F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

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

It's a 2-stage ATACMs demonstrating the concept. (Threw it together before I knew of the existence of the Zombie missile defense target. When I do them over I'll base it on Zombie probably. Just looking at cheap, quick, possibilities.)

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.

You mean like this?

Or this?

Then fly that pig dog inside space controlled by the other side not knowing where and when a pop-up threat emerges.

What kind of f--king idiot would do that if they have a hypersonic stand-off weapon on tap?

A bone is more nimble and faster and less reliant and tankers.

Which 5,000lb class weapon is the B-1B cleared for? Where would they put it even if they wanted to clear it for one?

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.

That would explain why they've retired all the F-15Es and given their mission to B-52s.

Just for the record, the long range aviation - VKS arm (SAC-equivalent) actually comprises 3 bombers, TU-160s (~16) , TU-95MS (~40+) and TU-22M2/3 (~40-100) These are operated by two heavy bomber divisions - 6950 and 6952 Guards Air Base have individual bomber regiment each. Both carry the 5000+lb AS-15s (of which a TU-95MS can carry 6) ALCMs. TU-22M2/3s are used more as tactical bombers but they are the only ones operating ALBMs (e.g. AS-16s). Kinzhal can be considered AS-16 replacements.

Last year, russian new build production was 1 TU-160 and 4 TU-22M3s. This year should be approx the same.

I wasn't including the Tu-22 since it's not a heavy bomber per New START.

But with that treaty likely to fall apart, I would expect it to become one along
with the the B-1b being un-modified to accommodate larger payloads.

Completing Tu-160 airframes and rebuilding Tu-22M3 into modernized versions was what they had been doing in the past. Are these truly new builds? And if they are building new Tu-22M3, why not standardize around the same NK-321 engine for both?

The Tu-22M3 wasn't part of START due to removal of the refueling tube. I can only imagine it will be put back on now.

@Madrat, you're right.

Any Tu-160 entering service before 2021 should be an upgrade. New build should enter service from 2021.
http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/ ... 144@egNews
http://tass.com/defense/1037133

Tu-22s should also be upgrade. Having produced 500+ Tu-22s, they have enough airframes to upgrade....
http://tass.com/defense/1038351

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that Pentagon officials decided to buy the F-15X partly because it’s “slightly less expensive for procurement than the F-35, but it’s more than 50 percent cheaper to operate over time and it has twice as many hours in terms of how long it lasts.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/l ... rces-plan/

Sligthly less expensive than the F-35? Is he talking about the A?? I would have thought that by now the A would be cheaper than the F-15X?? Also surprised that the F-15X is "more than 50% cheaper to operate over time"? Unless the F-15 is significantly cheaper to operate than the SH, this does not fit with the results of the Danish eval.

Or is it the investment in new infrastructure that is the killer?

Not sure that the many hours in the F-15X is such a good thing -- do you really want to fly it into the 2050s...?

He is going off of info that Boeing gave him which is BS when you look at the costs for the F-15E.

Some of you guys are looking at the flyaway cost. USAF is looking at the total cost. The F-15EX does cost more than a F-35A at airframe + engine level but it doesn't need milcon costs like new hangers, ground and support equipment, toolings etc. Upfront cost, I think there could be some upfront cost savings esp when we're talking about small numbers e.g. 8 fighters.

Lifetime operational cost, I think less so. The F-35A is more fuel efficient, 1 pilot vs 2 etc, is unlikely to generate the kinds of annual costs savings envisaged. What I suspect is that the calculations are using lifetime based on airframe life (e.g. 16000 hrs) to divide the costs which makes it look a bit prettier than it really seems.

What the average joe doesn't realise but the USAF has to take into account is that if the production line stops, annual maintenance cost of the remaining F-15s are going to go up significantly. So that extra cost savings by continuing the line is the real justification for keeping production going at least for a while longer. If F-35A production rates was 200 a year and the entire USAF will be recapitalised in 10 years, then really get rid of all the F-15s by then.

However the reality, regardless of what some ignorant people think or if the F-15EX gets shot down, is that USAF F-15s are going to be around past 2040.

P.s. Danish eval would never have considered the above for a very simple reason. They don't currently operate F-15s.

Some of you guys are looking at the flyaway cost. USAF is looking at the total cost. The F-15EX does cost more than a F-35A at airframe + engine level but it doesn't need milcon costs like new hangers, ground and support equipment, toolings etc. Upfront cost, I think there could be some upfront cost savings esp when we're talking about small numbers e.g. 8 fighters.

Lifetime operational cost, I think less so. The F-35A is more fuel efficient, 1 pilot vs 2 etc, is unlikely to generate the kinds of annual costs savings envisaged. What I suspect is that the calculations are using lifetime based on airframe life (e.g. 16000 hrs) to divide the costs which makes it look a bit prettier than it really seems.

What the average joe doesn't realise but the USAF has to take into account is that if the production line stops, annual maintenance cost of the remaining F-15s are going to go up significantly. So that extra cost savings by continuing the line is the real justification for keeping production going at least for a while longer. If F-35A production rates was 200 a year and the entire USAF will be recapitalised in 10 years, then really get rid of all the F-15s by then.

However the reality, regardless of what some ignorant people think or if the F-15EX gets shot down, is that USAF F-15s are going to be around past 2040.

P.s. Danish eval would never have considered the above for a very simple reason. They don't currently operate F-15s.

Honestly, I doubt over the life time the F-15EX would ever be cheaper to operate than the F-35A. Short-term maybe but long term just don't see it. Plus, the extra equipment coming to support the new F-35's is already coming.

Plus, this doesn't touch on the vast capability difference between to the two. Really, in 2040-50 we are still going to be flying a 4th Generation Fighter?

Hell, a number of our partners are already planning just 5th Generation Fighter Fleets.

Plus, this doesn't touch on the vast capability difference between to the two.

Because it doesn't exist. Their actual capability is pretty similar, the big difference is one can sneak in while the other will have to fight its way in and out. However the latest Eagles will have EPAWSS with self-protection jammers. It's a brute force traditional approach compared to sophisticated stealth but the capability difference will not be 'vast".

https://www.defensedaily.com/air-forces ... air-force/

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... m--epawss-

I wasn't including the Tu-22 since it's not a heavy bomber per New START.

But with that treaty likely to fall apart, I would expect it to become one along
with the the B-1b being un-modified to accommodate larger payloads.

There's still the now back-in-production Blackjack that could carry Kunzhal. It's internal bays are easily large enough. As for the B-1B they'd have to remove the bulkhead between the forward two bays and/or reactivate the external hard points.

Kinzhal can be considered AS-16 replacements.

Not even close. AS-16 is basically a SRAM clone. Kinzhal is about 3 times the weight and much larger. 2600lbs x 15.7ft x 18in. vs 8400lbs x 24ft x 36in. for Iskander. A Tu-22M can carry 6 Kh-15s internally. It would need to carry Kinzhal on it's Kh-22 spots externally.

He is going off of info that Boeing gave him which is BS when you look at the costs for the F-15E.

What are your thoughts on the claim that F-35 costs are climbing?

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... nning.html

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.

Hah. Maybe if it just had CFTs and the weapon on the centerline. A B-58 or MiG-31 it ain't. (Or they could give it the 36k+ variants of the -132 or -232.)