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

Israel Rearming Its Eagle Force With The New F-15IA​

www.twz.com

Israel Rearming Its Eagle Force With The New F-15IA

The Israeli Air Force will continue its enduring relationship with the Eagle after an $8.58-billion deal for at least 25 jets was approved. The Israeli Air Force will continue its enduring relationship with the Eagle after an $8.58-billion deal for 25 jets was approved.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
couldn't you just post the link to the full article rather than a screenshot?
 
Last edited:
Big_Zukini said:
F-15EX is expensive. That's understandable. The F-16 should be a good option then. IIRC they explored it before opting for the F-15.
Click to expand...
I don't think the F-15 was ever a good fit for Indonesia, as you say expensive but also Indonesia doesn't really have a requirement for a big strike fighter.

I doubt they will go F-16 and with obvious interest in KF-21, Kaan and even J-10C could see any of those complimenting the Rafales on order.
 
Ozair said:
I don't think the F-15 was ever a good fit for Indonesia, as you say expensive but also Indonesia doesn't really have a requirement for a big strike fighter.

I doubt they will go F-16 and with obvious interest in KF-21, Kaan and even J-10C could see any of those complimenting the Rafales on order.
Click to expand...
They do have an interest in big strike fighter, it's just that F-15ex is kinda expensive.
 
Ozair said:
I don't think the F-15 was ever a good fit for Indonesia, as you say expensive but also Indonesia doesn't really have a requirement for a big strike fighter.
Click to expand...
Indonesia still needs an air superiority/interceptor aircraft. Something that covers a lot of ground, fast. Rafales and KF-21 won’t cut it. The Flankers are too old. The Rafale is a excellent multi-role, but it doesn't have the top end speed for land launched maritime engagements. While it does have supercruise, it tops out right under 1.8M. Both the F-15 and Flanker can hit more than 2.3M. So if the F-15EX is out, I suspect, the Su-35 will have one more shot to enter the southern hemisphere.
 
AaaH, if Dassault had made that Super Mirage 2000 I have been blabbing about for (nearly) decades.

Regarding the EX, remember that without EPAWS, it´s not exactly the right offer if you project your force structure long term (the logical alternative will be with Israeli systems but I am not sure if it fits the narrative today for them).
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Regarding the EX, remember that without EPAWS, it´s not exactly the right offer if you project your force structure long term (the logical alternative will be with Israeli systems but I am not sure if it fits the narrative today).
Click to expand...
Not exactly an expert on the subject matter, but visually EPAWS (and IVEWS too) appear to be rather moderate in scale(not tech).
 
Last edited:
ComradeVortex said:
Indonesia still needs an air superiority/interceptor aircraft. Something that covers a lot of ground, fast. Rafales and KF-21 won’t cut it. The Flankers are too old. The Rafale is a excellent multi-role, but it doesn't have the top end speed for land launched maritime engagements. While it does have supercruise, it tops out right under 1.8M.
Click to expand...
Is that really a requirement though? How often has that been demonstrated by the Indonesian Air Force and what is the actual value and military need that requires a massive investment in an airframe that might operationally be able to fly perhaps .4 of a Mach faster.
ComradeVortex said:
Both the F-15 and Flanker can hit more than 2.3M. So if the F-15EX is out, I suspect, the Su-35 will have one more shot to enter the southern hemisphere.
Click to expand...
The F-15EX is certainly not flying that fast with any meaningful payload, not over M2 and likely closer to M1.6, and I expect the Flanker series are similarly limited in operational service.

Ainen said:
They do have an interest in big strike fighter, it's just that F-15ex is kinda expensive.
Click to expand...
Do they? Their orders today are for Rafale, their LOI are for Kaan and KF-21, they have expressed interest in J-10C. The Su-35 deal never went anywhere, the F-15EX deal aged out. Evidence is they might talk a big game but what they actually buy is different.
 
Indonesia needs fighters in the light-medium class for numbers and in the heavy class for range. The Indonesian territory spans across island chains of significant extension. So a fighter with long legs is desireable and the only two fighters are essentially the F-15 and Su-27 in their respective incarnations and probably the Su-57.
 
Scorpion82 said:
Indonesia needs fighters in the light-medium class for numbers and in the heavy class for range. The Indonesian territory spans across island chains of significant extension. So a fighter with long legs is desireable and the only two fighters are essentially the F-15 and Su-27 in their respective incarnations and probably the Su-57.
Click to expand...
A three bag Rafale will likely have a similar combat range to either the F-15EX or an Su-35. It may not have the same payload at that distance but again Indonesia doesn't have a requirement to drop bunker buster weapons 1000nm away. Indonesia also isn't short on airfields a fighter can operate from.
 
Ozair said:
Do they? Their orders today are for Rafale, their LOI are for Kaan and KF-21, they have expressed interest in J-10C. The Su-35 deal never went anywhere, the F-15EX deal aged out. Evidence is they might talk a big game but what they actually buy is different.
Click to expand...
Su-35se didn't never went anywhere, rather it was CAATSAed.
Indonesia is a flanker operator in the first place.
Ozair said:
A three bag Rafale will likely have a similar combat range to either the F-15EX or an Su-35. It may not have the same payload at that distance but again Indonesia doesn't have a requirement to drop bunker buster weapons 1000nm away. Indonesia also isn't short on airfields a fighter can operate from.
Click to expand...
Dropping bunker busters isn't the problem with big bags, for this Rafale is perfectly fine.
Problem is a2a patrolling.
 
Scorpion82 said:
The much smaller and lighter 3 bag Rafale will certainly perform worse than a larger and heavier fighter and one with a much more powerful radar at that.
Click to expand...
In Indonesia's case they wouldn't be sending fighters out to hunt for random aircraft flying in their EEZ, it is cueing to the target. Their EEZ from a threat perspective is actually rather small as they have nothing to fear from Australia and PNG.

Indonesia-Exclusive-Economic-Zone.png


So in that context what value does a F-15EX, or Flanker/Felon derivative, have that other aircraft cannot provide?
 
Ainen said:
Su-35se didn't never went anywhere, rather it was CAATSAed.
Indonesia is a flanker operator in the first place.
Click to expand...
I suspect it was more than just CAATSA but even then the order would have been for eleven jets that would have likely replaced the existing Flanker fleet. Indonesia never fully invested in the flanker fleet wit minimal weapons fit and only ever permanently stationed at Hasanuddin.
Ainen said:
Dropping bunker busters isn't the problem with big bags, for this Rafale is perfectly fine.
Problem is a2a patrolling.
Click to expand...
Patrolling with three EFTs is fine, F-15E/EX/ etc will always fly with two EFT and CFT everywhere it goes (bar the ANG until CFTs are ordered...).
 
Ozair said:
I suspect it was more than just CAATSA
Click to expand...
No reason to. That was stated directly, and frankly it appears(1) they're(2) trying(3) to outwait and get them.
Ozair said:
Patrolling with three EFTs is fine, F-15E/EX/ etc will always fly with two EFT and CFT everywhere it goes (bar the ANG until CFTs are ordered...).
Click to expand...
With 3 subsonic tanks you're subsonic, and won't reliably catch a civilian airliner with broken transponder - even if it's relatively close.
Drop them - and chances are, you won't return at least to where you intended.
Take supersonic tanks - and you aren't all that long ranged anymore.

Indonesia is a >5000km country in latitudal spread. Just to compare - it's distance from Finnish border to Pacific ocean. I.e. more or less Flanker requirement. Indonesia is a huge country.
Rafale is absolutely an ideal medium fighter for Indonesia, due to French colonial outremer and long range strike requirements. It absolutely packs one hell of range. But they still like and need a proper loiterer.
 
Last edited:
good discussion on the range requirements..

as mentioned earlier, Indonesia is more likely to operate a defensive doctrine and I think a loaded Rafale flying from various bases could enforce Indonesia's maritime claims.. however when looking at the number of air bases through out the country.. it seems like there's not that much on the eastern half.

960px-TNI-AUbases.png

here's one i found on Wikimedia, but it seems quite dated from 2009

GDaHkVqbAAI7589

found this one on twitter so not sure of its accuracy, but it still highlights some gaps on the east. Although any maritime issue would likely be more towards the west
 
Ainen said:
No reason to. That was stated directly, and frankly it appears(1) they're(2) trying(3) to outwait and get them.
Click to expand...
I personally don't buy the CAATSA being the main issue. It may have played a small role but financial issues are the much bigger issue and likely main cause. Through that same period Indonesia also hadn't made their KF-21 payments.
Ainen said:
With 3 subsonic tanks you're subsonic, and won't reliably catch a civilian airliner with broken transponder - even if it's relatively close.
Drop them - and chances are, you won't return at least to where you intended.
Take supersonic tanks - and you aren't all that long ranged anymore.
Click to expand...
People have to decide, do you want patrol or interception. They are different missions with different profiles.
Ainen said:
Indonesia is a >5000km country in latitudal spread. Just to compare - it's distance from Finnish border to Pacific ocean. I.e. more or less Flanker requirement. Indonesia is a huge country.
Click to expand...
And Indonesia has plenty of airbases and runways in the areas they need them. Rafale, and KF-21/Kaan and less so J-10, will have more than sufficient range to operate where Indonesia requires them.
Ainen said:
Rafale is absolutely an ideal medium fighter for Indonesia, due to French colonial outremer and long range strike requirements. It absolutely packs one hell of range. But they still like and need a proper loiterer.
Click to expand...
Again what is the requirement. Loiter and supersonic interception are different missions.

helmutkohl said:
good discussion on the range requirements..

as mentioned earlier, Indonesia is more likely to operate a defensive doctrine and I think a loaded Rafale flying from various bases could enforce Indonesia's maritime claims.. however when looking at the number of air bases through out the country.. it seems like there's not that much on the eastern half.
Click to expand...
The east is Australia and PNG, really nothing to worry about, and tactical fighter jets are all but useless enforcing West Papua.
 
helmutkohl said:
however when looking at the number of air bases through out the country.. it seems like there's not that much on the eastern half.

960px-TNI-AUbases.png
Click to expand...

Note that only Iswahyudi AFB and Hasanuddin AFB operate fighter jets.

Abdul Saleh AFB (I actually live a couple kilometers from it) operates C-130 type aircrafts, at most the Super Tucanos are stationed there, which is a big issue since they’re constantly deployed as COIN in Western Guinea/Papua.

Iswahyudi AFB only has F-16s, leaving most of the territory to the old Flankers in Makassar (Hasanuddin).
 
I see the "remind everyone just how fecking huge Indonesia is" has already happened.

And while the proposed new fighter bases do help the problem a bit, they still need a really stupidly long-ranged fighter. Flanker, F15-with-CFTs, MiG-31, F-47, GCAP, J-36 maybe?
 
Scott Kenny said:
I see the "remind everyone just how fecking huge Indonesia is" has already happened.

And while the proposed new fighter bases do help the problem a bit, they still need a really stupidly long-ranged fighter. Flanker, F15-with-CFTs, MiG-31, F-47, GCAP, J-36 maybe?
Click to expand...
And yet unbelievably other countries which have larger areas to patrol survive just fine without stupidly long ranged fighters. Fortunately like other countries with large land and EEZ they have sufficient airbases scattered across the country to allow them sufficient coverage. Given the size of Indonesia the F-15 or other suitably large aircraft doesn't provide some massively longer ranged patrol range or significantly greater coverage.

For the F-15 example we can use this study from RAND to evaluate the range capability and cost effectiveness noting it does not factor in lethality. From page 59 it compares an F-15E to an F-16C in a DCA scenario with no tankers. While the study is old now I think it demonstrates the capability and cost effectiveness of running a smaller aircraft that can still operate a long range profile. In the case of the F-16C evaluated it would likely today be equivalent to the F-15E when removing the CL tank and replacing it with CFTs which provide more fuel and less drag. It would be interesting to see an F-15EX versus F-16V comparison using the same criteria.
 
Ozair said:
I personally don't buy the CAATSA being the main issue. It may have played a small role but financial issues are the much bigger issue and likely main cause. Through that same period Indonesia also hadn't made their KF-21 payments.
Click to expand...
Flanker, while not exactly cheap, is rather on the affordable side.
Furthermore, unlike others, Russia willingly takes Indonesian barter.
I'd guess that's the problem with F-15EX - US takes hard cash only, and they don't really need nor have use for sudden excess of palm oil/natural rubber over that they already get from open market.
Ozair said:
Again what is the requirement. Loiter and supersonic interception are different missions.
Click to expand...
I'd think they would ideally want both, and dash from loiter for a good measure.
It's a basic set of requirements for an air defense fighter, otherwise it'd appear rather wasteful.

I.e. again, ideally a flanker, backup was the f-15in with CFTs.
Ozair said:
And Indonesia has plenty of airbases and runways in the areas they need them. Rafale, and KF-21/Kaan and less so J-10, will have more than sufficient range to operate where Indonesia requires them.
Click to expand...
They don't have plenty of airbases; scale of the map is quite huge; you'll need to thinly spread higher number of aircraft (which isn't and won't be high) across the entire country.

p.s. Kaan is also a heavy fighter. But it's so far away down the line I don't think it will affect current decisions at all.
 
Ozair said:
And yet unbelievably other countries which have larger areas to patrol survive just fine without stupidly long ranged fighters. Fortunately like other countries with large land and EEZ they have sufficient airbases scattered across the country to allow them sufficient coverage. Given the size of Indonesia the F-15 or other suitably large aircraft doesn't provide some massively longer ranged patrol range or significantly greater coverage.

For the F-15 example we can use this study from RAND to evaluate the range capability and cost effectiveness noting it does not factor in lethality. From page 59 it compares an F-15E to an F-16C in a DCA scenario with no tankers. While the study is old now I think it demonstrates the capability and cost effectiveness of running a smaller aircraft that can still operate a long range profile. In the case of the F-16C evaluated it would likely today be equivalent to the F-15E when removing the CL tank and replacing it with CFTs which provide more fuel and less drag. It would be interesting to see an F-15EX versus F-16V comparison using the same criteria.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the cheapest option would be "F-16 with CFTs and 2 big fuel tanks plus belly tank" but that's also likely the bare minimum capability that will do the job.

And needing those 2 big fuel tanks takes 2 of your heavy pylons, so now your loadout is AMRAAMs on the wingtips, Sidewinders on the outboard underwing pylons (2 and 10?), and Harpoons or AMRAAMs on the mid-wing pylons.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I see the "remind everyone just how fecking huge Indonesia is" has already happened.

And while the proposed new fighter bases do help the problem a bit, they still need a really stupidly long-ranged fighter. Flanker, F15-with-CFTs, MiG-31, F-47, GCAP, J-36 maybe?
Click to expand...

J-20 is likely good for them. It's built for long range patrolling IIRC.

F-15EX could be better if it had the Emiratis' proposed -15U wing with the huge fuel load. USA would need to foot the bill though.
 
Kat Tsun said:
J-20 is likely good for them. It's built for long range patrolling IIRC.
Click to expand...
Of course, the problem with both J-20 and J-36 is that it means Indonesia is aligning with China. And I don't believe that is on the table.

Curse of the small power, gotta balance the influences of all the bullies around you.



Kat Tsun said:
F-15EX could be better if it had the Emiratis' proposed -15U wing with the huge fuel load. USA would need to foot the bill though.
Click to expand...
Anyways, back to the F-15. Would the Emeratis' be willing to fund that huge wing?
 
Key Sanctions Under CAATSA (Section 235 & 231):
  • Asset Freezes: Blocking property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction, often involving placement on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List.
  • Financial Restrictions: Prohibition on banking, loans over
    $10
    million in 12 months, and foreign exchange transactions, preventing access to the U.S. dollar.
  • Export/Import Bans: Denying U.S. export licenses or authorizations, particularly targeting defense technology.
  • Procurement Bans: Prohibition on the U.S. government contracting or procuring goods/services from the sanctioned entity.
  • Visa/Travel Bans: Denying visas to principal executive officers or controlling individuals of the sanctioned entity.

...seems like a big deal to me!
 
F-15EX is so bloated that its fuel fraction isn’t even that impressive anymore (40,000lbs empty weight, incl. CFTs + 2 pilots).

If you load it up with max fuel (including 3x drop tanks) you get a TO weight of ~77,500lb and a fuel fraction of 0.458. With a weight limit of 81,000lb that leaves only ~3,500lbs available for weapons.

You can do better with a Rafale, which can achieve the same exact fuel fraction with 2x 2,000L tanks + 1x 1,250L supersonic tank. That’s less than full fuel and a TO weight of only ~19,500kg, leaving 5,000kg available for weapons. What that means is that if you add CFTs (2,300L) or bump up the Rafale’s centerline tank to 2,000L you can get a better fuel fraction than an F-15 *and* still carry a larger weapon load.

So very doubtful that Indonesia would prefer an F-15 over a Rafale if long range is the priority…
 
H_K said:
F-15EX is so bloated that its fuel fraction isn’t even that impressive anymore (40,000lbs empty weight, incl. CFTs + 2 pilots).

If you load it up with max fuel (including 3x drop tanks) you get a TO weight of ~77,500lb and a fuel fraction of 0.458. With a weight limit of 81,000lb that leaves only ~3,500lbs available for weapons.

You can do better with a Rafale, which can achieve the same exact fuel fraction with 2x 2,000L tanks + 1x 1,250L supersonic tank. That’s less than full fuel and a TO weight of only ~19,500kg, leaving 5,000kg available for weapons. What that means is that if you add CFTs (2,300L) or bump up the Rafale’s centerline tank to 2,000L you can get a better fuel fraction than an F-15 *and* still carry a larger weapon load.

So very doubtful that Indonesia would prefer an F-15 over a Rafale if long range is the priority…
Click to expand...
3500lbs is fine, if you're only wanting AAMs.

4x AMRAAMs is ~1400lbs, 4x AIM-9s is ~800lbs. 2200lbs total.

You're SOL if you want something like Harpoons or some other AShM.
 
H_K said:
You can do better with a Rafale, which can achieve the same exact fuel fraction with 2x 2,000L tanks + 1x 1,250L supersonic tank. That’s less than full fuel and a TO weight of only ~19,500kg, leaving 5,000kg available for weapons. What that means is that if you add CFTs (2,300L) or bump up the Rafale’s centerline tank to 2,000L you can get a better fuel fraction than an F-15 *and* still carry a larger weapon load.
Click to expand...
Unlike F-15(and 16), Rafale CFTs are still in realm of "maybe later".
But in any case, the advantage as it appears isn't really in range/payload couple(which is great on rafale, and they've demonstrated it on 3 separate occasions and mission profiles over last few weeks), rather range while a2a configured. Rafale 2+1 tanks is a good compromise setup, but it won't quite equal out F-15 after dropping big bags ... and dropping tanks is overall suboptimal decision for a nation on a tight budget.
Kat Tsun said:
J-20 is likely good for them. It's built for long range patrolling IIRC.
Click to expand...
It didn't displace flankers in production (twin ones at that) and it uses a lot of internal volume on bays and ducts.
There are some respectable range figures floating around for it, but there's big chance they're with 4 tanks too.

For truly long range Chinese fighters, it appears, one would need to wait next generation. And no way in hell they'll be sold early on.

F-15EX, Rafale, Flankers are available today.
 
H_K said:
F-15EX is so bloated that its fuel fraction isn’t even that impressive anymore (40,000lbs empty weight, incl. CFTs + 2 pilots).

If you load it up with max fuel (including 3x drop tanks) you get a TO weight of ~77,500lb and a fuel fraction of 0.458. With a weight limit of 81,000lb that leaves only ~3,500lbs available for weapons.

You can do better with a Rafale, which can achieve the same exact fuel fraction with 2x 2,000L tanks + 1x 1,250L supersonic tank. That’s less than full fuel and a TO weight of only ~19,500kg, leaving 5,000kg available for weapons. What that means is that if you add CFTs (2,300L) or bump up the Rafale’s centerline tank to 2,000L you can get a better fuel fraction than an F-15 *and* still carry a larger weapon load.

So very doubtful that Indonesia would prefer an F-15 over a Rafale if long range is the priority…
Click to expand...

Fuel fraction is not all. A small aircraft with big tanks will almost certainly be subjected to more drag than a larger one with the same tanks. That´s why there is bombers out there. (and why the USAF clings to that design for future effectors)

Idem for the systems like their radar. A larger aircraft can sustain a more powerful one with a larger antennae. Su-27 is an impressive performing design just because of this: it is large a large airframe almost unabated by the things hung to it. Rafale will never match this beyond some compromise to the mission set.

Same with A2A weapons. How many Fox-1 missile can Rafale carries at a comparable range of the F-15EX? A meteor will always drag more than an AMRAAM, with an aggravated impact on a smaller airframe.

Now, Rafale will do great with the network of bases available to the TNI-AF, even when one of those is disabled. It´s just that you don't have to push the comparison beyond what's at stake as that´s where your math don't add-up. (you loose the clarity and reliability of your message)

Remember that 4000km is 1.5x the distance b/w Paris and Moscow.

Screenshot 2026-02-05 130710.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom