Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:03 am

texl1649 wrote:
Supposedly, this is back on, per tweets from Tyler Rogoway and others. USAF seeking 1.2 billion to buy a dozen. Interesting to see if this plays out. Last 2 decades USAF hasn’t had a lot of new types in the inventory (basically F-35).

https://twitter.com/rtiron/status/10762 ... 78817?s=21

Twelve seems an odd number and feels more like an FMS case buy for a foreign customer than the USAF buying more airframes. Given the aircraft has a lot of new systems I doubt such a small buy would be economical or sustainable, unless it is the precursor to a larger buy...
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:39 am

Here is an article just released a short while ago.

"USAF's Next Budget Request Will Include New F-15X Advanced Eagle Fighter Jets: Report"
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25 ... ets-report
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: https://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:35 pm

Anti-satelite missile launch platform for the Pentagon. You heard it here first.

With a pair of 32,000lb thrust engines at bingo fuel it has a thrust to weight ratio of 2:1. Higher than any fighter ever produced. 20/30% higher than the F-22.

Mach 2.5+ dash will allow a zoom climb to 100,000ft while launching the PAC-3 weapon. That big nose allows for an AESA radar that is bigger than any western fighter, powerful enough to track and target a satelite or ballistic missile.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:44 pm

Sounds realistic.
 
estorilm
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:25 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Anti-satelite missile launch platform for the Pentagon. You heard it here first.

With a pair of 32,000lb thrust engines at bingo fuel it has a thrust to weight ratio of 2:1. Higher than any fighter ever produced. 20/30% higher than the F-22.

Mach 2.5+ dash will allow a zoom climb to 100,000ft while launching the PAC-3 weapon. That big nose allows for an AESA radar that is bigger than any western fighter, powerful enough to track and target a satelite or ballistic missile.

Tough sell, considering there are AEGIS destroyers with SM-3s all over the world with anti-sat capability as I type this.

Bingo fuel launch sounds great, especially if the ideal intercept corridor is over an ocean or something lol.

This whole F-15X thing just has me scratching my head. I don’t get it.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:28 pm

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

With the help of the company's new AMBER missile carrying racks, the F-15X will be able to carry a whopping 22 air-to-air missiles during a single sortie. Alternatively, it could fly with eight air-to-air missiles and 28 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), or up to seven 2,000lb bombs and eight air-to-air missiles.


Sounds like a blue collar work horse to carry the load.

And if Boeng can execute . . . more to come?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:36 pm

estorilm wrote:
This whole F-15X thing just has me scratching my head. I don’t get it.


Sounds like they are getting a new airframe, with sustainment support for the price of trying to upgrade and maintain the old c/d.
There will never be enough '35s to do the job and there will be some jobs not practical for the '35s.

Boeing is really leveraging their new manufacturing process to price these new contracts. From the recent dividend pay out, it may seem that they are very confident that the process is proven and they expect to execute.

Bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:33 pm

This is a great idea and hopefully the price will eventually be less than 100 million per unit. As pointed out there are many missions that the F-35/F-16 is not suitable or optimal. The air force will continue to need a heavy fighter and 150 combat coded F-22s are not enough. These F-15s can supplement both the F-35 and F-22 fleets. F-35 renders the F-16 redundant as that is what it originally was intended to replace. Load the F-15 up with A2A missiles nd or stand off weapons and use it as a missile carrier or conversely for air defense.This is a great idea but the air fore will need far more than 12 of them.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:24 pm

estorilm wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Anti-satelite missile launch platform for the Pentagon. You heard it here first.

With a pair of 32,000lb thrust engines at bingo fuel it has a thrust to weight ratio of 2:1. Higher than any fighter ever produced. 20/30% higher than the F-22.

Mach 2.5+ dash will allow a zoom climb to 100,000ft while launching the PAC-3 weapon. That big nose allows for an AESA radar that is bigger than any western fighter, powerful enough to track and target a satelite or ballistic missile.

Tough sell, considering there are AEGIS destroyers with SM-3s all over the world with anti-sat capability as I type this.

Bingo fuel launch sounds great, especially if the ideal intercept corridor is over an ocean or something lol.

This whole F-15X thing just has me scratching my head. I don’t get it.


There is some truth or growth capability there, but in reality it’s not a refined/data linked capability today, and the Aegis systems with SM-3’s deployed can’t presently actually hit much over 600 Km, best case (and it’s pretty useless against ICBMs from Korea/China/Russia @ CONUS). And, well, in ‘real world’ nuclear delivery threats, I think a new/actual F-15-based capability from Alaska might actually make more sense than spending a fortune to ‘refine’ the Navy capabilities. It’s intriguing as a prospect, anyway. We don’t have any real feel for how our budget will shake out, though.

https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/aegis-as-asat
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:56 pm

estorilm wrote:
Tough sell, considering there are AEGIS destroyers with SM-3s all over the world with anti-sat capability as I type this.

Bingo fuel launch sounds great, especially if the ideal intercept corridor is over an ocean or something lol.

This whole F-15X thing just has me scratching my head. I don’t get it.

With ground launched rockets the majority of the energy is required for the first 20% of the trip.

PAC-3 missiles launched at 100,000ft would increase the range by a massive amount. I would estimate an easy 3000km range. A dozen F-15X's strategically placed could defend half of the planet. Max satelite altitude satelite be increased significantly.

From its CAP position it can go Mach 2.5 in any direction within a couple minutes. Creating a 6000+km diameter, 1000km high kill zone. You would need multiple AEGIS destroyers to cover the same area as a single F-15X. Big price difference.

The F-15 would just glide back from 100,000 ft with engines at idle to the tanker for fuel.
 
dcchipper
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:45 am

An interesting article that presents a different view of where this proposal came from and what is hoped to be accomplished. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter I don't have any idea how reliable the source is but thought it was interesting. The idea that this is a collaboration between Boeing and the pentagon that has been under discussion for some time and that it is intended to simply be a drop in solution to the aging air frames without causing disruption to operations puts this in a different light. I do wonder if any consideration would be given to placing a couple of squadrons in Alaska and Hawaii to get the F 22s out of the air sovereignty mission as the air force wants to add 7 fighter squadrons in the next 10 years.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:28 am

dcchipper wrote:
An interesting article that presents a different view of where this proposal came from and what is hoped to be accomplished. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter I don't have any idea how reliable the source is but thought it was interesting. The idea that this is a collaboration between Boeing and the pentagon that has been under discussion for some time and that it is intended to simply be a drop in solution to the aging air frames without causing disruption to operations puts this in a different light. I do wonder if any consideration would be given to placing a couple of squadrons in Alaska and Hawaii to get the F 22s out of the air sovereignty mission as the air force wants to add 7 fighter squadrons in the next 10 years.

The problem is why?

A dozen F-15X's is too small a buy to make sense for the USAF; it doesn't fill a squadron, and it would be a bespoke variant of the F-15 that would require some unique support components.

Also, who's pushing the buy? The USAF ain't; they are on record not wanting the aircraft.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:48 am

The Pentagon doesn't buy fighters to then give them to the USAF to do fighter work because USAF lack funds.

The Pentagon paid for the SR-71 in the reccon role because it needed rexon work. There is only one mission the Pentagon would use a Mach 2.5 fighter that can zoom climb to 100,000ft and carry big missiles externally.

Lockheed has already adapted the PAC-3 missile for F-15 carriage. The PAC-3 missile is fitted in a streamlined disposable shell shaped like a fuel tank under the wing.

I can see why the F-15C's couldnt be cheaply modified for the role. It would needs a full digital cockpit and backbone to get the required targeting and launch information sent to the aircraft. Add the cost of new engines which would give the nissions a higher and faster launch speed and you it would be fairly costly.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:25 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The problem is why?

A dozen F-15X's is too small a buy to make sense for the USAF;


If it's true, then it seems to make sense to others in the Pentagon. How many years left do they need to keep the 200+ C/D variant? If it's more than 10 years, then the buy would pay for itself. After that, they would save on maintenance cost. I infer from the article that price may include the adititonal support cost of the new variant.

Why 12? Think of it as LRIP. It keeps the initial cost down to make sure Boeing can deliver and keep the line open. Once the production starts and it is apparent that there is no hick-ups, additional block buys could be executed (in the next budget).

The other answer is that this may just be one of those on-a-whim decision by our current president. (If he can decide to pull out of Syria and leave an ally out to dry just because he can't stand argueing with Turkey's President, then what patient does he have when being harrangued by lobbyists? I am somewhat bias in this matter as my birth country was left out to dry some 55 years ago)

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:06 pm

bikerthai wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The problem is why?

A dozen F-15X's is too small a buy to make sense for the USAF;


If it's true, then it seems to make sense to others in the Pentagon. How many years left do they need to keep the 200+ C/D variant? If it's more than 10 years, then the buy would pay for itself. After that, they would save on maintenance cost. I infer from the article that price may include the adititonal support cost of the new variant.

Why 12? Think of it as LRIP. It keeps the initial cost down to make sure Boeing can deliver and keep the line open. Once the production starts and it is apparent that there is no hick-ups, additional block buys could be executed (in the next budget).

The other answer is that this may just be one of those on-a-whim decision by our current president. (If he can decide to pull out of Syria and leave an ally out to dry just because he can't stand argueing with Turkey's President, then what patient does he have when being harrangued by lobbyists? I am somewhat bias in this matter as my birth country was left out to dry some 55 years ago)

bt


I don’t know what Syria, or Thailand, or Trump have to do with this budget request, but of course he has to be blamed for any/everything that does or could happen, I understand. I don’t see any evidence Boeing lobbyists have harrangued him into writing a 12 billion dollar addition to a budget request which might suddenly appear in legislation, and it’s a bit childish/ignorant to make such a claim it would seem to me, in light of how the requests are processed. Maybe we can keep the silly political implications/guesswork out of these discussions.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:48 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I don’t know what Syria, or Thailand, or Trump have to do with this budget request, but of course he has to be blamed for any/everything that does or could happen, I understand. I don’t see any evidence Boeing lobbyists have harrangued him into writing a 12 billion dollar addition to a budget request which might suddenly appear in legislation, and it’s a bit childish/ignorant to make such a claim it would seem to me, in light of how the requests are processed. Maybe we can keep the silly political implications/guesswork out of these discussions.


Sorry texl, true ignorance is to ignore history . The decision to withdraw support for the Kurdish alliance seems illogical even by our opponents. And it's the withdrawal from Vietnam that I was referring to, not Thailand. That decision was more defensible. The result was a wave of Vietnamese immigrants to the US from the 70's in to the 90,'s.

I only reference the Syrian decision to set a frame of reference to the current decision process in our current White House. And even though the ex-Boeing exec seem to have recused himself from this decision, it would be niave to think that he did not have the president's ear. Specially now that he is the acting Secretary of Defense. It is also niave to think that political implications did not influence past procurement processes. History gave us good reasons to speculate.

Note that this request came from the DOD, and which acts under the direct authority of the president. You could argue that presidents do not involve themselves in these types of decisions. However history has shown that this president is not above making these types of decisions or lean into his underling to execute his wishes, logical or otherwise.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:57 pm

It is a passionate subject.

https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-apos-apos ... 00088.html

I am quite pleased we are done sending troops to harms way in Afghan (and soon Syria). I also note that the Saudis and UAE have pledged to take over substantially, so perhaps that is relevant (if the Saudis send F-15SA which is pretty similar to the F-15X as I understand it). The betrayal of Saigon post-Nixon was remarkable, but it’s emblematic that 50,000 deaths in a war don’t lead necessarily to a win, or even long term appreciation for the sacrifice (see German opinions of the US today). Syria should be run by folks in/around Syria, and best of luck to them.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:24 pm

bikerthai wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The problem is why?

A dozen F-15X's is too small a buy to make sense for the USAF;

Why 12? Think of it as LRIP. It keeps the initial cost down to make sure Boeing can deliver and keep the line open. Once the production starts and it is apparent that there is no hick-ups, additional block buys could be executed (in the next budget).

Or it might just be a cheap way to keep the line open to avoid having the F-35 as the sole fighter aircraft in production. A sort of bridge to the hypothetical '6th Gen' fighter. See the other thread regarding the future of western fighter aircraft production lines.
It also has some unique features that would be difficult to retrofit to the F-35 and may or may not become relevant in a future conflict. Better safe than sorry. Just because the F-35 seems like the perfect solution today does not guarantee that it will stay like that forever.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:02 am

From the article quoted by texl:

According to Bloomberg Government, the push for the new aircraft came from senior leaders within the Pentagon like deputy secretary of defense Pat Shanahan “and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes.”


So now Mr. Shanahan is the acting Secretary of Defense. If no one else will be willing to step up to the plate, then he will be the next Sec of Def. And he has the ear of the president, he will get those 12 frames.

This decision is probably not because he is former Boeing, but rather he s a hard nose pragmatic business person who see the cost benefits. The Airforce can balk all it wants, but I'm sure that Mr. Shanahan has the backing of the president. Of course, once the order is placed, and worst case scenario is if the current president is voted out, the USAF have 12 frames that can be plugged into the current inventory or presented as a gift to the Israelis.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:40 am

mxaxai wrote:
It also has some unique features that would be difficult to retrofit to the F-35 and may or may not become relevant in a future conflict. Better safe than sorry. Just because the F-35 seems like the perfect solution today does not guarantee that it will stay like that forever.

What unique features does the F-15 have?

The F-35 is the same size as the F-15.

Compared to the F-15C the F-35 weighs more empty, has more internal fuel and has a greater maximum takeoff weight. The F-35 has a greater airframe volume even though the maximum dimensions might be slightly less.

With a pair of bombs and missiles the F-35 can fly faster, accelerate quicker and turn better than the F-15. Sensor wise the F-35 is also superior. Range wise the F-35 is superior.

The F-35 also has six wing pylons for more weapons. As you add more weapons the F-15 and F-35 will both have their performance reduced. At no stage would the F-15's performance exceed the F-15 with heavy loads.

If the USAF needs a non stealthy AMRAAM missile truck that can just add double rail missile launchers for the F-35's wings. So you can have your dozen missiles without adding a new aircraft type.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:49 am

The F-15 is in some areas simply different, in others superior. The overall F-35 package will still most likely win any hypothetical encounter with an F-15. But if, for example, a future threat required Mach 2+ performance to counter it, it would be bad to have all your eggs in one basket. Just like it was quickly discovered in Vietnam that the fancy new A2A missiles alone weren't enough.

For the record:
The F-15E & Advanced are heavier than the F-35 both empty and at MTOW, can carry more faster & further.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:28 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The F-15 is in some areas simply different, in others superior. The overall F-35 package will still most likely win any hypothetical encounter with an F-15. But if, for example, a future threat required Mach 2+ performance to counter it, it would be bad to have all your eggs in one basket. Just like it was quickly discovered in Vietnam that the fancy new A2A missiles alone weren't enough.

For the record:
The F-15E & Advanced are heavier than the F-35 both empty and at MTOW, can carry more faster & further.

The F-15 has never flown loaded in any configuration and exceeded Mach 1.6. The Mach 2 top speed is rated for a F-15 that is stripped of all external weapons, pods and pylons, with either brand new engines, or one that is just out of overhaul, and minimal fuel.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:06 pm

2 engines up around the Aleutians intercepting Bear’s (the tupolev type) would give me greater peace of mind. Also as indicated, for an ASAT/ICBM intercept role the F-15 is pretty unique in it’s capabilities. The F-35 can certainly haul a lot of fuel; but that’s because it drinks a heck of a lot. A2A I think it’s around 700 NM radius, something the F-15E can easily hit, and again there’s no real stealth benefit/need in this role.

The cost to get 20K service hours out of a sequence of F-35 airframes (replacing each other over a dozen or more years) is a lot more than the $24K/hour Boeing is committing to. It’s really just an affordable, single seat F-15SA plus it sounds like, with a lot of cost guarantees. I know folks around here bang on about how affordable the F-35 is getting, but net cost to do this mission is higher for that plane, imho.
 
estorilm
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:50 pm

texl1649 wrote:
2 engines up around the Aleutians intercepting Bear’s (the tupolev type) would give me greater peace of mind. Also as indicated, for an ASAT/ICBM intercept role the F-15 is pretty unique in it’s capabilities. The F-35 can certainly haul a lot of fuel; but that’s because it drinks a heck of a lot. A2A I think it’s around 700 NM radius, something the F-15E can easily hit, and again there’s no real stealth benefit/need in this role.

The cost to get 20K service hours out of a sequence of F-35 airframes (replacing each other over a dozen or more years) is a lot more than the $24K/hour Boeing is committing to. It’s really just an affordable, single seat F-15SA plus it sounds like, with a lot of cost guarantees. I know folks around here bang on about how affordable the F-35 is getting, but net cost to do this mission is higher for that plane, imho.

Negative - I've seen most range figured around 1200 NM. As others have noted, there's little kinematic advantage since the F-15 is unable to achieve greater speeds than the F-35 with similar loads. Overall load is probably greater for the F-15, although with the "beast mode" pods on the F-35, even that advantage goes away - max payload for the F-35 is pretty incredible for its size.

Either way though, it doesn't haul a lot of fuel because it drinks a lot, it hauls it because its entire existence is pointless if it adds drop tanks. It needs drop-tank-type range with internal fuel only. You're probably right though, in this particular role it's of little advantage, but it IS a specific design goal.

As long as we're slapping tons of crap on the wings and comparing platforms - an F-35 with drop tanks and "beast mode" pylons will be hard to beat.

At the end of the day, your primary advantage will be dual engine redundancy and commonality / familiarity - plus the fixed price guarantees for acquisition. It's a very high-performance aircraft, but it certainly doesn't jump out as any kind of superstar versus the F-35.

In fact (spectacularly) the F-35 "beast mode" config allows for 22,000lb combined ordinance, versus the 23,000lb of an F-15E. Considering the size difference and a weight difference of almost 10,000lbs, that's an impressive stat. We probably won't see them used in this configuration, but it IS possible.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:54 pm

Respectfully that still doesn’t address, remotely, the cost:benefit of a frame at 20K hours of life and $27K per flight hour to intercept both missiles, and Tupolev’s. Also, I’m not talking about range, but rather radius. That is a pretty important distinction.

Show me a 1200NM radius A2A configured F-35 with 20K service life and sub $30K per flight hour cost plus ABM capabilities and two engines and we can talk shop, sure. The USAF seems to think that’s unlikely, it appears.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:48 am

texl1649 wrote:
2 engines up around the Aleutians intercepting Bear’s (the tupolev type) would give me greater peace of mind. Also as indicated, for an ASAT/ICBM intercept role the F-15 is pretty unique in it’s capabilities. The F-35 can certainly haul a lot of fuel; but that’s because it drinks a heck of a lot. A2A I think it’s around 700 NM radius, something the F-15E can easily hit, and again there’s no real stealth benefit/need in this role.

The cost to get 20K service hours out of a sequence of F-35 airframes (replacing each other over a dozen or more years) is a lot more than the $24K/hour Boeing is committing to. It’s really just an affordable, single seat F-15SA plus it sounds like, with a lot of cost guarantees. I know folks around here bang on about how affordable the F-35 is getting, but net cost to do this mission is higher for that plane, imho.

1. USAF accident records indicate that the F-15 suffers the most Class A mishaps involving engine failures compared to a single engined F-16, even for the same engine variant. You are statistically safer in a F-16 than a F-15 for engine reliability.

2. LM and the JPO are testing the F-35 to 16,000 hours, with testing showing that the F-35A can go to 24,000 hours easily.

And remember, the F-35, with it's LO capabilities can perform missions with less risk in a high threat environment compared to a F-15. The F-35 can go places alone where a F-15 would never even attempt to go without substantial backup and threat suppression work prior to. The F-35 will allow for mission success in a high threat environment, compared to the F-15, where the chance of mission failure is exponentially higher.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:05 pm

We get it. The 35 is far superior to the 15. But the question is, with budget constraints, will they get enough 35's in time to do the job currently being done by the odd 200+ 15's in the ANG. If they were planning to upgrade those 15's because they don't think the 35's will be available for what ever reason, and they can get improved 15's for a lower price than the upgrade and sustainment, then why not? And when the 35's do finally get to the ANG. You'll still have some frames with lots of life in them.

I guess the question should be, can the get 12 35s, with sustainment, for $12 bill for the ANG? Note that plugging 12 35's in to the ANG would require more infrastructure than plugging in these 15's.

There is still lots of hurdles before this proposal get set in stone. But again, I believe the president is probably on board. And if Congress question the merit of this proposal, I'm sure the acting (and I believe future to be confirmed) Sec of Defense will successfully guide it through Congress. Specially because he's pitching saving money and not a shinny new toy.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:01 pm

I still view this as a way to plug a capability gap that is predicted to come up without causing a significant expenditure for logistical support. The existing F-15s that these will be replacing were themselves due for an expensive modernization and life extension project, without gaining some of the improvements in both operating cost and capabilities that these F-15s will have. Changing those F-15s out for F-35s would have incurred additional costs for changing the logistical support infrastructure at those bases that are converted, on top of an existing project that is already making those changes for future F-35 basing plans. The improvements on these F-15s also allows them to better inter-operate with the F-35s that are coming on line and will allow them to perform the "missile truck" mission that has been talked of off and on for a while.

I don't see these F-15s as substantially better than the F-35 in anything but very limited and specific scenarios. I see them as a sensible solution to a very real problem that is anticipated to come up.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:04 pm

bikerthai wrote:
We get it. The 35 is far superior to the 15. But the question is, with budget constraints, will they get enough 35's in time to do the job currently being done by the odd 200+ 15's in the ANG. If they were planning to upgrade those 15's because they don't think the 35's will be available for what ever reason, and they can get improved 15's for a lower price than the upgrade and sustainment, then why not? And when the 35's do finally get to the ANG. You'll still have some frames with lots of life in them.

I guess the question should be, can the get 12 35s, with sustainment, for $12 bill for the ANG? Note that plugging 12 35's in to the ANG would require more infrastructure than plugging in these 15's.

There is still lots of hurdles before this proposal get set in stone. But again, I believe the president is probably on board. And if Congress question the merit of this proposal, I'm sure the acting (and I believe future to be confirmed) Sec of Defense will successfully guide it through Congress. Specially because he's pitching saving money and not a shinny new toy.

bt


Tthe issue isn’t about the ANG having enough airframes. The USAF has been very clear for a number of years now on this issue, they don’t want to acquire additional 4th gen fighter jets. They literally do not see the utility of operating them in their future battlespace concept. The priority is and remains 5th gen fighters at 40, then 50 then potentially up to 100 a year from 2025.

If the ANG wants updated aircraft they are already starting to receive F-35s next year and multiple ANG squadrons will be operating the F-35 by 2022. The infrastructure changes are minor compared to the overall life operating costs of the respective aircraft and the ability for the ANG to plug into the F-35 sustainment chain is far more economical than continuing with the F-15.

To remind on the numbers of how this acquisition stacks up against replacing the entire F-15C/D fleet posted 5 months ago,

Ozair wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Respectfully, I just can’t disagree more.

That is why we are all here, it would be a dull forum if we all agreed.

texl1649 wrote:
If anything, the F22 readiness is depleted by the duties such as Alaska intercepts and deployments. See here:

https://taskandpurpose.com/f-22-raptor-gao-audit/

Thanks, a really interesting report and very pertinent to the discussion. Having read the GAO report it looks like F-22 training issues is more about squadron sizing and less on the missions the aircraft conducts. Were the squadrons sized and collocated appropriately, they likely wouldn’t have the issues that are presenting themselves. You could imagine the issue is exacerbated when, as the article and GAO report suggests, small detachments fly off on deployment and take the best or least maintenance intensive airframes with them, leaving the odd birds and hanger queens behind.

Why does the USAF organise such small squadrons/wings? Perhaps to create as many command positions as possible, an attempt to spread specific stealth platform knowledge around? Interesting to note the F-22 organisational structure hasn’t been reviewed since 2010 while the last airframe was delivered in 2012, a decent review of the fleet makes sense especially in light of what the GAO has found.
But in this context, the F-15X is replacing the F-15C/D fleet so the role the F-22 plays will likely stay the same. The USAF could decide to replace F-22 with F-15X in Alaska and Hawaii to remove those alert issues but they could do that today with the F-15C/D fleet as well…
texl1649 wrote:
Sorry, your post was well organized but I can’t break it up on my iPad today. But, phasing out the F15c/d are exactly what the USAF and Boeing intend.

Well the USAF have an apparent desire to retire the F-15C/D fleet in general while I believe it is Boeing pushing for the replacement.

texl1649 wrote:
The x would be cheaper long term and improve readiness, and net operating costs, of the f35 and f22 fleets. Frame life expectancy is a very big deal, too. As are the finer details of nagging small unit deployments etc.

Noting that acquisition and sustainment come out of different budgets, the question should be would it be cheaper to acquire and operate the F-15X fleet over just continuing to operate the F-15C/D fleet. The F-15X is going to be US$90-120 million to acquire per copy while the current fleet could be extended for likely a quarter of that cost. From a sustainment perspective the C/D fleet may cost an additional $10-15k more per hour to fly. The fleet would likely be somewhat of an orphan from the F-15E fleet given the mods that have been done to the Saudi and Qatar aircraft.

If we do a couple of calculations I see the numbers coming out as below based on 200 aircraft for each fleet flying 252 hours per year. The per hour cost is approx. $42k for the C/D and $27k for the X.

F-15C/D fleet sustainment cost = US$2.1 billion per year (200 aircraft x 252 hours x $42K)
F-15X fleet sustainment cost = US$1.36 billion per year (same as above but $27k)

So the delta is US$740 million per year.

The C/D fleet needs to be updated though so add US$40 million for each airframe to get full wing replacement and EPAWSS and a couple of extras. Most of the fleet already have an AESA and all are planned to by 2021. Total cost to upgrade the F-15C/D fleet is approx US$40 million per aircraft so 200 x US$40 million is US$8 billion. Total cost to acquire the F-15X fleet would be 200 x US$105 million per copy (minimum cost I could see but if anyone wants to suggest a different figure feel free) so US$21 billion.

Based on the above then, the F-15X fleet has a US$13 billion delta it has to prove it overcomes for the USAF before the sums add up (which again they don’t because of different buckets of money that the accountants care about…). The yearly sustainment difference is US$740 million from above, so the F-15X fleet makes a case for saving dollars if it is operated for approximately 17 years.

17 years is pretty likely for the fleet which could potentially all be in service by 2025 if they really tried. On those figures the cost savings are probably there and the F-15X fleet may be worth investing in. The other side of this though is capability. How much more capability does the F-15X provide over the current fleet or for instance an F-35.

The F-15X concept has no stealth enhancement so does not increase the effectiveness of the F-15C/D fleet over the current, may get some more flight hours per year and the airframe would carry a marginally greater load into combat with better sensors. If instead of F-15X the USAF acquire an additional 200 F-35As that costs the USAF US$17 billion for a jet that is used in greater numbers, likely has a lower per hour cost, can carry almost as much and fly almost as far with better sensors in any threat environment.

Once you put the costs together I can see why the USAF may consider it but for me a better bet would be to increase the F-35 buy and gain huge fleet efficiencies.

The assessment is similar to what occurred with the RAAF, which concluded they could replace the F-111 with the Super Hornet and, while they lost some capability and range and they gained other capabilities to offset that loss, the 10 years cost assessment was neutral, including acquisition of the Super Hornet.



LightningZ71 wrote:
I still view this as a way to plug a capability gap that is predicted to come up without causing a significant expenditure for logistical support. The existing F-15s that these will be replacing were themselves due for an expensive modernization and life extension project, without gaining some of the improvements in both operating cost and capabilities that these F-15s will have. Changing those F-15s out for F-35s would have incurred additional costs for changing the logistical support infrastructure at those bases that are converted, on top of an existing project that is already making those changes for future F-35 basing plans. The improvements on these F-15s also allows them to better inter-operate with the F-35s that are coming on line and will allow them to perform the "missile truck" mission that has been talked of off and on for a while.

I don't see these F-15s as substantially better than the F-35 in anything but very limited and specific scenarios. I see them as a sensible solution to a very real problem that is anticipated to come up.

As above the cost for an F-15C/D upgrade to last until the 2030s is reasonably cheap.

A number of posters would benefit from reading this thread again from the start as they keep making the same arguments with inaccurate information. Below is the cost to upgrade the F-15C/D fleet as well as why the USAF is considering retiring the entire F-15C/D fleet.

Ozair wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
That's a lot more ordinance than an F35 can deliver, and no matter what anyone says, in a future conflict there will be a need for bombs in areas not covered in top tier air defenses.

The F-15X concept is about replacing the F-15C/D air superiority fleet. Despite what Tyler is suggesting the aircraft would almost certainly conduct very little to no strike role in USAF service. As for ordnance, the F-35 stacks up very well against an F-15 in payload capability.

texl1649 wrote:
Plus, practically speaking, why wouldn't the USAF want to keep two prime vendors in the inventory for the next 30 years in TAC-air?

The USAF is not there is keep corporations in business. There are enough manufacturers that Boeing’s exit from manned fighter aircraft will have no long term detraction on the maintenance and sustainment of the future USAF fleet. Don’t forgot that the USAF can tender for the maintenance and support of both the F-22 and F-35 to any company they like, LM does not have sole ownership of that business. Sure LM almost certainly have an advantage but it is not clear cut nor guaranteed.

texl1649 wrote:
Sure, the up front cost vs. F-35 is similar, but there's not much doubt that the F-15 fleet is going to be cheaper to operate.

There is no way Boeing can offer an F-15X for less than an F-35, simply no way. Already the USAF operates a comparable number of F-35s to the F-15C/D fleet, and in four years will operate more F-35 than all F-15s, and four years after that will operate more F-35s than it has ever operated F-15s…

The F-15 is a large twin engine aircraft that costs more to operate per hour and costs more to acquire. Boeing will not lose money selling F-15s to the USAF nor would their executives sanction and shareholders be happy with a loss making exercise of selling aircraft below cost price.

texl1649 wrote:
For CONUS missions, surely, stealth isn't really needed, anyway; why keep sending F-22's to intercept Tu-95's (and/or why go to a single engine plane to do it)?

Why not use a single engine aircraft to do it? That works for many other nations around the globe, including the USAF who also use single engine aircraft for that role. Aircraft and aircrew have to fly to maintain proficiency and there is no massive over burden of flight hours on the F-22 fleet that it needs to be rationed by not conducting these interceptions. In fact stopping the F-22 fleet from WVR practise would better preserve flight hours than long range low G interception missions.
LightningZ71 wrote:
This is a supplement to the F-22's mission set and nothing more. The F-22 is being wasted on missions where it's stealth isn't needed. That's putting hours on the frame that don't need to be there, and wasting it's expensive logistics costs.

As already stated the F-22 needs to fly to maintain aircrew and airframe proficiency. The fleet is not short of hours nor are current hours being wasted.
LightningZ71 wrote:
It is also a replacement for the C/D models that are going to be retired. This replaces the expensive upgrade projects that have been programmed, and replaces the expensive SLEP that was supposed to deal with a handful of air frame corrosion and wear issues.

The maximum cost of the F-15C/D SLEP was going to be US$30 million that would likely have included replacing the wings. A much cheaper cost, approx. US$1 million per aircraft, would have allowed the airframe to serve for longer.
Over the past two years, the USAF has discussed options for keeping a subset of the F-15C fleet in service through the mid- to late-2030s. Those aircraft would require a longeron replacement with a $1 million cost per shipset, Parker says. Some Air Force officials also are discussing options to keep the F-15Cs in service even longer, which could require a wing replacement, Parker says.
The additional life extension is currently “not required, but it my be something they want to do”” Parker says. “We’re just giving them some options.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... af-446189/

LightningZ71 wrote:
With Boeing agreeing to a fixed price contract for this, and that price being less than the F-35, why not get a known good platform for those missions that don't require stealth? The US will be flying air soverignty missions as long as its in existence. Those missions don't have to be done with stealth aircraft, and benefit from having an aircraft that has a high sustained dash speed and long legs, two things that the F-15x has.

Boeing has not agreed to any fixed cost price, that is Tyler making that claim with no evidence to support it.

LightningZ71 wrote:
I see this as a logical decision, and, with the expected 20,000 hour airframe life expectancy, its going to be cost efficient over its lifetime.

20,000 hour airframe life is meaningless. The aircraft currently are funded for 250-300 hours per year of operational use. The USAF will not operate an F-15X for the next 66 years just because the airframe life allows it to fly that many hours, someone still have to pay for that flight time and the USAF has to find enough pilots to fly those hours…

bikerthai wrote:
People, stealth is not a panacea. It works great for top cover and the initial engagements. However, for everyday grunt work, it is more expensive to maintain.

Bk, while that is true for the F-22 it is not correct when it comes to the F-35. The cost to maintain the aircraft is approximately 10-15% more than the F-16, significantly less than the per hour cost to maintain the F-15C/D fleet or a new F-15X fleet.

bikerthai wrote:
Seems like the USAF is just looking for a few mules to haul massive loads of missiles/bombs that can sit behind a line of F-35's to counter any attempt to overwhelm the front line fighters with mass quantities.

The arsenal idea has some merit but the USAF could do that with existing F-15C/D aircraft by re-winging them and extending the airframe life. That would easily allow for the fleet to live until the late 2030s when a UCAV could replace that arsenal role.

bikerthai wrote:
And if you think about it, the F15 bomb hauler could be more of a A-10 replacement than the F-35. You just need to put a pod on the belly that can spit out something larger than 20mm rounds.

Respectfully, that concept is absurd. Given the move to smaller munitions the CAS mission doesn’t really need more bomb haulers, it needs aircraft that can survive in any threat environment. The F-15X is not that aircraft and the per hour cost would be more than both the A-10 and F-35, while being less capable in that CAS role than both.

Let us put some sanity to this, EPAWSS has been cancelled and the USAF has investigated replacing the role of the F-15C/D fleet with an upgraded F-16 until enough F-35s come online. The future of the F-15 fleet was indicated by this news report earlier in the year.

Information about the planned retirement of the F-15C/D are among the few redacted portions of the IG report, showing the lengths that the Air Force is willing to go in order to conceal exactly when it may mothball the F-15C/D fleet or the internal guidance supporting such a decision.
“In February 2017, the DCS AF/A5/8 issued the [redacted] to retire the F-15C aircraft beginning in [redacted] and fully retire the aircraft by the end of [redacted]. However, [redacted],” reads one section of the report, using an acronym that refers to part of the Air Force headquarters staff.
“The [redacted] communicated the Air Force’s long-term strategic intention to build and sustain a capable, right-sized Air Force and directed program resource allocation. The DCS AF/A5/8 planned to use F-15C EPAWSS procurement funds to develop a higher priority Air Superiority program.”
In response to the IG’s findings, the Air Force has agreed to provide Congress with “specific plans and justifications” for phasing out the F-15C/D.
According to the report, the service was expected to finalize its decision on the F-15 retirement issue as part of FY19 planning choices — which took place late last year. The Air Force has still not publicly announced when the F-15 could begin leaving its inventory.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-war ... e-upgrade/

That does not read as the USAF looking to acquire new F-15 aircraft…


Again just to be clear, the USAF is not interested in the F-15X and this proposal for F-15X is not coming from the USAF, it is coming from the Pentagon. RJMAZ has some good ideas on why the Pentagon may want a limited fleet of F-15Xs but even then I consider the concept as a whole flawed given hitting satellites creates far more problems than it removes for everyone, not just the Pentagon’s adversaries.

I also consider the idea this is about retaining production as flawed. Both the F-15 and F-16 lines continue to win orders and will be functional by the time the F-35 hits full rate. Having an open line for the aircraft the USAF wants to continue to acquire suits them fine. It would be an issue if they didn't want more F-35s but they are very clear, given it is one of the top three acquisition priorities for them, that the F-35 is the future for the USAF.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:13 am

Literally, there is no point for the USAF to purchase a dozen bespoke variant of a old, existing fighter jet type that is due to be retired in the next decade or two.

It makes no fiscal sense from a budgetary perspective, and it makes no sense from a operational perspective.

If they are only buying a dozen, that would barely fill a single squadron. There's no point in trying to spread the dozen fighters across various squadrons, this is a unique and bespoke variant of the F-15, with different support needs, spare parts, training, and tooling compared to the existing fleet.

It only makes sense to concentrate into a single squadron, and even then, that is questionable operationally, especially as such a squadron would also pull pilots and personnel away from other squadrons to train them on a unique variant of the F-15.

There is a reason why the USAF is against this purchase, and has gone on record as not wanting more 4th gen aircraft (especially orphan variants). If the USAF needs more aircraft to fill their ranks, increasing and accelerating the F-35 purchase makes much more sense from a budgetary and operational perspective.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:34 am

bikerthai wrote:
We get it. The 35 is far superior to the 15. But the question is, with budget constraints, will they get enough 35's in time to do the job currently being done by the odd 200+ 15's in the ANG. If they were planning to upgrade those 15's because they don't think the 35's will be available for what ever reason, and they can get improved 15's for a lower price than the upgrade and sustainment, then why not?

If they have budget constraints that prevent them from getting enough F-35's in time then they can not afford new F-15's either.

If they can afford new F-15's then they can also afford to order more F-35's sooner.

The F-35 looks very promising and at this stage the US would be confident that it could put all its eggs in one basket for the next decade.

So the best option is to just keep buying F-35's as quickly as possible and just do basic upgrades to the current 4th gen aircraft. The F-35 will eventually replace most of the fleet so any capability gaps are short term. So I wouldnt go and do a massive avionics upgrade to the F-15, F-16, A-10 or F/A-18 fleets.

For instance 173 A-10's received new wings with more to come. This fills the high end fighter gap by adding to the low end allowing the aircraft to shift upwards. F-35's that were meant to replace A-10's can now fill the so called gap higher up.

If F-15C upgrades are deemed too costly they could simply bring in the F-35 into those squadrons sooner. If the upgraded F-16 fleet has lots of life left then the F-35 can move into thosd squadrons later.

It is a very complicated cost benefit analysis. But any capability gap can easily be filled without purchasing new 4th gen aircraft.
 
ALERT
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:52 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:35 am

Maybe this is the first set of wings for the Space Force. :)
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:37 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
If they have budget constraints that prevent them from getting enough F-35's in time then they can not afford new F-15's either.

If they can afford new F-15's then they can also afford to order more F-35's sooner.


If it was just a standard lawer type political appointee heading the DOD, then I may buy your logic. But both the president and acting Sec of Def have business background and understand budgets. One of them better than the other and is known to have long term vision.

If it makes no budget sense, then the only other answer I can buy is:

ALERT wrote:
Maybe this is the first set of wings for the Space Force. :)


And if some of us here can not see the logic of that, then welcome to the new Trumpian order.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:33 pm

In the end it will all depend on the contract.

Say less than 75 million per airframe and guaranteed operating cots 40% (except fuel and personal) lower than the current F-15C/D, which would then be about a 1/3 of the current F-35 cots, and the frames would probably pay for themselves over 20 years and then some.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:05 am

seahawk wrote:
In the end it will all depend on the contract.

Say less than 75 million per airframe and guaranteed operating cots 40% (except fuel and personal) lower than the current F-15C/D, which would then be about a 1/3 of the current F-35 cots, and the frames would probably pay for themselves over 20 years and then some.

The problem is that the F-15 is not a cheap aircraft to operate.

If you look at the DoD's aircraft reimbursement rates when they are providing aircraft on a reimbursable rate (that means maintenance and energy costs only), it should be noted that the F-15C/D's reimbursement rate is about $22,000 every hour for FY2019:

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 19_b_c.pdf

A F-35A's reimbursement rate sits at around $18,501. That is roughly comparable with the F-15E's rate of $17,936.

There is literally no financial point to a F-15 buy, especially for a dozen aircraft. If you really want a cheap fighter to fill squadrons in the interim, get more F-16's (they have a reimbursement rate of about $8,800); they are considerably cheaper to operate.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:19 am

Why are we attributing F-15 C/D operating cost to the new X? Don't we have data for the latest data from the latest 15 models to compare?

btu
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:24 am

ThePointblank wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end it will all depend on the contract.

Say less than 75 million per airframe and guaranteed operating cots 40% (except fuel and personal) lower than the current F-15C/D, which would then be about a 1/3 of the current F-35 cots, and the frames would probably pay for themselves over 20 years and then some.

The problem is that the F-15 is not a cheap aircraft to operate.

If you look at the DoD's aircraft reimbursement rates when they are providing aircraft on a reimbursable rate (that means maintenance and energy costs only), it should be noted that the F-15C/D's reimbursement rate is about $22,000 every hour for FY2019:

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 19_b_c.pdf

A F-35A's reimbursement rate sits at around $18,501. That is roughly comparable with the F-15E's rate of $17,936.

There is literally no financial point to a F-15 buy, especially for a dozen aircraft. If you really want a cheap fighter to fill squadrons in the interim, get more F-16's (they have a reimbursement rate of about $8,800); they are considerably cheaper to operate.


It makes sense if you want to keep a F-15 fighter fleet. The F15E (already old) are still 25% cheaper to fly than the C/Ds, so it is imho reasonable that the X could reduce those cost by a further 10-15%, so about 8000-9000$ per flight hour. So the new Eagles would pay themselves after 8800 fight hours or half their design service life.

If keeping a F-15 fleet makes sense, is a different question to which I would say no. If they need legacy fighter get Block 70 F-16s but better buy more F-35 quickly. Every other plane is obsolete compared to the F-35.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:54 pm

Stealth is important, what I understood the F15 RCS is, well, handy for ATC.
I won't post one of the RCS overviews with many aicraft, they are too contradicting & patriotic. :D
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
estorilm
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:49 pm

keesje wrote:
Stealth is important, what I understood the F15 RCS is, well, handy for ATC.
I won't post one of the RCS overviews with many aicraft, they are too contradicting & patriotic. :D

Exactly - and from what people are posting here, the specs are nearly evenly matched, even operational costs - to achieve high-level stealth with passive sensors built-in, versus dump truck RCS, FOR FREE.. seems like an obvious choice to me.

bikerthai wrote:
Why are we attributing F-15 C/D operating cost to the new X? Don't we have data for the latest data from the latest 15 models to compare?

btu

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it works that way. Any operating costs on a tiny fleet of un-tested aircraft with untrained aircrews and (inevitably) many different parts, and no parts or supply system / integration due to the small production size, will most likely push the operating cost of these 12 aircraft FAR beyond the price of the C/D, which is probably as streamlined as the program will ever get. The E model is different, as the systems are far more complex. It is newer though and has a decent number of operating aircraft. I'd expect the E to be more expensive and accurate vs. an X comparison. Once you go down that road, you're past the cost of the F-35 (again) so..

I mean it's nearly 10,000lbs heavier and has an extra engine. Doesn't matter if it's new or old - those are tough stats to overcome when you're attempting to compete with a modern (initial design, etc) platform with a more advanced and efficient single engine.

Can't we grab a few of the existing F-22 frames (the test ones, and others sitting around - I think there are 6 or so) and upgrade them to the latest block, if we really need to "shoot satellites down" from a land-based aircraft platform? ..which by the way, still seems illogical to me considering our other options.

F-22 weighs 43,430lb empty and has 70,000lbs thrust (could be higher for all we know.. likely)
F-15 weighs 45,000lb empty and has 58,800lbs thrust with the latest F-100.. the X may be higher, but not much

If you're talking kinematic performance for a sat shot - the F-22 kills just about everything out there, including the F-15... HANDILY. Considering everyone complains about these things just sitting around with no mission, why not equip them for the sat shot role? It's already an exotic design - it would be perfect for that, since it would never be used anyways lol.

Or you could create 12 MORE planes with a role for which they'll never be used.

Then again, this is all on the bases of the post about sat shot capability. Once you wipe that off the table, there goes your remaining F-15X argument really. I still don't get it!
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 pm

You don’t need stealth to intercept a TU-95. The whole point is to quite visibly show up. The F-22 manning challenges posed by the Alaska rotations have been well documented; it’s inefficient with current squadron staff, MRO, etc., for these deployments.

The only somewhat dispassionate argument I’ve read against this is that the funds could somehow be translated into more F-35’s, ignoring the inability to do so via currently maxed production ramp ups.

The other argument is that this is some nefarious Trumpian scheme, which is about as illogical as most TDS melts.

If the USAF buys 12 of these, it’s probably because it makes sense for the budget/fiscal reality and missions. They would then probably buy more, to the chagrin of the F-35/A.net mobs, but c’est La vie.

Finally, I think it’s akin to the USN purchases of Super Hornets in lieu of F-14D upgrades, which would have been far cheaper overall, and delivered in many aspects a superior aircraft. Sure, DoD politics played a role, but it was mainly an issue of USN top brass priorities.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:25 am

estorilm wrote:
[F-22 weighs 43,430lb empty and has 70,000lbs thrust (could be higher for all we know.. likely)
F-15 weighs 45,000lb empty and has 58,800lbs thrust with the latest F-100.. the X may be higher, but not much

If you're talking kinematic performance for a sat shot - the F-22 kills just about everything out there, including the F-15... HANDILY.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The F-15C weighs only 28,000lb empty. This is TWO THIRDs of the empty weight of the F-22. You just stated the F-15 weighs more empty than the F-22. So you can probably see where you went wrong.

The latest F-15 engines have 32,000lb of thrust for a total of 64,000lb of thrust. With bingo fuel and one PAC-3 missile that is a thrust to weight ratio of 2:1.

The F-22 doesn't even come close to that. They even had to cut an F-22 pilot out of the plane with chainsaws due to the canopy warping. It is not designed to go over Mach 2 unlike the F-15.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:48 am

RJMAZ wrote:
estorilm wrote:
[F-22 weighs 43,430lb empty and has 70,000lbs thrust (could be higher for all we know.. likely)
F-15 weighs 45,000lb empty and has 58,800lbs thrust with the latest F-100.. the X may be higher, but not much

If you're talking kinematic performance for a sat shot - the F-22 kills just about everything out there, including the F-15... HANDILY.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The F-15C weighs only 28,000lb empty. This is TWO THIRDs of the empty weight of the F-22. You just stated the F-15 weighs more empty than the F-22. So you can probably see where you went wrong.

The latest F-15 engines have 32,000lb of thrust for a total of 64,000lb of thrust. With bingo fuel and one PAC-3 missile that is a thrust to weight ratio of 2:1.

The F-22 doesn't even come close to that. They even had to cut an F-22 pilot out of the plane with chainsaws due to the canopy warping. It is not designed to go over Mach 2 unlike the F-15.

No USAF F-15 is equipped with the 32,000lb thrust option engine; and even then, only the F-15E's are equipped with the 29,900lb thrust engine. The F-15C/D fleet is equipped with either the 23,770lb or the 23,920lb thrust engines.

And again, the F-15 is also an airplane that was never designed to exceed Mach 2 operationally; the F-15 could only achieve Mach 2 when totally slick (no weapons or pylons), at high altitude, new or recently overhauled engines, and less than 60% left internal fuel. Even then, it is only attainable for a short duration due to fuel constraints and structural limitations. As such, you generally only see Mach 2+ performance from a F-15 only during functional check rides or for testing purposes.

In fact the time spent by the entire global F-15 fleet at or above Mach 2 since the F-15's introduction into service is less than the length of a typical movie...
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:08 am

texl1649 wrote:
You don’t need stealth to intercept a TU-95. The whole point is to quite visibly show up. The F-22 manning challenges posed by the Alaska rotations have been well documented; it’s inefficient with current squadron staff, MRO, etc., for these deployments.

The USAF already plans to fix the F-22 issue. They will likely replace the Tyndall based F-22s with F-35s by 2022 and spread those airframes to the other F-22 units increasing numbers and allowing the F-22 aircrew to meet both their training and operational requirements.

texl1649 wrote:
The only somewhat dispassionate argument I’ve read against this is that the funds could somehow be translated into more F-35’s, ignoring the inability to do so via currently maxed production ramp ups.

Since when has production been maxed out? The US House authorized 16 additional jets this last fiscal year, 11 more in 2017 and also 11 in 2016. The production line had no problem accommodating those increased orders and LM delivered all jets on time this year and missed by a week last year.

Adding another 12 F-35s would be no problem for the line to accommodate.

texl1649 wrote:
The other argument is that this is some nefarious Trumpian scheme, which is about as illogical as most TDS melts.

This has nothing to do with Trump, the suggestion all along is the Pentagon is adding these jets, not Trump or the USAF. I doubt Trump knows the difference between the aircraft anyway, this type of action is way too far down in the weeds for his attention.

texl1649 wrote:
If the USAF buys 12 of these, it’s probably because it makes sense for the budget/fiscal reality and missions. They would then probably buy more, to the chagrin of the F-35/A.net mobs, but c’est La vie.

Again, the USAF is not requesting these aircraft. The original source report is that the Pentagon is considering adding them to the budget. The USAF has been very clear for a number of years, they will not buy more 4th gen aircraft.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:06 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
No USAF F-15 is equipped with the 32,000lb thrust option engine; and even then, only the F-15E's are equipped with the 29,900lb thrust engine. The F-15C/D fleet is equipped with either the 23,770lb or the 23,920lb thrust engines.

And again, the F-15 is also an airplane that was never designed to exceed Mach 2 operationally; the F-15 could only achieve Mach 2 when totally slick (no weapons or pylons), at high altitude, new or recently overhauled engines, and less than 60% left internal fuel. Even then, it is only attainable for a short duration due to fuel constraints and structural limitations. As such, you generally only see Mach 2+ performance from a F-15 only during functional check rides or for testing purposes.

In fact the time spent by the entire global F-15 fleet at or above Mach 2 since the F-15's introduction into service is less than the length of a typical movie...

How is any of this relevant to the F-15X?

The F-15C is underpowered with 30 year old engines and the F-15E has heavy, drag inducing conformal tanks and gets loaded up with bombs.

The latest GE engine that fits the F-15 produces 32,000lb of thrust and is currently fitted to the latest Block 60/70 F-16's.

If the F-15C could hit mach 2.5 with 23,000lb of thrust then with 32,000lb of thrust it will reach that speed with a single ASAT missile.

F-15C's have spent most of their lives subsonic on combat air patrols. The F-15E has been loaded up with bombs their whole life. It is not surprising they have spent very little time above mach 2. I dont see how that determines how fast the F-15X could fly on an ASAT mission.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1310
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:21 pm

Just to put wikipedia numbers on things: "Prior to the launch the F-15 flying at Mach 1.22 executed a 3.8g zoom climb at an angle of 65 degrees."
 
estorilm
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:26 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
No USAF F-15 is equipped with the 32,000lb thrust option engine; and even then, only the F-15E's are equipped with the 29,900lb thrust engine. The F-15C/D fleet is equipped with either the 23,770lb or the 23,920lb thrust engines.

And again, the F-15 is also an airplane that was never designed to exceed Mach 2 operationally; the F-15 could only achieve Mach 2 when totally slick (no weapons or pylons), at high altitude, new or recently overhauled engines, and less than 60% left internal fuel. Even then, it is only attainable for a short duration due to fuel constraints and structural limitations. As such, you generally only see Mach 2+ performance from a F-15 only during functional check rides or for testing purposes.

In fact the time spent by the entire global F-15 fleet at or above Mach 2 since the F-15's introduction into service is less than the length of a typical movie...

How is any of this relevant to the F-15X?

The F-15C is underpowered with 30 year old engines and the F-15E has heavy, drag inducing conformal tanks and gets loaded up with bombs.

The latest GE engine that fits the F-15 produces 32,000lb of thrust and is currently fitted to the latest Block 60/70 F-16's.

If the F-15C could hit mach 2.5 with 23,000lb of thrust then with 32,000lb of thrust it will reach that speed with a single ASAT missile.

F-15C's have spent most of their lives subsonic on combat air patrols. The F-15E has been loaded up with bombs their whole life. It is not surprising they have spent very little time above mach 2. I dont see how that determines how fast the F-15X could fly on an ASAT mission.

You're touting stats (both thrust and weight) that haven't even been remotely substantiated for ANY variant of existing F-15's , much less the X which we know nothing about. Given the timeframe and budget, this aircraft will probably NOT get a new engine, and will likely NOT get a new composite or weight-reducing airframe.

I pulled the numbers off of mainstream websites including mfg's - you're being highly optimistic. If you think Boeing can punch out an F-15 that can out-perform an F-22 in no time at all, then more power to 'ya - but prove it.

As 'ThePointblank' stated - you're touting stats that no F-15 has ever achieved. Hauling a HUGE missile externally and achieving BETTER performance than an F-22? You're on some good stuff man.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:41 pm

It was bikerthai I think who implied/asserted this was a Trump idea. I agree it’s absurd to impute it as such, Ozzair, I was just referencing the objection.

The F-15C isn’t the aircraft Boeing is deriving this from, it’s the Qatar and Saudi aircraft, delivered since 2015. As Boeing is already supporting it globally, they know pretty well what their ability is to offer a fixed price support package with the newer (and in USAF inventory) engines and other upgrades.

“The F-15SA also features F-110- GE-129 engines, capable of putting out almost 30,000 pounds of thrust each.”

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this- ... 1715732294

“Moreover, Qatar’s aircraft will have a new wing design that retains the aerodynamic profile but has a new internal structure for longer life. New cockpit displays include a low-profile head-up display from BAE Systems. Most noteworthy is the adoption of a wide-area touchscreen display, similar to that found in the F-35 Lightning II.”

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... enaissance

Some folks seem to see a difference between “the Pentagon” and the USAF, but I would note it’s the USAF folks in life cycle management who know all about the F-15QA and SA sale and support packages, and the USAF takes up about a third of the Pentagon space.

“Officials of the U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, are asking the Boeing Defense, Space & Security segment in St. Louis to build 36 new F-15QA combat aircraft for the Qatar Emiri Air Force under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.”

https://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/a ... 15-qa.html
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:43 pm

Also, I’ve never elsewhere met or read or spoken with anyone who has asserted the F-15C is under powered. That’s pretty comical, let’s not get too carried away.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:30 pm

texl1649 wrote:
It was bikerthai I think who implied/asserted this was a Trump idea.


Just to clarify. I did not suggests that it would have been Trump's idea, rather, it may have his backing. The idea may have come up whether as part of Space Command or as part of getting efficiency from the military budget. News article suggests that the idea might have come from Shanahan or others in the Pentagon. Where ever it came from, it seems to have enough traction to make it this far. So it can't be all that black and white as some of us here want to believe.

It's one thing to write an RFP or and RFQ to get a proposal from Boeing and LM. It's another to attempt to put into budget legislation. You don't put it into budget legislation unless you have someone backing it.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
estorilm
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:32 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Also, I’ve never elsewhere met or read or spoken with anyone who has asserted the F-15C is under powered. That’s pretty comical, let’s not get too carried away.

Who said it was underpowered? It's up there with any 4 or 4.5 gen on the planet.

Just making sure you weren't referencing my post which called out the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F15 v F22. I don't care how good the F15 is, it isn't THAT good. Like you said - let's not get carried away; it's an incredibly capable fighter with an impeccable kill ratio.. a model for nearly all 4th gen fighters to follow, but it's no Raptor.

edit: Oh sorry that was in response to RJMAZ's post. He's on your side with the F-15 though, by the way. ;) Just calling out the older models is all. My point was that NO MODEL and no engine is going to give you the kinematic performance of an F-22. Sorry!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos