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

I think the opposite - this is the premier A2A platform with a buy of only 200 considered. Maybe that number grows, but maybe not.

At that buy level, it is a half dozen AAMs and nothing else. Other shit can do the bombing.
 
Ainen said:
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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
Tbh, the reason why Indonesia dropped F-15EX because this. The bargain. And nowadays, Russia accepting the local currencies. Which is from economically side, this is actually "saving money" for Indonesia. That's first.

Second, before the MoU between The President (Minister of Defense, in that era) and Boeing happened, there was some serious talk between the representative from Boeing and American contractors with Indonesian contractors.

The Indonesian contractors wanted ToT, using scheme which called "Hilirisasi". So the Indonesia wanted some parts of F-15EX making locally using local's raw materials, before it was exported and assemble back into US.

Unfortunately, the representative from Boeing and US doesn't like that idea. The representative from Boeing wanted Indonesia exported the local's raw materials directly into US, make and assembled the F-15EX parts there, before imported back into Indonesia.

Indonesia just only buy the F-15EX, but doesn't have the ability to making parts locally.

For the Indonesia which had some serious trauma in the past about embargo, this is trouble. Losing the ability to making parts locally which means, you doesn't have the ability to maintain and flying the aircraft. Just rely on another aircraft parts to cannibalized.

That's the "real" reason why Indonesia dropped the F-15EX contract, beside of expensive.
 
Hafidz Rahman said:
For the Indonesia which had some serious trauma in the past about embargo, this is trouble. Losing the ability to making parts locally which means, you doesn't have the ability to maintain and flying the aircraft. Just rely on another aircraft parts to cannibalized.

That's the "real" reason why Indonesia dropped the F-15EX contract, beside of expensive.
Click to expand...
That really isn't a valid reason though. Indonesia isn't making the parts required for an entire F-15EX, or an entire Rafale or T-50 or M-346 etc.

Pre the 2027 budget request there were simply not enough F-15EXs going to be ordered by everyone to make local Indonesian production worthwhile, hence the US hesitation.

Today that is a different story but Indonesia has moved on.
 
I wasn't aware the F-15EX was ever intended to just be A2A.

Air-To-Ground Capabilities Are Already Creeping Into The F-15EX’s Mission Set​

The F-15EX's current job is the same as its F-15C predecessor, strictly air-to-air combat, but that is going to change.
Click to expand...
https://www.twz.com/air/air-to-ground-capabilities-are-already-creeping-into-the-f-15exs-mission-set
Last week, the Oregon Air National Guard’s 142nd Wing shared that one of its F-15EXs had dropped training bombs for the first time ever during a trip to Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho back in May. The 142nd, based in Portland, Oregon, is currently the Air Force’s only operational unit flying the Eagle II.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
Officially it was purchased to replace aging F-15Cs for ANG units whose only mission is air policing. No one thought it would ever be stuck in that role forever.
Click to expand...
Huh. I was halfway expecting it to replace all the F-15Es more than C/Ds.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Huh. I was halfway expecting it to replace all the F-15Es more than C/Ds.
Click to expand...

It has been suggested on this forum a number of times that better policy would be to replace the Echos and have them back fill the Charlies rather than relegate brand new machines to continental defense. But then my local ANG is getting F-35 for some reason. Probably congressional horse trading involved.
 
Josh_TN said:
It has been suggested on this forum a number of times that better policy would be to replace the Echos and have them back fill the Charlies rather than relegate brand new machines to continental defense. But then my local ANG is getting F-35 for some reason. Probably congressional horse trading involved.
Click to expand...
Always Congressional horse-trading involved.
 
I think they've figured out over the past few years that the F-35 can't actually replace the F-15Es. The Strike Eagle just has too much of a size and weight advantage over the F-35 to fill the F-111 style interdictor role. The missing link here is the FB-22, demonstrating that the Strike Eagle was actually undersized for the role. The F-35 would have no chance of executing those kinds of missions. Maybe GCAP would be the kind of plane that could really replace the Strike Eagle, but a Tomcat-sized F/A-XX with an MTOW of 100,000 lbs (even if only from land bases) and the ability to internally carry 4 x 2,000 lbs JDAMs would work well.
 
Josh_TN said:
It has been suggested on this forum a number of times that better policy would be to replace the Echos and have them back fill the Charlies rather than relegate brand new machines to continental defense. But then my local ANG is getting F-35 for some reason. Probably congressional horse trading involved.
Click to expand...
The Massachusetts ANG (104th FW, Barnes ANGB) is getting F-35s also. I think this occurred because Kendall et. al. were inconclusive circa 2023-24 about how many EXs were going to be bought, and the AF had to commit to something to fill the void when the F-15Cs retired. Objectively, based solely on range and payload, the EX might have been a better choice for the air sovereignty mission in the Northeast.

Our congressional delegation couldn’t tell the difference between the two anyway, so I doubt they had any influence on the decision.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
I think they've figured out over the past few years that the F-35 can't actually replace the F-15Es. The Strike Eagle just has too much of a size and weight advantage over the F-35 to fill the F-111 style interdictor role. The missing link here is the FB-22, demonstrating that the Strike Eagle was actually undersized for the role. The F-35 would have no chance of executing those kinds of missions. Maybe GCAP would be the kind of plane that could really replace the Strike Eagle, but a Tomcat-sized F/A-XX with an MTOW of 100,000 lbs (even if only from land bases) and the ability to internally carry 4 x 2,000 lbs JDAMs would work well.
Click to expand...
F-15 is hardly an interdictor these days, it's 2nd day aircraft through and thorough.
Interdiction is perfectly within the realm of possible for F-35; and they aren't even all that different in weights.

The restriction is the freedom of handling payloads - something FB-22 (or GCAP) won't really help with all that much.
Oversized munitions are a very major thing nowadays, and it won't change on either end of the munitions spectrum, as Israel demonstrates (be it cheap mass ballistics or elaborate long-range CPS/Hypersonics). You just carry them outside.
 
Last edited:
GeorgeA said:
The Massachusetts ANG (104th FW, Barnes ANGB) is getting F-35s also. I think this occurred because Kendall et. al. were inconclusive circa 2023-24 about how many EXs were going to be bought, and the AF had to commit to something to fill the void when the F-15Cs retired. Objectively, based solely on range and payload, the EX might have been a better choice for the air sovereignty mission in the Northeast.

Our congressional delegation couldn’t tell the difference between the two anyway, so I doubt they had any influence on the decision.
Click to expand...

I think they have them now; they have been flying around for the past week. That or they are doing the ground work for the environmental impact statement.
 
Sferrin said:
Wut? Most of the FB-22 concepts didn't have the payload of a Strike Eagle, let alone exceed it. Now the YF-23. . .
Click to expand...
Typical combat loads for F-111s in Desert Storm (with LGBs) were generally 2 or 4 x 2,000 lbs bombs or 12 x 500 lbs bombs. The FB-22 could match that if it carried two 2,000 lbs bombs internally and two externally, which I suppose might be better than an F-111 carrying all four externally. Pictures I've seen of F-15s generally have similar bomb loads. They can carry 4 x 2,000 lbs bombs on the fuselage corner hardpoints and still fly with two big tanks (I think a third centerline tank might threaten MTOW). The FB-22 did appear to have a huge advantage in fuel capacity over the Strike Eagle because it would probably match or exceed the Strike Eagles 2 CFT + 3 EFT fuel load of 15 tons with just internal tanks. Coincidentally, the F-111 had an internal fuel load around 15 tons.

My target for a stealthy interdictor would be something like 4 x 2,000 lbs bombs or ~20 x SDBs, all carried internally. An F-35A could theoretically carry up to six 2,000 lbs bombs (2 internally and 4 externally), but I suspect that would be a huge hit to range. An F-15 could carry up to seven externally. Four bombs (2 internal and 2 external) plus EFTs is more likely, but that's still a huge amount of weight. I do think the F-15EX's advantage over the F-35 is a question of degree rather than kind, so F-35s could be better suited to certain missions even if they aren't in a stealth configuration, and the cost argument is valid considering the added functionality of optional stealth. Something that could double the F-35's stealthy payload and double its internal fuel load would be a huge advantage.
 
Sferrin said:
Wut? Most of the FB-22 concepts didn't have the payload of a Strike Eagle, let alone exceed it. Now the YF-23. . .
Click to expand...
Uhm...
FB-22_p02(1)0001 (1).JPG
Note that Spiral 5 could carry 4x 1000lb plus a pair of Sidewinders; or 8x SDBs, a pair of AMRAAMs, and a pair of Sidewinders.

FB-22-1 gives you a 5000lb bunker buster, a pair of 2000lb (or 8x SDBs), and a pair of Sidewinders (or maybe even AMRAAMs if the bay stretch is in the correct place). All Internally.

My recommendation to replace the F-15E would be FB-22-1 with larger wings. It'll happily carry 3x 2000lb, or a pair of 2000lb and 6x SDBs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Uhm...
View attachment 818760
Note that Spiral 5 could carry 4x 1000lb plus a pair of Sidewinders; or 8x SDBs, a pair of AMRAAMs, and a pair of Sidewinders.

FB-22-1 gives you a 5000lb bunker buster, a pair of 2000lb (or 8x SDBs), and a pair of Sidewinders (or maybe even AMRAAMs if the bay stretch is in the correct place). All Internally.

My recommendation to replace the F-15E would be FB-22-1 with larger wings. It'll happily carry 3x 2000lb, or a pair of 2000lb and 6x SDBs.
Click to expand...
Yep, I've posted that same graphic here several times over the years. The F-15E can carry 7 2000lb bombs or a pair of 5000lb bombs and still carry 4 AAMs.
 

Attachments

  • HFfT1hoWoAAIqv5.jpg
    HFfT1hoWoAAIqv5.jpg
    136.2 KB · Views: 72
  • F-15I-raid-top-1536x864.jpeg
    F-15I-raid-top-1536x864.jpeg
    132.5 KB · Views: 54
  • 120815-F-ZZ999-036.jpg
    120815-F-ZZ999-036.jpg
    500.8 KB · Views: 63
Last edited:
Sferrin said:
The F-15E can carry 7 2000lb bombs or a pair of 5000lb bombs and still carry 4 AAMs.
Click to expand...
How often do either of those configs actually fly, though?

How often is the load 1x 5000lb or 3x2000lb?

Note that F-117 and F-35 both were designed around 2x 2000lb. And the ATA and A/F-X were designed around 4x2000.

If it really comes down to it, FB22-1 with enlarged Boeing EWPs to carry 3x5000 or 6x2000 (with an option to still carry 1x5000 internally, too). Not as stealthy as 1x5k+2x2k internally, but stealthier than a Mud Hen with it all hanging out.
 
F-15E(X) is heavy, but still fighter bomber.
You can indeed transform it into a normal payload, but at this point you're already building a medium bomber (or interdictor, or whatever).
Different size, different spotting factor, different price point, different vehicle.

Whole point of American legacy AF fighters is price efficiency. FB-22(F/FB-111, XB-68, etc etc) are optimized in a different direction. Whether there's any sense developing it when you already have a B-21 is very, very debatable.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Uhm...

Note that Spiral 5 could carry 4x 1000lb plus a pair of Sidewinders; or 8x SDBs, a pair of AMRAAMs, and a pair of Sidewinders.

FB-22-1 gives you a 5000lb bunker buster, a pair of 2000lb (or 8x SDBs), and a pair of Sidewinders (or maybe even AMRAAMs if the bay stretch is in the correct place). All Internally.

My recommendation to replace the F-15E would be FB-22-1 with larger wings. It'll happily carry 3x 2000lb, or a pair of 2000lb and 6x SDBs.
Click to expand...
I think the ideal FB-22 configuration would have been a hybrid of the FB-22-1 and -2. The widened fuselage of the former but the wing and the stretch length of the latter. Overall, I think the FB-23 was probably the superior option, but unlike the FB-22 it wasn't trying to reuse existing components, so the designers were a whole lot less constrained.

Ainen said:
Whole point of American legacy AF fighters is price efficiency. FB-22(F/FB-111, XB-68, etc etc) are optimized in a different direction. Whether there's any sense developing it when you already have a B-21 is very, very debatable.
Click to expand...
In the past at least I've read many well supported opinions expressing the desire for something between our existing fighters and strategic bombers, filling the niche that the F-111 carved out for itself after they gave up on wanting it to do everything. The F-15E and its variants are great multi-role strike fighters but doesn't quite reach that range/payload figures that are desirable.

I still like this concept, but concepts are easy, finding the funding and will to make them happen is the hard part. There are also the questions of just how large an aircraft the F-47 is, and what kind of multi-role capabilities are planned for it.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
In the past at least I've read many well supported opinions expressing the desire for something between our existing fighters and strategic bombers, filling the niche that the F-111 carved out for itself after they gave up on wanting it to do everything. The F-15E and its variants are great multi-role strike fighters but doesn't quite reach that range/payload figures that are desirable.
Click to expand...
Well, B-21 itself is that very in-between... it isn't a full size strategic bomber either, and frankly very much up to debate something intermediate between 35-40 and 90-100t is worth it within existing severe economic conditions.

Basically, f-15/16 are convenient means to deliver stuff either without entering hostile airspace(range consideration eased), or second day(refuelling is far easier).
If you want to enter 1st day - use a heavy bomber, and order more of them. Penetration carries risks.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I still like this concept, but concepts are easy, finding the funding and will to make them happen is the hard part. There are also the questions of just how large an aircraft the F-47 is, and what kind of multi-role capabilities are planned for it.
Click to expand...
I expect the F-47 to be able to carry 1000lb bombs, just like F-22 can. I do NOT expect the F-47 to be able to carry 2000lb bombs or B61 nukes.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
I think they've figured out over the past few years that the F-35 can't actually replace the F-15Es. The Strike Eagle just has too much of a size and weight advantage over the F-35 to fill the F-111 style interdictor role. The missing link here is the FB-22, demonstrating that the Strike Eagle was actually undersized for the role. The F-35 would have no chance of executing those kinds of missions. Maybe GCAP would be the kind of plane that could really replace the Strike Eagle, but a Tomcat-sized F/A-XX with an MTOW of 100,000 lbs (even if only from land bases) and the ability to internally carry 4 x 2,000 lbs JDAMs would work well.
Click to expand...
That fits your description well ;) ... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ration-of-the-boeing-f-a-xx.50919/post-877175
 
Scott Kenny said:
I expect the F-47 to be able to carry 1000lb bombs, just like F-22 can. I do NOT expect the F-47 to be able to carry 2000lb bombs or B61 nukes.
Click to expand...
Btw, 1000lb is not necessarily an indicator.
F-22 can indeed carry 1000; But only two(inner stations), and without much targeting other than via SAR (can it even?)
Even a flat bay for 4x1000 isn't a small feat to achieve, and comes at a cost somewhere; EOTS is also a compromise for an a2a fighter.
 
FB-22 another missed opportunity oh well as I get older the “missed opportunities” increase, get used to it :)
 
Ainen said:
Btw, 1000lb is not necessarily an indicator.
F-22 can indeed carry 1000; But only two(inner stations), and without much targeting other than via SAR (can it even?)
Click to expand...
IIRC, the F-22s over Syria were taking targeting info from dudes on the ground and punching in the GPS coordinates manually.

That said, I think the F-22's radar does have a SAR mode left over. Never removed from old builds.


Ainen said:
Even a flat bay for 4x1000 isn't a small feat to achieve, and comes at a cost somewhere; EOTS is also a compromise for an a2a fighter.
Click to expand...
Agreed, having both an IRST and EOTS is a pair of draggy objects. But there's no good options but to have both on an aircraft.
 
A factory strike delaying the first F-15EX oversees deployment? What is going on at Boeing?
 
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?
 
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 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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom