F-15sg

**JA Boomer** · 30 Nov 08,, 19:50

Just a comment - Boeing actually offered the USAF a F-15+ variant which would have been more capable than the F-15SG for a price of $59-61 million per airframe. Of course with the USAF ready to spend every last penny on more F-22A's, it was a non-starter.

**JA Boomer** · 30 Nov 08,, 20:12

Originally Posted by BBwarrior

Strike Eagles - Great planes. Maybe the USAF should consider ordering some more... I wonder what the cost per plane is for the F-15SG compared to a F-22?

This is something I've thought about in the past. There is a certain quality in quanitity. If you can purchase say three F-15+ for the same price as a F-22A, then maybe it's something to think about. Because so few (181) F-22A's backed-up by extremily old F-15C's might not be enough to get the job done. Of course the USAF has made up its mind on this subject...and they'll fight for ever last F-22A they can get.

Originally Posted by sunnyamy

AFAIK, the Strike Eagle has certain differences in its air frame compared to the F-15C. Essentially, the Strike Eagle air frame is stronger and a little larger but at the sacrifice of handling.

It is structurally different, to take on the increased stress of the bomb truck role. Pretty sure it has the exact same dimensions though.

Originally Posted by sunnyamy

Please give it a rest - on the suggestion of buying the F-15C. The USAF has decided it wants to buy F-22s or F-35s. However, if you are asking this question - it reflects you lack of understanding of the USAF's requirements.

??? This is a discussion board...there's nothing wrong with discussing things. Even if the USAF has decided not to procure any more 4+ generation fighters, it doesn't mean we can't discuss whether that was the right thing to do, or how other alternatives could have turned out.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

But the cost of a new Eagle would be $70-80 million or so. To build a plane designed in the 60s, that is nearing the limit of how much it can be upgraded, and will likely face more advanced aircraft in the future. Sure, maintaining them will be cheaper than keeping the old airframes flying, but the purchase cost is enormous, considering its an almost obsolete design (this really pains me to say).

I'm sure Boeing could implement some of the technology used to manufacture the Super Hornet to make the F-15+ even more capable. Doing such a 'redesign' would almost certainly drive the unit cost of the F-15+ well over the $60 mil promised by Boeing.

Obsolete? Really Jimmy? I dunno, if you take the F-22A out of the picture, then modern F-15 models are still probably the best tactical fighters in the world, or at the very least on par with it's cheif rival the Su-30MK. But I understand what you are saying, in that the USAF has moved on from 4+ gen fighters.

Originally Posted by kuku

USN needs planes and Super hornets have been procured in numbers, if the 35 was the replacement it will still serve with the F-18 super hornet for a good amount of time.

Indeed, the F-35C will serve as a replacement for the remaining F/A-18 A+/C squadrons still serving on the carriers, and as a compliment for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons.

**JA Boomer** · 30 Nov 08,, 20:18

After doing a little research on the Singapore Air Force, I am very impressed. F-16 Block 50/52, F-15SG, E-2C, KC-135R, and AH-64D's. Very capable air force, I had no idea.

**BBwarrior** · 30 Nov 08,, 20:40

Wow - I certainly did not mean to offend anyone here. I was merely asking questions as an admitted layman. To SunnyAmy, I would like to say that my posts were, as JA Boomer suggests, merely for discussion purposes only. I AM aware of the USAF requirements and their decision to move away from 4th generation fighters. I was only questioning if that decision properly reflects the upcoming financial restraints the USAF and entire defense budget will face in the coming years.

I have come to appreciate the willingness of WAB blogers such as JA, Dread, Rusty, Maximus, the great Mods and others who are willing to share their insights and experiences with everyone - including a civie like me who has the most profound respect and admiration for our military and understands what they provide to our country every day. There is no need to get snippy on this board ...

BB

**KenMac** · 30 Nov 08,, 21:28

I don't think the price difference is that great. You may want to check your figures for the F-15.

I saw the F-15K quoted at $98 million in one of the defence dailies...

Elsewhere:

Unit cost F-15E: US$31.1 million (1998)[1]
F-15K: US$100 million (2006)[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle

ESTIMATED COST:
(F-15E) $43 million [1998$]
(F-15K) $100 million [2006$]
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f15e/

----
SU-30mki
Unit cost US$47 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-30MKI

The Times of India reports that India’s $3.5 billion contract for licensed production of 140 SU-30MKI multi-role fighters

(ie. $25 million per plane - expected to rise - 2006)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...updated-02583/

**JA Boomer** · 30 Nov 08,, 21:38

Originally Posted by KenMac

I saw the F-15K quoted at $98 million in one of the defence dailies.

The prices quoted for the F-15K and F-15SG have often included training, equipment, weapons, ect...so they are VERY misleading. I really don't see how the F-15E costs $31 mil in 1998, and now an F-15 costs $100 mil. Adjusted for inflation that F-15E costs $38 mil in 2008 dollars and you can't convince me that there is $60 mil worth of additional toys in these new airplanes.

**Jimmy** · 30 Nov 08,, 22:14

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

Obsolete? Really Jimmy? I dunno, if you take the F-22A out of the picture, then modern F-15 models are still probably the best tactical fighters in the world, or at the very least on par with it's cheif rival the Su-30MK. But I understand what you are saying, in that the USAF has moved on from 4+ gen fighters.

Yes, really. The F-15 is almost at the limit of where Boeing can take it. There's basically nowhere else to go. Its a high RCS aircraft that can be outmaneuvered by half the fighter designs on the market today. Its air-to-air payload isn't that great. Its combat radius isnt that great. Its engines aren't that great (they're pretty good, but look what we're trying to replace it with). There are about half a dozen aircraft around the world that either outclass it completely or give the Eagle a serious run for its money. EF-2000, Rafale, F/A-18 E/F, Su-30MKK, MKI, some would say the J-11.

In 5-10 years, if the USAF squares off against a military flying any of these aircraft, the F-15's perfect record will be ruined. Make no mistake...we'll still win the air war, but it won't be pretty. Now, this is based solely on aircraft capability. Missile loadouts will be different in 10 years, and pilot training makes a tremendous difference...but plane vs plane, the picture isn't as pretty as it has been for the past 30 years.

Edit: And I refuse to believe any dollar amount Boeing quotes for anything. They'll say whatever it takes to get the contract, but the AF doesnt have the fangs to hold Boeing to their end.

**JA Boomer** · 30 Nov 08,, 23:28

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Yes, really. The F-15 is almost at the limit of where Boeing can take it. There's basically nowhere else to go. Its a high RCS aircraft that can be outmaneuvered by half the fighter designs on the market today. Its air-to-air payload isn't that great. Its combat radius isnt that great. Its engines aren't that great (they're pretty good, but look what we're trying to replace it with). There are about half a dozen aircraft around the world that either outclass it completely or give the Eagle a serious run for its money. EF-2000, Rafale, F/A-18 E/F, Su-30MKK, MKI, some would say the J-11.

Mmm...I think we're coming at this from a different point of view. Your comparing the F-15C and adding in the knowledge you have of the F-22A and F-35. Here's where I'm coming from...

**If you take the F-22A and F-35 out of the picture**

The latest and greatest variant of the F-15 Eagle (F-15SG) has maybe the best radar out there in the APG-63v(3) - the APG-79 used by the Super Hornet might be close to, as good, or slightly better. It has one of the best engines in the F110-129 - only the F110-132 is better, the F100-229 is probably on par. It most likely has some of the best avionics and electronic suites in any aircraft. It has some gadgets the F-22A doesn't even have in the Link 16, JHMCS, and AIM-9X.

It's tops in the speed game, has great range (I don't know why you said it doesn't, I know the F-22A has a larger range but it's up there when compared to current fighters). It's very manueverable at high speeds, one liability is dogfighting manueverability (but this is largely limited with the JHMCS and AIM-9X). Payload I don't think is a huge issue, as it carries essentially the same payload as the F-22A. I know some people like to say that the Super Hornet can carry 12 AMRAAM's, but aside from that one photo-op, when would that ever happen? It's one major disadvantage is the large radar cross section, and I'll admit that's a big one.

So I'll say it's still a very capable platform, up there with the EF-2000 and the Su-30MK. Now I know the F-15E derivatives are primary strike platforms, and the USAF isn't going to buy any more air-to-air F-15 models...BUT I still think the lastest F-15 models are still on top of the fighter world, and remain largely relevant and in no way obsolete. That's just my $0.02.

**sunnyamy** · 01 Dec 08,, 00:00

Originally Posted by BBwarrior

To SunnyAmy, I would like to say that my posts were, as JA Boomer suggests, merely for discussion purposes only. I AM aware of the USAF requirements and their decision to move away from 4th generation fighters. I was only questioning if that decision properly reflects the upcoming financial restraints...

There is no need to get snippy on this board ...

Yup, sorry about that.

The Senior forum members have indeed come in and put in their 2 cents worth. It's become a really interesting discussion. IMO, the USAF long term Hi-Low fighter air-power mix is the F-22 and the F-35. And the F-15E (till 2035?) and the B-2 to serve as the USAF's bombers.

As noted by the Senior forum members, the F-35C will serve alongside the Super Hornet. The F-35C is a replacement for the Hornet (not Super Hornet - what was I thinking?) So is the USN's hi-low air-power fighter mix the F-35C and Super Hornets? (hm... the Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft - not sure if this classification makes sense).

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

After doing a little research on the Singapore Air Force, I am very impressed. F-16 Block 50/52, F-15SG, E-2C, KC-135R, and AH-64D's. Very capable air force, I had no idea.

Thanks JA, its sweet of you to say so.

Singapore's kind of located in a tough neighborhood.

(i) Malaysia decided to expel Singapore (from the Malay union) and Singapore became an independent country - after racial riots (between the Chinese and Malay) occurred.

(ii) At that time, there was armed conflict between Malaysia (and Singapore) and Indonesia. There was high levels of unemployment, inter-ethnic strive, a communist insurgency and the Chinese triads were in control. We had very little going for us on August 9, 1965. We went around asked for help to set up our armed forces. Only Israel was willing to help at that time. (In fact, Singapore operates F-16Is, we just don't call it that because of Malaysia)

(iii) Malaysia still does not recognize the state of Israel (in sympathy with the Palestinians) and considers Singapore a little "Zionist" state (as they equate the Chinese in Singapore as the Jews of the east). At every dispute - they would threaten to cut off water to Singapore or a former minister (like former PM of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir) will tell us that Malaysia can bomb Singapore.

(iv) Hence, the strong air force - it's role is to defend Singapore against attacks from more than 1 hostile power at the same time.

(v) The RSAF also conducts exercises to show potentially hostile powers that its fighters can operate from "public roads" and its helicopters from "open spaces like open fields and golf courses" (even when Singapore's air bases are bombed). This will ensure that the RSAF can master "robust, continuous and devastating" air strikes even if we were subject to a pre-emptive strike by hostile powers. This sort of contingency planning is the responsibility of the "Air Power Generation Command" of the RSAF. (See "Hit the road, jets" by David Boey in The Straits Times dated Dec 1, 2008)

**Jimmy** · 01 Dec 08,, 01:10

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

Mmm...I think we're coming at this from a different point of view. Your comparing the F-15C and adding in the knowledge you have of the F-22A and F-35. Here's where I'm coming from...

**If you take the F-22A and F-35 out of the picture**

The latest and greatest variant of the F-15 Eagle (F-15SG) has maybe the best radar out there in the APG-63v(3) - the APG-79 used by the Super Hornet might be close to, as good, or slightly better. It has one of the best engines in the F110-129 - only the F110-132 is better, the F100-229 is probably on par. It most likely has some of the best avionics and electronic suites in any aircraft. It has some gadgets the F-22A doesn't even have in the Link 16, JHMCS, and AIM-9X.

It's tops in the speed game, has great range (I don't know why you said it doesn't, I know the F-22A has a larger range but it's up there when compared to current fighters). It's very manueverable at high speeds, one liability is dogfighting manueverability (but this is largely limited with the JHMCS and AIM-9X). Payload I don't think is a huge issue, as it carries essentially the same payload as the F-22A. I know some people like to say that the Super Hornet can carry 12 AMRAAM's, but aside from that one photo-op, when would that ever happen? It's one major disadvantage is the large radar cross section, and I'll admit that's a big one.

So I'll say it's still a very capable platform, up there with the EF-2000 and the Su-30MK. Now I know the F-15E derivatives are primary strike platforms, and the USAF isn't going to buy any more air-to-air F-15 models...BUT I still think the lastest F-15 models are still on top of the fighter world, and remain largely relevant and in no way obsolete. That's just my $0.02.

I dont really disagree with you. I'm just looking at this from a bigger picture perspective. Will the new F-15 be up to the task in 15 years? 20? 30? Because that's the MINIMUM that the USAF is looking at when it wants to buy a plane. We're not talking about a stopgap measure here, we're talking about a massive investment that can realistically be expected to be in service for half a century after its purchased. That's the mindset behind the F-22. We're not buying it to beat everyone and their best toys NOW. We're buying it so we can beat them with whatever they have 25 years from now. The F-15 doesn't give us that capability, even if we spend the huge amounts of money to keep up with improvements and modifications (in my opinion, we let things sit as they are without upgrades for too long already).

P-51s in Korea. We learned this lesson already.

**JA Boomer** · 01 Dec 08,, 03:35

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I dont really disagree with you. I'm just looking at this from a bigger picture perspective. Will the new F-15 be up to the task in 15 years? 20? 30? Because that's the MINIMUM that the USAF is looking at when it wants to buy a plane. We're not talking about a stopgap measure here, we're talking about a massive investment that can realistically be expected to be in service for half a century after its purchased.

The F-15 doesn't give us that capability, even if we spend the huge amounts of money to keep up with improvements and modifications.

Ya, I know the best thing for the USAF is to get their hands on as many F-22A's as possible, and completely understand what your saying about the F-15 purchase. But 181 (is it around 201 now? I though Gates authorized two batched of 10 additional F-22A's twice this past year?) backed-up by 178 F-15C Golden Eagles doesn't seem adaquate to me...maybe it is. Maybe it will have to be, because with all the toys on the USAF wish list, they can't buy everything they'd like to.

**Jimmy** · 01 Dec 08,, 04:02

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

Ya, I know the best thing for the USAF is to get their hands on as many F-22A's as possible, and completely understand what your saying about the F-15 purchase. But 181 (is it around 201 now? I though Gates authorized two batched of 10 additional F-22A's twice this past year?) backed-up by 178 F-15C Golden Eagles doesn't seem adaquate to me...maybe it is. Maybe it will have to be, because with all the toys on the USAF wish list, they can't buy everything they'd like to.

As far as this goes, you and I are definitely on the same page.

I just dont think more F-15s are the answer.

**wrightwing** · 01 Dec 08,, 06:07

Originally Posted by BBwarrior

I remember when F-15E's first Is the air force just holding out for the massive buy of F-35's? Isn't the F-35 supposed to be a stealthy 'bomb truck' and suck at A2A?

Thanks again for the info
BB

Actually, the F-35 is supposed to be second only to the F-22 in A2A(although that has yet to be determined). The F-35A is a 9g aircraft with turning ability equal to or better than F-16/18s, far superior acceleration, better post stall maneuvering, stealth, AESA, DAS/EOTS passive IR sensors, ESM, JHMCS, etc...

**JA Boomer** · 01 Dec 08,, 06:48

Originally Posted by wrightwing

Actually, the F-35 is supposed to be second only to the F-22 in A2A(although that has yet to be determined).

The current stealthy payload of 4 x AIM-120C is not going to cut it. I have no doubt that it will be a capable air-to-air plane, but I don't think you want to assign it to this role. I assume the USAF agrees, as they seem content to upgrade the 178 F-15C's to back-up the Raptor during an air war instead of relying on the F-35A.

**JA Boomer** · 01 Dec 08,, 07:34

Originally Posted by sunnyamy

So is the USN's hi-low air-power fighter mix the F-35C and Super Hornets? (hm... the Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft - not sure if this classification makes sense).

The days of the convenient hi/low tactical fighter mix is over now that the F-15/F-16 and F-14/F-18 mixes are gone or leaving. The USAF will have the hi F-22A paired with the low F-35A, but at the same time there's the F-15C Golden Eagles and if the numbers remain the same the former USAF Chief of Staff had said F-15E units would have to be given greater emphasis on the air-to-air role. So that kind of muddies the water a little bit.

As for the USN, the water is really muddy. Is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet the hi-end fighter, or will the F-35C be the big dog? I have no idea. The F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18A/C Hornet were a great compliment to each other. I can see that there might be some conflict in USN air wings as to who does what in the future.

Thread: F-15sg

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions