VMCA787 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The F-15X comes in one-seat and two-seat varieties. The single seat is better for air-air, and the two seater for complex strike missions. Anyone wanna speculate on how many of which the air force will order. If this is an F-15C replacement, then the single seater should be preferred.

I think you had better check your sources. The F-15EX comes in a two-seater only. There are no plans because of the engineering required to develop a single-seat F-15X. The USAF has taken the position the EX as it stands right now is fine. Clearly, the current configuration would allow another "set of eyes" in the cockpit for any intercept. That is better than a single set anytime.

"there are two variants of the F-15X that are being offered by Boeing and will likely be procured. One is dubbed the F-15CX and the other is known as the F-15EX. The F-15CX will be a single-seat configuration, while the F-15EX will be a two-seater" -- https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... m-per-copy

I understand the current order for 80 is all F-18EX. But I wonder about future orders. Especially since the goal is to replace the F-15C, and not the F-15E.

kitplane01 wrote:

Especially since the goal is to replace the F-15C, and not the F-15E.

You have to look farther into the future.

They buy the two seat configuration. In the short term, they can remove the back seat and fly it as a C replacement. (Save weight).

If and when they develope a new interceptor to phase out the EX or get enough F-35 pilots, they can put the second seat back in and use the EX to ruplement the Es.

You don't need to restrict yourself with either/or.

bt.

The back seat of the F-15X will be needed to control the pair of loyal wingman drones under the wing. The single pilot in the F-22 and F-35 might have too much workload to make full use of the drone.

It is also worth noting the F-15 AESA radar is approximately 80% larger than the F-35, Super Hornet and Eurofighter radar. Having the radar running often often gives away the aircraft position even if it is stealthy. It makes sense to use the F-15X large radar and send the targets to the stealth fighters that have their radar off.

So how do you defeat a stealth with a non-stealth? By mounting a stealth wingman under the non-stealth.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Especially since the goal is to replace the F-15C, and not the F-15E.

You have to look farther into the future.

They buy the two seat configuration. In the short term, they can remove the back seat and fly it as a C replacement. (Save weight).

If and when they develope a new interceptor to phase out the EX or get enough F-35 pilots, they can put the second seat back in and use the EX to ruplement the Es.

You don't need to restrict yourself with either/or.

bt.

There is no evidence that the back seat will be removed from the initial order of 144 F-15EX's. The flexibility of having two seat's available for training and checkrides is a plus. Some F-15C squadrons only have 2 or 3 D models and limits flexibility on training. Saving 500 lbs or so by pulling the seats will not appreciably affect performance and will not be done. Later on down the road, if a squadron needs WSO's to operate a more complex weapons systems then they will hire them...but that's at least 5-10 years away.

kitplane01 wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The F-15X comes in one-seat and two-seat varieties. The single seat is better for air-air, and the two seater for complex strike missions. Anyone wanna speculate on how many of which the air force will order. If this is an F-15C replacement, then the single seater should be preferred.

I think you had better check your sources. The F-15EX comes in a two-seater only. There are no plans because of the engineering required to develop a single-seat F-15X. The USAF has taken the position the EX as it stands right now is fine. Clearly, the current configuration would allow another "set of eyes" in the cockpit for any intercept. That is better than a single set anytime.

"there are two variants of the F-15X that are being offered by Boeing and will likely be procured. One is dubbed the F-15CX and the other is known as the F-15EX. The F-15CX will be a single-seat configuration, while the F-15EX will be a two-seater" -- https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... m-per-copy

I understand the current order for 80 is all F-18EX. But I wonder about future orders. Especially since the goal is to replace the F-15C, and not the F-15E.

Sorry, but your source is over two years old. Boeing has made it perfectly clear, in order to keep the costs competitive, there will not be a single-seat version issued.

https://www.flightglobal.com/farnboroug ... 15.article

The F-15EX buy is total waste of money. More F-35s would have been the way. It like ordering a bi-plane fighter instead of an F-4 in 1960. (yes, the F-15 is that old)

seahawk wrote:

The F-15EX buy is total waste of money. More F-35s would have been the way. It like ordering a bi-plane fighter instead of an F-4 in 1960. (yes, the F-15 is that old)

Don't think anyone would disagree with you. But when you are caught with not enough pilots and crew to man up the F-35s, then you have spend to support your mission requirement. And of course, it has yet to be proven that it will be a waste of money. Time will tell.

A better analogy for the comparison would be using a biplane instead of the Avenger during WWII. But of course, you already knew that the Swordfish disabled the Bismark which slowed it down enough for the rest of the RN to dispatch the pocket battle ship. Those obsolete biplanes also did a number on the Italian Navy.

bt

seahawk wrote:

The F-15EX buy is total waste of money. More F-35s would have been the way. It like ordering a bi-plane fighter instead of an F-4 in 1960. (yes, the F-15 is that old)

Sort of like Germany considering the F-18E/G, or another non-stealth platform in 2025 for acquisition for a nuclear delivery mission, right? Which fast non-stealth strike aircraft, or interceptors being procured over the next 10 years don’t fall into that category, specifically?

bikerthai wrote:

But of course, you already knew that the Swordfish disabled the Bismark which slowed it down enough for the rest of the RN to dispatch the pocket battle ship.

Small off-topic point, but technically 'pocket battleship' only refers to the Deutschland class of heavy cruisers.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Especially since the goal is to replace the F-15C, and not the F-15E.

You have to look farther into the future.

They buy the two seat configuration. In the short term, they can remove the back seat and fly it as a C replacement. (Save weight).

If and when they develope a new interceptor to phase out the EX or get enough F-35 pilots, they can put the second seat back in and use the EX to ruplement the Es.

You don't need to restrict yourself with either/or.

bt.

There is no evidence that the back seat will be removed from the initial order of 144 F-15EX's. The flexibility of having two seat's available for training and checkrides is a plus. Some F-15C squadrons only have 2 or 3 D models and limits flexibility on training. Saving 500 lbs or so by pulling the seats will not appreciably affect performance and will not be done. Later on down the road, if a squadron needs WSO's to operate a more complex weapons systems then they will hire them...but that's at least 5-10 years away.

This is SO weird to me. I had to check to see if it was even true. "But Boeing’s two-seat F-15EX aircraft will be flown with an empty back seat by squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs, the U.S. Air Force confirms" ... writes https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... -back-seat

The F-15CX costs "a few million dollars less" and can have either a lower empty weight or more fuel capacity.

Has this been done before ... any modern western air force buying a two seat aircraft with the intention of flying it single seated?

Summary of the arguments for the F-15EX...

1) It is a jack-of-all-trades. Even if you think it's not the best any any one mission, it can perform many missions well.

2) It's a truck. It can carry a loyal-wingman, hypersonic missile, or anti-sat missile better or cheaper than other aircraft.

3) The USAF made a mistake, and are now in a position where they have to have more F-15s because the current F-15s are wearing out and they cannot transition squadrons fast enough ( I hate this argument)

4) It's a jobs and corporate subsidy program (I hate this argument even more)

Summary of Arguments against the F-15EX

1) It's stuck between the F-35 (stealth, very expensive, very capable) and the F-16 (operating costs about 1/3 that of an F-15, can do many of the same jobs).

To me the question is this ...

If there really are loyal wingman, hypersonic or anti-sat missiles coming, and they really cannot be carried by the F-16, F-35 or F-22, then maybe the F-15EX was a good idea in limited numbers. Otherwise I'd have bought either F-35s or F-16s.

Huh, F-15 and T-7 are the only production 2-seaters (not counting F-18 and others not in USAF inventory). I didn't know. Does make you wonder about jack-of-all-trades missions.

ssteve wrote:

Huh, F-15 and T-7 are the only production 2-seaters (not counting F-18 and others not in USAF inventory). I didn't know. Does make you wonder about jack-of-all-trades missions.

Got money? Lockheed will make you a new build F-16D with any options/radars you want.

Oh yeah, duh. Or QYZ or whatever with two seats. I was too busy being surprised about the F-35 and F-22 being all single seat.

kitplane01 wrote:

ssteve wrote:

Huh, F-15 and T-7 are the only production 2-seaters (not counting F-18 and others not in USAF inventory). I didn't know. Does make you wonder about jack-of-all-trades missions.

Got money? Lockheed will make you a new build F-16D with any options/radars you want.

Again, you might want to do some checking. When LM moved their production out of Ft Worth to SC, they went to a standardized configuration on the C and D models being produced. This allowed the company to speed production, keep costs down and streamline production. They don't offer the aircraft like you describe anymore!!!

kitplane01 wrote:

ssteve wrote:

Huh, F-15 and T-7 are the only production 2-seaters (not counting F-18 and others not in USAF inventory). I didn't know. Does make you wonder about jack-of-all-trades missions.

Got money? Lockheed will make you a new build F-16D with any options/radars you want.

And you would have to retrain those F-15C pilots to be F-16 pilots which would have been better if they retrained to be F-35 pilots which they did not have time to do in the first place.

So yes, they got money. But they do not have the time - to retrain pilots. So they got the F-15EX instead of more F-35 (better) or F-16(cheaper), and got some unique capabilities along the way.

bt

VMCA787 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

ssteve wrote:

Huh, F-15 and T-7 are the only production 2-seaters (not counting F-18 and others not in USAF inventory). I didn't know. Does make you wonder about jack-of-all-trades missions.

Got money? Lockheed will make you a new build F-16D with any options/radars you want.

Again, you might want to do some checking. When LM moved their production out of Ft Worth to SC, they went to a standardized configuration on the C and D models being produced. This allowed the company to speed production, keep costs down and streamline production. They don't offer the aircraft like you describe anymore!!!

I did know that.

I gotta believe that if the USAF came by and said "We have an order for 80, with an eventual 240" they could get any configuration they wanted. Especially if the USAF offered money.

kitplane01 wrote:

"We have an order for 80, with an eventual 240" they could get any configuration they wanted. Especially if the USAF offered money.

Yes but . . . what ever configuration they wanted would have already been designed and ready to implement. Otherwise, new Engineering would take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years by the time hardware gets on the aircraft. To get new frames in the time the USAF wanted, they would have to basically buy the export configuration with only a little customization.

The EX was pretty much already designed with the QA configuration. The major differences would have been software configuration which takes less time to turn around.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

:rotfl: So how do you defeat a stealth with a non-stealth? By mounting a stealth wingman under the non-stealth.

Yes a single F-15X with its big AESA and a pair of stealth loyal wingman drones might have a better kill ratio than a single F-22 or a pair of F-35. So it is a bargain.

Likewise look at a strike package of say 4 F-22, 8 F-35 and 4 F-15X. The F-15X aircraft will provide 8 loyal wingman drones to fly in front while the F-15X sits back and acts as 4 mini AWAC aircraft with the back seaters being battle manager. The package might be 2-3 times lethal thanks to the F-15X.

A drone can be sent in the direction of a potential enemy 5th gen fighter as bait without risk of a pilot. It completely changes the tactics and in that role one drone is as valuable as an F-35 at a fraction of the price.

Absolutely mind blowing.

While the radar in the F-15X might have half the range of a dedicated AWAC it can fly so much closer to the enemy that it provides better coverage.

People wondered for decades how a stealth versus stealth fight would work. Will both fighters detect each other near visual range and then dogfight?

This is where the loyal wingman comes into play. We are discussing the disposable type when we talk about the F-15X. Radar is very intersting in terms of size versus detection range. A fighter radar might have 100 times more surface area and power than an AMRAAM seeker yet it only has approximately 5 times greater detection range.

In general, the radar aperture (antenna area) doubles with a 1.41 times increase in diameter. With all else being constant it takes an increase in aperture of 10x to double the range of a radar

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8867

So the theory of the disposable loyal wingman is as follows. Put a cheap AMRAAM radar seeker and a sidewinder IR seeker onto the front of what is effectively a large low observable cruise missile and have it fly around enemy territory until it detects a stealth fighter. This disposable big drone can carry two stinger sized air to air missiles to take down the enemy 5th gen fighter.

This is why I have mentioned previously that the US will not update or replace the E-3 AWAC. Stealth has reduced radar detection range to around 10%. The most advanced and powerful 2030 year AWAC radar might detect an 1980 F-117 level of stealth aircraft at approximately 80nm. A basic fighter jet radar would detect the AWAC at 200+nm. The AWAC is getting instantly shot down.

I have mentioned previously that I think the B-21 will become the AWAC in the future with radar mounted in the leading edge of the wing.

meecrob wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I did know that.

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have made this thread.

I wonder if I misunderstand ... Just to be clear ... if I knew that the Lockheed was trying to make the F-16 in a single configuration I would not have posted a thread about the F-15X? Also, if you think I'm a liar, please use the block-the-user functionality of airliners.net and avoid my posts.

kitplane01 wrote:

I did know that.

I gotta believe that if the USAF came by and said "We have an order for 80, with an eventual 240" they could get any configuration they wanted. Especially if the USAF offered money.

Really? What a coincidence! Anyhow, you seem to have a very naive view of just how much power the USAF has and an even more naive view of the procurement process. The problem the USAF does NOT have the money to throw at it. If anything it would be LM who bit the bullet, which I don't see them doing. The current configuration and pricing for the F-16 allows LM to compete very well in FMS to other countries. Going back to having an option sheet a mile long would price LM out of the market. They aren't about to lose that for the USAF!! Maybe in your universe, it might happen but not the one everyone else is in.

The EX is going to Guard units. There are Guard units that already have F-35s and more that will be converting to F-35s too. So the EXs will primarily be used in domestic airspace. If we have J-20s/31s, Su-57s etc coming into domestic airspace, then we have bigger issues than the EX. But we still have F-22s and F-35s on hand.
There is no plan yet to replace "E"s or any other active duty unit's equipment with EXs. While Guard units do deploy, the EX would be doing the same missions that the F-15Cs, F-16s and F-15Es currently do.

F15 is back because combat aviation airplane technology peaked with gen4 fighters and humans became the limiting factor, thats why gen5 fighters are not much of an improvement over get4, mainly stealth but nothing revolutionary like previous fighter generations. Thats why F22, didnt replace everything before it, why the F35 is a joke and a flaming dumpster fire trash and why the Su57 is moving along at snails pace.

Ancient F16s and F15s are still doing a perfect job for the US, ancient Su27s and Mig29s are doing the same for Russia and everyone else who flies them. Thru brilliant initial designs and continued updates over the years they turned them in gen 4.5 fighters and left very little room overhead for a revolutionary gen5 fighter. All a gen5 human piloted fighter can ever be is a insanely expensive, new model year gen4.5 plane with stealth capabilities. Thats it. Nothing else. Thats why theres no need to retire 40 year old designs because theyre still at the peak of technology and theres no way to drastically improve on them

Just like airliner technology peaked in late 80s early 90s with FBW, glass cockpits and supercritical wings. Nothings changed since then besides bigger screens up front, newer navigation tecnhology and winglets. Only major change in the last 30 years has been the 787 with the whole plane made of CFRP. Engines are far from their technological peak, thats why theyre still evolving, but as long as commercial airplanes remain a tube with wings, theyre peaked and everything made in the last 30 years is identical to a 1989 A320

I wholly disagree. Stealth is not an evolution off the current branch of fighter combat. It has started a different branch.

Besides the dicotomy of a stealthy fighter and radar use, you have the current limitation of the high temperature composite and stealth coating maintenance.

If manufacturing evolution can produce a cheaper high temperature composite and make a stealthy coating that is easier to maintain, then the evolution can continue.

As it stand stealth is peaking in the area of bombers where you do not need to go past mach 1, so the lower temperature composite can be used, easing the manufacturing and repair cost. The stealth coating is still an issue.

You are right interms of manned dog fight fighters though, as the limit of the human body will limit what you can do with the airframe design.

But the technology will leap forward in the unmanned branch where the human factor can be removed from the design consideration.

bt

r6russian wrote:

Only major change in the last 30 years has been the 787 with the whole plane made of CFRP.

While the 787 is the first large commercial aircraft to be all composite, it was not the first all composite civil aircraft. The break through technology for the 787 is not necessarily the composite material (same class of composite as the 777), nor the manufacturing method (adapted from the boat building industry), but rather the ability to analytically model the failure mode of co-cured composite joints. Combining all three of these allow Boeing produce an efficient composite airframe.

Note that though the A350 came after the 787, due to some manufacturing limitation it was not as efficient in structural design.

So getting back to the fighter plane evolution. I dare say, we are at the beginning of a new leap in design evolution. With digital design and manufacturing, you will see faster iterations of combat drones in the future.

So yes, manned dog fight combat planes have peeked . But the dog fighter evolution continues.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm still waiting for a common mission where the F-15X is the best platform. So far I've read about dropping 5000lbs bobs (only three used in the last 30 years), hypersonic missiles (not yet around), and very long range strike (not a common mission, probably better done by the F-35 if you need to penetrate a serious air defense).

So, is there a common, useful mission where the F-15X is the best most economical option?

Very long range strike if you dont need to penetrate serious air defence?

Asymetric warfare is not unheard.

rheinwaldner wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm still waiting for a common mission where the F-15X is the best platform. So far I've read about dropping 5000lbs bobs (only three used in the last 30 years), hypersonic missiles (not yet around), and very long range strike (not a common mission, probably better done by the F-35 if you need to penetrate a serious air defense).

So, is there a common, useful mission where the F-15X is the best most economical option?

Very long range strike if you dont need to penetrate serious air defence?

Asymetric warfare is not unheard.

That does happen, but not very often. Can you think of many cases of this over the last 10 years?

kitplane01 wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm still waiting for a common mission where the F-15X is the best platform. So far I've read about dropping 5000lbs bobs (only three used in the last 30 years), hypersonic missiles (not yet around), and very long range strike (not a common mission, probably better done by the F-35 if you need to penetrate a serious air defense).

So, is there a common, useful mission where the F-15X is the best most economical option?

Very long range strike if you dont need to penetrate serious air defence?

Asymetric warfare is not unheard.

That does happen, but not very often. Can you think of many cases of this over the last 10 years?

Again, they are going to ANG units.

Slug71 wrote:

Again, they are going to ANG units.

For the US yes, but I wonder if the potential for hypersonic will tempt the Israelis to get some. After all, they do not have B-52s as a platform.

I can see several scenarios where they can use the hypersonic missiles as opposed to sending in F-35's.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

I wholly disagree. Stealth is not an evolution off the current branch of fighter combat. It has started a different branch.

Besides the dicotomy of a stealthy fighter and radar use, you have the current limitation of the high temperature composite and stealth coating maintenance.

If manufacturing evolution can produce a cheaper high temperature composite and make a stealthy coating that is easier to maintain, then the evolution can continue.

As it stand stealth is peaking in the area of bombers where you do not need to go past mach 1, so the lower temperature composite can be used, easing the manufacturing and repair cost. The stealth coating is still an issue.

You are right interms of manned dog fight fighters though, as the limit of the human body will limit what you can do with the airframe design.

But the technology will leap forward in the unmanned branch where the human factor can be removed from the design consideration.

bt

Stealth is just a logical evolution of fighter development. The basic idea always was to see the enemy before he sees you and to shoot him before he shoots you. The first ideas to achieve this were camouflage and the ability to fly higher or faster than the enemy. Then we got radar and sensors and the idea was to have the better sensor and the better missile. Stealth then cut the signature of the own plane to reduce the range of the enemy´s sensors. A 5th generation is so totally superior to a 4th gen fighter, as the difference in age tells you. It really is a bi-plane WWI fighter against an F-4 Phantom II.

There is one mission for which the F-15 is already qualified and the other airplanes mentioned in this thread are not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

You mean certified for a cancelled program?

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-22 is only cleared to carry external fuel tanks for ferry use.

100% Incorrect.

VMCA787 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I think you had better check your sources. The F-15EX comes in a two-seater only. There are no plans because of the engineering required to develop a single-seat F-15X. The USAF has taken the position the EX as it stands right now is fine. Clearly, the current configuration would allow another "set of eyes" in the cockpit for any intercept. That is better than a single set anytime.

Someone needs to check their sources alright...YOU. Boeing offers the F-15CX (single seat) and the F-15EX (dual seat) for purchase. This was a specific requirement of the program.

What everyone should be able to agree on is the absolute rip-off price Boeing is selling these new Eagles at. They literally cost more than an F-35. Considering they used a sheet design that was funded by a foreign military, and has been flying for some time, to tweak to the 'CX/EX' standard...its outrageous.

checksixx wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I think you had better check your sources. The F-15EX comes in a two-seater only. There are no plans because of the engineering required to develop a single-seat F-15X. The USAF has taken the position the EX as it stands right now is fine. Clearly, the current configuration would allow another "set of eyes" in the cockpit for any intercept. That is better than a single set anytime.

Someone needs to check their sources alright...YOU. Boeing offers the F-15CX (single seat) and the F-15EX (dual seat) for purchase. This was a specific requirement of the program.

I didn’t write the stuff above in the quote. That was someone else. I just didn’t want anyone to be mad at me.

checksixx wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I think you had better check your sources. The F-15EX comes in a two-seater only. There are no plans because of the engineering required to develop a single-seat F-15X. The USAF has taken the position the EX as it stands right now is fine. Clearly, the current configuration would allow another "set of eyes" in the cockpit for any intercept. That is better than a single set anytime.

Someone needs to check their sources alright...YOU. Boeing offers the F-15CX (single seat) and the F-15EX (dual seat) for purchase. This was a specific requirement of the program.

You had better do some research on what you are writing. Boeing may have offered it, but the EX was offered first and the CX was offered with the proviso that it had not been even built or tested yet. The USAF made it very clear they wanted a quick solution to the F-15C/D availability and the EX was the cheapest, fastest solution. So, they didn't even consider the CX. So to quote you "Someone needs to check their sources alright...YOU."

checksixx wrote:

What everyone should be able to agree on is the absolute rip-off price Boeing is selling these new Eagles at. They literally cost more than an F-35.

Of course they would cost more. Each have an extra Engine and lots more parts to assemble, being a larger plane.

Now you really can not call it a rip off until you compare the USAF cost to the price of the QA version.

Show us that comparison then we can decide if we agree.

bt

VMCA787 wrote:

The USAF made it very clear they wanted a quick solution to the F-15C/D availability and the EX was the cheapest, fastest solution.

So they are getting the first frame 9 months after contract award. That is awfully fast even for a mature program.

Making it a single seat would probably add one to two years to the development, just from the system re-engineering and software modification alone.

bt

VMCA787 wrote:

checksixx wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

Someone needs to check their sources alright...YOU. Boeing offers the F-15CX (single seat) and the F-15EX (dual seat) for purchase. This was a specific requirement of the program.

You had better do some research on what you are writing. Boeing may have offered it, but the EX was offered first and the CX was offered with the proviso that it had not been even built or tested yet. The USAF made it very clear they wanted a quick solution to the F-15C/D availability and the EX was the cheapest, fastest solution. So, they didn't even consider the CX. So to quote you "Someone needs to check their sources alright...YOU."

You're 100% incorrect. In fact, it was heavily discussed by the Air Force that the ANG units get CX air frames to fulfill their missions here with, and active duty units get the EX air frames. Bottom line, Boeing DOES offer the CX and it absolutely was considered. Again, you should fact check yourself before running off at the mouth.

bikerthai wrote:

checksixx wrote:

What everyone should be able to agree on is the absolute rip-off price Boeing is selling these new Eagles at. They literally cost more than an F-35.

Of course they would cost more. Each have an extra Engine and lots more parts to assemble, being a larger plane.

Now you really can not call it a rip off until you compare the USAF cost to the price of the QA version.

Show us that comparison then we can decide if we agree.

bt

You must be joking...the Qatari's funded the development along with the aircraft purchase. You could never compare the two.

bikerthai wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

The USAF made it very clear they wanted a quick solution to the F-15C/D availability and the EX was the cheapest, fastest solution.

So they are getting the first frame 9 months after contract award. That is awfully fast even for a mature program.

Making it a single seat would probably add one to two years to the development, just from the system re-engineering and software modification alone.

bt

Hard to believe that it would take all that much considering EX is flying with the same OFP software version the E and C are currently flying with. They could easily churn out a single seat aircraft in a reasonable amount of time. Calling the time frame for the first EX 'fast' is kind of off too...they were already building the jet. The differences between the EX and the QA are extremely minor. Just enough that they aren't technically the same aircraft. It certainly isn't cheap in any sense of the word. While I love seeing a GE powered F-15 fly, its an absolute rip-off.

checksixx wrote:

EX is flying with the same OFP software version the E and C are currently flying with. They could easily churn out a single seat aircraft in a reasonable amount of time.

They could churn out a single seat version. Do they keep the double canopy or go with a smaller canopy? A smaller canopy would need to be re-engineered thus eating up lead time. As the C design would surely be obsolete. Same goes with all the wire harness, oxygen plumbing, and com system for the second seat. Taking it out of the loop would require engineering design to cap, stow and blank those systems out of the computer codes which would require re-testing.

And to assume that Boeing would have parts laying around from the QA contract so that they can start building the FX would be mistaken. While small components and standard fasteners may be used across programs, major component are purchased uniquely for specific contract and are not necessarily be transferable to another customer.

Furthermore unless Boeing was sure they would be able to get the contract, which at the time it was a big if, they would not lay out their own money to buy long lead items. So they would have to wait for the USAF contract to be signed before allowing their procurement agent to proceed with the purchasing of all the remaining components and start to cut chip.

So yes 9 months is a significant undertaking and was only made possible with their highly touted digital manufacturing process.

bt

checksixx wrote:

It certainly isn't cheap in any sense of the word.

No it is not cheap. But it is more cost effective in the long run than trying to keep the fleet of C and D flying until they can be replaced by the F-35s.

And once they have enough F-35 pilots to be able to replace the F-15EX, keeping the second seat will allow them to integrate the EX into the E fleet without having the additional cost of putting the seat back in.

Folks who try poo poo the F-15EX and hang it on Boeing political clout are just grasping at straws. If it's such a boondoggle the LM lobby would have out up a more stout resistance than it did. Maybe 144-200 frames is not worth them fighting over. Or maybe there is merit in the purchase after all. Something that even the folks at LM would appreciate.

bt

checksixx.......

Read Flight International to see the rationale that led to the EX. Bikerthai hit the nail on the head with his answer to you. The current E will not be around forever and the EX will be able to assume the role of the E.

The cost to keep the current fleet of C/D flying is more than the current projected buy of EXs. That is just simple economics. The cost to the USAF if they want a single-seat F-15X is also prohibitive. So, by default, the EX is the only game in town.

Time to move on!!! AMF!!

For those who do not trust "The Drive" to be impartial in matters relating to the EX, here is an article that also give a hint on the cost and speed if building the EX.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... 180974446/

Seem like the have not converted all of the plane fabrication to their new digital manufacturing design. If and when the do that, the price should come down some more.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Seem like the have not converted all of the plane fabrication to their new digital manufacturing design. If and when the do that, the price should come down some more.

bt

I'm not sure how much there is to gain through Boeing's new digital approach. It has been my impression that the largest benefit is an increased agility of the manufacturing process, which allows faster implementation of improved variants or different customer configurations. It also seems more beneficial for higher production rates, and the machines and programming have to be paid for too. Hence why Boeing is using it for the all-new T-7A and is/was considering it for the NSA / 737 successor, but not for the 777-9 or F-18, which are both rather low-volume programs.