The F-15X has no mission where it is the preferred and most economical platform!

• Beyond Visual range air-air against a peer
  If the mission is beyond visual range air-air combat with a new airframe (J-20/Su-35/etc) then the F-15X is not as good as an F-35. The F-35's stealth will allow it to hit the enemy before it's even detected. And against something like a J-20 or a Su-57, an F-15 is outclassed but an F-35 can compete.
• Within Visual range air-air
  Why are you dogfighting in 2030? But if you are, three F-16s are better than two F-15Xs, at the same or lower cost.
• Combat Air Patrol
  If the mission is long term combat air patrol (like enforcing no-fly zones against Serbia or the former Iraqi government) then three F-16s do better than two F-15s, at similar or lower cost.
• Close Air support
  If the mission is close air support, then a pair of F-15s is not as good as eight Apaches, six A-10s, or three F-16s. The F-16s and Apaches are available as new-builds, and the A-10s just got re-winged.
• Deep penetrating strike
  If the mission is deep strike against a serious air defense system, then the F-35 is a better answer. There are conditions that will kill an F-15X, but allow an F-35 to continue the mission.

Seriously, for which mission is the F-15X a better, more economical solution than the same money spent on a different platform?

Note: Most of the charts have an F-15 operating cost closer to 3x that of an F-16. The 1.5X used here is a kindness.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccar ... ead701685f

Seriously, why would you give any credence to a business publication on military matter?

If you take the F-22 out of the equation, then I can think 3 examples.

1. The F-15 can get from Portland to Seattle much faster than an F-16 when some general aviation aircraft unwittingly enter restricted air space of POTUS.

2. Sure, if you want to launch a salvo of hypersonic missiles, then you go for the B-52. But what if you just want to launch one or two?

3. Two pilots are cheaper to train than three.

And oh yeah, how often does the USAF fly three plane sorties? Don't they fly in multiples of two?

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

Seriously, for which mission is the F-15X a better, more economical solution than the same money spent on a different platform?

you want to drop a GBU-28.

best regards
Thomas

1) The F-15X can carry two 7,000lb loyal wingman drones with room left for six AMRAAM missiles.

2) The F-15X can potentially carry a larger anti satellite missile than any western fighter. Wthout conformals it has the highest top speed and thrust to weight ratio of any western fighter including the F-22. It should be able to hit higher satellites and get into position to hit a satellite much easier than a sea based system.

3) It keeps the F-15 production line open and gives Boeing money.

4) Apparently the F-15C crew can transition to the F-15X much quicker than to the F-35. During the transition process technically the squadron is not available for war. So it is a really poor excuse to say the F-15X reduces a capability gap.

tommy1808 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Seriously, for which mission is the F-15X a better, more economical solution than the same money spent on a different platform?

you want to drop a GBU-28.

best regards
Thomas

"Only two of the weapons were dropped in Desert Storm, both by F-111Fs. One GBU-28 was dropped during Operation Iraqi Freedom." Boy that's a reason to spend $8B to buy 80 new planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

The oldest F15's are falling apart and the 750B budget has to be spend. Lots of jobs on the line. It's the only pick-up truck around because no affordable replacements arpund soon. Range & 2 man crew are important here.

bikerthai wrote:

Seriously, why would you give any credence to a business publication on military matter?

They were reporting on a DoD report. I looked up the original. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 19_b_c.pdf

F-15 $22,000/hour, F-16 $8,000/hour

bikerthai wrote:

If you take the F-22 out of the equation, then I can think 3 examples.

1. The F-15 can get from Portland to Seattle much faster than an F-16 when some general aviation aircraft unwittingly enter restricted air space of POTUS.

2. Sure, if you want to launch a salvo of hypersonic missiles, then you go for the B-52. But what if you just want to launch one or two?

3. Two pilots are cheaper to train than three.

And oh yeah, how often does the USAF fly three plane sorties? Don't they fly in multiples of two?

bt

None of these seem like we should be buying a fleet of at least 80 F-15X's to solve. And you know that 80 is just the first installment!

And yes, the USAF flies groups of 2. So make it 4 F-15s vs. 6 F-16s. And really, 1.5-1 is not the correct ratio, which is closer to 3-1.

RJMAZ wrote:

3) It keeps the F-15 production line open and gives Boeing money.

Tone is hard on the internet. Sarcasm or an actual argument? But if it is an actual argument, spend the money on other Boeing products like the Apache or KC-46 or P-8 or MQ-25 or F/A-18Gs or Chinooks or T-7As or ....

kitplane01 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Seriously, for which mission is the F-15X a better, more economical solution than the same money spent on a different platform?

you want to drop a GBU-28.

best regards
Thomas

"Only two of the weapons were dropped in Desert Storm, both by F-111Fs. One GBU-28 was dropped during Operation Iraqi Freedom." Boy that's a reason to spend $8B to buy 80 new planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

Yup, it is an excellent reason if the alternative is a tactical nuke.

best regards
Thomas

keesje wrote:

The oldest F15's are falling apart and the 750B budget has to be spend. Lots of jobs on the line. It's the only pick-up truck around because no affordable replacements arpund soon. Range & 2 man crew are important here.

I thought it was a military program. If this is about unemployment insurance or corporate subsidy then spend the money on other Boeing products like the KC-46s or Apaches or MQ-25s or T-7As or ....

RJMAZ wrote:

2) The F-15X can potentially carry a larger anti satellite missile than any western fighter. Wthout conformals it has the highest top speed and thrust to weight ratio of any western fighter including the F-22. It should be able to hit higher satellites and get into position to hit a satellite much easier than a sea based system.

We don't have an anti-satellite missile. Nor are we expected to ever have very many of them. This is not an argument to buy a fleet of fighters, waiting for a hypothetical missile to be developed.

kitplane01 wrote:

I thought it was a military program. If this is about unemployment insurance or corporate subsidy then spend the money on other Boeing products like the KC-46s or Apaches or MQ-25s or T-7As or ....

The other Boeing products are built in other places, with parts from other suppliers.

Additionally, the pilots (and mechanics) are already trained on the F-15. There isn't enough training capacity to switch them all over to the F-35 (or F-16) before the current F-15 fleet runs out of time.

kitplane01 wrote:

This is not an argument to buy a fleet of fighters, waiting for a hypothetical missile to be developed.

History has clearly shown that if you wait for something to get developed first before you develope something that can use it, then nothing will get developed.

The hypothetical missile is not the anti-sat. It is the hypersonic and it is being developed and tested and is far from being hypothetical. You want to be ready when the missile is ready. If you wait for the missile to finish development before ordering the F-15, Boeing might have shut down the line by then.

I know that planning ahead is not a glorious job, but it is very essential to keep from having get caught with your pants down. If any one ever is interested, the US army published an anthology of all the battles it fought during WWII. It goes in to excruciating details on the planning involved preparing for a battle/campaign along with descriptions of the battle and after action report. Not a riveting novel to be sure, but interesting reading for the wonkers out there.

Does anybody fly the F-111 any more? And does the F-15E have the capability to launch the hypersonic missile?

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

None of these seem like we should be buying a fleet of at least 80 F-15X's to solve.

But some will disagree. Specially those whose job is to worry about this type of scenario.

https://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news ... -scrambled

I heard the boom when those F-15 headed north on their way to Seattle.

It was actually a double boom. Not sure if it was because there were two planes or just the trailing shockwave.

bt

mxaxai wrote:

The other Boeing products are built in other places

The I believe the MQ-25 and the T-7A are build in the St. Louis area. Same as the F-15. A long while back, I was able to see a manufacturing proof of concept precursor to the MQ-25 when I toured their St Louis facility.

And while the major subcomponents may have different subcontractors, many of the small details and brackets usually go to their favorite/reliable group of machine and assembly shops regardless of the program.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

3) It keeps the F-15 production line open and gives Boeing money.

Tone is hard on the internet. Sarcasm or an actual argument? But if it is an actual argument, spend the money on other Boeing products like the Apache or KC-46 or P-8 or MQ-25 or F/A-18Gs or Chinooks or T-7As or ....

There's an argument for keeping the line open since they shuttered the F-22 line. It's like having a 'reserve' of manufacturing capacity, should one large conflict suddenly mean all extant F-15s get worn out.

I wonder if the C-17 line had been in a cheaper geography, if a slower trickle of orders would have made sense? I've heard both arguments on that one... either we wore them all down faster than ever expected in the GWOT, or congress gave the USAF far more than they ever wanted because pork. Or maybe both.

ssteve wrote:

It's like having a 'reserve' of manufacturing capacity, should one large conflict suddenly mean all extant F-15s get worn out.

Yeah, according to the Pentagon this would be less of an issue in the future with fast prototype, digital design and manufacturing. We will see.

With a large conflict, it becomes a war of attrition, the large commercial base will provide the manufacturing capacity needed to ramp up production. The majority of defense subcontractors also heavily depends on commercial order, because believe it or not they do make money with commercial order even though they do get squeezed by the prime.

What you do need though is a viable design in the pipeline. Think of the F-15X purchase as not only to keep the F-15 Production line open but to keep the Engineers/Designer busy in order to have some sort of competency for the next fighter competition.

You can more easily rebuild tooling. It is much harder to reacquire the design experience/competency.

bt

ssteve wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

3) It keeps the F-15 production line open and gives Boeing money.

Tone is hard on the internet. Sarcasm or an actual argument? But if it is an actual argument, spend the money on other Boeing products like the Apache or KC-46 or P-8 or MQ-25 or F/A-18Gs or Chinooks or T-7As or ....

There's an argument for keeping the line open since they shuttered the F-22 line. It's like having a 'reserve' of manufacturing capacity, should one large conflict suddenly mean all extant F-15s get worn out.

I wonder if the C-17 line had been in a cheaper geography, if a slower trickle of orders would have made sense? I've heard both arguments on that one... either we wore them all down faster than ever expected in the GWOT, or congress gave the USAF far more than they ever wanted because pork. Or maybe both.

Not really. The issue was that the C-17’s had a very expensive cost somewhat due to the cargo floor which was highly over-engineered. Unlikely a non-stealth future cargo lifter would have a similar limitation.

The F-15X purpose is simply because transition costs and timeline wouldn’t work for the units they are going to. That’s it, pure and simple. It avoids maintenance/training requirements and gets a new airframe with a long lifespan at the same price as the F-35s without the delay in the ANG pilot/other costs associated. The large load capacity underwing and other stuff is just a bonus.

The detractors generally fall in an identical Venn diagram of the folks on a.net who 10, 15, 20, 30 or heck 35+ years ago proclaimed the A400M would replace all C-130’s by around 2000.

Dear people who want to produce the F-15 for "jobs" or "to keep the production line open":

How come we no longer build F-4s? Those people had jobs, and there was a production line open! I always assumed the reason we stopped building F-4s was that better designed were invented, and the military would rather have these better airplanes, and that the purpose of military contracts was to build better airplanes.

Would you have argued for the production of F-4s well into the late 1980s, and even the 1990s? Today??

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This is not an argument to buy a fleet of fighters, waiting for a hypothetical missile to be developed.

History has clearly shown that if you wait for something to get developed first before you develope something that can use it, then nothing will get developed.

The hypothetical missile is not the anti-sat. It is the hypersonic and it is being developed and tested and is far from being hypothetical. You want to be ready when the missile is ready. If you wait for the missile to finish development before ordering the F-15, Boeing might have shut down the line by then.

I know that planning ahead is not a glorious job, but it is very essential to keep from having get caught with your pants down. If any one ever is interested, the US army published an anthology of all the battles it fought during WWII. It goes in to excruciating details on the planning involved preparing for a battle/campaign along with descriptions of the battle and after action report. Not a riveting novel to be sure, but interesting reading for the wonkers out there.

Does anybody fly the F-111 any more? And does the F-15E have the capability to launch the hypersonic missile?

bt

Arg!. Somehow I read anti-sat. My bad.

No, I don't want to build airplanes waiting for a hypothetical missile use. But at least I know (if disagree) where you're coming from.

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?

kitplane01 wrote:

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

A platform doesn't always have to be the best at anything. Ever heard the old saying "jack of all trades, master of none"?

kitplane01 wrote:

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

So what mission is the F-15E best at? Will the F-35 ever replace the E?

The F-15EX is meant as a stop gap solution to the retirement of the F-15C because they can not train enough F-35 pilots and ground crew to fill in as the replacement for the C. You can replace the C with more F-16 guess because they are cheaper to operate. But where are you going to find new F-16's and you still have the training issue.

If and when they do get enough F-35 pilots and enough F-35 frames (a big if) to replace the C. You can easily integrate the EX into the E squadrons.

Now tell me the F-15E do not have a mission because the F-35 or F-16 can do everything better.

And as I alluded above, there is one mission that the F-15 can do better than an F-35 or F-16. If Air Force One gets in to trouble, the F-15 can get there faster.

Finally, "best most economical" reminds me of the M-4 Sherman tank. At the begining of WWII, the US had two tank design in the pipeline. They put the emphasis on the Sherman because it was best most economical to built and this was true for a war of attrition. But boy, if they had more of the second design the M-26 how many more tank crew they could have saved?.

bt

Does the aforementioned reasons for the F15X all make sense but just not satisfy your opinion that it's not the best at any of them?

Kitplane01 - Consider ...

Did the U2 exist and fly missions before it's existence was officially announced? The SR71? The F117? Any number of black programs that produced disparate weapons systems?

The idea here is you probably need to read between the lines to be able to ken what the unsaid mission that it will do best is. There is more than likely much missing info which would be key to understanding the underlying purpose for the new F15 builds is.

In short: We're all so sorry you can't look up the answer on a Wiki page and be instantly enlightened by the facts you find there. I think we all will just have to wait for the other shoe to drop to actually know.

Personally I look at the F15X's unique attributes and have decided it's BOTH a stop gap in numbers and current abilities AND the best carrier / deliverer of a yet to be officially announced bulky / heavy weapons system. With incomplete facts you can only guess now, which I'm happy to do here.

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This is not an argument to buy a fleet of fighters, waiting for a hypothetical missile to be developed.

If any one ever is interested, the US army published an anthology of all the battles it fought during WWII. It goes in to excruciating details on the planning involved preparing for a battle/campaign along with descriptions of the battle and after action report. Not a riveting novel to be sure, but interesting reading for the wonkers out there.
bt

Link/name?

Is this the A.net equivalent of that "Change My Mind" meme?

kitplane01 wrote:

Dear people who want to produce the F-15 for "jobs" or "to keep the production line open":

How come we no longer build F-4s? Those people had jobs, and there was a production line open! I always assumed the reason we stopped building F-4s was that better designed were invented, and the military would rather have these better airplanes, and that the purpose of military contracts was to build better airplanes.

Would you have argued for the production of F-4s well into the late 1980s, and even the 1990s? Today??

OK I'll bite on the argumentum ad absurdum: Because those same people in St. Louis that produced the F-4 are the ones that went on to build the F-15, and they still do today.

cjg225 wrote:

Is this the A.net equivalent of that "Change My Mind" meme?

Yep! Worse are people who will never change their mind.

[url][/url]

kitplane01 wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

Is this the A.net equivalent of that "Change My Mind" meme?

Yep! Worse are people who will never change their mind.

That would be you. You start all these threads acting like you can be swayed but no matter how many highly knowledgeable people tell you that you're wrong or misinformed, you never change your mind.

CDNlaxdad wrote:

Does the aforementioned reasons for the F15X all make sense but just not satisfy your opinion that it's not the best at any of them?

Kitplane01 - Consider ...

Did the U2 exist and fly missions before it's existence was officially announced? The SR71? The F117? Any number of black programs that produced disparate weapons systems?

The idea here is you probably need to read between the lines to be able to ken what the unsaid mission that it will do best is. There is more than likely much missing info which would be key to understanding the underlying purpose for the new F15 builds is.

In short: We're all so sorry you can't look up the answer on a Wiki page and be instantly enlightened by the facts you find there. I think we all will just have to wait for the other shoe to drop to actually know.

Personally I look at the F15X's unique attributes and have decided it's BOTH a stop gap in numbers and current abilities AND the best carrier / deliverer of a yet to be officially announced bulky / heavy weapons system. With incomplete facts you can only guess now, which I'm happy to do here.

I think you're saying that the F-15X is needed because there is some secret missile program somewhere such that the F-15X is the best platform to carry the missile. I gotta say that seems like an argument without evidence. Such arguments can justify anything, since they need no evidence.

You might as well argue that the F-15X is the best way to spend money because the DoD says so, and they know more than a bunch of amateurs on the internet. If so, then I change my question to "what are they thinking". And the answer of "it's secret' means I trust their answer as much as I believe they have a good reputation for spending money well.

johns624 wrote:

[url][/url]

kitplane01 wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

Is this the A.net equivalent of that "Change My Mind" meme?

Yep! Worse are people who will never change their mind.

That would be you. You start all these threads acting like you can be swayed but no matter how many highly knowledgeable people tell you that you're wrong or misinformed, you never change your mind.

Errrr no.

For example, I have a changed opinion on the light fighter concept. I used to be very in-favor-of, but now much less so. Thanks to airliners.net.

For the Tejas, I still think it's a terrible fighter program but now understand that other are looking at it not as a production program, but a more general R&D program. Thanks to airliners.net.

On the Grippen-M thread, I learned that Janes_Economics_of_Fighters_Study is crap. And I learned how tough it is for the Indian navy to find a fighter that fits into their elevators. I would not have even known to ask that question.

The thing that would change my mind on the F-15X is for someone to name a mission where the F-15X is the best option.

bikerthai wrote:

Finally, "best most economical" reminds me of the M-4 Sherman tank. At the begining of WWII, the US had two tank design in the pipeline. They put the emphasis on the Sherman because it was best most economical to built and this was true for a war of attrition. But boy, if they had more of the second design the M-26 how many more tank crew they could have saved?.

bt

I think this is a very valid question.

Suppose it's a deep penetration mission into heavily contested airspace. Which has a higher expected casualty rate ... a pair of F-35s or three F-15Xs. Because given a fixed peacetime budget, that's what you will have in wartime.

Suppose it's a CAS support mission. Which has a higher expected casualty rate including soldiers on the ground ... a pair of F-15X or four F-16s or 6 A-10s?

I'm totally interested in expected casualty rates, but given a fixed peacetime budget for what mission does an F-15X minimize these rates?

kitplane01 wrote:

The thing that would change my mind on the F-15X is for someone to name a mission where the F-15X is the best option.

At what mission was the F4 Phantom best at? None of them but it could do all of them well. That's what the F15X can do.

Bean-counting is only one aspect to look at, not everything can be expressed from a strict financial point of view. There's intrinsic value that can't be quantified.

DigitalSea wrote:

Bean-counting is only one aspect to look at, not everything can be expressed from a strict financial point of view. There's intrinsic value that can't be quantified.

Exactly. This is also part of what justifies programs like Tempest, the German MPA, etc. “let’s just do this so we can prove we still can.”

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The thing that would change my mind on the F-15X is for someone to name a mission where the F-15X is the best option.

At what mission was the F4 Phantom best at? None of them but it could do all of them well. That's what the F15X can do.

Is that true? What fighter available to the US was better than the F-4? Especially (but not only) naval fighter??

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The thing that would change my mind on the F-15X is for someone to name a mission where the F-15X is the best option.

At what mission was the F4 Phantom best at? None of them but it could do all of them well. That's what the F15X can do.

Is that true? What fighter available to the US was better than the F-4? Especially (but not only) naval fighter??

The F105 was a better bomb hauler. The F8 was a better carrier fighter. The F106 was a better interceptor. Yet, they were all specialized aircraft that went away before the F4. Why? Because the F4 could do all of those things. Like I posted earlier "jack of all trades, master of none".

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

At what mission was the F4 Phantom best at? None of them but it could do all of them well. That's what the F15X can do.

Is that true? What fighter available to the US was better than the F-4? Especially (but not only) naval fighter??

The F105 was a better bomb hauler. The F8 was a better carrier fighter. The F106 was a better interceptor. Yet, they were all specialized aircraft that went away before the F4. Why? Because the F4 could do all of those things. Like I posted earlier "jack of all trades, master of none".

I'm surprised you find the F-8 better than the F-4. The F-4 was faster and had a much better radar. It had an important mission where was better than the F-8 (long range intercept of Soviet bombers). I assume the F-8 was cheaper to buy and operate (which matters to me).

What was it you liked about the F-8?

Here are a few quotes from Wiki.

At the time, the Crusader was the best dogfighter the United States had against the nimble North Vietnamese MiGs.

As aerial combat ensued over North Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, it became apparent that the dogfight was not over and the F-8 Crusader and a community trained to prevail in air-to-air combat was a key ingredient to success.

The Crusader would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3.

You get too hung up on cost and speed. Neither is as important as you think it is. The better radar isn't much use in dogfighting. The thing to remember is that ROE is a political term. It doesn't matter what your equipment can do if the bosses say you can't use it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader

kitplane01 wrote:

We don't have an anti-satellite missile. Nor are we expected to ever have very many of them. This is not an argument to buy a fleet of fighters, waiting for a hypothetical missile to be developed.

We didn't have stealth aircraft until they appeared fully operational in Saudi Arabia in 1990 for the first Gulf War. The F-117 had been operational for 7 years at that point.

Taking out every enemy satellite simultaneously does seem a very obvious first strike. Just like the Apache taking out the Iraq radar system at the start of Desert Storm. Low orbit satellites are flying in all different directions so to hit them all at once could only be done by aircraft that can fly to the exact launch position. Waiting for each satellite to fly over a ship or ground based missile system could take days.

The F-15 is the only western aircraft that could perform the ASAT role. Launching the missile from high altitude and high speed dramatically reduces the size of the missile. The F-15 can launch a large missile higher and faster than any other western aircraft. It is the perfect launch platform and 80 aircraft would be the perfect number of aircraft to take out dozens of satellites at once.

The problem with the smaller fighters is they can't get such a large missile to the speed and altitude required. This means the missile has to be even bigger which means the fighter is launching it even slower and lower etc in a loop. The missile would need to be so big it would probably be easier to just use a B-52 and use a ASAT missile 2-3 times bigger than what the F-15 would need.

The enemy would not notice dozens of F-15X fighters taking off from bases around the world while they get into position using inflight refueling.

Of course there is zero evidence of the F-15X performing the ASAT role. There was no evidence of stealth fighters the week before they were dropping bombs on Baghdad.

Here is a loyal wingman drone capable of pulling 9G under the wing of the F-15. Launching this 100nm ahead of the US 5th Gen fighters will make the enemy give away their positions. This will be great to fire towards the enemy AWAC aircraft. Again the F-15 is the only aircraft that can carry two usable armed loyal wingman drones and still defend itself with missiles.

The F-16 and Eurofighter would probably only be able to carry a drone half the size. The drone would then be too small to carry its own weapons.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

We don't have an anti-satellite missile. Nor are we expected to ever have very many of them. This is not an argument to buy a fleet of fighters, waiting for a hypothetical missile to be developed.

We didn't have stealth aircraft until they appeared fully operational in Saudi Arabia in 1990 for the first Gulf War. The F-117 had been operational for 7 years at that point.

Taking out every enemy satellite simultaneously does seem a very obvious first strike. Just like the Apache taking out the Iraq radar system at the start of Desert Storm. Low orbit satellites are flying in all different directions so to hit them all at once could only be done by aircraft that can fly to the exact launch position. Waiting for each satellite to fly over a ship or ground based missile system could take days.

The F-15 is the only western aircraft that could perform the ASAT role. Launching the missile from high altitude and high speed dramatically reduces the size of the missile. The F-15 can launch a large missile higher and faster than any other western aircraft. It is the perfect launch platform and 80 aircraft would be the perfect number of aircraft to take out dozens of satellites at once.

The problem with the smaller fighters is they can't get such a large missile to the speed and altitude required. This means the missile has to be even bigger which means the fighter is launching it even slower and lower etc in a loop. The missile would need to be so big it would probably be easier to just use a B-52 and use a ASAT missile 2-3 times bigger than what the F-15 would need.

The enemy would not notice dozens of F-15X fighters taking off from bases around the world while they get into position using inflight refueling.

Of course there is zero evidence of the F-15X performing the ASAT role. There was no evidence of stealth fighters the week before they were dropping bombs on Baghdad.

Maybe. This is a claim without evidence that there *is* an anti-sat missile in development. Which is the nature of secret programs.

Besides, if you wanted to launch 80 anti-sat missiles, it would seem easier to just keep 80 F-15s around, or 40 and take a few hours to do two flights each. Or use the F-22s, which can fly very high, very fast, and should be around a long time.

(I just learned that the USAF might be retiring the F-15C's in 'mid 2020's).

The F-15E's should be around for a long time.

johns624 wrote:

Here are a few quotes from Wiki.

At the time, the Crusader was the best dogfighter the United States had against the nimble North Vietnamese MiGs.

As aerial combat ensued over North Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, it became apparent that the dogfight was not over and the F-8 Crusader and a community trained to prevail in air-to-air combat was a key ingredient to success.

The Crusader would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3.

You get too hung up on cost and speed. Neither is as important as you think it is. The better radar isn't much use in dogfighting. The thing to remember is that ROE is a political term. It doesn't matter what your equipment can do if the bosses say you can't use it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader

Thanks. That helped.

I believe that others are not hung up enough on cost because lower cost means you get outnumbered less often and outnumber them more often. But in Vietnam we could just outspend them.

Speed is just a sometimes useful tool.

kitplane01 wrote:

Besides, if you wanted to launch 80 anti-sat missiles, it would seem easier to just keep 80 F-15s around, or 40 and take a few hours to do two flights each. Or use the F-22s, which can fly very high, very fast, and should be around a long time.

The F-22 is only cleared to carry external fuel tanks for ferry use. The F-22 software architecture is also decades old and it would be near impossible to add extra weapons or the required data link to target an ASAT missile. For max climb performance the aircraft would want to carry only one ASAT missile on a centreline pylon.

The F-15E fleet has much lower powered engines than the F-15X. Firing the missile 10,000ft lower or 200 knots slower would make a huge difference to the max altitude and range of the ASAT missile. If the ASAT missile is hitting a satellite at the edge of its range then the launch aircraft has to get into the perfect launch position. The F-15X being able to fly higher and faster than any other western fighter will give it a bigger launch window. The F-15E would probably also need avionics or data link upgrades.

kitplane01 wrote:

(I just learned that the USAF might be retiring the F-15C's in 'mid 2020's).

The F-15E's should be around for a long time.

That plan was to replace the F-15C directlt with the F-15X. The F-15C fleet is very old and requires high maintenance. The whole sales pitch of the F-15X is that the maintenance of the brand new aircraft F-15X will be much less than the old F-15C. So if the plan was to keep the F-15C going for another 20 years then the purchased price of the F-15X might actually end up getting paid for by the lower maintenance budget.

kitplane01 wrote:

I think you're saying that the F-15X is needed because there is some secret missile program somewhere such that the F-15X is the best platform to carry the missile. I gotta say that seems like an argument without evidence. Such arguments can justify anything, since they need no evidence.

The evidense is there. Some just refuse to believe. Just like the Covid-19 deniers.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -air-force

And I did not say it is the best platform. It gives the Air Force another option other than the B-52 and it can be forward deployed.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

believe that others are not hung up enough on cost because lower cost means you get outnumbered less often and outnumber them more often. But in Vietnam we could just outspend them.

But there is a limit to what the US can achieve with quantity of airframes. If you can not get enough qualified pilots through the volunteer army, then what use is it to field a larger fleet of lower cost lower performance aircrafts?

bt

Daetrin wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This is not an argument to buy a fleet of fighters, waiting for a hypothetical missile to be developed.

If any one ever is interested, the US army published an anthology of all the battles it fought during WWII. It goes in to excruciating details on the planning involved preparing for a battle/campaign along with descriptions of the battle and after action report. Not a riveting novel to be sure, but interesting reading for the wonkers out there.
bt

Link/name?

It was so long ago 35 years or so. I borrowed them from the public library.

These may be it. I am not sure until I see them first hand again.

https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelv ... saww2.html

PS. Reading through the Okinawa and Philippine campaigns gave me real insight on why Prez Truman dropped the bomb.

PPS. Yeah, the link above should take you to the index. Click on each index and it takes you to a list of volumes. You can down load each PDF for reading. Looks like I missed a few. Maybe I should start reading them again.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I think you're saying that the F-15X is needed because there is some secret missile program somewhere such that the F-15X is the best platform to carry the missile. I gotta say that seems like an argument without evidence. Such arguments can justify anything, since they need no evidence.

The evidense is there. Some just refuse to believe. Just like the Covid-19 deniers.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -air-force

And I did not say it is the best platform. It gives the Air Force another option other than the B-52 and it can be forward deployed.

bt

OMG please don't link with the fool covid deniers!

That is some evidence. Thanks for showing it.

I really don't see how it can be more cost effective to buy new F-15Xs over missile deployment on B-52s or F-22s or eventually the B-21s. And I'm pretty sure software on the F-22s can be rewritten.

This is a mission that the F-15X can do better and more cost effectively than an F-35 or F-16. It seems uncertain and not common, but its a start.

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.

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.