Thread: F-15E AESA winner

Its not uncommon for the AF to ground a fleet after an incident, or even without one. I remember an incident when a backseater in an F-16D was badly burned during ejection because the front seat launched first (the back should go first). They grounded all 2 seat Vipers until they identified the problem.

I'd imagine we'll see F-15s flying by the end of the week, maybe early next week depending on paperwork. They've probably already solved/figured out the problem, now its just a matter of getting the right signatures.

Depending on the reason of the crash, it's common for the USAF to ground the fleet for a few days. Any suspect areas on the aircraft can then be inspected to ensure the same type of incident does not happen again. It just makes good sense. In this case, I would think inspections for cracks and areas particular to overstressing during high g maneuvers will get a thorough going over.

Well...was there really any doubt that the Raytheon AN/APG-63(V)3 was going to win this contract. I mean, they have a long history with the Eagle and most other US fighters.

I think this will make both the F-15C and F-15E incredibly capable, judging from some of the comments I've been reading about the capabilities the latest Super Hornet's are fielding with the AESA version of the APG-79.

With regards to the F-15 grounding (I know it's not a big deal, happens regularly to different airframe types), but you have to admit, Eagle accidents seem to be up, and the F-15 isn't getting any younger. I still wish the USAF would have retired the F-15A fleet, given the F-15C's to the Guard and Reserve and bought about 200 new built F-15s - along the lines of the F-15SG. These would have been ideal back-up for the F-22, and probably could have had an expanded air-to-ground role versus current F-15s.

Am I the only one worried that the USAF might be asking too much of the upgraded F-15A/C Eagle force?

I know this is pipe dream, and the USAF will not dare spend a penny more on the Eagle than it has too, to ensure the gets every last Raptor they can squeeze out of congress. Aside from loving the plane, I think this would have been the smarter way to go.

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

...Aside from loving the plane, I think this would have been the smarter way to go.

The incremental cost of a new build Raptor compared to a new build dark grey is only about ~20 mil.

The logistical cost of operating both types would eat that up pretty fast. Better to just buy more Raptors. When it comes time to replace the dark greys, the AF will be looking at a regional bomber.

Originally Posted by highsea

The incremental cost of a new build Raptor compared to a new build dark grey is only about ~20 mil.

First off...light grey = F-15C...dark grey = F-15E???

Secondly, the numbers I have for unit costs:

F-22A: 160 million
F-15E: 38 million
F-15C: 37 million

By these numbers, you could buy more than 4 Strike Eagles per Raptor.

I’m sure you have different numbers, I’d be curious as to what they are?

Originally Posted by highsea

The logistical cost of operating both types would eat that up pretty fast.

The USAF plans to retired the oldest and most worn out F-15A/C aircraft, upgrading the remaining 'golden Eagles' to serve alongside the F-22's. This means that the dual infrastructure costs will be seen both ways.

My problem with this plan is that I think the USAF is asking too much from these 'golden Eagles'. I think they would be better served to buy new built F-15s which would be able to serve alongside the F-22's for their entire service life.

One of the biggest problems I see is what the air force will do in 20 years, when their golden Eagles which have had only moderate upgrades are no longer viable. Is the capability of the F-15 in the air-to-air role lost, some F-22B's produced, does the F-35 take on yet another role??? I know you can not predict the future, but the current plan seems slightly short sighted to me.

I understand the predicament the USAF is under; their aircraft are as old as ever, several airframes need replacing, and they are attempting to upgrade a number of their legacy airframes. There is just not enough money to dole out a perfect solution.

JA Boomer,

I think the difference between you figures and the ones that Highsea was referring to comes down to date of purchase. New build F-15s today are very expensive. If you look up(Im too lazy to do it for you) what Korea and Singapore are paying for their new build F-15s I think you will find that they are much closer in price range to F-22s. If the AF could afford to buy new F-15s they would rather spend the money buying F-22s. The reason that they are interested in upgrading F-15s is that adding a new radar, helmet mounted sight etc. is a relatively low cost option.

Originally Posted by HKDan

JA Boomer,

I think the difference between you figures and the ones that Highsea was referring to comes down to date of purchase. New build F-15s today are very expensive. If you look up(Im too lazy to do it for you) what Korea and Singapore are paying for their new build F-15s I think you will find that they are much closer in price range to F-22s. If the AF could afford to buy new F-15s they would rather spend the money buying F-22s. The reason that they are interested in upgrading F-15s is that adding a new radar, helmet mounted sight etc. is a relatively low cost option.

Well...the numbers I presented are from the USAF website (and I accounted for inflation). I'm not sure how accurate they are, and I have also heard that the F-15K is close to 100 million apiece, which means the F-15SG is probably slightly more. Not sure what to believe, perhaps I should call up a BOEING saleman haha.

I understand the reasoning behind the F-15 upgrades, and I agree that the USAF needs a F-22 back-up so to speak. However, I hink this is a short-term solution, as the airframes themselves seem to be running out of life. Upgrading systems and avionics is fine, but not when the airframe is tired.

The upgraded F-15C anf F-15E are going to be extremily capable, and I think the F-15 is still at the top end of the fighter game. But I'm worried about how long the upgraded F-15A/Cs are going to be resonable able to serve.

You and me both, buddy. Although the F-15Es are generally about 5-15 years younger.

Yes,
Upgrades are great, and I agree with you the the F-15 is still a top of the line fighter, but like you I also have doubts about the ability of the airframe to last another 20 odd years. It seems pretty risky. I suspect that the AF will eventually end up with more than 183 F-22s, but not end up anywhere near their stated goal of 380. Im hoping for around 240-60(another 3-4 squadrons worth), but that might be wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

You and me both, buddy. Although the F-15Es are generally about 5-15 years younger.

I was not generally worried about the Strike Eagles...but when you think about it, the oldest of the bunch is almost 20 years old. Yikes. I know that the last production model was delivered in 2004, but I believe that there has only been something like 24 Strike Eagle deliveries since 1994.

With the type of flying the Mudhen does, and all the combat action, these frames can't be getting any younger either, and they are expected to fly until ~2030.

Originally Posted by HKDan

Yes, Upgrades are great, and I agree with you the the F-15 is still a top of the line fighter, but like you I also have doubts about the ability of the airframe to last another 20 odd years. It seems pretty risky. I suspect that the AF will eventually end up with more than 183 F-22s, but not end up anywhere near their stated goal of 380. Im hoping for around 240-60(another 3-4 squadrons worth), but that might be wishful thinking.

Good to hear that others have faith in the Eagle still!

Does anyone know when was the last F-15C delivered, I'm guessing ~1989-1990?

So the USAF procured 360 F-15A/B and 469 F-15C/D. They currently have 522 F-15A/B/C/D of which I'm guessing 410 are the F-15C/D. These numbers might not be accurate, but they should be close, and the best I could find on short notice.

So an air dominance force of 522 fighters is planned to be replaced by 183 F-22A's plus the Golden Eagles. I know the Raptor is far more capable than the Eagle, but that's a big quantity gap, and as they say "quantity has a quality of its own". The AF is planning on upgrading 178 F-15C’s to be Golden Eagles, so this brings the fighter force up to 361. This is more reasonable, but at the same time not good enough. I have read that the AF is planning on giving the F-15E more of an air-to-air role in the future to further shore up this gap.

That's all well and good, but I would like to see more Golden Eagle upgraded to back-up the Raptors, but like I said the real problem is in 20 years. The Golden Eagles could really start to show their age, and then you have a real problem. That's why I was suggesting they should have bought new-built F-15’s which would have been able to back-up the F-22's for their entire service life.

I wonder what aerospace engineers of the 60's and 70's would have said why you told them that tactical fighter types would end up serving for >50 years, with airframes lasting >30 years.

Anyone know how the AF came up with the term "Golden Eagle"? It's nice if it’s suppose to reflect upon the bird-of-prey. But it kind of gives off the impression of the Eagle in its "golden years", not quite fear inspiring.

Lastly, like I said, from what I've read the AF plans to upgrade 178 F-15C's. Does anyone have any further information regarding the F-15A/B/C/D plans for the future? Will they retire the F-15A all together, keep the non-upgraded F-15C's, or retire the whole fleet that isn't 'golden'?

I would appreciate any info if someone has it. I'm pretty much in love with the 'teen series'. I’m already pissed that one of them has gone away, and ecstatic that the Eagle will be around for decades to come, but I'd like to know more about exactly how many air-to-air Eagles will be sticking around.

I dont know when the last F-15C rolled out, but almost all the tails I've seen were from 1978-81.