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

Josh_TN said:
While that is true, the F-15 is capable of particularly heavy payloads and has the highest pylon max weight of any fighter I can think of.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the payload limits on the wing stations for the F-15EX and the F-35A are the same at 5k lbs. The EX centreline may be capable of 7k lbs but that is just one pylon.
Josh_TN said:
Though the entire conversation does beg the question, what larger weapons? The only known one I can think of is HACM, though I get the distinct impression that there are others pending.
Click to expand...
There is the Long Range Engagement Weapon https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/long-range-engagement-weapon-lrew.29678/
 
Ozair said:
Pretty sure the payload limits on the wing stations for the F-15EX and the F-35A are the same at 5k lbs. The EX centreline may be capable of 7k lbs but that is just one pylon.
Click to expand...
I think this is it really. f-15 has 3+2(rear fuselage) heavy duty pylons, plus CFTs not taking any pylons. Effectively 7 oversized stations.

F-35 has 2+2(outer)+2(inner), and no FT currently (and when they'll appear, they'll take same stations). I.e. 2+2 oversized, but there's bags problem.
 
Ozair said:
Someone might need to tell Wilsbach that 5th gen aircraft carry external weapons as well. For 6th gen I guess we will see on external carriage.
Click to expand...
Can an F-35 carry a large ALBM on it's centerline pylon? Thought so.
 
EmoBirb said:
Can an F-35 carry a large ALBM on it's centerline pylon? Thought so.
Click to expand...
I think you missed not only my point but Wilsbach's as well...

Ainen said:
I think this is it really. f-15 has 3+2(rear fuselage) heavy duty pylons, plus CFTs not taking any pylons. Effectively 7 oversized stations.

F-35 has 2+2(outer)+2(inner), and no FT currently (and when they'll appear, they'll take same stations). I.e. 2+2 oversized, but there's bags problem.
Click to expand...
100% that the EX has a higher payload is not in dispute. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, just irony that people forget that 5th gen can load external as well and in the F-35s case essentially the same weapons should they chose to integrate them.
 
Ozair said:
I think you missed not only my point but Wilsbach's as well...


100% that the EX has a higher payload is not in dispute. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, just irony that people forget that 5th gen can load external as well and in the F-35s case essentially the same weapons should they chose to integrate them.
Click to expand...
Ah, that's for sure, and we saw use of external points over Iran recently.
But overall it appears that same campaign was a strong validation point for F-15 case; Israel came to the same conclusion.
Interesting that F-16 fails to make the case for now, even though it's use was just as impressive.
 
Josh_TN said:
Though the entire conversation does beg the question, what larger weapons? The only known one I can think of is HACM, though I get the distinct impression that there are others pending.
Click to expand...
The obvious one is the GBU-72 advanced 5k, but ARRW is also "only" a 5000lb weapon.

Not real sure what LREW is, I'd assume larger diameter than easily fits into F-22 or F-35 bays. Though I suppose it could also be a longer missile.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The obvious one is the GBU-72 advanced 5k, but ARRW is also "only" a 5000lb weapon.

Not real sure what LREW is, I'd assume larger diameter than easily fits into F-22 or F-35 bays. Though I suppose it could also be a longer missile.
Click to expand...

I think most estimates of ARRW out it at 6000-7000, but that would still potentially be a centerline weapon if there’s clearance.

LREW I thought was a study and not a weapons production program. In any case, no idea what form it took.
 
Sferrin said:
The RAFAEL Silver Sparrow comes in at 6,900lbs. Haven't been able to find a picture of it on the F-15 to see if it's launched from the wing or centerline though.

View attachment 813017
Click to expand...
I don't think it's launched from F-15s but larger cargo aircraft. F-15 pylon limits are 5k lbs for wings and centreline AFAIK.

@Big_Zukini might be able to clarify this.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I think most estimates of ARRW out it at 6000-7000, but that would still potentially be a centerline weapon if there’s clearance.
Click to expand...
There's an image on this forum saying ARRW is not to exceed 5000lbs.


Josh_TN said:
LREW I thought was a study and not a weapons production program. In any case, no idea what form it took.
Click to expand...
That seems weird, since AIM-260 was in development at the same time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which would imply replacing F-15Es with EXs.
Click to expand...

This idea has been floated recently. The EX center pylon will be capable of carrying outsized munitions which is ideal for a modern strike role. Its just a better version of the E all around.

Also, there is another bill to buy even more.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8111.jpeg
    IMG_8111.jpeg
    308.7 KB · Views: 47
Hull down said:
This idea has been floated recently. The EX center pylon will be capable of carrying outsized munitions which is ideal for a modern strike role. Its just a better version of the E all around.
Click to expand...
If EXs replace Strike Eagles, it means "Strike NGAD" doesn't happen.

And deep interdiction would be better served by a stealthy airframe, IMO.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If EXs replace Strike Eagles, it means "Strike NGAD" doesn't happen.

And deep interdiction would be better served by a stealthy airframe, IMO.
Click to expand...
There are RFIs for strike weapons specifically to fit the F-47 internal bay. It was meant to have a strike capability from the onset (pre down select) there is also the F/A-XX, quite literally referred too as the strike component of the NGAD FoS. The F-35 is very well suited for the BAI mission. Sensor fusion combined with modern munitions like the GBU-53/B and weapons bay compatibility cruise missiles like the AGM-188A make it near perfect. Minus the range (negligible)

Beyond that there is B-21s and UCAVs. Although a modern FB-23 would be awesome.

F-15EXs will be good for the low part of the high-low mix. And possibly even the last generation of manned strike aircraft (beyond the retirement of F-35 and F/A-XX) until UCAVs fully assume that role. The F-15EX can function as an American Mig-31 so to speak. Great for interceptions and air patrols while also being able to uniquely (for tactical fighters) carry outsized munitions. HACM, ARRW, and whatever long range A2A missiles or ALBMs they have planned down the line. Its adequate for the role.
 
Hull down said:
There are RFIs for strike weapons specifically to fit the F-47 internal bay. It was meant to have a strike capability from the onset (pre down select) there is also the F/A-XX, quite literally referred too as the strike component of the NGAD FoS.
Click to expand...
FAXX NGAD is not the same as F-47 NGAD. And USAF would scream bloody murder before accepting another Navy plane (Skyraider, F-4, A-7).


Hull down said:
The F-35 is very well suited for the BAI mission.
Click to expand...
It is. But the Strike Eagle doesn't really do BAI, it's supposed to be striking deeper than that. Like the F-111s did.


Hull down said:
Beyond that there is B-21s and UCAVs. Although a modern FB-23 would be awesome.
Click to expand...
Replacing Strike Eagles 1:1 with an additional 200 B-21s would be one dream for the USAF.


Hull down said:
F-15EXs will be good for the low part of the high-low mix.
Click to expand...
They are way too dang expensive for a "low" aircraft, they cost more than an F-35!


Hull down said:
And possibly even the last generation of manned strike aircraft (beyond the retirement of F-35 and F/A-XX) until UCAVs fully assume that role.
Click to expand...
Agreed that manned non-nuclear strike is likely done. No more manned strikers after FAXX.



Hull down said:
The F-15EX can function as an American Mig-31 so to speak. Great for interceptions and air patrols while also being able to uniquely (for tactical fighters) carry outsized munitions. HACM, ARRW, and whatever long range A2A missiles or ALBMs they have planned down the line. Its adequate for the role.
Click to expand...
Sorta. The MiG-31 has a much bigger radar antenna in the nose, and has 20klbs greater MTOW. Plus, that is almost all fuel weight, a MiG-31 has as much internal fuel as the EX has with triple externals and full CFTs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If EXs replace Strike Eagles, it means "Strike NGAD" doesn't happen.

And deep interdiction would be better served by a stealthy airframe, IMO.
Click to expand...

B-21 is the penetrating strike platform and I doubt the F-47 design makes any compromises for that role. There will never be enough of them for missions outside of air superiority to be considered.
 
Hull down said:
There are RFIs for strike weapons specifically to fit the F-47 internal bay. It was meant to have a strike capability from the onset (pre down select) there is also the F/A-XX, quite literally referred too as the strike component of the NGAD FoS.
Click to expand...

Can you provide some documentation for F-47 strike role? I have never seen it mentioned and it seems extremely odd for a platform with such a planned limited run.
 
Josh_TN said:
B-21 is the penetrating strike platform and I doubt the F-47 design makes any compromises for that role. There will never be enough of them for missions outside of air superiority to be considered.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then you're talking about building ~350ish B-21s, if you're matching payloads. Strike Eagles could carry a LOT of boom, 23,000lbs worth.

What almost makes sense for the mission is the Mitchell Institute naval CCA, which is basically the size of the A-12 ATA.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, but then you're talking about building ~350ish B-21s, if you're matching payloads. Strike Eagles could carry a LOT of boom, 23,000lbs worth.

What almost makes sense for the mission is the Mitchell Institute naval CCA, which is basically the size of the A-12 ATA.
Click to expand...

Show me a picture of an F-15E carrying 20,000 lbs. it might technically be capable of leaving the ground with that weight, but any realistic warload will be half that or less. B-21 is the penetrating striker and there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

Mitchell CCAs are purely theoretical war game devices.
 
Josh_TN said:
Show me a picture of an F-15E carrying 20,000 lbs. it might technically be capable of leaving the ground with that weight, but any realistic warload will be half that or less.
Click to expand...
The load is 12x 1000lb on the FAST packs, 2x 2000lb on the wings, belly tank, AAMs.

This picture isn't quite it, I think those are 500lb bombs:
F-15E-DRF-Poster-S.jpg


Josh_TN said:
B-21 is the penetrating striker and there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
Click to expand...
But are expensive.



Josh_TN said:
Mitchell CCAs are purely theoretical war game devices.
Click to expand...
It's a design for an 800-1000nmi range (or more) CCA with 4x 2000lb or other loads. Which is exactly the mission profile the Strike Eagle has.
 
There hasn't been aircrafts with actual full wartime loading since the 1st Gulf War. And actually, station loading has been reduced for all peacetime since the 80`s to extend airframe lifetime. For example the F15 was orginally rated for full design g-loading but until recently it's down to ~5.5 or 6 g.
Best loading images are for F15E prototype F-15B-4-MC 71-0291 in 1980:
f15_04-load.jpg

Today's F15E/EX has 6 stations on the CTF instead of the 4 on the prototype.
So 6 x 5 plus the two outboard for another 6 for a total of 36 Mk82 bombs, including 4 AAMs (2 x AIM120 + 2x AIM9).
That's about 19800 lb for bombs (snakeye); 1100 lb for missiles; 850 for pylons; 4370 lb for CFT = 26120 lb.

Edit: I forgot nav and targeting pods also count as payload; including their mounts that's another ~1550 lb.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
The load is 12x 1000lb on the FAST packs, 2x 2000lb on the wings, belly tank, AAMs.

This picture isn't quite it, I think those are 500lb bombs:
View attachment 814692



But are expensive.




It's a design for an 800-1000nmi range (or more) CCA with 4x 2000lb or other loads. Which is exactly the mission profile the Strike Eagle has.
Click to expand...

So old pics with iron or cluster bombs, potentially using MER and TER both of which have been withdrawn from service. I do faintly recall F-15Es with a dozen mk82 and a dozen CBU-87 in ODS, but that must have hugely limited their endurance. I doubt any Echos are going to be flying around the Pacific rim like that; in fact I never saw images of them carrying configurations that heavy over Afghanistan. Also the top stations on the CFTs are not wired for 1760 IIRC, so very limited options for the upper six positions (and again, TER and MER are retired, assuming you wanted to sacrifice drop tanks).

In any case, it seems unlikely any low RCS penetration aircraft is built to fulfill this role; it really falls into the B-21s wheel house. Yes it is expensive, but probably cheaper than a new development program, and given the vulnerability of WestPac air bases, creating another strike platform with less than intercontinental range seems ill advised.
 
Josh_TN said:
so very limited options for the upper six positions (and again, TER and MER are retired, assuming you wanted to sacrifice drop tanks).
Click to expand...
The payload with drop tank actually weights more than with bombs. Drop tank weights ~4300 lb (full) so the inner wing station with AAMs weights ~5700 lb at baseline design g-load (-3g; +9g)
Today we got Beast mode < past wartime load. lol
 
Josh_TN said:
In any case, it seems unlikely any low RCS penetration aircraft is built to fulfill this role; it really falls into the B-21s wheel house.
Click to expand...
F-15E itself wasn't a purpose built design though? And it is also not absolutely optimal because of that; it doesn't prevent it from being great.

I guess with at least two suitable base aircraft around, shouldn't be that much of a problem.
 
Josh_TN said:
I take that to mean that the F-47 enables deep penetration strikes, not that the aircraft itself is carrying strike ordnance. Given the competition trade offs between payload and range, I would be surprised if F-47 carried anything more than F-22: a half dozen BVR AAMs, with the option of small A2G payloads that fit in that space.
Click to expand...
You do realize that a 1000lb JDAM fits into the same box size as an AMRAAM, right? 19" across the fins, 13.5" square box, 12ft long.

Plus the bays are longer than that, since at least the F-22 staggers the weapons to pack more weapons inside and I'd expect the F-47 to do the same.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You do realize that a 1000lb JDAM fits into the same box size as an AMRAAM, right? 19" across the fins, 13.5" square box, 12ft long.

Plus the bays are longer than that, since at least the F-22 staggers the weapons to pack more weapons inside and I'd expect the F-47 to do the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have no doubt it can carry anything an F-22 can.
 
Josh_TN said:
I take that to mean that the F-47 enables deep penetration strikes, not that the aircraft itself is carrying strike ordnance. Given the competition trade offs between payload and range, I would be surprised if F-47 carried anything more than F-22: a half dozen BVR AAMs, with the option of small A2G payloads that fit in that space.
Click to expand...
If we are to assume that a light-heavy mix is desirable, and accept that:
  1. F-35 is abundant.
  2. F-35 is "light".
  3. And will continue to serve parallel to F-47 for much of the latter's service life.
Then it stands to reason the F-47 will provide the heavy component.
Unless a CCA will be developed for that. But would it be wise?
 
Josh_TN said:
I take that to mean that the F-47 enables deep penetration strikes, not that the aircraft itself is carrying strike ordnance. Given the competition trade offs between payload and range, I would be surprised if F-47 carried anything more than F-22: a half dozen BVR AAMs, with the option of small A2G payloads that fit in that space.
Click to expand...
The SiAW is shaping up to be the USAF's primary SEAD/DEAD weapon program. Given the F-47 is being designed with heavy if not exclusive focus on Offensive Counter Air, it is all but natural that the SiAW is carried by it for those strike missions the USAF doctrinally considers part of OCA. As such, in the short time since the F-47 award and announcement the service has put out a few materials regarding integration of the weapon on the F-47. All of this is logical if you understand what its role is. The F-22 made do with the SDB because of a very different threat landscape but worth recalling that at least one SiAW candidates during the weapon's competition phase, was touting the abilities of its solution to be integrated on the F-22 internally.

1780914253401.png
 
Last edited:
Six AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders and a gun made sense four decades ago in the context of a 500 plus Raptor fleet.

I would wager good money that USAF wants to ease the IWB constraints for F-47 to support at least a 33% increase in JATM or AMRAAM sized missile capacity and the ability to accommodate larger but almost certainly not very large or outsized ordnance.

I did have a thought that if the US military likes it next gen 5000lb penetrator it sure would be a bummer for the USAF if the Navy - or worse, the Marines! - had to fly that mission because the F-47 couldn’t accept the munition.

Edit: I’m keeping an eye on an internally carried Blackbeard variant. Such a weapon launched from a high and fast F-47 would represent a unique low latency strike capability.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom