Boeing's New F-15EX

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
172
Reaction score
268
Is it just me or does the rudders look like they are cant out like on the Stealth eagle?

I can understand why, some RCS reduction for basically no cost will be like if only to make it just a tiny bit harder to see and hit through Jamming...
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,878
Reaction score
2,389
Is it just me or does the rudders look like they are cant out like on the Stealth eagle?

I can understand why, some RCS reduction for basically no cost will be like if only to make it just a tiny bit harder to see and hit through Jamming...

It's just you. F-15EX has the same outer mold line at the F-15E. No changes to the shape of the wings, tails, fine, etc.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
860
Reaction score
1,470
quite frankly, most of the Eagle variants look mostly the same to me. its hard to tell the difference. perhaps the Es and beyond are slightly easier due to the fuel tanks on the side of the intakes, but those are removeable and, when in those situations i can't really tell.

the Flanker family in contrast, is easier to distinguish between most models. Knaapo models have square tip fins, SMs, MKMs, MKIs, MKA have canards, etc and etc
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,461
Reaction score
3,324
quite frankly, most of the Eagle variants look mostly the same to me. its hard to tell the difference. perhaps the Es and beyond are slightly easier due to the fuel tanks on the side of the intakes, but those are removeable and, when in those situations i can't really tell.

the Flanker family in contrast, is easier to distinguish between most models. Knaapo models have square tip fins, SMs, MKMs, MKIs, MKA have canards, etc and etc
F-15Cs can carry them too:

f989eed33bd698eddf365551a41d7d1c.jpg

26175735490_bc33a34e98_b.jpg
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
The total cost is about half that of restarting F22 production (according to the 2016 estimate). Did they need these airframes to carry new large hypersonic weapons under wing? Because it sure would have been nice to have more F22 than more F-15. What is F-15 pylon capabilities compared to F22?

In addition to simply being a replacement for the Air Force's existing F-15C/Ds, the F-15EX will also be able to act as a weapon truck and be able to carry the kind of large hypersonic weapons that are in development, but that will not fit inside a fifth-generation fighter weapons bay. This is something Boeing specifically highlighted in its press release regarding the new Air Force contract. "The F-15EX carries more weapons than any other fighter in its class and can launch hypersonic weapons up to 22 feet long and weighing up to 7,000 pounds," the statement said.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,461
Reaction score
3,324
F-15 and F-22 have 5,000lb pylons. However we've seen heavier munitions on both the F-15 wing stations (Silver Sparrow) and centerline (Boeing missile concept).
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
F-15 and F-22 have 5,000lb pylons. However we've seen heavier munitions on both the F-15 wing stations (Silver Sparrow) and centerline (Boeing missile concept).
Well there it is, they found a good excuse to keep Boeing alive. I'm sure Lockheed said "Wait a minute, we can make shorter, lighter, hypersonic weapons"!
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
474
F-15 and F-22 have 5,000lb pylons. However we've seen heavier munitions on both the F-15 wing stations (Silver Sparrow) and centerline (Boeing missile concept).
Well there it is, they found a good excuse to keep Boeing alive. I'm sure Lockheed said "Wait a minute, we can make shorter, lighter, hypersonic weapons"!

You neglect operational costs. The F-15s have lower operating costs than the F-22s and higher reliability rates.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,038
Reaction score
688
The total cost is about half that of restarting F22 production (according to the 2016 estimate). Did they need these airframes to carry new large hypersonic weapons under wing? Because it sure would have been nice to have more F22 than more F-15. What is F-15 pylon capabilities compared to F22?

What figure are you using for F-22 production? Trying to restart that line would require a redesign so thorough it would be a new aircraft. F-15X is a design with an active line that is producing planes for allies.

It sounds as though the AGM-183 might be within the upper range to be carried on the center line station.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,210

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
331
Reaction score
232
F-15 and F-22 have 5,000lb pylons. However we've seen heavier munitions on both the F-15 wing stations (Silver Sparrow) and centerline (Boeing missile concept).
Well there it is, they found a good excuse to keep Boeing alive. I'm sure Lockheed said "Wait a minute, we can make shorter, lighter, hypersonic weapons"!
I don't think the carriage of large hypersonic weapons externally is a good argument for more F-22s. They would probably ruin it's radar signature.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,210
Maybe these questions has been asked or even answered before, but will the F-15EX for the USAF be a single-seat or a (an optional) tandem-seat fighter jet? I know allready, the front fuselage is built like the latest variant/version of the F-15E Strike Eagle. If flown then as a single-seat, will the place for the back-seat, where the WSO or second pilot would normally sit in a F-15B, F-15D and F-15E, just be covered up or will be an extra fuel tank/bladder or extra avionics installed? Similar as with the Russian MiG-35 family (K->KUB).
 

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
280
Reaction score
477
AIUI they are all to be built as full two seaters. BUT I'm not clear about who will fill that second seat. I've read somewhere that the intention is that they will be flown as single seaters in the air to air role, and evidenced by artists impressions on the Boeing website, but at some point the back seat will be used in some kind of battle management role as drones come along.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,461
Reaction score
3,324
AIUI they are all to be built as full two seaters. BUT I'm not clear about who will fill that second seat. I've read somewhere that the intention is that they will be flown as single seaters in the air to air role, and evidenced by artists impressions on the Boeing website, but at some point the back seat will be used in some kind of battle management role as drones come along.

Maybe they'll finally get a "Pilot's Associate".

maxresdefault-7.jpg
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
243
Reaction score
256
AIUI they are all to be built as full two seaters. BUT I'm not clear about who will fill that second seat. I've read somewhere that the intention is that they will be flown as single seaters in the air to air role, and evidenced by artists impressions on the Boeing website, but at some point the back seat will be used in some kind of battle management role as drones come along.

Starting off probably so, but as the B-21 puts B-1 WSO's out of a job don't be surprised to see the EX's get a backseater...
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
514
F-15 and F-22 have 5,000lb pylons. However we've seen heavier munitions on both the F-15 wing stations (Silver Sparrow) and centerline (Boeing missile concept).
Well there it is, they found a good excuse to keep Boeing alive. I'm sure Lockheed said "Wait a minute, we can make shorter, lighter, hypersonic weapons"!

You neglect operational costs. The F-15s have lower operating costs than the F-22s and higher reliability rates.

Given that the F-15QA has just flown (minus EPAWSS which has its own unknown O&S) any claims on O&S are just that.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,038
Reaction score
688
I don't think it is a big stretch of the imagination to assume the latest F-15s have a lower cost per hour of flight than an F-22. We don't have hard numbers yet, but I'd bet you my life savings if you were interested. The F-22 and B-2 have the lowest availability rates of the fleet as far as I know.
 
Last edited:

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,697
Reaction score
826
So this is the new F-15EX topic.
Some of these updates might be installed on older or new built F-15S for Saudi-Arabia, Japanese F-15J and on Israeli F-15I.
Most of what is on EX is already in the Saudi and Qatar Eagles, Singapore too (new builds). Much of the testing/certification related costs were covered by those aircraft.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,634
Reaction score
5,378
Seems like a new "deal of a century" - for the F-15... I would never, ever believed I would see new F-15 sales in my lifetime. I thought that one was finished.

Boeing obstination since, what, 2001 ? finally paid. And will pay further.
 

Lc89

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
297
Reaction score
195
Why don't they replace the 20mm m61 Vulcan with the 25mm Gau 22 / A? As another future update, it could be the replacement of current engines with two GE adaptive cycle engines.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,038
Reaction score
688
It would be a pointless redesign of a tertiary system for what is supposed to be an off the shelf buy. The whole advantage of buying the EX is that it is essentially a QA/SA with all of the development work done and paid for by other countries.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
229
Reaction score
187
Why don't they replace the 20mm m61 Vulcan with the 25mm Gau 22 / A?

Why would they?
If they used it for the F35, future planes will also use it.
Well yes, but the F15 is NOT a future plane. Putting the Gau22 in would require quite a lot of work, since it and it's ammo system are NOT the same size as that of the m61, nor is it's recoil impulse the same. Putting it in will require quite a bit of structural work for little gain, and a complete recertification as well, since the recoil impulse will ALSO play merry havoc with the electronics, which will all have to be tested for shock damage.

It's not just a simple take one out, put another in swap.
 

dark sidius

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
482
Reaction score
69
Realy having the same F-15 of Qatar and Saudi is realy a step back for USAF capacity its a waste of money this program putting Billions on old platform instead of new one is a fatal strategic error the same of stopping the F-22 line. Building new with old stay old.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
268
Reaction score
130

Similar threads

Top