post29 Apr 2021, 16:00



That article has lots of problems. But this statement does seem accurate:

"The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth generation aircraft that would replace the F-16."


Unfortunately, the new AFCOS makes the cartoon character appear smart.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Apr 2021, 01:24

steve2267 wrote:


That article has lots of problems. But this statement does seem accurate:

"The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth generation aircraft that would replace the F-16."


Unfortunately, the new AFCOS makes the cartoon character appear smart.



That article was lousy LOL.

the "5th gen minus" thing all stems from some wargame that the USAF has decided is now the bible from on high, and as we have pointed out here already, we can't tell whether the wargame was informing the air force, or the air force was informing the war game. in the war game there are basically "defensive airfield orbiter" fighters that keep the Chinese at bay, and are just low cost non-LO missile trucks.

This dove tails with the new idea that the USAF is onto some kind of procurement/development/cost revolution, and can make a new fighter airplane happen in years instead of the decades we have become accustomed to. So the USAF now has a shopping list that will be filled with magical fighters that cost less and do more than 5th generation, and did I mention theyll be ready in a fraction of the time?

its going to the holy trinity-- good, fast, cheap!
Choose Crews
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3671
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post30 Apr 2021, 09:51

XanderCrews wrote:This dove tails with the new idea that the USAF is onto some kind of procurement/development/cost revolution, and can make a new fighter airplane happen in years instead of the decades we have become accustomed to. So the USAF now has a shopping list that will be filled with magical fighters that cost less and do more than 5th generation, and did I mention theyll be ready in a fraction of the time?

its going to the holy trinity-- good, fast, cheap!


:D

Oh man, it's going to be great. Just use digital engineering and agile development methods and every possible development problem is just going to go away... :roll:

Most of the costs, development problems and delays are not even related to hardware but rather software. Making the actual airframe isn't really the difficult part anymore, although naturally it's far from trivial. However it's the huge amount of software that takes a lot of time and testing to get right (meaning time and money). I'm sure 6th gen aircraft will have far more software and lines of code than current 5th gens do. F-15EX was quick as basically it didn't need much new software or hardware either. Most of that was already developed and operationally tested with previous Strike Eagle variants.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4543
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post30 Apr 2021, 13:59

How does everyone think a souped up Beagle will perform as an air superiority platform?

On the surface, it has (almost) everything a 21st century fighter needs: Super long range radar, ability to carry lots of missiles, passive sensors, fastest mission computer in the world (per Boeing), excellent thrust to weight/acceleration, very good maneuverability, climbs like a rocket and now with EPAWS a top shelf E/W system.

The only negatives I can see are lack of stealth and... those CFT's. Which make it I suppose less maneuverable but bring a big increase in range. What I can't figure out is why it's flying with those vs. EFT's? Almost every F-15C eschews the CFT's for underwing tanks, the rational being they can be punched if need be and CFT's can't. If operational units continue to fly CFT's, I wonder..... if USAF has any plans to use the quad AAM racks?

I thought I read they nixed those..
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2996
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post30 Apr 2021, 15:03

Maybe your super duper Beagle is not all you crack it up to be?

More like a Fat Chic. (Hauling bombs to reload Panthers and Raptors.) :bang: Can't make this sh*t up.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post01 May 2021, 02:56

XanderCrews wrote:I just don't like being lied to. If its a good idea it will stand on its own merits. Don't tell me its "Ready now" when its years away. Yes I understand its much faster than starting from scratch, but thats still a few years. and in a few years the situation will look different.


So, about 3 more years to get a IOC SQN of F-15EX?

In F-35 years, that would equate to between ~360 to ~520 more F-35 produced in the same period.

But if it took 4 years to deliver the F-15EX "Messiah" (better than 'Eagle II' eh?), that would be ~480 to ~670 more F-35 ... lethally-distributed, globally ... and we can't have that!

Wot with B-2, a B-21 (ready now?) and F-22A back-of-the-bus dweller.

1,200 to 1,300 stealth fighters and bombers ... and 1 SQN of OLD F-15EX ...

Personally, I prefer the informal nickname F-15EX "Millstone".
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hkultala and 24 guests