As with the internal gun debacle, since most engagements are going to be done using missiles and radar from other sources, hauling along the extra seat with no extra eyes is probably not viewed as any great loss versus having the extra oomph in a turning fight or the extra fuel for greater range.
Economics is the key in combat vehicles today, peace time economics.

par13del wrote:

since most engagements are going to be done using missiles and radar from other sources, hauling along the extra seat with no extra eyes is probably not viewed as any great loss versus having the extra oomph in a turning fight or the extra fuel for greater range.

Yeah but future conflict would be done with guns and missiles fired from wingman drones. So that extra set of eyes keeping tabs of a dozen or so drones would be a force multiplier.

I can see them designing a multi-use electronic rack that bolts on to the rear seat attachment that can be easily removed when a second seat is needed. Versatility is a benefit in itself.

bt

Looks like the F-15EX has a new name: Eagle II

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/04 ... -new-name/

firemansparky wrote:

Looks like the F-15EX has a new name: Eagle II

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/04 ... -new-name/

Lame. Could’ve knocked it out of the park with “Iron Eagle”! (Not sure if royalties would’ve been required though).

I’m just surprised it’s not being named something PC like the F-15 Alcee Hastings or some such.

Eagle II = Eagle I's = Eagle Eyes.

bt

Is Iron Butterfly PC enough.

Iron anything would sound great. But the F-15 is mostly aluminum and titanium.

Since it's a 50 year old design, the most appropriate name would be the Golden Eagle. But Cessna already took it.

bt

A laser/directed energy equipped interceptor would make a ton of sense in a CONUS role. The F-15 would of course be the USAF platform with the greatest ability to incorporate this (capacity/power, and also no worry about stealth)

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/04/las ... big-plans/

bikerthai wrote:

Eagle II = Eagle I's = Eagle Eyes.

bt

Bald Eagle?

889091 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Eagle II = Eagle I's = Eagle Eyes.

bt

Bald Eagle?

Why not? The frame is long in the tooth.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Since it's a 50 year old design, the most appropriate name would be the Golden Eagle. But Cessna already took it.

KAI might take exception as well.

bikerthai wrote:

Why not? The frame is long in the tooth.

Patriotic too! But given your point, why not Toothless Eagle then...though one would be hard-pressed to find a real, live specimen with those...only ridges on beaks.

Glad to see the new iron on the ramp. Albino drivers are getting a good upgrade. Should be fun to watch this model develop and see which squadrons get picked to operate it. Also, nobody ever goes by the Air Force chosen name.

F-15C=Albino
F-16=Viper
F-15E=Mudhen
A-10=Warthog
F-35=Fat Amy/Panther

744SPX wrote:

90% BS and 10% substance. Typical intelligence insulting MAX-era Boeing hyperbole. F-15For maybe F-15G.

It bothers me they didn´t go for F-15F.
I understand when it´s about models sold to foreign air arms, like the F-15K, SG, SA, QA. That is basically a commercial name applied by the manufacturer.
But why does the USAF not follow its own naming protocol?

On a similar note, why doesn´t the RAF have a model denomination for the F-35B?
They call it F-35B instead of Lightning FGR.1 or something like that.

steman wrote:

It bothers me they didn´t go for F-15F.

I'd put my money on F as well, but now come to realize optically, it would be easier to integrate the EX into the E fleet once they gave enough F-35 and pilots to replace them.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Iron anything would sound great. But the F-15 is mostly aluminum and titanium.

CX747 wrote:

Glad to see the new iron on the ramp.

What about Metal Eagle as a nod to all GenX fighter geeks out there?

CX747 wrote:

F-15C=Albino

Strange.

My submittal for the unofficial name would be:

The Harpy Hen. A little like the Mud Hen but with sharper talons.

bt

Wonder what happened here?

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... _RbshWy_fY

Article title: F-15QA bound for Qatar declares emergency upon landing, leaves runway in Illinois; USAF pilots eject safely

ThePointblank wrote:

The -132 is also no longer offered. Notice that only the UAE was the only customer, and subsequent purchases of aircraft equipped with the F110 engine have been the -129 variant, not the -132 variant.

And for me, it seems, even the UAE was gave up the GE132!

If you see all post-2017 images about the UAE block 60 F-16E/F jets, the typical, longer turkey feathers of the GE132 was gone. Each of the current F-16 block 60 has the exactly same nozzle as the GE129 has.
And because the one and only reason for behind the F110GE132 (original project name was: F110GE129EFE) was to compensate the much higher normal takeoff weight of the heavier block 60 series, meanwhile the peacetime operating thrust level was reduced to the 29K static thrust (to reach the higher OPH or cycle numbers) -> there was no reason to use the unique GE132 anymore.
By the latest F110GE129C series, the max amount of cycles extended to 6000.
Previously, the promised number of the operating cylce was 4300 if you the GE132 runs at the 145kN static thrust settings and 6000 cycles if it is downgraded to the GE129's 29K lbs, or 129-131kN max static AB thrust rate.
If the UAE gave up the demand on the higher thrust, there was no valid reason left to operate the GE132 at 35K, so as there is no reason to keep the GE132 at all!

It is more expensive, requires a more difficult maintenance, because of the Blisk fan section, it requires a unique tool and spare part set and the UAE is unable to share the extra slot of the manufacturing. No any other customer has this particular engine.

And it is very obvious to see, no any currently issued media, info graphic, company anouncement calls the F110GE132 as a valid offer.
It is missing from the F-15EX, the F-16V, the F-16 block 70/72 and so on...

Since the development of an up to date tactical aircraft is almost 80-90% as a software or avionics upgrade and most of the development budget is focused on these IT things, even the latest and greatest programs are using 25-30 years old engines technologies.
Even the infamously slow and fat Super Hornet is still running with the basic F414 variant, from back in 1995. The 30% more powerful F414EPE is ready since 2006, but no one ordered it so far! Simply no one cares about the maneuvering anymore.

That golden era, when the USAF and the Navy was continously looking for the latest structural, airframe, aerodynamics, control or engine performance... is gone.
The today fighter technology development is pretty much about the EW - Sensor fusion - AESA - information flow - big data - network warfare things.
The budget is mostly a software-heavy. The delays and the budget overruns are coming from the extremly long programming and IT issues.
Oh, the good old days, when the challanges were the composite wing structure, the single crystal blades, the special coatings, the unique aerodynamics, the exotic FbW control, the thrust vectoring and so on... all those fancy things where the obvious benefits are rapidly coming back to us in those spectacular airshow moments...

The only latest and promised engine project is the Adaptive Cycle technology, the GE XA100 and the P&W XA101.

Pretty good piece adding some ongoing info about the EX and the skyborg unmanned wingman project/program.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... nistration

JayinKitsap wrote:

Is Iron Butterfly PC enough.

Only in the Garden of Eden.

Any news lately? I've searched the web and haven't seen anything.

Personally, I'm a fan of the program. It replaces ancient airframes without starting an arms race. I just hope they can get the GE engines.

SteelChair wrote:

Any news lately? I've searched the web and haven't seen anything.

Personally, I'm a fan of the program. It replaces ancient airframes without starting an arms race. I just hope they can get the GE engines.

Starting an arms race with whom?

It's taking forever for China and Russia to get their next generation fighters up and running. I'm sure of the US had built 2,500 F22's, tbey would have responded sooner. Mho

SteelChair wrote:

It's taking forever for China and Russia to get their next generation fighters up and running. I'm sure of the US had built 2,500 F22's, tbey would have responded sooner. Mho

I bet the J-20 program is independent of whatever the US does.

SteelChair wrote:

Any news lately? I've searched the web and haven't seen anything.

Personally, I'm a fan of the program. It replaces ancient airframes without starting an arms race. I just hope they can get the GE engines.

You searched the internet about the tennis court "XL" and didn't know it already has GE engines?

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Any news lately? I've searched the web and haven't seen anything.

Personally, I'm a fan of the program. It replaces ancient airframes without starting an arms race. I just hope they can get the GE engines.

You searched the internet about the tennis court "XL" and didn't know it already has GE engines?

Multiple articles out there about PW trying to get the contract.

SteelChair wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Any news lately? I've searched the web and haven't seen anything.

Personally, I'm a fan of the program. It replaces ancient airframes without starting an arms race. I just hope they can get the GE engines.

You searched the internet about the tennis court "XL" and didn't know it already has GE engines?

Multiple articles out there about PW trying to get the contract.

I think GE has the first 8 and the rest both domestic and FMS are up for grabs.

NLCFFX wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

You searched the internet about the tennis court "XL" and didn't know it already has GE engines?

Multiple articles out there about PW trying to get the contract.

I think GE has the first 8 and the rest both domestic and FMS are up for grabs.

Thanks for that. Haven't received any new information lately, on the engines or the program..

The 3rd airframe is not set for delivery until FY 2023, so maybe around Fall 2022?

Also it seems some airframe components will be built in India by Dynamatics.


bt

SteelChair wrote:

NLCFFX wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Multiple articles out there about PW trying to get the contract.

I think GE has the first 8 and the rest both domestic and FMS are up for grabs.

Thanks for that. Haven't received any new information lately, on the engines or the program..

This info is available on the previous page of this thread, it isn’t hard to find. You will only see PW on the TCXL if GE screw the pooch. The F100 is not certified for the jet so PW have to fork out that as well as bring a test aircraft down for a period of time, fast chance of that happening.

NLCFFX there are no FMS TCXLs ordered today. If Israel order they will want F100s since all their F-15s are already and Uncle Sam will probably fit the bill for that if PW don’t get on lot 2 to 9.

Steely, if you want info try this not mentioned here already https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... r-testing/ The Blue boys took the two test jets up to Alaska and had a play with the stubby and others.

So, its blasted around Florida and gone North to the last frontier. Had the jet out to Vegas, to play with its siblings and put it to the test against some harsher air defense systems. Let's see what EPAWSS and the EX can do.

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/f- ... 05.article

The EX is looking less and less like a true F-15C replacement and more of a move to fill the ANG with ground attack aircraft that happen to be able to fill the A to A role when necessary. AKA, the Strike Eagle.

Where's the Fighter Mafia when you need them?

744SPX wrote:

The EX is looking less and less like a true F-15C replacement and more of a move to fill the ANG with ground attack aircraft that happen to be able to fill the A to A role when necessary. AKA, the Strike Eagle.

Where's the Fighter Mafia when you need them?

I'm interested ... why do you think that? What I mean is how has the F-15EX changed from what the F-15EX used to be to become more of a ground attack aircraft.

And side note .. is the F-15EX less capable as a fighter than the F-15C? It has better electronics and a better pilot interface!

How easy is it to remove the conformal tanks? If the guard wants a plane that has better performance than the C, just fly it without the tanks. Don't put them on until they are ready to transfer to the E squadrons.

bt

With the exception of the F-22, for the last 40 years the USAF has oriented its entire fleet towards ground attack as a primary role. Giving the ANG Strike Eagles as a replacement for the air-to-air dedicated F-15C would have appeared ridiculous back in the early 80's. Its a significantly heavier and draggier aircraft with all kinds of equipment not required for the A-to-A role. More power may partially compensate for the weight and drag but not for the increased wing loading. The F110 is also a LOT heavier than the F100-PW-220.

744SPX wrote:

With the exception of the F-22, for the last 40 years the USAF has oriented its entire fleet towards ground attack as a primary role. Giving the ANG Strike Eagles as a replacement for the air-to-air dedicated F-15C would have appeared ridiculous back in the early 80's. Its a significantly heavier and draggier aircraft with all kinds of equipment not required for the A-to-A role. More power may partially compensate for the weight and drag but not for the increased wing loading. The F110 is also a LOT heavier than the F100-PW-220.

The F-15EX is an overweight behemoth but if wiki is to be believed... yeah yeah... the F100-229 is 3,829 pounds and the F110-129 is 3,920 pounds. A shockingly not heavy 182 pounds or 0.6% increase in empty weight.
F110 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... 110-GE-129
F100 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... 0-PW-229_2
F-15EX empty weight - https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro ... ghter-jet/

Crazy talk but it gets better, other than the F-22 has any other nation built a dedicated A2A interceptor in the last 30 years?

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Crazy talk but it gets better, other than the F-22 has any other nation built a dedicated A2A interceptor in the last 30 years?

Austria acquired 15 Eurofighters with a pure A2A load of IRIS-T and the standard cannon. The tranche 1 EF didn't feature A2G capabilities at the time and Austria never bothered with later upgrades that enabled A2G weapons.
I think the EF and the original Gripen are the closest you can find to a dedicated interceptor, although multi-role capabilities were always part of the design.

Sounds like it’s official; GE to power the second lot of aircraft thru 2031 as well.

WASHINGTON: General Electric’s F110-129 engines will continue powering the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II, the Air Force announced today, awarding the company a $1.6 billion contract.

The decision put to rest a battle between Pratt & Whitney, which produced F100 engines for the legacy F-15 Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle, and rival General Electric, which manufactured GE F110-129 engines for the first lot of eight F-15EX aircraft.

For the F-15EX engine competition, Pratt & Whitney offered the latest version of the F100, the F100-PW-229. No other offers were received, according to the Pentagon’s contract announcement.

The new contract covers engines for the second lot and beyond, with the possibility of supplying up to 329 engines for the twin-engine fighter.

“The United States Air Force is proud to partner with General Electric as our engine manufacturer that will power America’s newest, advanced F-15 aircraft,” said Brig. Gen. Dale R. White, the service’s program executive for fighters or advanced aircraft. “Not only will it reduce sustainment costs and drive down risk as it replaces our aging F-15C/D fleet, it will also deliver new capabilities that complement the existing and future TACAIR (tactical air) portfolio.”

The firm, fixed-price deal immediately obligates about $137 million for 29 engines, which covers all 12 Lot 2 aircraft and spares. The contract also includes seven additional options spanning the duration of the program.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/gen ... 1635590309

Congrats to them. It would have been patently absurd for the USAF to strip out the A2G functionality/bomb truck capabilities from the EX which were already incorporated into the SA/QA models on which it is based. These were essentially developed much later than the F-15C and stem from the Strike Eagle variants, really.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

744SPX wrote:

With the exception of the F-22, for the last 40 years the USAF has oriented its entire fleet towards ground attack as a primary role. Giving the ANG Strike Eagles as a replacement for the air-to-air dedicated F-15C would have appeared ridiculous back in the early 80's. Its a significantly heavier and draggier aircraft with all kinds of equipment not required for the A-to-A role. More power may partially compensate for the weight and drag but not for the increased wing loading. The F110 is also a LOT heavier than the F100-PW-220.

The F-15EX is an overweight behemoth but if wiki is to be believed... yeah yeah... the F100-229 is 3,829 pounds and the F110-129 is 3,920 pounds. A shockingly not heavy 182 pounds or 0.6% increase in empty weight.
F110 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... 110-GE-129
F100 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... 0-PW-229_2
F-15EX empty weight - https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro ... ghter-jet/

Crazy talk but it gets better, other than the F-22 has any other nation built a dedicated A2A interceptor in the last 30 years?

I was referring to the -220, which powers the C and is a good 600 lbs lighter than the -229

744SPX wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

744SPX wrote:

With the exception of the F-22, for the last 40 years the USAF has oriented its entire fleet towards ground attack as a primary role. Giving the ANG Strike Eagles as a replacement for the air-to-air dedicated F-15C would have appeared ridiculous back in the early 80's. Its a significantly heavier and draggier aircraft with all kinds of equipment not required for the A-to-A role. More power may partially compensate for the weight and drag but not for the increased wing loading. The F110 is also a LOT heavier than the F100-PW-220.

The F-15EX is an overweight behemoth but if wiki is to be believed... yeah yeah... the F100-229 is 3,829 pounds and the F110-129 is 3,920 pounds. A shockingly not heavy 182 pounds or 0.6% increase in empty weight.
F110 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... 110-GE-129
F100 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... 0-PW-229_2
F-15EX empty weight - https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro ... ghter-jet/

Crazy talk but it gets better, other than the F-22 has any other nation built a dedicated A2A interceptor in the last 30 years?

I was referring to the -220, which powers the C and is a good 600 lbs lighter than the -229

Mr Spock says it is illogical comparing to an engine that wasn't an option for the EX...

texl1649 wrote:

Sounds like it’s official; GE to power the second lot of aircraft thru 2031 as well.

WASHINGTON: General Electric’s F110-129 engines will continue powering the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II, the Air Force announced today, awarding the company a $1.6 billion contract.

The decision put to rest a battle between Pratt & Whitney, which produced F100 engines for the legacy F-15 Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle, and rival General Electric, which manufactured GE F110-129 engines for the first lot of eight F-15EX aircraft.

For the F-15EX engine competition, Pratt & Whitney offered the latest version of the F100, the F100-PW-229. No other offers were received, according to the Pentagon’s contract announcement.

The new contract covers engines for the second lot and beyond, with the possibility of supplying up to 329 engines for the twin-engine fighter.

“The United States Air Force is proud to partner with General Electric as our engine manufacturer that will power America’s newest, advanced F-15 aircraft,” said Brig. Gen. Dale R. White, the service’s program executive for fighters or advanced aircraft. “Not only will it reduce sustainment costs and drive down risk as it replaces our aging F-15C/D fleet, it will also deliver new capabilities that complement the existing and future TACAIR (tactical air) portfolio.”

The firm, fixed-price deal immediately obligates about $137 million for 29 engines, which covers all 12 Lot 2 aircraft and spares. The contract also includes seven additional options spanning the duration of the program.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/gen ... 1635590309

Congrats to them. It would have been patently absurd for the USAF to strip out the A2G functionality/bomb truck capabilities from the EX which were already incorporated into the SA/QA models on which it is based. These were essentially developed much later than the F-15C and stem from the Strike Eagle variants, really.

Good to see GE didn't screw the pooch.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Mr Spock says it is illogical comparing to an engine that wasn't an option for the EX...

I'm comparing the C to the EX empty weight. I do not like the idea of using a dedicated strike variant to replace a dedicated air to air variant for an strictly air to air mission.

744SPX wrote:

I do not like the idea of using a dedicated strike variant to replace a dedicated air to air variant for an strictly air to air mission.

It is but a temporary inconvenience until they can train enough F-35 pilots. Then the EX will be a "Mudhend II".

bt

744SPX wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Mr Spock says it is illogical comparing to an engine that wasn't an option for the EX...

I'm comparing the C to the EX empty weight. I do not like the idea of using a dedicated strike variant to replace a dedicated air to air variant for an strictly air to air mission.

Mr Spock just raised his eyebrow...

F-15E empty weight and with F100-229 TW is dry 1.12 and wet 1.83
F-15C empty weight and with F100-220 TW is dry 1.04 and wet 1.69
Figures again taken from the wiki pages... yeah yeah... in my previous message.

Morale of the story, EX has 700 more pounds of beer fat but still better TW empty than C in a stronger airframe rated for more flight hours. The EX will always carry the love handles for extra fuel and slower speed but doesn't have to. When it doesn't have love handles it is better A2A than the F-15C ever was and when it does it is damn close. ANG is starting to use CFTs so perhaps the last comparison is wasted, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... fuel-tanks

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

744SPX wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Mr Spock says it is illogical comparing to an engine that wasn't an option for the EX...

I'm comparing the C to the EX empty weight. I do not like the idea of using a dedicated strike variant to replace a dedicated air to air variant for an strictly air to air mission.

Mr Spock just raised his eyebrow...

F-15E empty weight and with F100-229 TW is dry 1.12 and wet 1.83
F-15C empty weight and with F100-220 TW is dry 1.04 and wet 1.69
Figures again taken from the wiki pages... yeah yeah... in my previous message.

Morale of the story, EX has 700 more pounds of beer fat but still better TW empty than C in a stronger airframe rated for more flight hours. The EX will always carry the love handles for extra fuel and slower speed but doesn't have to. When it doesn't have love handles it is better A2A than the F-15C ever was and when it does it is damn close. ANG is starting to use CFTs so perhaps the last comparison is wasted, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... fuel-tanks

It’s back to the future with FAST packs nearly 50 years on!

Interesting that they are looking to add more AMRAAMs to the load out and turn them into missile trucks. Will be interesting to see how that’s integrated into the whole battle picture

Looks like the F-15EX lives another day. Congress just approved 5 more for a total of 17.

by

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

EX has 700 more pounds of beer fat but still better TW empty than C in a stronger airframe rated for more flight hours.

Reminded me of my younger days as a skinny cyclist. I will out climb those guys with the beer gut. But on the flats, those guys would chug along forever and I would need a burger break after a few hours.

bt

Looks like the AF will soon take delivery of the next F-15EX frame.

The sonic boom created was from an acceptance test flight.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wspa.c ... -boom/amp/

Will this be the first production frame?

bt

An article from Air Force Mag indicating that PW will not protest the engine award.
https://www.airforcemag.com/pratt-whitn ... -contract/

A little more in depth article on the engine award. I recall Lot 1 done earlier bought the engines and a couple spares for the first 8. this award is for 29 engines, possibly 14 added planes.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ric-195749

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ric-195749