RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:28 pm

estorilm wrote:
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.

I honestly can't believe you still think the F-15 weighs 45,000lb empty. The Boeing website says "45,000lb class"

F-15C weights
Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 68,000 lb (30,845 kg)
Fuel capacity: 13,455 lb (6,100 kg) internal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne ... F-15_Eagle

The F-15QA has the 32,000lb GE engines derated for durability to 30,000lb thrust. The F-15QA has more thrust than any previous F-15 model. If the F-15X will be doing the ASAT role then they wouldn't need derated engines. So 32,000lb of thrust is accurate.

Even the two seat F-15E with conformal tanks installed weighs only 31,700lb empty. With the tanks removed it is also under 30,000lb weight.

estorilm wrote:
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.

The F-15X will be touting thrust to weight weights higher than any F-15 has ever achieved. So I will happily tout that it's performance will exceed any previous F-15 model.

Honestly you have lost all credibility when you stood by your comment that an F-15 weighs 45,000lb empty. Are you a teenager with an F-22 poster on your wall?
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:27 pm

One of the main selling points of the F-15 SA/QA was the switch to digital FBW controls from the older hydraulic ones. They were able to add redundancy while also REDUCING total empty airframe weight by a non-trivial amount. With the new, non-derated engines, the X will have the highest thrust to weight of ANY previous F-15 version. It is also supposed to have a reduced cost per flight hour as compared to the F-15E for the USAF, so, I suspect that just replacing existing F-15C/Ds with Xs will immediately begin to impact operational costs. Granted, it'll be at the cost of new frames, but, the C/Ds would have required expensive upgrade packages to continue to be relevant and would STILL have cost just as much to operate as before.

The F-15X is NOT the silver bullet they are selling it to be, but, it's not the stupidest move the pentagon/USG will have ever made.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:44 pm

estorilm wrote:
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!


Sorry, I was quoting RJMAZ who had stated;

“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.”

It holds to this day several time to altitude records I believe (but could be wrong). I just had to note that as absurd, as again it has it’s faults like all machines but ‘underpowered’ was a new one to me.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit ... eak-eagle/
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:59 pm

Sorry again, I didn’t read your edit/final statement estorlm. The kinetic/actual ability of the F-22 to get to a point in airspace is unrivaled to today to my knowledge, so we’re fundamentally in agreement. However, in terms of affordable in-production systems (including support) in 2018, I don’t see the F-15X as proposed as disadvantageous vs. the Lockheed alternatives (35 and 16). AND, those alternatives, and also the F-22, don’t have an ability to ‘go’ to high altitude with an ASAT/ABM missile as quickly as the F-15, frankly.

There was an article recently by a former Indian MiG-25 pilot describing that jet which was fairly interesting in details too. I think one reached 125,000 feet once, which an F-15 simply could never do....
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:30 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
One of the main selling points of the F-15 SA/QA was the switch to digital FBW controls from the older hydraulic ones. They were able to add redundancy while also REDUCING total empty airframe weight by a non-trivial amount. With the new, non-derated engines, the X will have the highest thrust to weight of ANY previous F-15 version. It is also supposed to have a reduced cost per flight hour as compared to the F-15E for the USAF, so, I suspect that just replacing existing F-15C/Ds with Xs will immediately begin to impact operational costs. Granted, it'll be at the cost of new frames, but, the C/Ds would have required expensive upgrade packages to continue to be relevant and would STILL have cost just as much to operate as before.

The F-15X is NOT the silver bullet they are selling it to be, but, it's not the stupidest move the pentagon/USG will have ever made.

So you are asking that the USAF operate a small number of a bespoke variant of the F-15, that has separate maintenance requirements from the rest of the fleet, different tooling and depot level maintenance needs, and a separate training infrastructure compared to the existing fleet.

It should also be noted that the F110-GE-132 is a unique variant of the F110 engine, with different maintenance requirements compared to the in service F110-GE-129 engine... the real impact on performance compared to the additional logistical requirements for this engine variant is insignificant, and there's a reason why the USAF never adopted the F110-GE-132 engine for any of its fighters, even though the 132 engine is touted as being a good replacement for the 129 engine.

And there's also a reason why Pratt has sold more engines than GE (remember the F-15 and the F-16 too) and has won most of the head to head competitions should tell you that the GE engine is not better overall. The F110 engine compared to the F100 engine is more maintenance intensive, less durable, has a poorer safety rate, and is more expensive to buy and run.

You have to balance performance with sustainment cost, and while the F110 engine has the higher performance, it's also a very bloody expensive engine to buy and operate, especially the 132 variant (which is why only one user has specced and purchased this variant).

Also, don't get too excited over the uninstalled thrust numbers that are developed by running the engine in a test stand with low-loss bellmouth inlet. Once the real-world aircraft inlet installation is used, some of that thrust is lost, and the GE engine suffers the most here compared to the Pratt.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:35 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Sorry, I was quoting RJMAZ who had stated;

“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.”

It holds to this day several time to altitude records I believe (but could be wrong). I just had to note that as absurd, as again it has it’s faults like all machines but ‘underpowered’ was a new one to me.

Sorry to upset you. Would you have preferred that I said the F-15X is overpowered compared to the F-15C?

I'm not denying the F-15C is fast just the F-15X is faster. The F-15X would smash all of the streak eagle records in full combat config.

People like thePointblank and estorilm can't accept the F-15X would have a significantly higher top speed than the F-22. They need to educate themselves, not just do a 30 second google search and pull up an incorrect empty weight value.

The F-15X has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F-22 by a considerable margin.

The F-15 streak eagle has shown what is possible speed wise. The F-15X would fly faster and higher.

The F-15 has a lower wing loading than the F-22.

The F-15 wing has a higher sweep back angle than the F-22.

The F-15's canopy doesnt melt at mach 2+ because it is designed to be 1970's fast with a fixed solid glass front section.

The F-15X has variable inlet ramps. Fixed inlets like on the Hornet, F-16, F-22 and F-35 need to be tuned to a certain speed range. So they hit a brick wall at the top end.

The F-22 single piece canopy melts and warps above mach 2 requiring the pilot to be cut out with a chainsaw as shown below.

Image

In the air to air role top speeds using full afterburner are irrelevant. But launching ASAT missiles top speed is the only thing that matters.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:39 pm

Where does this hatred of the F110 come from? It’s run by Chile, Bhahrain, Saudi, Israel, Greece, Turkey, UAE, among others (I think it’s in the majority of foreign F-16 sales). The -132 variant mainly adds a fancy afterburner from their JSF entry (but it’s been around since 2002, and USAF qualified in 2003). It has fewer parts and was certainly supposed to decrease maintenance costs (also a new augmentor). There was a thread on a certain F-16 forum where the GE engine was favored 2:1 over the Pratt.

But overall, it’s an engine family in service today with USAF (and about 3500 or so delivered I think net) and not that big a difference vs. -129, frankly. In any case, if the USAF is buying a dozen or more X models, I’m not sure it would really matter whether it’s the 129 or 132, but they know plenty about how to support/contract for support for the 30 plus year old engine family and variants.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:32 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
So you are asking that the USAF operate a small number of a bespoke variant of the F-15, that has separate maintenance requirements from the rest of the fleet, different tooling and depot level maintenance needs, and a separate training infrastructure compared to the existing fleet.


Wow, in the commercial world a 737-NG and a 737 MAX would have more commonality in everything from maintenance to training to flight characteristics than say a n A320.

To say that the F-15X would have separate training infrastructure compared to "existing fleet" (assuming we are talking about F15C/D) is literally true, but it gives a false sense of reality on the differences.

Besides, if the news is to believe, the assumption would be all those differences have been taken into consideration with the $12B contract. So the end result is the purchase still makes sense to someone in the Pentagon, who knows a lot more than any one of us.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9701
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:54 pm

estorilm wrote:
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.


You do realize that the F22 would need to carry that huge missile externally as well, right? On a wing pylon on top of that. The F35 doesn't have a center station either, does it?

So, for any huge missile the F15 may just be the highest performing lunch platform available to the USAF, regardless of what other shortcomings vs. Gen.5 fighters it may have.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:27 pm

bikerthai wrote:

Besides, if the news is to believe, the assumption would be all those differences have been taken into consideration with the $12B contract. So the end result is the purchase still makes sense to someone in the Pentagon, who knows a lot more than any one of us.

bt

Just to be clear bt, the funding being indicated for the acquisition of the F-15X is US$1.2 billion, not US$12 billion.

tommy1808 wrote:

You do realize that the F22 would need to carry that huge missile externally as well, right? On a wing pylon on top of that. The F35 doesn't have a center station either, does it?


Correct, neither the F-22 or F-35s internal bays would be long enough to hold a PAC-3 unless it was significantly modified and reduced in length for the ASAT role (unlikely), at which point it wouldn't really be a PAC-3 anyway.

The F-35B/C does have a centreline station on which it carries the 25mm GAU-22 gun pod. Given the PAC-3 in a non ASAT form only weights approx 700 lbs the centreline station would almost certainly be capable of carrying it. Not sure on whether the centreline pylon is present on the A model but I suspect so for commonality and also as the same external gun pod is already being developed as a stealthy multi-mission pod that could house additional sensors.

Saying that, I don't think the F-35 is the right aircraft to deliver an ASAT. The F-15X would be better but as already suggested, I'm not sure the ASAT role is really well thought out. I also don't see a great advantage or significant improvement using an F-15X in place of a standard F-15C for the role. Sure the F-15X will go a little higher but the difference is unlikely to be significant enough to warrant the acquisition cost. Better to upgrade a small number of F-15Cs that could fulfil the role than acquire a whole separate fleet of aircraft. Alternatively, there are a decent number of F-15Cs already stored that could have the Golden eagle modifications made to them, longerons and potentially wings replaced and returned to service cheaper than bringing in F-15Xs, if the ASAT role is what is planned.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:49 pm

If intercepting a missile from eastern Russia, Korea, china, what about an ABM ASAT role would be poorly thought out for an Alaskan F-15X force? That seems like a vastly cheaper option than many other (Star Wars etc) concepts floated by the pentagon over the years. It might not be foolproof, but could be a major disruptor in planning vs. such a strike (twelve billion being basically chump change).
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:28 am

texl1649 wrote:
Where does this hatred of the F110 come from? It’s run by Chile, Bhahrain, Saudi, Israel, Greece, Turkey, UAE, among others (I think it’s in the majority of foreign F-16 sales). The -132 variant mainly adds a fancy afterburner from their JSF entry (but it’s been around since 2002, and USAF qualified in 2003). It has fewer parts and was certainly supposed to decrease maintenance costs (also a new augmentor). There was a thread on a certain F-16 forum where the GE engine was favored 2:1 over the Pratt.

But overall, it’s an engine family in service today with USAF (and about 3500 or so delivered I think net) and not that big a difference vs. -129, frankly. In any case, if the USAF is buying a dozen or more X models, I’m not sure it would really matter whether it’s the 129 or 132, but they know plenty about how to support/contract for support for the 30 plus year old engine family and variants.

The F100 engine has won sales from Greece, Israel, Iraq, Poland, South Korea, Egypt, Singapore, and Pakistan.

In fact, a number of GE customers switched to the Pratt engine in the more recent sales; Israel and Greece most notably are the ones that have switched from GE to PW for the later F-16 purchases. Both users would have had significant reason to want to purchase the last blocks of F-16's with the Pratt engine, over continuing to buy more GE powered F-16's. Also note that Poland also opted to exclusively purchase the Pratt engine for their F-16's, over GE.

The new F100-PW-229 engine changed the decision matrix for many buyers; it is a solidly dependable engine that can take a lot of punishment without giving the user a headache; and ever since that engine became available, it started winning sales in head to head sales competitions over the F110-GE-129 engine. The F110 engine is a bit more finicky in that regards, and one can trust the Pratt F100-PW-229 engine to nurse you home if it was sick, while the GE F110 engine would very likely just quit on you.

And on the topic of why the latest F-15 models are being powered by GE; it is because of shenanigans involving the Saudi and Qatari Royal family (I was told that the selection of GE to power their new F-15's was actually opposed by the RSAF, but guess who controls the purse strings in Saudi Arabia...). The F-15 and F110 engine combo won't be as mature as the F-15 and F100-PW-229 engine combo, and it will show in flight readiness and safety numbers.

I would point out the South Koreans with their F-15K's as an example; the South Koreans purchased their first batch of F-15K's with the F110-GE-129 engine, but had a number of problems with the combination that caused engine reliability, performance and flight readiness issues that were never really resolved, despite the assistance of the USAF, GE, and Boeing (and these problems continue to this day). South Korea was literally on their own as the USAF doesn't operate F-15's with the GE engine, so their assistance was fairly limited, and GE and Boeing were never able to reproduce the problems in a controlled environment to identify the causes that were giving the Koreans such a headache.

Hence, with the second batch of F-15K's, the South Koreans went back to the Pratt F100-PW-229 engine instead because of these problems.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9701
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:12 am

Ozair wrote:
The F-35B/C does have a centreline station on which it carries the 25mm GAU-22 gun pod. Given the PAC-3 in a non ASAT form only weights approx 700 lbs the centreline station would almost certainly be capable of carrying it. Not sure on whether the centreline pylon is present on the A model but I suspect so for commonality and also as the same external gun pod is already being developed as a stealthy multi-mission pod that could house additional sensors.


Now that you are saying it... doh... forgot about the gun pud.

Saying that, I don't think the F-35 is the right aircraft to deliver an ASAT. The F-15X would be better but as already suggested, I'm not sure the ASAT role is really well thought out. I also don't see a great advantage or significant improvement using an F-15X in place of a standard F-15C for the role.


:checkmark:
Kinetic energy ASAT weapons are pure nonsense and a country would need to be run by a apocalyptic suicide cult to deploy them in numbers, let alone using them. They are true doomsday weapons, not for mankind, but for our use of LEO. Have an Exchange of ASATs during a war, and no one is going to LEO for decades, unmanned flights would be a much more risky proposition. Well, GNSS and geostationary orbits should be relatively unaffected.... at least something.

Directed Energy weapons are much more viable, they don´t have to convert their target into a debris cloud. And they are slowly becoming reality. Heck, you can build your phaser gun at home :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_3rB7uyEMc

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
estorilm
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:05 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
estorilm wrote:
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.

I honestly can't believe you still think the F-15 weighs 45,000lb empty. The Boeing website says "45,000lb class"

F-15C weights
Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 68,000 lb (30,845 kg)
Fuel capacity: 13,455 lb (6,100 kg) internal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne ... F-15_Eagle

The F-15QA has the 32,000lb GE engines derated for durability to 30,000lb thrust. The F-15QA has more thrust than any previous F-15 model. If the F-15X will be doing the ASAT role then they wouldn't need derated engines. So 32,000lb of thrust is accurate.

Even the two seat F-15E with conformal tanks installed weighs only 31,700lb empty. With the tanks removed it is also under 30,000lb weight.

estorilm wrote:
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.

The F-15X will be touting thrust to weight weights higher than any F-15 has ever achieved. So I will happily tout that it's performance will exceed any previous F-15 model.

Honestly you have lost all credibility when you stood by your comment that an F-15 weighs 45,000lb empty. Are you a teenager with an F-22 poster on your wall?

Apologies, you were 100% correct about the empty weight - I checked that Wednesday but got slammed at work and forgot to reply when I got home - and again buried last night! I had looked up the F-22 weight first and the F-15 numbers seemed more legit after that, wasn't really thinking though. I don't understand the "45,000-class designation" :roll: FWIW I would have corrected myself pretty quickly usually. :lol:

My thoughts were more along the line of this star wars-type-aircraft, which hasn't been confirmed yet - but which you're 100% sold on still. I understand the QA has the 32klb engines, but would a bump of 2klbs be worth it to effectively reduce the life of a plane which is currently being touted as "cheap and reliable" (the big selling points from Boeing for an F-15X program). I'd certainly doubt it gets a NEW new variant of the engine though.

In my last quote I was specifically comparing the F-15X to the kinematics of the F-22, which you blatantly ignored. Obviously I'd expect Boeings' latest variant of a fighter for the USAF to be sporting "thrust to weight ratios higher than any F-15 has ever achieved" - that should go without saying. We wouldn't be (controversially) producing a new type in limited numbers unless it was better (and cheaper) than those which came before it.
Perhaps the primary advantage of an F-15 in this role would be that it could carry a single LARGE missile centrally - which is impossible with the bomb bay doors on the F-22. I'm just assuming here that the missile you're speaking of is far too large to fit internally into the F-22 (this is just a quick glance at the system you speak of, but I could be wrong). Obviously anything carried internally on a near-empty F-22 would have exponential advantages for launch velocity.
EDIT: I see this has been discussed a few posts ago as well - definitely something to think about.

Either way, nothing has really changed for me - I still don't get it. Every day you wait, F-35s are coming on-line faster than this F-15X will. As you've noted, there are possibly some random obscure roles in which an F-15X could out-perform most current platforms, but it would be very specialized. For most mission roles, an F-35 (on a 1:1 basis) would be more valuable than any F-15 variant. I'm saying this from a capabilities, maintenance (after 2x engines are factored in), sustainability, and future battlefield point of view. Comparing the costs, I'd just basically rather have more F-35s is all.

If you are indeed correct and there is a small role for a specialized group of X's to deploy a specialized weapon, then fine - but that would be really unusual. I'm thinking Boeing is doing this to get a larger piece of the pie. I get 12 aircraft, but I certainly don't get what (I'm assuming) Boeing is thinking about here.

And nah, no posters - forgot to grab one from 'Loco' when we flew down to Oceana last year. Awesome demo and a great guy though! :P
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:35 am

estorilm wrote:
In my last quote I was specifically comparing the F-15X to the kinematics of the F-22, which you blatantly ignored.

You clearly hold the F-22's kinematics in such high regard I thought there was no point trying to persuade you. I'll give it a shot.

The speed of a fighter has nothing to do with its top speed or supercruising speed. Fuel is the only thing that determines speed and fuel is the F-22 achilies heel. Being low on fuel you must disengage and cruise subsonic.

The F-35, F-15QA and Su-30 could all sit beside the F-22 while it performs any of its combat profiles that include supercruise. The F-22 has no speed advantage.

If all of the fighters listed above took off and cruised subsonic to a target area 600nm away it is the F-22 that will arrive with the lowest amount of fuel. The F-22 is the heaviest of all four aircraft yet it has the lowest amount of fuel. Now if the F-22 did a 100nm supercruise dash at mach 1.6 the other three aircraft can simply keep up using moderate amounts of afterburner. While afterburners burn extra fuel the three aircraft have that extra fuel available.

The only theoretical profile where an F-22 could potentially out range the other fighters is taking off and supercruised above mach 1.6 for the entire flight. The other aircraft would have to use afterburner and could only fly 70-80% of the F-22's distance. But the problem is the F-22 overheats with extended high speed so it will be damaged in the process.

In terms of agility all four fighters can exceed the pilot. They all have similar lift to drag ratios and wing loadings. With heat seaking missiles being able to fire over the shoulder it cancels out any advantage thrust vectoring would have. If anything thrust vectoring adds weight and reduces range and would not have been used in hindsite.

The 6th gen aircraft or penetrating counter air will have the fuel to go extremely fast over long distance.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:15 am

RJMAZ wrote:
estorilm wrote:
In my last quote I was specifically comparing the F-15X to the kinematics of the F-22, which you blatantly ignored.

You clearly hold the F-22's kinematics in such high regard I thought there was no point trying to persuade you. I'll give it a shot.

The speed of a fighter has nothing to do with its top speed or supercruising speed. Fuel is the only thing that determines speed and fuel is the F-22 achilies heel. Being low on fuel you must disengage and cruise subsonic.

The F-35, F-15QA and Su-30 could all sit beside the F-22 while it performs any of its combat profiles that include supercruise. The F-22 has no speed advantage.

If all of the fighters listed above took off and cruised subsonic to a target area 600nm away it is the F-22 that will arrive with the lowest amount of fuel. The F-22 is the heaviest of all four aircraft yet it has the lowest amount of fuel. Now if the F-22 did a 100nm supercruise dash at mach 1.6 the other three aircraft can simply keep up using moderate amounts of afterburner. While afterburners burn extra fuel the three aircraft have that extra fuel available.

The only theoretical profile where an F-22 could potentially out range the other fighters is taking off and supercruised above mach 1.6 for the entire flight. The other aircraft would have to use afterburner and could only fly 70-80% of the F-22's distance. But the problem is the F-22 overheats with extended high speed so it will be damaged in the process.

In terms of agility all four fighters can exceed the pilot. They all have similar lift to drag ratios and wing loadings. With heat seaking missiles being able to fire over the shoulder it cancels out any advantage thrust vectoring would have. If anything thrust vectoring adds weight and reduces range and would not have been used in hindsite.

The 6th gen aircraft or penetrating counter air will have the fuel to go extremely fast over long distance.

The difference you are missing is that the F-22 can hit it's stated range on internal fuel only, while the F-15 needs external fuel tanks and the conformal fuel tanks to even match the F-22's range. And those external fuel tanks add speed and manoeuvring restrictions which impact the actual, real world performance of the aircraft, while the F-22 can fly through it's entire speed and manoeuvring envelope in any configuration.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:33 am

Regarding super cruise, once you super cruise you usually do not need 100% dry thrust any more and can throttle back. A EF will not use a higher thrust setting at M1.2 than at M 0.9.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:54 am

ThePointblank wrote:
The difference you are missing is that the F-22 can hit it's stated range on internal fuel only, while the F-15 needs external fuel tanks and the conformal fuel tanks to even match the F-22's range. And those external fuel tanks add speed and manoeuvring restrictions which impact the actual, real world performance of the aircraft, while the F-22 can fly through it's entire speed and manoeuvring envelope in any configuration.

Again you are incorrect.

The F-15C with internal fuel can fly further than the F-22 with internal fuel.

The F-15C carries 6,100kg of internal fuel and has an empty weight of 12,700kg. That is 48% of its empty weight carried in fuel.

The F-22 carries 8,200kg of internal fuel but has a massive empty weight of 19,700kg. That is only 41% of its empty weight carried in fuel.

The F-15 with conformal tanks can still perform 9G with no speed restrictions. They add 800kg of empty weight but add 5000kg of fuel. With the 29,000lb engines it still has a thrust to weight ratio better than the F-22.

The F-15 with conformals weighs 13,500kg empty but now carries 11,200kg of fuel. That is a massive 82% of its empty weight carried in fuel which allows it to fly more than 50% further than the F-22. It can fly with afterburners for as long as required to sit beside the supercruising F-22.

The F-15 wouldn't even need to use conformals to match the F-22's combat profile. A single centreline tank could provide the fuel for takeoff and climb and dump it after 20 minutes. So the eagle is back to its lowest drag and empty weight for any dogfighting.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:03 am

seahawk wrote:
Regarding super cruise, once you super cruise you usually do not need 100% dry thrust any more and can throttle back. A EF will not use a higher thrust setting at M1.2 than at M 0.9.

The same could be said for a borderline supercruising fighters. Once they do an quick afterburning dash to say mach 1.6 they could go back to 100% dry thrust and it would gradually slow back down to subsonic. So for many minutes it is travelling supersonic without afterburner.

If an aircraft needed to go from point A to point B it is the time it takes to travel between the two points that matters. Not if it was done at one continuous speed.

An F-15 once it has accelerated to the F-22's supercruise speed using max afterburner it would only need a low afterburner setting to then maintain that speed.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:35 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The difference you are missing is that the F-22 can hit it's stated range on internal fuel only, while the F-15 needs external fuel tanks and the conformal fuel tanks to even match the F-22's range. And those external fuel tanks add speed and manoeuvring restrictions which impact the actual, real world performance of the aircraft, while the F-22 can fly through it's entire speed and manoeuvring envelope in any configuration.

Again you are incorrect.

The F-15C with internal fuel can fly further than the F-22 with internal fuel.

The F-15C carries 6,100kg of internal fuel and has an empty weight of 12,700kg. That is 48% of its empty weight carried in fuel.

The F-22 carries 8,200kg of internal fuel but has a massive empty weight of 19,700kg. That is only 41% of its empty weight carried in fuel.

The F-15 with conformal tanks can still perform 9G with no speed restrictions. They add 800kg of empty weight but add 5000kg of fuel. With the 29,000lb engines it still has a thrust to weight ratio better than the F-22.

The F-15 with conformals weighs 13,500kg empty but now carries 11,200kg of fuel. That is a massive 82% of its empty weight carried in fuel which allows it to fly more than 50% further than the F-22. It can fly with afterburners for as long as required to sit beside the supercruising F-22.

The F-15 wouldn't even need to use conformals to match the F-22's combat profile. A single centreline tank could provide the fuel for takeoff and climb and dump it after 20 minutes. So the eagle is back to its lowest drag and empty weight for any dogfighting.

Totally wrong:

Image

Also, read the F-15's Dash-1, section A5... a loaded F-15 with 4 AIM-120's, 4 AIM-9's and 1 610 gallon drop tank with all the associated pylons has a drag index of about 29.5. Reading the charts, it says at a constant cruise altitude of 40,000ft flying a maximum range cruise profile at about Mach 0.85, you are looking at a range to fuel ratio of about 0.097nm per pound of fuel. You are looking at a range of about 1305.13nm one way...

Want to add CFT's? OK, increase the gross weight by 13738lbs, to 58,738lbs, and a drag index of 50.8. Similar flight profile (35,000ft this time due to weight restrictions, Mach 0.85), you got a range to fuel ratio of about 0.064nm per pound of fuel. You are looking at a range of about 1451.39nm one way...

Sorry, your blind optimism doesn't match against the realities as demonstrated in the flight manual... unless your F-15 is flying totally clean with nothing to hang off of it, in which case it's a manned target drone, with the only hope in defeating a F-22 is through ramming because it has no weapons.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Totally wrong:

Image
.

I noticed your mistake in seconds. HLLH means the F-15 is flying at low altitude for half of the mission.

Good work for trying.

Also notice how the F-22's combat radius drops from 590nm to 460nm by simply including a 100nm supercruise dash in the mission profile. A massive hit and not much less of a hit than what a 4th gen would get by simply using afterburner.

ThePointblank wrote:
Also, read the F-15's Dash-1, section A5... a loaded F-15 with 4 AIM-120's, 4 AIM-9's and 1 610 gallon drop tank with all the associated pylons has a drag index of about 29.5. Reading the charts, it says at a constant cruise altitude of 40,000ft flying a maximum range cruise profile at about Mach 0.85, you are looking at a range to fuel ratio of about 0.097nm per pound of fuel. You are looking at a range of about 1305.13nm one way...

Want to add CFT's? OK, increase the gross weight by 13738lbs, to 58,738lbs, and a drag index of 50.8. Similar flight profile (35,000ft this time due to weight restrictions, Mach 0.85), you got a range to fuel ratio of about 0.064nm per pound of fuel. You are looking at a range of about 1451.39nm one way..

Both 1305nm and 1415nm values for the F-15 are higher than the F-22 which can only fly 1180nm one way according to your image. Also the F-15QA has improved significantly over the 30 year old F-15C.


ThePointblank wrote:
Sorry, your blind optimism doesn't match against the realities as demonstrated in the flight manual... unless your F-15 is flying totally clean with nothing to hang off of it, in which case it's a manned target drone, with the only hope in defeating a F-22 is through ramming because it has no weapons.

Flying an F-15 at low altitude doesn't count.

I said the F-15, F-35 and Suhkoi could all match the F-22. I notice you have picked the lightest and oldest aircraft with the least internal fuel to try and disprove my argument. Try that against the other two.

The F-22's subsonic combat radius of 590nm is inferior to the F-35A's 760nm. Both with internal fuel and A2A config. If both aircraft flew out subsonic to a 500nm radius we can calculate how much spare fuel both aircraft has to play with by using the remaining combat radius and doubling it. The F-22 has only 180mm of fuel left the F-35 would have massive 520nm of fuel left.

The F-35 has nearly three times the subsonic range left. The F-35 can burn as much fuel as it wants to keep up with the F-22 including, dogfighting, launching AMRAAM's at mach 1.6 etc
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:37 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Totally wrong:

Image
.

I noticed your mistake in seconds. HLLH means the F-15 is flying at low altitude for half of the mission.

Good work for trying.

Also notice how the F-22's combat radius drops from 590nm to 460nm by simply including a 100nm supercruise dash in the mission profile. A massive hit and not much less of a hit than what a 4th gen would get by simply using afterburner.

Note that the F-15 has to fly a low altitude profile for half the mission because if it tried to fly at medium altitude to penetrate hostile airspace, it would be detected immediately, and it's extremely likely that someone with a SAM would blow it out of the sky. The F-22 doesn't have to deal with that.

RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Also, read the F-15's Dash-1, section A5... a loaded F-15 with 4 AIM-120's, 4 AIM-9's and 1 610 gallon drop tank with all the associated pylons has a drag index of about 29.5. Reading the charts, it says at a constant cruise altitude of 40,000ft flying a maximum range cruise profile at about Mach 0.85, you are looking at a range to fuel ratio of about 0.097nm per pound of fuel. You are looking at a range of about 1305.13nm one way...

Want to add CFT's? OK, increase the gross weight by 13738lbs, to 58,738lbs, and a drag index of 50.8. Similar flight profile (35,000ft this time due to weight restrictions, Mach 0.85), you got a range to fuel ratio of about 0.064nm per pound of fuel. You are looking at a range of about 1451.39nm one way..

Both 1305nm and 1415nm values for the F-15 are higher than the F-22 which can only fly 1180nm one way according to your image. Also the F-15QA has improved significantly over the 30 year old F-15C.

The F-15QA is not a significant improvement in terms of range and performance over the regular F-15C's or E's for that matter. From what I've understand, the GE-powered F-15's don't exactly perform that much better than the current F-15's with the F100-PW-229's; it's much more of a very close match, except for a number of fairly narrow flight regimes where the GE engine would have a slight edge, and those flight regimes are all at low altitude; the F110-GE-129's perform better at lower altitude. Even then, the experience has been with the South Koreans is that the F-15 and F110-GE-129 combo is very immature with a significant number of ongoing problems with reliability and performance (hence the second batch of F-15K's being F110-PW-229 powered).

RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Sorry, your blind optimism doesn't match against the realities as demonstrated in the flight manual... unless your F-15 is flying totally clean with nothing to hang off of it, in which case it's a manned target drone, with the only hope in defeating a F-22 is through ramming because it has no weapons.

Flying an F-15 at low altitude doesn't count.

I said the F-15, F-35 and Suhkoi could all match the F-22. I notice you have picked the lightest and oldest aircraft with the least internal fuel to try and disprove my argument. Try that against the other two.

The F-22's subsonic combat radius of 590nm is inferior to the F-35A's 760nm. Both with internal fuel and A2A config. If both aircraft flew out subsonic to a 500nm radius we can calculate how much spare fuel both aircraft has to play with by using the remaining combat radius and doubling it. The F-22 has only 180mm of fuel left the F-35 would have massive 520nm of fuel left.

The F-35 has nearly three times the subsonic range left. The F-35 can burn as much fuel as it wants to keep up with the F-22 including, dogfighting, launching AMRAAM's at mach 1.6 etc

The Dash-1 is for a F-15E equipped with the F100-PW-220. A lot newer than the original F-15's.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:36 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Note that the F-15 has to fly a low altitude profile for half the mission because if it tried to fly at medium altitude to penetrate hostile airspace, it would be detected immediately, and it's extremely likely that someone with a SAM would blow it out of the sky. The F-22 doesn't have to deal with that.

You are now moving the goalposts. I never mentioned survivability.

I mentioned kinematics. I repeat the F-15, F-35 and Suhkoi can sit beside the F-22 on any combat mission. I am right and you are wrong.


ThePointblank wrote:
The Dash-1 is for a F-15E equipped with the F100-PW-220. A lot newer than the original F-15's.

That engine is not the most fuel efficient F-15 engine. I have highlighted the fuel consumption of the engine you used in bold. It the same consumption as the F-15C's

Here are the engine specs.

Max dry Thrust (MIL or Non-Augmentor):
F100-PW-200 65.26 kN (14,670 lb st)
F100-PW-220 63.9 kN (14,370 lb st)
F100-PW-220E 64.9 kN (14,590 lb st)
F100-PW-229, -232 79.18 kN (17,800 lb st)

Max T-O Thrust (Augmented):
F100-PW-200 100.53 kN (22,600 lb st)
F100-PW-220, -220E 105.72 kN (23,770 lb st)
F100-PW-229 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)
F100-PW-232 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)

SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION:
Max T-O (Full Augmentor):
F100-PW-200, -220, -220E 59.49 mg/Ns (2.10 lb/h/lb st)
F100-PW-229 54.96 mg/Ns (1.94 lb/h/lb st)
F100-PW-232 50.99 mg/Ns (1.80 lb/h/lb st)

As you can see the latest Pratt engine burns only 1.8lb of fuel for every pound of thrust. The engine you used to determine the F-15's range burns 2.1lb of fuel for every pound of thrust. That is a massive 15% improvement in fuel burn with new engines.

The 229EEP (Engine Enhancement Package) from 2009 onwards is on singapores F-15SG. The latest GE 132 engine also burns less fuel than the old 20 year old 220 engines.

So your F-15 range figures will be low, bump them up by 10% for the F-15SG, F-15QA and F-15X. So the F-15 can easily match the kinematics of the F-22.

People wonder why the F-22 got cancelled so quickly.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:44 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Note that the F-15 has to fly a low altitude profile for half the mission because if it tried to fly at medium altitude to penetrate hostile airspace, it would be detected immediately, and it's extremely likely that someone with a SAM would blow it out of the sky. The F-22 doesn't have to deal with that.

You are now moving the goalposts. I never mentioned survivability.

I mentioned kinematics. I repeat the F-15, F-35 and Suhkoi can sit beside the F-22 on any combat mission. I am right and you are wrong.


ThePointblank wrote:
The Dash-1 is for a F-15E equipped with the F100-PW-220. A lot newer than the original F-15's.

That engine is not the most fuel efficient F-15 engine. I have highlighted the fuel consumption of the engine you used in bold. It the same consumption as the F-15C's

Here are the engine specs.

Max dry Thrust (MIL or Non-Augmentor):
F100-PW-200 65.26 kN (14,670 lb st)
F100-PW-220 63.9 kN (14,370 lb st)
F100-PW-220E 64.9 kN (14,590 lb st)
F100-PW-229, -232 79.18 kN (17,800 lb st)

Max T-O Thrust (Augmented):
F100-PW-200 100.53 kN (22,600 lb st)
F100-PW-220, -220E 105.72 kN (23,770 lb st)
F100-PW-229 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)
F100-PW-232 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)

SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION:
Max T-O (Full Augmentor):
F100-PW-200, -220, -220E 59.49 mg/Ns (2.10 lb/h/lb st)
F100-PW-229 54.96 mg/Ns (1.94 lb/h/lb st)
F100-PW-232 50.99 mg/Ns (1.80 lb/h/lb st)

As you can see the latest Pratt engine burns only 1.8lb of fuel for every pound of thrust. The engine you used to determine the F-15's range burns 2.1lb of fuel for every pound of thrust. That is a massive 15% improvement in fuel burn with new engines.

The 229EEP (Engine Enhancement Package) from 2009 onwards is on singapores F-15SG. The latest GE 132 engine also burns less fuel than the old 20 year old 220 engines.

So your F-15 range figures will be low, bump them up by 10% for the F-15SG, F-15QA and F-15X. So the F-15 can easily match the kinematics of the F-22.

People wonder why the F-22 got cancelled so quickly.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:33 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Note that the F-15 has to fly a low altitude profile for half the mission because if it tried to fly at medium altitude to penetrate hostile airspace, it would be detected immediately, and it's extremely likely that someone with a SAM would blow it out of the sky. The F-22 doesn't have to deal with that.

You are now moving the goalposts. I never mentioned survivability.

I mentioned kinematics. I repeat the F-15, F-35 and Suhkoi can sit beside the F-22 on any combat mission. I am right and you are wrong.

Survivability is everything in combat; if you can't fly somewhere because the enemy has denied the use of the airspace, it doesn't matter how much range you have, you ain't going on that mission.
RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The Dash-1 is for a F-15E equipped with the F100-PW-220. A lot newer than the original F-15's.

That engine is not the most fuel efficient F-15 engine. I have highlighted the fuel consumption of the engine you used in bold. It the same consumption as the F-15C's

Here are the engine specs.

Max dry Thrust (MIL or Non-Augmentor):
F100-PW-200 65.26 kN (14,670 lb st)
F100-PW-220 63.9 kN (14,370 lb st)
F100-PW-220E 64.9 kN (14,590 lb st)
F100-PW-229, -232 79.18 kN (17,800 lb st)

Max T-O Thrust (Augmented):
F100-PW-200 100.53 kN (22,600 lb st)
F100-PW-220, -220E 105.72 kN (23,770 lb st)
F100-PW-229 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)
F100-PW-232 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)

SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION:
Max T-O (Full Augmentor):
F100-PW-200, -220, -220E 59.49 mg/Ns (2.10 lb/h/lb st)
F100-PW-229 54.96 mg/Ns (1.94 lb/h/lb st)
F100-PW-232 50.99 mg/Ns (1.80 lb/h/lb st)

As you can see the latest Pratt engine burns only 1.8lb of fuel for every pound of thrust. The engine you used to determine the F-15's range burns 2.1lb of fuel for every pound of thrust. That is a massive 15% improvement in fuel burn with new engines.

The 229EEP (Engine Enhancement Package) from 2009 onwards is on singapores F-15SG. The latest GE 132 engine also burns less fuel than the old 20 year old 220 engines.

So your F-15 range figures will be low, bump them up by 10% for the F-15SG, F-15QA and F-15X. So the F-15 can easily match the kinematics of the F-22.

People wonder why the F-22 got cancelled so quickly.

The F-22 got cancelled because of issues unrelated to the performance of the aircraft, but everything to do with production issues. It's been gone into enough, but the quick overview of it was that the F-22 went into production when a number of critical components on the F-22 were obsolete, were going out of production, and no substitutes could be made to work to replace said components at a reasonable cost. Realistically, if the USAF could buy more F-22's at a reasonable, ongoing price, they would have.

And Singapore's F-15SG's have the F110-GE-129 engine, the exact same engines that is giving the South Koreans such a headache to the point of ordering the second batch with the Pratt engine.
 
DigitalSea
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:01 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Survivability is everything in combat; if you can't fly somewhere because the enemy has denied the use of the airspace, it doesn't matter how much range you have, you ain't going on that mission.


How many countries can honestly give us a run for our money like that?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:30 am

DigitalSea wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Survivability is everything in combat; if you can't fly somewhere because the enemy has denied the use of the airspace, it doesn't matter how much range you have, you ain't going on that mission.


How many countries can honestly give us a run for our money like that?

Quite a few unfortunately; a number of potential adversaries have heavily invested in their air defence capabilities that can force 4th gen assets to never fly anywhere near their airspace without substantial assistance from support aircraft, such as jammers and SEAD acting as part of the escort.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:44 am

However, how many could really threaten an F-15 patrolling CONUS or Alaska? And even if the USA in attacking (like it usually is), you still need fighters for HVCAP, airbase defence CAP and so on. Those do also not venture close to enemy air defence assets.

The rest is the typical catch-22, if the enemy is so advanced that conventional fighters can not enter its airspace, the need for CAPs over your own airspace increases, as this enemy would be most likely capable to try offensive air operations. And with the rather lowish amount of SAMs in the US inventory, you need fighters for defence urgently.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:48 pm

seahawk wrote:
However, how many could really threaten an F-15 patrolling CONUS or Alaska? And even if the USA in attacking (like it usually is), you still need fighters for HVCAP, airbase defence CAP and so on. Those do also not venture close to enemy air defence assets.

The rest is the typical catch-22, if the enemy is so advanced that conventional fighters can not enter its airspace, the need for CAPs over your own airspace increases, as this enemy would be most likely capable to try offensive air operations. And with the rather lowish amount of SAMs in the US inventory, you need fighters for defence urgently.


“Lowish amount of SAMS?” We spend around $10 billion a year for missile defense purchases, and the Thaad, SM3, and PAC3 capabilities I would say are pretty good compared to most/any other country. Perhaps per capita the Saudis and Israelis have/spend more, but they do have a near term foe.

Your anti-American attitude is showing again. I think the Luftwaffe has what, 3 Patriot batteries, and precisely what amount of stealth (or even mission capable any given day) interceptors? I can’t tell, but it would seem that whatever US position is taken for funding additional fighters, you are likely to pronounce it wrong/insufficient but also superfluous, no matter what.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:53 pm

I am not comparing the US to the laughable capabilities of Germany, but to the wide array of SAM system in use by Russia or China. There is pretty big gap between the Patriot and the Stinger, a gap that according to NATO doctrine is to be filled by the fighters. And in the end it is not money that matters, but area protected and the USA and all bases aboard are pretty large.
 
estorilm
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:14 pm

This is like talking to a brick wall. You crack jokes about me being obsessed with the F-22 (which I'm not, it's just an impressive machine) but you rant on for pages and pages about how a 30 year old aircraft will easily match a Raptor.

If you're indeed speaking of kinematics, and how all these 30-year-old aircraft can EASILY "hang with" the F-22 (which is hilarious) - why do you keep forgetting that kinematics relate to the amount of energy which can be imparted on a WEAPON leaving the aircraft. As in, it needs to HAVE weapons to even be thrown into the discussion. Granted we're getting off-topic from the original point of a single center-line large missile, BUT since we are here.. let's discuss real world A2A since you're singling out the F-22 v F-15.

Even clean, I doubt your claims (and the aircraft you mention were neither designed for supercruise, nor mention it in specs) - but WITH external stores? No. No No NO. All of your stats, dashes, range, 1.6M supercruise, etc. require comparing clean aircraft (which again, can't achieve a 1.6M dash for 100mi without dumping fuel significantly, contrary to what you think. Sorry 100mi of "light" afterburner isn't going to help your econ lol!) versus an efficient and modern airframe/engine combo... WHICH by the way could also be carrying a decent bomb load and A2A loadout).

And since stealth hasn't come up once here, why don't we just throw some tanks on the F-22 and shut this entire argument down.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:55 pm

Gentlemen, (and ladies). Let's bring this back to the topic at hand, The argument is not whether the F-15X is better than the F-22 or the F-35 in a variety of mission profiles. We know that for stealthy missions (and a few other missions), it is not. The question at hand is why was budget for 12 F-15X written into an appropriation request? The assumption is that the request was not because of the whim of the president or some of-the-cuff idea of someone in the Pentagon, without any reasoning to support it.

The only two reason that make any sense to me so far are:

1) A-Sat
2) Missile Truck

If anyone else can come up with another reason, then we can analyze it.

For these two reason, can we say if there are any other airframe out there that can do this job at a reasonable price and be available at a reasonable timeline? If we can flush out the technical and financials behind either of these two mission profiles, then we may be able to see if there is any merit to this budget request and whether it will have legs or will be cut with the next budget iterations.

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

Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:59 pm

estorilm wrote:
This is like talking to a brick wall.

I agree. Here I am arguing with someone who thought a 12,700kg F-15 weighs more than an 19,700kg F-22. Imagine how I felt reading that. I then had to read you further embarass yourself as you calculated thrust to weight ratios that were off by whopping 50%.

It just shows you have no background knowledge on the topic. That you are just googling as we go making up arguments. You should know an F-22 weighs significantly more than an F-15. Just like how an F-16 is much lighter than an F-15. I consider that the basics.

You think a single PAC-3 missile will make a mach 2.5 capable F-15 struggle to hit mach 1.6. The missile weighs under 700kg and has a frontal cross section of less than 5% of the F-15 itself. So you have a 5% weight and drag increase.

We are not talking a dozen missiles and drop tanks hanging under the wings.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... 3&start=15

There's only one way to put an F-15 (A or C) to Mach2.5. Using V-Max switch(left of the throttle) to increase thrust and engine temperature. Above Mach 2.3 the flight is time limited because if you stay here, heat friction will make your canopy melt! The engine will overheat and V-max rating is limited at 3 hours before overhauling the engine. No need to have the Streak Eagle to perform this. The altitude for this run is comprised between 45000ft and 64000ft (60000ft with 4 AIM-7 or AIM-120), on a U.S. standard day (1966), at 33000lbs clean or 35040lbs with 4 AIM-7. Now, operationnaly this speed was never attained. Every flight safety made after Main Depot for maintenance called for a demonstrated Mach 2.0. Suffice to say that an 8 AAM loaded F-15 will have a top speed on nearly Mach 1.8, but it will attain this speed at a fairly high rate with those missiles.


Top speed with the old -220 engines is mach 1.78 with 8 missiles. 8 missiles and their pylons is mych more weight and drag than a single pac-3 missile.

The latest engines have 30% more thrust. So the F-15X will easily exceed mach 2 with a single pac-3 missile.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:48 pm

I have to say, Thaad ER, or PAA (SM3) seem like a simpler solution to ASAT than a dozen or so F-15X aircraft in Alaska.

https://fas.org/pubs/pir/2011winter/201 ... ellite.pdf

Back on topic, what if these are actually intended to be leased to Taiwan, and it’s not being publicized to keep things relatively quiet during the Chinese trade negotiations? I certainly don’t think the USAF has a bunch of ‘spare” F-15C’s not being utilized right now, for loaners.

“While images of F-35Bs vertically landing on Taiwan may be still a distant dream for its lawmakers, Washington in the meantime seems to have suggested an alternative lease agreement to supply second-hand F-15C Eagle fighters to the island nation. The proposition surfaced on Taiwanese media external link on Monday, March 19, with additional outlets external link suggesting that the offer may be a compromise solution between exporting a new fighter to Taiwan, like an advanced Strike Eagle derivative, or even the F-35—risking the ire from neighboring China—and denying Taiwan any additional upgrades in tactical air power fleet—something China would love. Leasing the fighters may also prove a more cost effective fighter option and could allow Taipei to procure more aircraft than if they were to buy them outright. Any aircraft provided would have at least half of their lifespan remaining and could be subject to structural upgrades and modifications to avionics and radar prior to transfer.”

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ar ... uy-039436/
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:58 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Gentlemen, (and ladies). Let's bring this back to the topic at hand, The argument is not whether the F-15X is better than the F-22 or the F-35 in a variety of mission profiles. We know that for stealthy missions (and a few other missions), it is not. The question at hand is why was budget for 12 F-15X written into an appropriation request? The assumption is that the request was not because of the whim of the president or some of-the-cuff idea of someone in the Pentagon, without any reasoning to support it.

The only two reason that make any sense to me so far are:

1) A-Sat
2) Missile Truck

If anyone else can come up with another reason, then we can analyze it.
bt

The key then is to examine the article that this whole scenario hangs on,

Pentagon to Seek $1.2 Billion for New Boeing F-15 Fighters (1)
The Pentagon is planning to request $1.2 billion for 12 Boeing F-15 X fighter aircraft—the newest version of the decades-old jet—in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, according to two people familiar with the decision who asked not to be named because it’s not yet official.
The initial decision to buy the newest kind of F-15 aircraft, so far only sold to U.S. allies, comes from the Pentagon’s top leadership, including with some prodding from Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes, the two people said. Shanahan, a former Boeing Co. executive, recused himself from any decisions related to Boeing when he was confirmed by the Senate. President Donald Trump has tapped Shanahan as acting defense secretary starting in January.
But Lt. Col. Joe Buccino, Shanahan’s spokesman, said the deputy secretary is recused from any decisions impacting Boeing.
“The Department’s legal advisors have a screening process to ensure that Boeing-related issues are not routed to Mr. Shanahan,” Buccino said in a statement to Bloomberg Government. “While the details of the Department’s FY2020 budget request remain pre-decisional, the screening process was in place throughout the budget review to ensure that any DoD programmatic decisions impacting Boeing were neither made nor influenced by Mr. Shanahan.”
A Defense Department official who asked not to be named to speak on the issue, said the idea wasn’t forced on the Air Force. Outgoing Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made the decisions regarding the future mix of fighter aircraft and that decision was made in consultation and accepted by the Air Force, the official said.
None of the budget decisions are final until the Pentagon submits its request on Feb. 4.
The reason for buying the F-15X aircraft would be to start replacing the F-15 C variants for the Air National Guard, which have become to expensive to overhaul, one of the people said. Production of the C variants ended in the 1980, said Richard Aboulafia, an expert on military aircraft and vice president of the Teal Group, a consulting firm.
Boeing builds the F-15 in St. Louis, where it also builds the Super Hornets, an aircraft that has benefited from congressional largesse over the last several years. Boeing has kept the F-15 design current, said Aboulafia.
“They have been able to do that because of sales to Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar,” he said in a telephone interview, adding that the planes have new systems and sensors.
“The F-15 is kind of in a class by itself in range and performance,” Aboulafia said. It’s faster, carries a lot more and can go a lot farther than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the newest and the most expensive Pentagon program, The F-35 is, however, stealthy, which the F-15 isn’t, Aboulafia said.
The decision to buy the newest version of the F-15 may not sit well with F-35 supporters within the Pentagon and in Congress because it would essentially compete for funding.
F-15C, -D, and -E models participated in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, according to information on Boeing’s website. The F-15 notched 32 of 36 U.S. Air Force air-to-air victories and struck Iraqi ground targets. F-15s served in Bosnia in 1994 and downed three Serbian MiG-29 fighters in Operation Allied Force in 1999. They enforced no-fly zones over Iraq in the 1990s. Eagles also hit Afghan targets in Operation Enduring Freedom, and the F-15E version performed air-to-ground missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Boeing declined to comment on Pentagon budget deliberations.

https://about.bgov.com/blog/pentagon-bi ... -fighters/

So what do we know?
- A single source has suggested these are being requested and acquired not by the USAF but by the Pentagon.
- The intent, according to the source, is to start replacing the F-15Cs in National Guard Units.
- Existing F-15Cs are apparently too expensive to overhaul (incorrect, we know the figures for this and Boeing has been pushing F-15C overhaul as a cost efficient exercise for the last ten years, and the USAF has upgraded the Radars on most F-15Cs to a modern AESA).
- It apparently has longer range and more payload than comparable aircraft (incorrect but we will go with it).
- The budget decision isn’t final.


bikerthai wrote:
For these two reason, can we say if there are any other airframe out there that can do this job at a reasonable price and be available at a reasonable timeline? If we can flush out the technical and financials behind either of these two mission profiles, then we may be able to see if there is any merit to this budget request and whether it will have legs or will be cut with the next budget iterations.

As already provided, the F-35 is cheaper to acquire, cheaper to run than both the F-15C and X versions while being as capable as a missile truck and likely more capable in the A2A role. It is the clear stated preference of the USAF and the F-35 will start going to National Guard units this year. Itr is also being manufactured at now over 100+ a year and has production capacity to increase further.

texl1649 wrote:
Back on topic, what if these are actually intended to be leased to Taiwan, and it’s not being publicized to keep things relatively quiet during the Chinese trade negotiations? I certainly don’t think the USAF has a bunch of ‘spare” F-15C’s not being utilized right now, for loaners.

Actually the USAF has about 100 F-15Cs sitting at AMARC that could be refurbished and put back into service.

The Taiwanese could quite easily refurbish these aircraft and upgrade them at the same time, as they are doing to their entire F-16 fleet, and achieve an aircraft that could easily fly for another 20+ years, at probably half the cost of a new build aircraft.

I doubt they want to though. The per hour cost of the jet is more than they likely want to accept and Taiwan doesn’t need the payload range offered by the F-15. What they need is survivability in the airspace and the F-15X does not make sufficient improvement over the upgraded F-16V they are now receiving in that area.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:57 pm

Ozair wrote:
So what do we know?
- A single source has suggested these are being requested and acquired not by the USAF but by the Pentagon.
- The intent, according to the source, is to start replacing the F-15Cs in National Guard Units.
- Existing F-15Cs are apparently too expensive to overhaul (incorrect, we know the figures for this and Boeing has been pushing F-15C overhaul as a cost efficient exercise for the last ten years, and the USAF has upgraded the Radars on most F-15Cs to a modern AESA).
- It apparently has longer range and more payload than comparable aircraft (incorrect but we will go with it).
- The budget decision isn’t final.

- 2 people claimed that it came from the pentagon, 1 other indicated that "it's not forced on the Air Force"
- The stated intent and the F-15C cost issues may or may not be true. As you and others have indicated neither the numbers nor price or capability make sense for a F-15C replacement. This could easily be the reporter (or the quoted individuals) trying to create a nice story out of a budget request.
- Those performance claims are from Aboulafia, not from any official sources.
- We cannot discount the possibility that an involved individual benefits from this deal.
bikerthai wrote:
1) A-Sat
2) Missile Truck

If anyone else can come up with another reason, then we can analyze it.

For these two reason, can we say if there are any other airframe out there that can do this job at a reasonable price and be available at a reasonable timeline? If we can flush out the technical and financials behind either of these two mission profiles, then we may be able to see if there is any merit to this budget request and whether it will have legs or will be cut with the next budget iterations.

bt

1) There are only two things that matter in the Anti-Sat / Anti-ICBM role: Top speed and top altitude with a certain missile. The F-15 clearly has an edge in both, at least over the F-35 and F-16 (which are the only other US fighters in production today). Forget stealth or range for this mission. Whether it's more effective than fitting a rocket-powered first stage to the missile is a valid question.
2) The F-35 should be just as capable as the F-15 in a missile or bomb truck role, assuming that stealth is optional for the mission. Regardless of what either frame is capable of additionally.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:21 pm

mxaxai wrote:
- 2 people claimed that it came from the pentagon, 1 other indicated that "it's not forced on the Air Force"

Should have been more clear, in the context of this being the only report we have that this is going to happen. No additional news articles that have a separate source have been published, as far as I can tell. Everything is feeding of this report.

As for the “not forced on Air Force”, I see the decision as being the following.

Pentagon says to USAF we are giving you 12 F-15X in the next years budget, it is not coming out of your acquisition funds, we are funding it separately. USAF says, well we would rather have F-35s as that is our priority. Pentagon has two different answers, 1 – Okay we will fund more F-35s or 2 – Sorry you have to take the F-15Xs. The USAF gets more jets either way in a climate where they have indicated they want more squadrons so they agree.

Without going back over the thread to remember who mentioned this already (maybe bt) there are also industrial considerations here. The US DoD recently conducted an industry audit about manufacturing and industrial base capacity. The alternative is this is an attempt to maintain an additional heavy fighter production line for some additional years until PCA comes online or some good old pork barrelling.

mxaxai wrote:
- The stated intent and the F-15C cost issues may or may not be true. As you and others have indicated neither the numbers nor price or capability make sense for a F-15C replacement. This could easily be the reporter (or the quoted individuals) trying to create a nice story out of a budget request.

Agree.

mxaxai wrote:
- Those performance claims are from Aboulafia, not from any official sources.

Agree.

mxaxai wrote:
- We cannot discount the possibility that an involved individual benefits from this deal.

Are you alluding to Shanahan? I know Boeing won three massive contracts last year but I don’t see Shanahan being a factor in those decisions. It is well stated that Boeing accepted significant financial risk to win those deals.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Top speed with the old -220 engines is mach 1.78 with 8 missiles. 8 missiles and their pylons is mych more weight and drag than a single pac-3 missile.

The latest engines have 30% more thrust. So the F-15X will easily exceed mach 2 with a single pac-3 missile.

Wrong. See the F-15 Dash-1.

A F-15 with the -220 engines with 4 AIM-9's, and 4 AIM-7's and CFT's at 58,100lbs will only reach Mach 1.43 at 40,000ft, STD DAY temps.

And it will get there at around 9 minutes from Mach 0.8.

You are only hitting Mach 1.78 if the external temperature is 10 Celsius lower than normal. Please see Fig A9-42 from the the F-15E Dash 1.

You are only exceeding Mach 1.6 if you got the -229 engines installed on your F-15E; see Fig B9-31. And realistically, you are drinking about 1300 pounds of fuel per minute at Mach 1.8 at 40,000ft if your flight speed was stabilized...
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:42 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Wrong. See the F-15 Dash-1.

You must have strong muscles from shifting the goal posts.

When we discuss range you use the F-15C with only internal fuel to make it look inferior. When we discuss top speed you bring up the F-15E with CFT's to make it look slow.

Why would an F-15 ASAT platform be fitted with CFTs?

You also cant read the charts correctly. The top speed goes up as the aircraft burns fuel and becomes lighter. The wings need to produce less lift which means lower parasitic drag. An F-15 taking off at 58,100lb with CFT's to do a high speed run will already be below 50,000lb by the time it goes supersonic.

You could keep to the comparison to the original post where the F-15C takes off with a single centreline tank and drops it once empty at the top of the climb.

As I said the F-15, F-35 and Suhkoi can all fly beside the F-22 in any mission profile. You continue to concentrate only on the F-15 using data from a 30 year old model and not from a newer version.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:20 am

It has an appeal for defensive counter air missions. Having 44 AAMs in the air with just 2 planes is nice to have. With F-16s you would probably need 8 frames for a similar load and with the F-15C you still need 7 frames.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:38 am

seahawk wrote:
It has an appeal for defensive counter air missions. Having 44 AAMs in the air with just 2 planes is nice to have. With F-16s you would probably need 8 frames for a similar load and with the F-15C you still need 7 frames.

It isn't quite that simple though. Massing that number of missiles in just two airframes loses tactical flexibility. Two airframes cannot be in the same places that six or eight airframes can for a start. Additionally the drag associated with carrying that many missiles is significant, likely restricting speed and increasing fuel burn. What happens if one of the jets goes unserviceable just before take-off? By massing that number on one platform you lose the flexibility on deploying aircraft and it is going to take a decent amount of time to transfer that weapon load to a spare airframe.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:00 am

Then you sent up one of the spares that would always ready in a conflict. And if the drag is higher you need to tank more often, but still less often than 6 fighters.

Surely 2 F-15 can not cover as much area as 6 F-16s, but for the same area covered they could carry more weapons. As I said it is a capability with some appeal, not a game changer or something the USAF needs to have, especially as you could develop the Beast mode for the F-35 which would then carry 14 missiles. But probably with more drag than the F-15.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:25 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Wrong. See the F-15 Dash-1.

You must have strong muscles from shifting the goal posts.

When we discuss range you use the F-15C with only internal fuel to make it look inferior. When we discuss top speed you bring up the F-15E with CFT's to make it look slow.

Why would an F-15 ASAT platform be fitted with CFTs?

You also cant read the charts correctly. The top speed goes up as the aircraft burns fuel and becomes lighter. The wings need to produce less lift which means lower parasitic drag. An F-15 taking off at 58,100lb with CFT's to do a high speed run will already be below 50,000lb by the time it goes supersonic.

You could keep to the comparison to the original post where the F-15C takes off with a single centreline tank and drops it once empty at the top of the climb.

As I said the F-15, F-35 and Suhkoi can all fly beside the F-22 in any mission profile. You continue to concentrate only on the F-15 using data from a 30 year old model and not from a newer version.


When we discussed range, we discussed a F-15C as per your statement on internal fuel only.

And of course the top speed and acceleration improves as the aircraft becomes lighter; however, how much fuel will you have left to fly back to base once you go to maximum thrust and run on full afterburner for a few minutes?

So, we have with the F-15, an either/or scenario; it can either fly extremely fast, but fairly stripped down, and won't fly that far, or fly far, but be fairly restricted in terms of maximum speed and time spent at maximum speed for fuel economy.

And again, as I pointed out, the newest F-15's aren't that much different from a F-15E equipped with the F100-PW-229 engine; the ones powered by the F110-GE-129 engine only have a slight advantage at lower altitudes, and it is a slight advantage. In reality, versions powered by the F100-PW-229 are effectively the equal to versions powered by the F110-GE-129 engine. There is no noticeable performance difference between the two engines outside of a small number of fairly narrow regimes. And you give up engine reliability and maturity with the GE engine on the F-15 as well, ignoring the fact that the GE engine is also slightly heavier as well.

It should be noted that the USAF Thunderbirds demonstration team, flies the Pratt powered F-16 Block 52's with the F100-PW-229 engine, not the Block 50's with the F110-GE-129 engine. You would think that a air demo team would prefer the aircraft that is rated to have more power... but they chose the supposedly less powerful version instead. I guess the reliability/maintenance factor was more important to them than brute power...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9701
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:51 am

texl1649 wrote:
Your anti-American attitude is showing again. I think the Luftwaffe has what, 3 Patriot batteries,
.


14, 15 have been sold to other NATO countries.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:16 pm

Ozair wrote:
- A single source has suggested these are being requested and acquired not by the USAF but by the Pentagon.


This seems to be the key information to me. The request is outside of the USAF. What is being formed right now? The Space Force, which may or may not be within the jurisdiction of the USAF. And until the final status of the Space Force is set in stone, it may be running out of the Pentagon. So if you are going to staff up a new Space Force, would you rather get new frames with the necessary hardware and software built in instead of trying to commandeer old frames that the USAF still need to maintain it force structure and is unwilling to give up? (Or not in the immediate time frame).

This bring us back to the impetus for this request. As we now know, our current president can easily be impressed by something like this F-15X and I would not be surprised if with only a little prodding, someone can get his backing for this proposal, which may or may not be logical, but if the president takes a shine to it, it may have a good chance to come to fruition. They would just have to execute it before the next election.

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

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:17 pm

So here we go again, back to speculating without evidence that Trump liked some presentation on the idea. If the space force were setting up a TAC Air force to knock out satellites, they'd use some of the AMARC F-15C's Ozair referenced above, I think. Unless there's gonna be some new missile that can then reach geosynchronous orbit satellites from an F-15 launch platform, I don't see it as likely, though, at all.

And frankly, none of the enhancements made to the QA/SA/X Eagle would really help much (radar, flight controls, tons of A2A missiles, cockpit). It's just going to remain a mystery appropriation request until we learn more. (My bet is still on the Taiwan option, though like Bikerthai's Trump theory, I have no real evidence, admittedly, just the March story saying the US Gov't was looking at leasing them some Eagles for A2A, and the X is basically an air to air missile sled.)
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:31 pm

Double post
Last edited by bikerthai on Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:33 pm

texl1649 wrote:
My bet is still on the Taiwan option,


Very interesting theory. At first, I would think why wouldn't the Taiwanese go directly to Boeing for the lease? But then this would need to go through FMS and Boeing probably does not want to be linked to this lease as they have a big commercial interest in China. If you can dig up that article, it would add more ingredient to this pot!

Wait, found the article:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19 ... -to-report

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

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

I just saw it in this one I'd linked earlier. Taiwan faces the prospect of an offensive/invasive adversary with a deluge of modern aircraft, and the (concentrated) air to air missile truck might appeal, in a networked, close-in defensive operation against mainly non-stealthy opponents (essentially Sukhoi derivatives for the next 20 years), while supplemented via data link to powerful ground based assets. Updated F-15C's and new build F-15X models could, imho, be a reasonable and affordable 'leased' option for Taiwan as China continues to ramp up in aggressive posturing.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ar ... uy-039436/

"...Washington in the meantime seems to have suggested an alternative lease agreement to supply second-hand F-15C Eagle fighters to the island nation. The proposition surfaced on Taiwanese media external link on Monday, March 19, with additional outlets external link suggesting that the offer may be a compromise solution between exporting a new fighter to Taiwan, like an advanced Strike Eagle derivative, or even the F-35—risking the ire from neighboring China—and denying Taiwan any additional upgrades in tactical air power fleet—something China would love. Leasing the fighters may also prove a more cost effective fighter option and could allow Taipei to procure more aircraft than if they were to buy them outright.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:27 pm

Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
- We cannot discount the possibility that an involved individual benefits from this deal.

Are you alluding to Shanahan? I know Boeing won three massive contracts last year but I don’t see Shanahan being a factor in those decisions. It is well stated that Boeing accepted significant financial risk to win those deals.

Not neccessarily Shanahan himself but there's a lot of people in the Pentagon who aren't as exposed to the public. Just saying it's a possibility if the acquisition is as pointless as some posters suggested.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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