USAF Actually Buying F-15Xs?

a reply to: Zaphod58
Put the quad launchers on the F-35 and it can play missile truck too.
Two of the wing pylons on the F-35 are rated for 5k lb. The X-51 came in at 4500 lb or thereabouts. A weapon exceeding 2.5 tons shouldn't be carried by a fighter jet anyway. Thats what bombers are for.

a reply to: mightmight

Those pylons would also allow the plane to carry about 650 gallons of fuel each. That might be handy for a fighter.
It would also allow it to carry a refueling pod.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That would almost make sense except the buy rate would still not be high enough, and the operating costs are still eye-brow raising.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Zaphod58

Unless they are expecting serious dogfighting I can't think of much benefit of the F-15 over the F-35, maybe I am missing something.

Even the last buy proposal I saw admitted the F-15 wasn't survivable in a contested environment. The plan was for atandoff use or in a permissive environment. The plan is self-defeating.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Wait til you see the pod carrying a boom!

a reply to: JIMC5499

fightersweep.com...

Quad rails on 35s = missile truck: In theory and that is all. That is like saying add quad rails on: A-10s, KC-135s, B-1s, PC-12s, AC-130s and they become a missile truck. The 35 an 22 aren't doing A2A missile truck or not with rails. Imagine training like you would fight "slicked out" then some genius says put rails on be a missile truck..."Wait what? So we are going to do 4th gen air to air? Someone call a C-Model dude."

Quoting numbers a rail can carry or how much fuel something can hold: Typical explanations some use to convince their point is to quote endurance or speed or "it can carry this so this". Each aircraft is a different tool. Some built with multi purpose some with sole purpose. "The F-35 has more endurance so...." "Well rebuttal the U-2 has more endurance so is that a viable replacement?" If the 35 has more endurance than a C-Model then the C-Model just spends less time on station OR changes the gas plan to have more gas at the start of coverage. Each airframe has a unique strength and weakness and attributes that is planned around. So what something can carry this rail, or this fuel tank. What is it designed to do as its purpose? Period dot.

Non-Survivable in a contested environment: So is the other 90% of assets too. There are ways to take care of contested environments with aircraft non-survivable in contested environments. If that's the way people thought then "oh shucks, its contested might as well just throw 5th Gen at it or standoff only." If stand off works then what? It isn't contested anymore. An F-35 missile truck nope. That's not the way they fight, they probably wouldn't know what to do to be honest. Raptors heck yeah! Wait, how many do we have again? I think the wingman ucav is a great idea. Turn 1 Raptor into 20 yikes.


Zaph recapitalize AESA, MISSILE RAILS, large screens, etc: are you saying those haven't been done or they are proposals for C models that are currently flying?

a reply to: glib2

Some of the current C/D models have been upgraded with the APG-63(V)3, and the E has been slowly upgrading to the APG-82. The new aircraft will have the latest version of the APG-82(V)1 installed.

They sort of have the large display as well. The C/D just began receiving the PAD system, along with the ADCP II under the latest upgrade. With PAD though, they have a single 9x11 display to show multiple instruments, and the Sniper pod imagery. With the F-15EX, both cockpits have multiple large displays to show instruments, Legion pod imagery, radar imagery, etc.

It will also include EPAWSS, fly by wire flight controls, and the new AMBER rails. The F-15SA was the first to use the AMBER system, partly because they have stations 1 and 9 active. The current C/D fleet could, in theory, have them reactivated and carry the new rails with the same load, but you'd ultimately shorten the life of the wing by a noticeable amount I suspect.

a reply to: glib2

Non-Survivable in a contested environment: So is the other 90% of assets too. 

That's probably why the Air Force has chosen to ask only for VLP aircraft to replace legacy platforms and has not asked for more Eagles or Falcons...

There are ways to take care of contested environments with aircraft non-survivable in contested environments

You mean like jamming? Physics still dictate you need ~2500 times the jamming wattage to protect an F-15 approaching the enemy radar. Or the enemy needs 2500 times the wattage to burn through the jamming and acquire the F-35. Or for the same wattage of jamming the F-35 gets 2500^2 closer to the radar before it is in jeopardy.

Hey, those sound like fantasy numbers... But it's real math.

Probably why the Airforce has resisted more legacy platforms, and has admitted they aren't freaking survivable against modern IADS.

"Well rebuttal the U-2 has more endurance so is that a viable replacement?

That's a joke meant to highlight how unviable the Eagle is, right?

originally posted by: glib2
Quad rails on 35s = missile truck: In theory and that is all. That is like saying add quad rails on: A-10s, KC-135s, B-1s, PC-12s, AC-130s and they become a missile truck.
The 35 an 22 aren't doing A2A missile truck or not with rails. Imagine training like you would fight "slicked out" then some genius says put rails on be a missile truck..."Wait what? So we are going to do 4th gen air to air? Someone call a C-Model dude."

That doesn’t even make sense. You think they “train” only for LO missions with the F-35? They don’t.
The F-35 is perfectly capable to fulfill that niche capability and play missile truck. There is no need to procure another aircraft to get this capability.
And make no mistake, it’s a theoretical capability with next to no practical application anyway. A 4th Gen platform is not survivable in a scenario in which you need dozens upon dozens of AAMs, no matter what. To make it work you’d need a very long range AAM and keep the missile truck way back. Of course you’d then run into OODA issues.
Oh and, the perfect platform to play missile truck is the strategic bomber, not yet another fighter jet.

Quoting numbers a rail can carry or how much fuel something can hold: Typical explanations some use to convince their point is to quote endurance or speed or "it can carry this so this". Each aircraft is a different tool. Some built with multi purpose some with sole purpose. "The F-35 has more endurance so...." "Well rebuttal the U-2 has more endurance so is that a viable replacement?"
If the 35 has more endurance than a C-Model then the C-Model just spends less time on station OR changes the gas plan to have more gas at the start of coverage. Each airframe has a unique strength and weakness and attributes that is planned around. So what something can carry this rail, or this fuel tank. What is it designed to do as its purpose? Period dot.

Again, what are you on about? Yes, not every platform can do everything. But some platform can perform well enough to not warrant the procurement of a dedicated solution.
The US simply cannot afford to procure the best solution to every problem. Resources are finite and budgets will only get smaller going forward. So whether or not any platform was “designed” for this or that purpose is irrelevant. It only matters whether a platform is good enough for the job or not.
The F-35 is good enough, the F-15X is not needed. Case closed.

Non-Survivable in a contested environment: So is the other 90% of assets too. There are ways to take care of contested environments with aircraft non-survivable in contested environments. If that's the way people thought then "oh shucks, its contested might as well just throw 5th Gen at it or standoff only." If stand off works then what? It isn't contested anymore. An F-35 missile truck nope. That's not the way they fight, they probably wouldn't know what to do to be honest. Raptors heck yeah! Wait, how many do we have again? I think the wingman ucav is a great idea. Turn 1 Raptor into 20 yikes.

If there is no contested environment anymore because you degraded the other sides Air Force from standoff ranges, you’d hardly need a missile truck anymore, wouldn’t you say?
Yes, any platform can deliver ordnance once you established air supremacy. But have you locked at what the Chinese come up lately? Degrading their A2AD network will not be a simple matter of just throwing some standoff weaponry at them and sending in whatever platform to mob up afterwards.

With the F-15X the US is set to procure a platform that will not be usable in a confrontation with a near peer going forward. And I’m not just talking about the next couple of years. These new airframes are built to have extremely long service lives and could potentially serve for many decades to come. So sure, while you could come up with some bull# scenario the F-15X will not do flat out worse than a 5th Gen platform today, think about what you’d want to do with the platform in ten or twenty years down the line. You know, when the Chinese A2AD network has quadrupled and they’re flying hundreds of 5th Gen platforms armed with very long range AAMs themselves.

You’re saying 90% of the Air Force cannot survive in a contested environment and you’re entirely correct about that. Hence procuring yet another non survivable platform is a terrible idea. As is procuring any low observable fighter sized platform really. Long term, the only solution is VLO strategic assets. I’d gladly cut the fighter fleets to the bone if that meant building 200+ B-21s…

Oh and, wingman UCAVs are a terrible idea because they just choke up the few air bases the US would manage to keep functioning in a confrontation with China.

a reply to: RadioRobert


Pretty sure they have asked for legacy aircraft. Hence the point of this thread.

Jamming sure. Thats one. Have they resisted legacy though? They kept the A-10, asking for more Eagles, keeping Buffs, still hanging at VLP like you said and cut the Raptor production a long time ago. Cmon B-21.

For how unviable the Eagle is, why are they still around? Physics? I think dudes that fly against the Eagle would have a different opinion. Maybe this will help. Is it the age of them? Cool make new ones. Is it the contested environment? News flash, the number is higher than 90% that can’t make it in. I was being generous. Including precious 5th gen. So it’s not age. Not because it can’t get into a contested environment like 99% of other jets. Why the beef? It’s no different how Sukhoi upgrades it’s jets. It’s highly effective.

a reply to: glib2

They have kept the A-10's only at congressional mandate. They have tried to axe it multiple times. The most recent budget request included no new legacy aircraft. The Eagles were added upstream of the SecUSAF at the DOD level. The AF is not asking for new Eagles.

Why are Eagles still around? Because they foolishly cut the Raptor line early and then gold-plated the JSF program.

a reply to: RadioRobert

www.af.mil...

Yup. SecUSAF just stopped in to say hello. No talks at all on the X. All upstream.

a reply to: glib2

They have said several times that the decision to buy them came from CAPE and OSD, not SecAF. She said repeatedly that the Air Force wasn't interested, and until they got involved, it wasn't a planned budgetary item.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tadaman

a reply to: Masisoar

They're going to Guard units for the National Air Defense mission primarily. You won't see them carrying anywhere near their max loadout on routine missions, as there's no need for that many, even when intercepting Russian aircraft. The current F-15s, at minimum, need new longerons. They're going to need a new wing soon, before you can do any serious upgrades, such as activating the 1 and 9 stations. The longeron replacement is at least $1M per shipset. The new wing would be a big chunk of budget, depending on how many aircraft you keep in inventory.

Why do we not arm, train, deploy, and give Guard Units... who are essentially the absolute last line of defense against domestic attack the same capability, if not beyond that of forward forces?

Really not trying to comment out of line... but this is a legit and serious concern of mine.

a reply to: EternalSolace

We do. Guard and Reserve forces are equipped exactly the same as active duty units in most cases. There is even a Guard unit that flies F-22s. I'm not sure where it stands now, but around the mid 90s, the Guard and Reserve were responsible for just over half of some missions.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's just that when you said you won't see reserve carrying the same capacity or loadouts for routine missions, kind of set off a flag for me. Thanks for clearing it up.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Not only do we...but the PAD and Sniper Pod were Guard Projects that AD picked up. Same with Legion and IRST 21 among a bunch other.

CFTs were another Guard thing for the CModel ahead of what the AD was doing.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Because the Air Defense mission won't require them to carry the 20+ missiles that they can mount on the new aircraft.

And they wonder why the thought of the leadership with scissors is terrifying.