Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
bikerthai wrote:So they plan to deliver the two test planes early (second quarter 2021 as opposed to third quarter). Manufacturing and integration must have gone smoothly.
Add to that with the Democrat controlling the Senate, and Washington State has two senior Democratic Senators (arguably as pro-Boeing as any Democratic politician can get since Norm Dicks), it will be hard to cut back this program now. At least for the next two years.
bt
ThePointblank wrote:The F-15 is made in St. Louis, Missouri.
kc135topboom wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/boeing-s-f-15ex-with-digital-backbone-completes-its-first-test-flight/ar-BB1doEFt?ocid=msedgdhp
Nomadd wrote:So, paying $160 million per F-15 instead of half that for F-35s is "the more budget-conscious option"?
bikerthai wrote:I read somewhere that even with two engines cost of operating the new F-15 will be less than the F-35 per flight hours.
bikerthai wrote:Nomadd wrote:So, paying $160 million per F-15 instead of half that for F-35s is "the more budget-conscious option"?
Really depends on which budget you are saving doesn't it?
How much more would it cost to train extra pilots switch over the 15 pilots to man more F-35's while maintaining required operation level? If there are enough pilots out there to be trained.
bikerthai wrote:I read somewhere that even with two engines cost of operating the new F-15 will be less than the F-35 per flight hours.
bikerthai wrote:Ozair may dispute this, but that's what the selling point of the F-15. The article also talked about the possibility of getting more F-16s. So it's not strictly a bone for Boeing.
CRJockey wrote:bikerthai wrote:I read somewhere that even with two engines cost of operating the new F-15 will be less than the F-35 per flight hours.
That is somehow hard to imagine if you stick to flight associated cost. Surely, if you unfairly distribute any given share of R&D expenses over the fleet, I can see the F15 being cheaper in the hour. Otherwise? Not so much. But would be interesting to see non-tilted numbers.
bikerthai wrote:Besides the internal weapon bay, don't forget that the F-35 have significantly larger percentage of composite structure that gives it a greater weight advantage over both the F-16 and the F-15.
I wonder if you just take the F-35 and eliminate any radar absorbing coating, thus the associated maintenance, will you get significantly reduced maintenance hours?
Even with out the coatings, the radar profile would still be pretty good.
bt
Ozair wrote:CRJockey wrote:bikerthai wrote:I read somewhere that even with two engines cost of operating the new F-15 will be less than the F-35 per flight hours.
That is somehow hard to imagine if you stick to flight associated cost. Surely, if you unfairly distribute any given share of R&D expenses over the fleet, I can see the F15 being cheaper in the hour. Otherwise? Not so much. But would be interesting to see non-tilted numbers.
I did a comparison the other day on using the F-15E versus the F-16C in a DCA profile. The numbers come from a RAND study which I can link if anyone is interested. The jist is that the F-15E was getting about 25 minutes more loiter time for the DCA profile, something like 160 versus 135. The interesting comparison though was that both jets were maxed with three tanks and the F-15E also had the CFTs. The F-15E fuel used for the profile was 36K lbs while the F-16 was using only 17.5K lbs...
Put that in context then, even just for fuel an F-15E was using about 1.7 times the fuel for an extra 2 AAMs. To put it in further context, the F-35A has 18k lbs of internal fuel (no coincidence that is close to max F-16C fuel load with three tanks), so would fly that DCA profile with six AAMs internal, essentially minimal drag, compared to F-15E and F-16C. That is where the impressive range comes from and why F-35 pilots have stated they have more range than F-15E. Minimal drag also means the F-35A is going to be able to accelerate faster and fly faster, hence why the top speed of M1.6 is actually realistic and obtainable.
744SPX wrote:It would have the added benefit of removing the restrictions on supersonic flight time and solve the issue of the afterburner damaging the stealth coatings.
744SPX wrote:Ozair wrote:CRJockey wrote:
That is somehow hard to imagine if you stick to flight associated cost. Surely, if you unfairly distribute any given share of R&D expenses over the fleet, I can see the F15 being cheaper in the hour. Otherwise? Not so much. But would be interesting to see non-tilted numbers.
I did a comparison the other day on using the F-15E versus the F-16C in a DCA profile. The numbers come from a RAND study which I can link if anyone is interested. The jist is that the F-15E was getting about 25 minutes more loiter time for the DCA profile, something like 160 versus 135. The interesting comparison though was that both jets were maxed with three tanks and the F-15E also had the CFTs. The F-15E fuel used for the profile was 36K lbs while the F-16 was using only 17.5K lbs...
Put that in context then, even just for fuel an F-15E was using about 1.7 times the fuel for an extra 2 AAMs. To put it in further context, the F-35A has 18k lbs of internal fuel (no coincidence that is close to max F-16C fuel load with three tanks), so would fly that DCA profile with six AAMs internal, essentially minimal drag, compared to F-15E and F-16C. That is where the impressive range comes from and why F-35 pilots have stated they have more range than F-15E. Minimal drag also means the F-35A is going to be able to accelerate faster and fly faster, hence why the top speed of M1.6 is actually realistic and obtainable.
...and how often is the Eagle going to be flown with 36k of fuel? Pretty much never.
bikerthai wrote:Besides the internal weapon bay, don't forget that the F-35 have significantly larger percentage of composite structure that gives it a greater weight advantage over both the F-16 and the F-15.
bikerthai wrote:I wonder if you just take the F-35 and eliminate any radar absorbing coating, thus the associated maintenance, will you get significantly reduced maintenance hours?
Even with out the coatings, the radar profile would still be pretty good.
bt
744SPX wrote:bikerthai wrote:Besides the internal weapon bay, don't forget that the F-35 have significantly larger percentage of composite structure that gives it a greater weight advantage over both the F-16 and the F-15.
I wonder if you just take the F-35 and eliminate any radar absorbing coating, thus the associated maintenance, will you get significantly reduced maintenance hours?
Even with out the coatings, the radar profile would still be pretty good.
bt
It would have the added benefit of removing the restrictions on supersonic flight time and solve the issue of the afterburner damaging the stealth coatings.
The coatings seem to be more trouble than they are worth.
Ozair wrote:bikerthai wrote:Besides the internal weapon bay, don't forget that the F-35 have significantly larger percentage of composite structure that gives it a greater weight advantage over both the F-16 and the F-15.
It does but holes inside planes are heavy... The internal weapons bay results in a higher empty weight than if the aircraft were restricted to external carriage only. Likley a lot les than carrying that payload, either fuel or weapons, external but still a factor.
LightningZ71 wrote:However, when you load that same load out on the F-16, and you give it enough tanks to max out its range, it now flies more like a pig, has a bunch more drag, still doesn’t match the range,
RJMAZ wrote:Was it Boeing trying to keep the line open or Senators trying to keep jobs in their electorate? I guess they need to fabricate a semi believable excuse to justify the purchase.
texl1649 wrote:Cost aside, a diversity both industrially, and operationally, in the TACAIR fleet is a good thing.
bikerthai wrote:
It is politics alright, but I doubt the Senators in Boeing's camp has anything to do with the initial concept.
Recall the idea came at the time when Trump hired the Boeing Exec to become Sec of Def. Because of domestic issue, he was never confirmed. But the idea lived on. It would not have lasted that long if there isn't some backing from some faction in the Pentagon.
At the rollout of the 2020 defense budget request, however, Pentagon Comptroller Elaine A. McCusker revealed that it was former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis who ordered the Air Force to buy new Eagles.
Creating a “balance between the fourth and fifth-generation aircraft… [was] a decision that was made by Secretary Mattis before he left,” she said, noting that he had paid a lot of attention to “our cost calculus” in the field of tactical aviation.
bikerthai wrote:My sense is, and maybe Ozair would agree, that the F-15X is the only card the Pentagon has to make sure the cost per flight hour for the F-35 comes down as promised. Its like paying for insurance. You burn money on something that you may never use, but it's there in case your other plan doesn't work out.
“There’s 80-90 percent commonality” between the F-15C and the F-15EX, Krumm said, noting that the new aircraft can use all the aerospace ground equipment now used for the C-model of the Eagle.
“That’s all already in the inventory,” he said, but the similarity of aircraft also means “we’re looking at a transition time of months—less than six months”—to transition units now flying the C-model to the EX. “Typically, [with] an Active unit, that [process] takes 18 months; with the Guard, it takes three years.” He went on to say that “If you average that out, Active and Guard, each time we do that we save about two years of readiness,” meaning aircraft available for combat, “And that’s important for us.”
bikerthai wrote:Besides, if the F-35 operation cost goes down, you can always integrate the F-15X in to the F-15E squadrons which will operate way into the future.
bikerthai wrote:If you really want political intrigue, then one could suggests that its the Israelis who really wanted the F-15X but wanted the US to pay for the R&D. And if by some miracle the Indians decides to buy some F-15's, then I'd say the gambit worked for how much tax payer money was spent.
LightningZ71 wrote:It’s certainly not a leap on logic that a clean (and near useless) f16 has a lower drag profile than an F-35 with two sraam and two mraam. However, when you load that same load out on the F-16, and you give it enough tanks to max out its range, it now flies more like a pig, has a bunch more drag, still doesn’t match the range, and can be spotted from orbit with a high school science project quality radar. Want it to have the same targeting and jamming capability that the F-35 has? That’s two more pods.
tomcat wrote:The F-35 is indeed a more capable aircraft than the F-16 but in practice, if the cost per hour is a concern, what percentage of its operational life will an F-16 fly with a significant load out?
tomcat wrote:Also, when you compare the respective [max practical bomb weight]/thrust ratios of the F-16 and the F-35
tomcat wrote:one wonders why the F-35 is so powerful especially considering that it is so slow. It seems that a lot of power is required to push it through the air.
- Depending on the mission, the F-35 enjoys a 30-70 percent higher combat radius
- In Libya, operating from Crete, F-16 typically had to refuel several times - the F-35 would have done the whole mission without refueling
- In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power than the F-16
- F-35 has a 50-80 kts higher cruising speed in this scenario
- F-16 needs full AB in order to turn at high altitude whereas F-35 can operate in MIL
- F-16 has to use AB to gain speed to extend missile range where as the F-35 cruises higher and faster and thus doesn't need to
744SPX wrote:That's some eye-opening info Ozair. All the more reason to take full advantage of the F-35's design and try to free up as much internal space as possible. I think it is realistic (if a little effort was made) to carry these combinations completely internally:
6 AMRAAM and 2 ASRAAM/AIM-9x
4 Meteor and 4 ASRAAM/AIM-9X
6 Meteor and 2 ASRAAM/AIM-9X (this might be more difficult)
Given that AIM-9X and ASRAAM (in particular) have nearly non-existent fins, that should be doable. Both 8-missile combinations come out to only 2400 lbs of weight, far below maximum internal payload.
744SPX wrote:For the F-35A in air to air mode, external stores of any type should be a rarity, an exception to the rule. A number of aerodynamic compromises (area ruling in particular) were made to enable internal storage and stealth, so everything you hang on the outside will have a disproportionately large impact on aerodynamics vs 4th gen aircraft. I also think the gun in the A model should either be removed entirely or replaced with the Mauser BK-27. It is without doubt the draggiest "internal" gun mounting in history, and has very little ammo. Its basically an externally mounted gun with the bodywork extended out and over it. The Mauser revolver cannon would at least have a much lower profile and make better use of the limited space for ammunition as it has no spin up time.
744SPX wrote:In these A to A configurations with full internal fuel you would have a TO weight of just under 50,000 lbs. Add in a 50K version of the F-135 or the new adaptive engine (at the cost of some engine life perhaps, which given the longevity of current US gas turbines is a no-brainer trade-off) and you have a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio at TO and a fighter/interceptor with truly excellent kinematics and zero limitations on speed (which could possibly be increased to mach 1.8 if it isn't already there for the A model).
seahawk wrote:Any plane that is not a F-35 is just a target.
Ozair wrote:744SPX wrote:That's some eye-opening info Ozair. All the more reason to take full advantage of the F-35's design and try to free up as much internal space as possible. I think it is realistic (if a little effort was made) to carry these combinations completely internally:
6 AMRAAM and 2 ASRAAM/AIM-9x
4 Meteor and 4 ASRAAM/AIM-9X
6 Meteor and 2 ASRAAM/AIM-9X (this might be more difficult)
Given that AIM-9X and ASRAAM (in particular) have nearly non-existent fins, that should be doable. Both 8-missile combinations come out to only 2400 lbs of weight, far below maximum internal payload.
I doubt the program will spend the money on that. A far more likely situation is a mixed load of Peregrine and AIM-260 missiles, perhaps in the case of the F-35 one AIM-260/Meteor of each door and four peregrine on the A2G station. That would give a ten AAM load out.744SPX wrote:For the F-35A in air to air mode, external stores of any type should be a rarity, an exception to the rule. A number of aerodynamic compromises (area ruling in particular) were made to enable internal storage and stealth, so everything you hang on the outside will have a disproportionately large impact on aerodynamics vs 4th gen aircraft. I also think the gun in the A model should either be removed entirely or replaced with the Mauser BK-27. It is without doubt the draggiest "internal" gun mounting in history, and has very little ammo. Its basically an externally mounted gun with the bodywork extended out and over it. The Mauser revolver cannon would at least have a much lower profile and make better use of the limited space for ammunition as it has no spin up time.
The BK-27 was initially selected as the gun for the aircraft but it changed to the GAU-22, maybe in 03 or 04. A better option IMO as a weapon suited to both A2A and A2G work. Agree the positioning isn't great but I'm not sure there would be a better position had it still been the BK-27.744SPX wrote:In these A to A configurations with full internal fuel you would have a TO weight of just under 50,000 lbs. Add in a 50K version of the F-135 or the new adaptive engine (at the cost of some engine life perhaps, which given the longevity of current US gas turbines is a no-brainer trade-off) and you have a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio at TO and a fighter/interceptor with truly excellent kinematics and zero limitations on speed (which could possibly be increased to mach 1.8 if it isn't already there for the A model).
Yeah there is some great potential in the airframe still to realise. Perhaps it comes in the form of an F-35D in 2030 or an A+?
steman wrote:Hello everyone,
I would like to ask a question regarding the naming of the F-15EX.
I am sorry if it has been written before but I can´t get through all the posts and the search function is lacklustre at best
Will the USAF call the new variant F-15EX? Or is this just Boeing´s commercial name like F-15QA , F-15SG, F-15I, F-15K or F-15SA?
Shouldn´t the USAF version be called F-15F?
Thank you
Toddice09 wrote:What isn’t the EX called the F-15D?
texl1649 wrote:22 feet long and that weigh up to around 7,000 pounds.
Newark727 wrote:They won't call it the F-15F because that would make too much sense.
889091 wrote:Is the USAF going to be flying the EX around with an empty rear seat, or will they be removing that to save some weight?
744SPX wrote:889091 wrote:Is the USAF going to be flying the EX around with an empty rear seat, or will they be removing that to save some weight?
My personal preference was for the single seat version as its lighter and has a more aerodynamic canopy (and looks better IMHO) but alas, in the name of economies of scale that have been the DOD mantra since the early 80's, I doubt we will see it.
744SPX wrote:Less specialization, less innovation, less competition; which inevitably leads to designs that have to play it safe as there are few if any alternatives.
ThePointblank wrote:and I believe the tooling to produce single seat F-15's is gone.