Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
What is the top speed of a F-15 EX with full air-air 2 tanks and 12 aim-120 capacity ?
 
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...

I think the B-2 already took care of that.
 
If the F-15EX is used to replace C's as planned, they probably just leave the seat empty. If those squadrons get converted to an attack role, or the EXs end up replacing the Echos as they time out, then they will get a back seater. I suspect that while the new F-15s will start our as air superiority replacements, they will eventually transition to other uses that take advantage of the large size and variety of its external stores load.
 
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...

I think the B-2 already took care of that.

Maybe if they built the original 132. The point being in a few years here there will be a lot of experienced aircrew with lot of years left to go who'd rather be flying than driving a desk, if the pilot mafia will consent...
 
Could have interesting implications for F-15EX use.
Notice that Kratos mentioned air launch capability early. Also in the video with the Harrier, the drones are presented canted on each side of the aircraft what seemed odd at the time. I guess now we know why: loading geometry.
 
 
Stealth is expensive. And there is no F-35 two-seater. Plus the F-15EX carries much more missiles.
 
Stealth is expensive. And there is no F-35 two-seater. Plus the F-15EX carries much more missiles.

The argument is that the $7 - $10 million acquisition premium for the F-15EX over the F-35 is offset by the lower O&S.
Except no one knows what the O&S is for the F-15EX because it doesn't exist. There are some guesses.
But those guesses come from the same office that instigated this buy.

The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

And the Air Force estimates that the F-15EX won't be able to operate "close" to contested air space after 2028 at the absolute latest.
Meanwhile, IOC is 2023. You do the math.
 
The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

Geez, new F-15 and new F-5E ? this is 1972 all over again ! no kidding, first F-15 and first F-5E flew only days apart in the summer of 1972.
48 years ago !
 
The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

And when the Air Force ANG units actually fly regularly with that configuration let me know.
 
The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

And when the Air Force ANG units actually fly regularly with that configuration let me know.
Do F-35s fly with 6 regularly? Need dictates load out. The distinction here is the F-35 couldn’t carry 12 even if it needed to.
 
The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

And when the Air Force ANG units actually fly regularly with that configuration let me know.
Do F-35s fly with 6 regularly? Need dictates load out. The distinction here is the F-35 couldn’t carry 12 even if it needed to.

Need dictates load out: the F-15EX needs to survive in a high-end threat environment. It can't. It's a big, high-contrast corner reflector. f-15-imagery.png

If you are talking about something other than the high-end threat environment say cruise missile defense or airbase defense
then it's an entirely different comparison and what the F-35 can carry externally would come into play.
 
Last edited:
The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

And when the Air Force ANG units actually fly regularly with that configuration let me know.
Do F-35s fly with 6 regularly? Need dictates load out. The distinction here is the F-35 couldn’t carry 12 even if it needed to.

Need dictates load out: the F-15EX needs to survive in a high-end threat environment. It can't. It's a big, high-contrast corner reflector. View attachment 638335

If you are talking about something other than the high-end threat environment say cruise missile defense or airbase defense
then it's an entirely different comparison and what the F-35 can carry externally would come into play.
Any comparison of these aircraft is apples and oranges, different use doctrines entirely. If you really want to go stat to stat, of course the 35 is more survivable in a high threat environment, but at the sacrifice of comparatively poor range and payload. These arguments are bull, the best plane is the one that fits the needs of the moment.
 
They are not meant to operate into contested airspace.
Which is irrelevant since the AF assessment is that the F-15EX won't be able to operate close to contested airspace no later that 2028.
 
Last edited:
Any comparison of these aircraft is apples and oranges, different use doctrines entirely

Which is irrelevant because those aren't the arguments put forth under oath. The arguments presented to Congress came down to:

a. Acquisition cost relative to the F-35
b. O&S cost relative to the F-35
c. cost of transitioning F-15 squadrons to any other type
d. speed of F-15 recapitalization which was influenced by (c)
e. readiness, based on a Mattis-era directive now since rescinded.
 
The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

And when the Air Force ANG units actually fly regularly with that configuration let me know.
Do F-35s fly with 6 regularly? Need dictates load out. The distinction here is the F-35 couldn’t carry 12 even if it needed to.

Need dictates load out: the F-15EX needs to survive in a high-end threat environment. It can't. It's a big, high-contrast corner reflector. View attachment 638335

If you are talking about something other than the high-end threat environment say cruise missile defense or airbase defense
then it's an entirely different comparison and what the F-35 can carry externally would come into play.
Can I have the pdf for that image please
 
The F-35 can't even make it to contested airspace before running out of gas
F15EX carries 23,000 lbs of fuel (including cft which have a higher drag profile as compared to bags which eat up hardpoints for A-g ordnance) and burns it through 2 engines.

F35 carries 19,000 lbs of fuel and burns it through a single more efficient engine.

I don't see how you made that comparison.
 
The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

And when the Air Force ANG units actually fly regularly with that configuration let me know.
I'll bet they do that sooner than F-35s will fly with 6 AIM-120s internally.
 
Question about aggressor squadrons in the US
since the US has the money and network to acquire actual Soviet/Russian types, maybe even Chinese types
could they build an aggressor squadron using actual aggressor aircraft?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom