Boeing F-15EX / F-15QA and related variants

FighterJock said:
So will the F-15EX be purely for strike missions and not a pure fighter in the traditional sense of the word of the word?
Click to expand...
No, some of the US units getting Eagle IIs are F-15C/D squadrons used for interceptor/air policing duties.

So it's a lot more multirole than the original Eagle, but it's not exactly a strike-only Mud Hen.
 
FighterJock said:
So will the F-15EX be purely for strike missions and not a pure fighter in the traditional sense of the word of the word?
Click to expand...
The long term goal is to replace all existing F-15s. Starting with the C/Ds first. But eventually even the regular E models.
 
Don't forget that the 15 hasn't all its prime youth force to play lead in A2A. Times have changed, with Stealth for example, and USAF has far more effective means in that domain. It should then not to be unexpected that 15EX units will then be more multirole.
 
Ozair said:
The ANG units plan to become multi-role although I expect it will remain a secondary mission. I also expect them to remain single seat only.
Click to expand...

That's going to be difficult for the California and Oregon ANG units, as they are based at otherwise civilian airports (Fresno and Portland IAP). They have no facilites for handling A/G munitions there.
Things are different for the Louisiana and Michigan ANG. The latter will most likely become an A/G focused unit as they're replacing A-10s.
I'd say if they want to get serious with this A/G business, the units in question need to get CFTs.
 
TomcatViP said:
Don't forget that the 15 hasn't all its prime youth force to play lead in A2A. Times have changed, with Stealth for example, and USAF has far more effective means in that domain. It should then not to be unexpected that 15EX units will then be more multirole.
Click to expand...
Not that many, and all of them are unable to displace ex for one reason or another. Given where winds are blowing, it may remain this way for a long while.
 
Ainen said:
Not that many, and all of them are unable to displace ex for one reason or another. Given where winds are blowing, it may remain this way for a long while.
Click to expand...
Yes that many. The USAF is over 525 F-35A with 400 of those in active squadrons with that number increasing every year more than the total EX planned yearly production output. The most optimistic EX number from the recent MSAR is 263 EXs which includes replacing all current Es in service and that is based on Boeing getting to 36 a year which at this point seems unlikely.

eagle said:
That's going to be difficult for the California and Oregon ANG units, as they are based at otherwise civilian airports (Fresno and Portland IAP). They have no facilites for handling A/G munitions there.
Click to expand...
No but that isn't really necessary is it? The units can train to the A2G mission as required and only actually load ordnance during exercises at dedicated ranges.

eagle said:
I'd say if they want to get serious with this A/G business, the units in question need to get CFTs.
Click to expand...
Agree and they want them, just not the highest priority right now.

Besides the fighter jets, the Guard included one other equipment need on its list: $417 million for 54 sets of conformal fuel tanks for the F-15EX, which would “increase combat range and capability required” for operations in the Indo-Pacific.

The unfunded priority lists are typically used by Congress to figure out where to boost funding for pet weapons programs, with the National Guard a usual beneficiary of the process given Guard units’ close ties to individual lawmakers seeking perks for their home states. Although fighter jet requirements are likely to grab the headlines — and potentially extra funding — they rank at the bottom of the Guard’s six item list, which prioritizes personnel and current operations.
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/07...xs-f-35s-to-2-4b-unfunded-wish-list-for-fy26/
 
Ozair said:
No but that isn't really necessary is it? The units can train to the A2G mission as required and only actually load ordnance during exercises at dedicated ranges.
Click to expand...

Probably not necessary, but seems far from ideal. If you look at bases like Burlington or Jacksonville (formerly with F-15Cs), the ANG units co-located at civilian airports and with A/G missions have dedicated facilites. None in Portland and Fresno.
But we'll see. So far Portland's 142nd FW is the only operational unit flying the type so could act as some sort of gateway unit with the A/G mission later adopted by other units.

Ozair said:
Agree and they want them, just not the highest priority right now.
Click to expand...

Yes, but seems unfunded until now, at least afaik.
 
I think the number of times active or ANG units train with real weapons is far and few between, and that if either was committed to a war zone local bases would provide. Honestly I think that’s true of most active units as well; not every air base is located next to a large munitions dump or bombing range. In fact outside of New Mexico, who is located next to a large munitions dump or bombing range?
 
Ozair said:
Yes that many. The USAF is over 525 F-35A
Click to expand...
F-35A currently and at least for several years to come:
-Can't have drop tanks (range, gas availability) and slow (bad intercept metrics);
-Has 4 missiles (not of the latest kind) in standard configuration, which drops to just 2 with a2g weapons on;
-Has rather subpar non-radar sensor for a2a use (compromised stealth detection in a situation where main redfor is conveniently composed of ~525 stealth fighters);
-Absolutely struggles to get rapidly iterated/updated.

Yes, All these problems will be fixed with block 4. It will be available in 2024, I mean, 2032 (as promised in 2026), I.e. at least 6 years away + the time to actually roll on the update onto the fleet (years, likely up to decade for those which will be updated).
Furthermore, block 4 won't apply to a large part of 525 already built.
Those to which it will apply right now are operating with blue circle, i.e. they're far worse.

At this point, the only inherent advantage for F-35 is really own signature. As important as it is, it is not the only metric out there. Given that iteration problems include CCA integration, even this advantage is incomplete.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
-Has rather subpar non-radar sensor for a2a use (compromised stealth detection in a situation where main redfor is conveniently composed of ~525 stealth fighters);
Click to expand...
To be fair though, I think F-35 ESM (ASQ-239) is pretty top tier when it come to ESM, alledgedly a single F-35 geolocate threats quicker than 3 F-16CJ with ASQ-213.
EOTS itself won’t be as capable as IRST21 in finding air target. But F-35 has measurement based sensor fusion so it can do the track-before-detect kind of thing which should greatly improve sensor detection range. F-15EX also have sensor fusion but only track blending kind
 
Ronny said:
To be fair though, I think F-35 ESM (ASQ-239) is pretty top tier when it come to ESM, alledgedly a single F-35 geolocate threats quicker than 3 F-16CJ with ASQ-213.
EOTS itself won’t be as capable as IRST21 in finding air target. But F-35 has measurement based sensor fusion so it can do the track-before-detect kind of thing which should greatly improve sensor detection range. F-15EX also have sensor fusion but only track blending kind
Click to expand...
I understand that EPAWS promises similar things in geolocating, but in any case it's mostly v ground targets. It's physically difficult to geolocate fast-moving emitters, esp. when they themselves aren't very obvious. F-35 capability was ahead of it's time, but this "ahead" is now gone; it's a full decade since then after all.

IRST21 iirc already does multi-ship tracking and ranging (plus it's generally a much more specialized sensor), something that will come to EOTS only in the 2030s.

F-15 isn't best in most single A2A metrics in USAF; either F-22 or F-35 tend to beat it. But beating all of its advantages, and especially their combination, is difficult.
As such, they're likely still in an equal position in the air fighting force...and will remain there.
 
Ainen said:
F-35A currently and at least for several years to come:
-Can't have drop tanks (range, gas availability) and slow (bad intercept metrics);
-Has 4 missiles (not of the latest kind) in standard configuration, which drops to just 2 with a2g weapons on;
-Has rather subpar non-radar sensor for a2a use (compromised stealth detection in a situation where main redfor is conveniently composed of ~525 stealth fighters);
-Absolutely struggles to get rapidly iterated/updated.

Yes, All these problems will be fixed with block 4. It will be available in 2024, I mean, 2032 (as promised in 2026), I.e. at least 6 years away + the time to actually roll on the update onto the fleet (years, likely up to decade for those which will be updated).
Furthermore, block 4 won't apply to a large part of 525 already built.
Those to which it will apply right now are operating with blue circle, i.e. they're far worse.

At this point, the only inherent advantage for F-35 is really own signature. As important as it is, it is not the only metric out there. Given that iteration problems include CCA integration, even this advantage is incomplete.
Click to expand...
Disgaree with most everything you have written there but this isn't the thread to debate it.

Reality is F-15EX isn't hitting USAF service in reasonable numbers until the early to mid 30s and isn't going to be survivable in a near peer conflict until others have cleared the airspace.
 
Ozair said:
Disgaree with most everything you have written there but this isn't the thread to debate it.

Reality is F-15EX isn't hitting USAF service in reasonable numbers until the early to mid 30s and isn't going to be survivable in a near peer conflict until others have cleared the airspace.
Click to expand...
Agreed, let's keep to F-15EX.
I checked, fleet should hit 100 in 2028(in 2 years) and 148(i.e. more than f-22) by 2030.

4th gen can't operate over hostile airspace, but neutral one with VLO screen(including CCAs, which is a forte for F-15EX with it's superb rear seat) is a fair game.

Upd:
More broadly, until at least later 2030s USAF has no choice but to treat F-15EX as a primary AA combatant. And even after that, there's a question of a replacement which is neither F-35 nor F-47. Maybe F/A-XX, maybe "super F-35D". Or maybe yet another, more flexible new fighter aircraft; not "just" the previously discussed MRF.
For now, I think, F-15EX is up to the task.
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Disgaree with most everything you have written there but this isn't the thread to debate it.

Reality is F-15EX isn't hitting USAF service in reasonable numbers until the early to mid 30s and isn't going to be survivable in a near peer conflict until others have cleared the airspace.
Click to expand...
Hence the reason why its getting outsized missiles in the 1000nm range.
 
Hull down said:
Hence the reason why its getting outsized missiles in the 1000nm range.
Click to expand...
Frankly wonder what's the use case. 1/3 that distance doesn't require a fighter (survivable, expensive supersonic platform with crew onboard).
Meanwhile, in real world operations, US fighters seem to have started using LAU-61s for APKWS...
 
Ainen said:
Frankly wonder what's the use case. 1/3 that distance doesn't require a fighter (survivable, expensive supersonic platform with crew onboard).
Meanwhile, in real world operations, US fighters seem to have started using LAU-61s for APKWS...
Click to expand...
The ability to be based far from the target area.
 
Hull down said:
Hence the reason why its getting outsized missiles in the 1000nm range.
Click to expand...
Given it cannot target an aircraft beyond about 150nm that use case makes the F-15EX just a truck. That same missile could be pallet loaded and launched with essentially the same effect and for less cost by other platforms.

Ainen said:
Agreed, let's keep to F-15EX.
I checked, fleet should hit 100 in 2028(in 2 years) and 148(i.e. more than f-22) by 2030.
Click to expand...
100? Your check was not accurate. Boeing only delivered the 22nd production F-15EX recently.
https://www.flightglobal.com/archive/2026/09/boeing-delivers-first-f-15ex-bound-for-duty-in-japan/

The production rate is not 40 a year...

Boeing's EX production is currently limited to 1 to 1.5 a month with the hope to get to two a month in two years. The USAF fleet will not hit 100 until 2030 at the earliest. Boeing is hoping to reach three a month but that is not likely until post 2030 for delivery post 2032. Given the very fragile supplier situation the production increases are also predicated on USAF funding which has yet to be passed in the FY27 budget. Additionally it has already been identified in the latest SAR the jet will have to undergo a refit to overcome obsolesce parts.

Summary is here but the MSAR is here

Ainen said:
4th gen can't operate over hostile airspace, but neutral one with VLO screen(including CCAs, which is a forte for F-15EX with it's superb rear seat) is a fair game.
Click to expand...
EX in ANG service is expected to fly single seat.
 
Ainen said:
Frankly wonder what's the use case. 1/3 that distance doesn't require a fighter (survivable, expensive supersonic platform with crew onboard).
Meanwhile, in real world operations, US fighters seem to have started using LAU-61s for APKWS...
Click to expand...

High priority support aircraft. ISR/MPA/AEW/tanker. Maybe bombers too.
 
Josh_TN said:
High priority support aircraft. ISR/MPA/AEW/tanker. Maybe bombers too.
Click to expand...
I was more along the lines, 1000 mile missile can be launched from any truck or drone somewhere in the region.
Hardly necessary to build hundreds of heavy fighters for that.
 
Ainen said:
I was more along the lines, 1000 mile missile can be launched from any truck or drone somewhere in the region.
Hardly necessary to build hundreds of heavy fighters for that.
Click to expand...

There are likely a lot of use cases for a heavy fighter outside peer A2A, but lifting oversized long range weapons will definitely be one of them.
 
Ainen said:
IRST21 iirc already does multi-ship tracking and ranging (plus it's generally a much more specialized sensor), something that will come to EOTS only in the 2030s.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't mean the multiship tracking and ranging thing, I mean the measurement based fusion that allow sensor to be more "sensitive" than if they were operate alone. EOTS is not as good as IRST21 and APG-81 can't see as far as APG-82. But APG-81+EOTS could be better than IRST21 + APG-82 thanks to how their data fused
Different type of sensor fusion
Ainen said:
F-15 isn't best in most single A2A metrics in USAF; either F-22 or F-35 tend to beat it. But beating all of its advantages, and especially their combination, is difficult. As such, they're likely still in an equal position in the air fighting force...and will remain there.
Click to expand...
Personally I think F-15EX is more suited as missile truck for something twice the range of AIM-424
 
Ainen said:
Frankly wonder what's the use case. 1/3 that distance doesn't require a fighter
Click to expand...
I think outsized missiles probably a lot more useful for carrier fighters such as F-35C, F-18E/F and F/A-XX , in that case, you actually can't put a launcher closer to target
 
Ainen said:
I was more along the lines, 1000 mile missile can be launched from any truck or drone somewhere in the region.
Hardly necessary to build hundreds of heavy fighters for that.
Click to expand...
Better to put it on a plane. You can reposition a plane a hell of a lot faster than you can a truck.
 
Sferrin said:
Better to put it on a plane. You can reposition a plane a hell of a lot faster than you can a truck.
Click to expand...
1000 miles is deep into Southern China straight from Luzon though. Similar truck on Taiwan/Ryukyus covers half the country; at these ranges there's only this much reason to move in the first place.
 
Ainen said:
1000 miles is deep into Southern China straight from Luzon though. Similar truck on Taiwan/Ryukyus covers half the country; at these ranges there's only this much reason to move in the first place.
Click to expand...
No reason you couldn't do both.
 
Wrench200 said:
It does say it's the 22nd, but it doesn't say it's the latest one.
Click to expand...
Not sure what value your comment is to the topic. If you read the MSAR EX-44 won't deliver before January 28 and is expected in Feb 28. Critical supply issues remain on the program especially with the cockpit displays, F110s and CAD/PADs. Whether the 22nd jet was the latest one or not we are not at 100 jets in 2028, maybe half by the middle to end of the year and still predicated on Boeing being able to meet two a month which isn't certain.
 
Ainen said:
I was more along the lines, 1000 mile missile can be launched from any truck or drone somewhere in the region.
Hardly necessary to build hundreds of heavy fighters for that.
Click to expand...
A 1000nm range missile implies a huge missile. Acknowledged range of AIM-424 is 250+nm and that thing is huge. If you want a missile with 1000 nm range, it will necessarily be bigger still; to the point where no currently publicly known CCA would be able to carry it; big enough you need something big like F-15s to carry it.

You can task bombers, tankers, and cargo planes to drop 1000nm range missiles too, but last I heard those are over-subscribed platforms too.

Sure an F-15 might only be able to participate in the OCA/DCA fight with very long range AAM at the beginning, but as the fight drags out the 5th generation fleets are going to be attritted on both sides. This attrition is going to create opening for 4th gen fighters to participate in the OCA/DCA fight with more nominal AAM. This is something bombers, tankers, and cargo planes can’t do without high end long range AAM even if the battlespace becomes more survivable.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom