Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: F-15x

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788

    F-15x

    Not sure this warranted a new thread or not, but here it is anyway...

    seems like a very logical idea/choice. Low risk/high reward.... fixed cost contracts.... 22 air to air missiles..... 20,000 hour service life.......

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...cement-fighter


    Last week, the aerospace-defense community was overwhelmingly intrigued by a report from Defenseone.com that said Boeing was pitching a new variant of its 45-year-old F-15 Eagle line of fighters to the United States Air Force. Still, next to nothing is known about this initiative, including where it came from and what it entails exactly. Although it has been framed as a Boeing solicitation to the USAF, the opposite is actually true—the USAF began the discussion over a year and a half ago. Since then, ongoing talks have been kept incredibly hush-hush, along with the details of the aircraft involved—until now.

    According to sources familiar with the discussions, The War Zone has learned about the F-15X's origins, its intended capabilities and features, and where it would fit inside the USAF's tactical airpower ecosystem.

    USAF Looks Back To The Future
    The F-15X came out of a quiet USAF inquiry to Boeing and Lockheed Martin about fielding an aircraft that could seamlessly plug into their existing air combat infrastructure as part of better-defined high-low capability mix strategy—one intended to specifically help counter the service's shrinking force structure.

    The airframe would have to be cost-effective both in terms of operation and acquisition, very low-risk, and most of all, it would need to be non-disruptive to the larger F-35 procurement initiative. If anything else, it had to be seen as complementary to the F-35, not as an alternative to it.

    The USAF has not procured a 4th generation fighter since 2001. This was over 15 years before the discussions that led to the F-15X began. For a decade and a half, USAF brass had been adamant about only buying stealthy 5th generation fighters to fill out its tactical jet ranks. Even upgrading or retaining existing and battle-proven fighter platforms was in question early in the current decade as the service was myopically focused on stabilizing the F-35 program. Tightened defense budgets under sequester didn't help with the situation, either.

    As time moved on, it became clear that the F-35 might not be the USAF's one-size-fits-all solution some thought it would be. This is not a mark against the F-35, but just the reality that the USAF has tactical air power needs that don't necessitate or even benefit from the F-35's unique and costly capabilities.

    So the F-15X initiative is not some cold-call Boeing pitch, it was born out of hundreds of ever-strengthening discussions between various stakeholders within USAF and the aircraft manufacturer. All parties involved had worked hard not to disclose the talks out of respect for ongoing procurement programs and the USAF's stated needs. Additionally, doing so without providing adequate detail would surely result in the F-15X being misconstrued by the press as being some huge challenger to the F-35, when that was never actually the case or the scope of the proposed initiative.

    The F-15X Concept Is Born
    The result of those discussions is the F-15X. Our sources describe the aircraft as a single seat variant of the latest F-15 advanced Strike Eagle derivative—the F-15QA destined for Qatar—but it will also integrate many of the features and upgrades that the USAF intends (or intended as it may be) to include on its nearly four-decade-old F-15C/D fleet. And no, the aircraft is not a repackaging of the semi-stealthy F-15 Silent Eagle concept that Boeing floated nearly a decade ago. The F-15X features no low-observable enhancements of any kind.

    The F-15X configuration is impressive as it includes a flat-panel glass cockpit, JHMCS II helmet mounted display (HMD), revised internal wing structure, fly-by-wire controls, APG-82 AESA radar, activation of outer wing stations one and nine, advanced mission computer, low-profile heads-up display, updated radio and satellite communications, the highly advanced Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) electronic warfare and electronic surveillance suite, Legion Pod-mounted infrared search and track system (IRST) and the list goes on.

    With the help of the company's new AMBER missile carrying racks, the F-15X will be able to carry a whopping 22 air-to-air missiles during a single sortie. Alternatively, it could fly with eight air-to-air missiles and 28 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), or up to seven 2,000lb bombs and eight air-to-air missiles. We are talking crazy weapons hauling capabilities here. Keep in mind that the F-15C/D Eagle can carry eight air-to-air missiles currently, and the penultimate Eagle variant that is currently being built, the F-15SA, can carry a dozen.

    What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract. In other words, whatever the jets actually end up costing, the Pentagon will pay a fixed price—Boeing would have to eat any overages.

    This is possible because the F-15 is a very known commodity as it has been in production for 45 years and has flown hundreds of thousands of hours in continuously more capable configurations. Additionally, foreign customers have paid for the jet's advanced development already, with around $5B already spent by international operations on evolving the aircraft over the last decade and a half.

    Boeing is also likely apt to make the Pentagon a heck of a deal on the F-15X as it will help ensure fighter production at the company's storied St. Louis plant for years to come and it would keep the door open for additional foreign Eagle orders. It would also provide an ongoing tactical aircraft production relationship with the USAF. This relationship could also be sustained via the T-X contract that aims to replace the USAF's half-century-old T-38 Talon jet trainers, but who exactly will win that contract remains a question mark as the award isn't slated to arrive until late this Summer at the earliest.

    Trading In The Old For The New
    The biggest question most have about the F-15X is where would these fighters be inserted into the USAF's existing force structure? The answer to that, and the whole impetus behind the F-15X program, has been made clear to us—the jet is intended t directly replace the USAF's entire F-15C/D fleet. It would have no impact on the existing F-15E Strike Eagle fleet or its planned upgrade pathway that is underway now.

    Currently, the F-15C/D force is largely arrayed along America's maritime borders, with five Air National Guard units flying the type. A squadron at RAF Lakenheath in England and two squadrons at Kadena Air Base in Japan round out the full front-line force. A small number of F-15C/Ds are also assigned to test, evaluation, and tactics development units, and a single schoolhouse based at Kingsley Field in Oregon provides "Eagle Drivers" to the fleet on roughly 235 'air superiority Eagles' in all.

    The fate of the F-15C/D within the USAF ranks has been in doubt for over a year now, with the USAF evaluating if it will continue to deeply upgrade and eventually basically rebuild its existing decades-old F-15C/D force or if it will replace them entirely with upgraded F-16s. In fact, just last May, reports surfaced that indicated the USAF had all but formally announced that they will draw-down and retire the F-15C/D fleet.

    Swapping F-15s for F-16s means a capability deficit in almost every regard. Even if the USAF wants to do this it will likely result in a major dogfight on Capitol Hill. But replacing the old F-15C/D fleet with drastically enhanced F-15s could alleviate this major stumbling block and prove to be a much more attractive option.

    Even if the F-15X is cheaper than an F-35 and ends up being closer in price to a late-block Super Hornet (around $65M), the money will have to come from somewhere to acquire the fleet. But spending money now to acquire F-15Xs may actually save money in the long run. The USAF already intended to upgrade its F-15C/D fleet so that it could remain viable into the 2030s and possibly well beyond. Doing so would cost many millions of dollars per jet, especially if those aircraft end up needing new wings in the coming decade, which according to most accounts, they will. And then you still have an airplane that is in the back-half of its service life and costs more to keep in the air than a totally fresh jet.

    The F-15X will have a 20,000 hour service life. Yes, you read that right, 20,000 hours—pretty much three times that of most fighters being produced around the globe. As such, a new F-15X can serve for roughly 80 years. When you spread the cost of the jet over all that flight time, it does appear to be a comparative bargain.

    In addition, our sources tell us that F-15X cost-per-flight-hour has been deeply investigated both by Boeing and by third parties by leveraging metrics from legacy F-15 operations and those of late-model Strike Eagle derivatives and even other fighters in the USAF's inventory. The final figure is said to be around $27,000 per flight hour. This is far less than the aging F-15C/D's hourly operating cost (about $42,000 per hour) and about $6,000 more than what the USAF is paying to fly their largely middle-aged F-16 fleet today.

    Compared to the F-22 or F-35 this figure is very attractive as well. Apparently, it also takes into account a single-seat, multi-role mission set similar to an F-16 and the manning demands associated with it, not just an air superiority role. And once again, because the F-15 is a known commodity, this number is not some optimistic guess.

    With all this in mind, the business case for the F-15X is that the jets will pay for themselves in about a decade's time based on operational cost savings over their F-15C/D brethren—the last of which was built in 1986—alone.

    The Seamless Integration And Plenty Of Production Capacity
    It's also worth noting that the cost of an aircraft's development—which in this case is nothing—and its 'flyaway price' tell just part of the fiscal story. New logistics chains, centralized sustainment facilities, training squadrons, the unique infrastructure required at every base a new fighter is stationed, program offices, operational test and tactics development, weapons integration, and so on are all extremely expensive but seldom discussed aspects of introducing a new fighter aircraft. The F-15X is specifically configured to require none of this.

    It slots directly into the USAF's existing Eagle infrastructure down to the using the same ground support equipment as its F-15C/D and F-15E predecessors. Even pilot training is said to be seamless, with it supposedly taking just single sortie, a bit of class work, and a couple simulator hops to convert an existing Eagle pilot over to an advanced Strike Eagle derivative. It is truly a plug-and-play concept above all else.

    The F-15X could also allow current F-15C/D units to migrate to multi-role mission sets instead of the strictly air-to-air mission that they have traditionally performed. The F-15QA will be capable of deploying close to every weapon in the Pentagon's tactical fighter weapons inventory and so will the F-15X. This includes weapons like JSOW, Harpoon, and even HARM. But once again, taking on new missions can be done selectively and F-15C/D units could just as well continue concentrating on air-to-air combat exclusively.

    Yet even a suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) role that leverages the F-15X's powerful electronic warfare and electronic surveillance measures suites, along with new weapons like JSOW and HARM, would fold nicely into the 'Gray Eagle' community's counter-air role.

    As for how quickly the USAF could obtain F-15Xs to replace its F-15C/D fleet, that is really up to the USAF. It is known that the F-15 production line is quite elastic and could scale up to dozens of jets a year if the demand was there. Currently, Saudi Arabia's Eagles are being built and/or refurbished into the F-15SA configuration and soon the first of Qatar's 36 F-15QAs will begin production. It is likely that Qatar will also execute an option for another 36 Eagles as well.

    Another order for F-15s from Israel is more likely to occur than not at this point, and other prospects for export remain, from Europe to Asia. But getting the USAF back on the pages of the Eagle's order books would be a huge coup for the program and it alone could very well lead to additional foreign orders.

    The Heavyweight Of Tactical Aerial Weapons Platforms
    The F-15X initiative may be all about getting already available capabilities to the USAF at a low cost with next to no fuss, but in the future, the jet could play a pivotal role in supporting many of the most buzz-worthy air combat concepts being discussed by USAF today. These include man-machine teaming, in which the F-15X would play quarterback for stealthy unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) that can go where even the F-35 and F-22 cannot.

    The F-15X could also act as a weapons truck for stealthy fighters operating forward of their position into more highly contested airspace. This will become an especially critical capacity as ultra-long-range weaponry becomes too large for stealth fighters' weapons bays or to be carried in relevant numbers by smaller fighters.

    In the decades to come, it's very likely that standoff tactical jamming support will be necessary to ensure the survivability of America's current cadre of narrow-band low-observable fighters. The E/A-18G Growler provides this to a certain degree today, but additional capability organic to the USAF could come via F-15Xs outfitted with jamming pods or conformal jamming arrays installed in modified conformal fuel tanks/fast packs. This mission could benefit from the F-15's long-endurance as well.

    Directed energy weapons—namely lasers—and large surveillance sensors, and even outsized anti-ballistic missile weaponry, would be at home on the F-15X more so than virtually any other fighter. The jet's legendary ability to lug large payloads over long distances to execute standoff attacks could also be very beneficial, especially considering how vulnerable tanker aircraft are increasingly becoming—a problem that is only slated to get worse in the future. A fighter with a larger combat radius that can carry more weapons to hit more targets than its stablemates equates to enhanced survivability for tankers that support them and less dependence on them in general.

    An Eagle Encore's Feasibility
    As far as how serious the USAF is about actually acquiring the F-15X as an F-15C/D replacement, sources familiar with the ongoing discussions indicate that the service is very serious about it. And frankly, the powers that be need to make a decision about the F-15C/D's fate as spending billions upgrading the fleet just to retire it from service in a few years time makes no sense and is incredibly wasteful.

    Above all else, the reality that the F-15X concept is actually a thing, and has been in the works for the better part of two years no less, is a promising indication that the USAF is coming to terms with the need to field a diverse mix of tactical fast-jet capabilities, with each platform bringing something special to the table. An all stealth force sounds good, but in reality, it is fiscally unsustainable and not beneficial, and even a hindrance, to many of the missions the USAF conducts on a daily basis and will continue to do so for decades to come. The Eagle's (old or new) heavy lifting and long endurance capabilities alone are somewhat indispensable in regards to where the future of air combat is headed.

    In the end, when it comes to the USAF's tactical airpower needs, it needs to invest in narrow-band low-observable fighters, deep-penetrating wide-band low-observable UCAVs, and non-stealthy fighters that can lug a lot of weaponry over a good distance and/or provide economical solutions for the USAF's 'bread and butter' fighter missions. You don't need an F-35 to take out a Taliban opium lab or to sit alert duty day in and day out to guard America's sovereign airspace.

    And this is what the F-15X is all about. It's a non-risk, relevant, and supposedly cost-effective solution to a lot of the USAF problems. And once again, it is not meant to compete in a big way with the F-35 program.

    The recent precedent of the U.S. Navy placing substantial advanced Super Hornet orders—which can be at least partially attributed to the Trump administration's intent to spread the wealth around when it comes to Pentagon fighter procurement and its overall push for a larger defense budget—also gives additional credence to the F-15X concept.

    In the case of the recent advanced Super Hornet's orders from the Navy, it's not as if the service canceled the F-35C—which will attain initial operating capability next year. It just came to terms with the fact that buying more Super Hornets now alleviates risks that have manifested themselves in the F-35 program and above all else, doing so relieves pressure on the Navy's buckling fighter fleet.

    The act also helped out with alleviating USMC's own fighter woes as it allows for younger Navy F/A-18Cs to be transferred to the USMC, many of which will receive substantial upgrades of their own. And enhanced Super Hornets and F-35Cs will complement each other nicely on many levels for decades to come. In other words, both fighters can coexist in production. It doesn't have to be an 'all or nothing' proposition as so many have tried to instill over the last decade or so.

    As to whether or not the USAF should actually move forward and procure the F-15X as a direct F-15C/D replacement, we'll save our analysis for an upcoming post. But the concept is certainly enticing and it is more relevant now that it would have been a decade ago when the USAF saw stealth as a threshold qualifier for nearly all front-line future fighter operations.

    We will keep you in the loop as we learn more about the F-15X and its potentially bright future within the ranks of the USAF.

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    Not sure this warranted a new thread or not, but here it is anyway...

    seems like a very logical idea/choice. Low risk/high reward.... fixed cost contracts.... 22 air to air missiles..... 20,000 hour service life.......
    Boeing developed quad racks for AMRAAMs, cool. I'm not sure I see the draw for new airplanes here however. Any reason not to just throw those racks on existing F-15Cs and F-35As instead of buying brand new F-15Xs?

    I'm taking any claims from Boeing that the F-15 can beat the F-35 in either fly away or operating costs with a huge grain of salt. Modern F-15Es are over $100 million per copy and F-35s are already down to $89 million before the big multi-year buy that's just around the corner.

    In theory the F-35 should actually be a better missile truck than the F-15 using these quad racks. Working outward from the center, it can sport 6 (Block 4) AIM-120s internally, 4 quad racks of AIM-120s, and a pair of AIM-9s on the outside for kicks. By my math that's 24 missiles paired up with better sensors and datalinks (MADL for high throughput mesh network with stealth mode F-35s out in front), longer legs, and lower RCS to boot.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 27 Jul 18, at 00:37.

  3. #3
    Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    461
    Curious. Why carry 22 missiles. Wouldn't it cut into the range and the performance of the aircraft to shoot those 22 missiles?

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    Curious. Why carry 22 missiles. Wouldn't it cut into the range and the performance of the aircraft to shoot those 22 missiles?
    Carrying 20+ missiles wouldn't pose a huge weight problem but it would absolutely carry a high drag penalty.

    There's currently this idea of an "arsenal plane" being bandied about. The idea is that you make 4th gen aircraft relevant in a high end air fight by loading them up with a ton of missiles, then having them follow the stealthy types at a safe distance where they can fire missiles that the 5th gens cue towards targets.

    It's kind of a neat idea, but I don't think it will get much traction for a couple reasons.

    1. 5th gens don't need as many missiles than their predecessors because they're more efficient with them. The doctrine for 4th gen air superiority fighters like the F-15 is to fly high and fast with a big radar. The goal is to spot the other guy from far away and start flinging missiles at him. At extreme range these missiles aren't really expected to hit. Rather they force the opponent to take evasive measures that bleed off precious energy (speed and altitude). This allows the F-15 to get into a more favorable position for an actual kill shot while preventing the opponent from doing the same.

    5th gens don't fight that way. They spot their opponents, use their superior situational awareness to maneuver into position for a kill shot without being spotted in turn, then blindside them with a shot they never saw coming.

    4th gens burn through their missiles rapidly just setting up a favorable engagement. On the other hand, 5th gens can expect nearly every missile they carry to result in a kill.

    2. The best platforms to serve as arsenal planes aren't 4th gens that will give away the presence of US air power. It's other stealthy aircraft. The best plane for the job is likely going to be the B-21. It's a high altitude bomber that can maintain full stealth with internal ordnance, while providing far more firepower than an F-15X could. It's ordnance capacity would also open up other possibilities such as AMRAAM-ER (AIM-12 seeker on an ESSM rocket) or an air launched SM-6.

    3. Where is the demand for arsenal planes? SACM is already set to increase the number of shots available to fighters in the near future. For that matter, it won't be long until the US fields more 5th gens than Russia has total fighters!

    The idea that we'd have to face down endless hordes of MiGs that outnumber our more advanced but smaller forces is a relic of the cold war. Our fighters are more advanced and we're the ones with the numerical advantage.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 27 Jul 18, at 09:10.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Boeing developed quad racks for AMRAAMs, cool. I'm not sure I see the draw for new airplanes here however. Any reason not to just throw those racks on existing F-15Cs and F-35As instead of buying brand new F-15Xs?

    I'm taking any claims from Boeing that the F-15 can beat the F-35 in either fly away or operating costs with a huge grain of salt. Modern F-15Es are over $100 million per copy and F-35s are already down to $89 million before the big multi-year buy that's just around the corner.

    In theory the F-35 should actually be a better missile truck than the F-15 using these quad racks. Working outward from the center, it can sport 6 (Block 4) AIM-120s internally, 4 quad racks of AIM-120s, and a pair of AIM-9s on the outside for kicks. By my math that's 24 missiles paired up with better sensors and datalinks (MADL for high throughput mesh network with stealth mode F-35s out in front), longer legs, and lower RCS to boot.

    I would guess it depends on how serious the air force is on retiring the C/D fleet and replacing them with F-16s, or spending a lot of money to upgrade them to keep them flyable and viable for the for seeable future.

    The fate of the F-15C/D within the USAF ranks has been in doubt for over a year now, with the USAF evaluating if it will continue to deeply upgrade and eventually basically rebuild its existing decades-old F-15C/D force or if it will replace them entirely with upgraded F-16s. In fact, just last May, reports surfaced that indicated the USAF had all but formally announced that they will draw-down and retire the F-15C/D fleet

    Whether and F-35 is actually better suited for everything an F-15 does probably isn't much of a debate, but whether its better suited to use in the same role all the time.

    As time moved on, it became clear that the F-35 might not be the USAF's one-size-fits-all solution some thought it would be. This is not a mark against the F-35, but just the reality that the USAF has tactical air power needs that don't necessitate or even benefit from the F-35's unique and costly capabilities.

    throw in the X being multirole in a similar fashion to the F-16 (but not an F-15E) and the 20,000 hour service life, I don't see why you wouldn't want to keep the mix.

    unless you see the F-35 actually being used to replace the role the C/D perform's, that would leave a force mix of what, F-16's, F-35's, and aging F-22's.......

    I'd say the whole 22 AAM capabilities sounds great and all, but I would have to guess it would never be fully fitted out like that.


    but the mix of small diameter bombs and still carrying a large quantity of AAM isn't a bad option either.

    I have no idea, but I am generally curious.

    what is the range of an F-35 with a similar load out vs the F-15 with conformal tanks?

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Carrying 20+ missiles wouldn't pose a huge weight problem but it would absolutely carry a high drag penalty.

    There's currently this idea of an "arsenal plane" being bandied about. The idea is that you make 4th gen aircraft relevant in a high end air fight by loading them up with a ton of missiles, then having them follow the stealthy types at a safe distance where they can fire missiles that the 5th gens cue towards targets.

    It's kind of a neat idea, but I don't think it will get much traction for a couple reasons.

    1. 5th gens don't need as many missiles than their predecessors because they're more efficient with them. The doctrine for 4th gen air superiority fighters like the F-15 is to fly high and fast with a big radar. The goal is to spot the other guy from far away and start flinging missiles at him. At extreme range these missiles aren't really expected to hit. Rather they force the opponent to take evasive measures that bleed off precious energy (speed and altitude). This allows the F-15 to get into a more favorable position for an actual kill shot while preventing the opponent from doing the same.

    5th gens don't fight that way. They spot their opponents, use their superior situational awareness to maneuver into position for a kill shot without being spotted in turn, then blindside them with a shot they never saw coming.

    4th gens burn through their missiles rapidly just setting up a favorable engagement. On the other hand, 5th gens can expect nearly every missile they carry to result in a kill.

    2. The best platforms to serve as arsenal planes aren't 4th gens that will give away the presence of US air power. It's other stealthy aircraft. The best plane for the job is likely going to be the B-21. It's a high altitude bomber that can maintain full stealth with internal ordnance, while providing far more firepower than an F-15X could. It's ordnance capacity would also open up other possibilities such as AMRAAM-ER (AIM-12 seeker on an ESSM rocket) or an air launched SM-6.

    3. Where is the demand for arsenal planes? SACM is already set to increase the number of shots available to fighters in the near future. For that matter, it won't be long until the US fields more 5th gens than Russia has total fighters!

    The idea that we'd have to face down endless hordes of MiGs that outnumber our more advanced but smaller forces is a relic of the cold war. Our fighters are more advanced and we're the ones with the numerical advantage.
    are you comparing Russia or china when it comes to numbers.....?

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    As time moved on, it became clear that the F-35 might not be the USAF's one-size-fits-all solution some thought it would be. This is not a mark against the F-35, but just the reality that the USAF has tactical air power needs that don't necessitate or even benefit from the F-35's unique and costly capabilities.
    Is this quote coming from Tyler or from a reputable source within USAF? A survey of actual pilots by the Heritage Foundation found that they almost unanimously prefered the F-35 to other aircraft in almost every scenario.

    https://www.heritage.org/defense/rep...and-concurrent

    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    What is the range of an F-35 with a similar load out vs the F-15 with conformal tanks?
    Combat radius is a pretty opaque measurement because you don't know the parameters that went into it. How much time spent at what altitudes, how much time spent doing CAP or "in combat" etc. Without the information as to exactly what scenario they were using it's tough to compare one jet to another. That being said the Israelis claim an 760 NM (875 mile) combat radius with the F-35A loaded for air to air.

    What you can compare more easily is fuel weight, estimated consumption, and ordnance carried. The USAF has had Fast Pack CFTs for the F-15s since the days of the A and B models, they just rarely use them. They can be setup in a number of configurations but if dedicated completely to fuel they can hold 849 gal each. Since the article discusses using Fast Packs with conformal jammers it seems reasonable to assume they'll be similar in capacity to the 600 gal EFTs the F-15s typically fly with although with the added benefit of freeing up 2 additional pylons for missile quad packs.

    Both aircraft have comparable empty weights at 28k lbs, both produce 28k lbs of thrust at military power. At full afterburner the F-35 makes 43k lbs of thrust to the F-15's 47k lbs. So on paper they are pretty darn similar so far.

    F-15
    Internal Fuel: 13,455 lb
    600 gal EFT x2: 8040 lb

    F-35A
    Internal Fuel: 18,498 lb

    So an F-15 with a pair of EFTs or presumably CFTs should be similar to the F-35. In practice I think the F-35's legs are quite a bit longer due to differences in airframe design emphasis. The F-15 is made to temporarily hit high mach numbers while lightly loaded to toss missiles long distances. The F-35 is designed for efficiency at high subsonic speeds where fighters spend the majority of their time. The engine design for each fighter reflects this. The F-15's F100 engines have a lower bypass ratio of .36:1 which helps get get a little more oomph in afterburner. The F-35 has one giant engine with a bypass ratio of .56:1 and a higher internal pressure ratio which provides for increased efficiency at high subsonic/low mach speeds at the cost of high mach performance.

    F-35 can fly clean with a warload while, EFTs, CFT's, missiles, targeting pods, etc. all add drag to the F-15 that the engines have to push their way through which has to be compensated for by burning additional fuel.


    TLDR: An F-35A should outrange an F-15, even with EFTs or Fast Packs when both are loaded for war.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 27 Jul 18, at 18:36.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    are you comparing Russia or china when it comes to numbers.....?
    Either or both. If you're talking China you can go ahead and throw the JASDF fleets on the US side as well. Even looking into the near/medium future, nobody is pumping out new airframes the way the US is.

    Name:  Capture.PNG
Views: 745
Size:  15.2 KB
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 27 Jul 18, at 20:29.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Either or both. If you're talking China you can go ahead and throw the JASDF fleets on the US side as well. Even looking into the near/medium future, nobody is pumping out new airframes the way the US is.

    Name:  Capture.PNG
Views: 745
Size:  15.2 KB
    I didn't think the numbers were that far off....

  10. #10
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    I didn't think the numbers were that far off....
    yea, the 2 largest air forces in the world belong to the US.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  11. #11
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    3. Where is the demand for arsenal planes? SACM is already set to increase the number of shots available to fighters in the near future. For that matter, it won't be long until the US fields more 5th gens than Russia has total fighters!

    The idea that we'd have to face down endless hordes of MiGs that outnumber our more advanced but smaller forces is a relic of the cold war. Our fighters are more advanced and we're the ones with the numerical advantage.
    Total numbers don't matter much. We may have more 5th generation planes then the Russians have total fighters, BUT those 5th gen planes at Nellis can't do a thing against those Russian planes in theater (where ever that may be). And the Russians can replace their planes (fly them in from other bases) faster than we can fly planes from the States. Numbers are only a part of the equation.

    Its not just the "Endless hordes of MIGs" that we worry about that may require a AMRAAM. Although if I had a few squadrons of older planes and some 5th gen planes, I'd send the old planes in as missile bait then attack with my modern stuff after you are out of missiles. There are also cruise missiles that need intercepted, maybe a drone or 20. Thats asking a lot for a plane that only carries 4 missiles in stealth mode.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Total numbers don't matter much. We may have more 5th generation planes then the Russians have total fighters, BUT those 5th gen planes at Nellis can't do a thing against those Russian planes in theater (where ever that may be). And the Russians can replace their planes (fly them in from other bases) faster than we can fly planes from the States. Numbers are only a part of the equation.

    Its not just the "Endless hordes of MIGs" that we worry about that may require a AMRAAM. Although if I had a few squadrons of older planes and some 5th gen planes, I'd send the old planes in as missile bait then attack with my modern stuff after you are out of missiles. There are also cruise missiles that need intercepted, maybe a drone or 20. Thats asking a lot for a plane that only carries 4 missiles in stealth mode.
    In a single fight, total inventory doesn’t matter as much as what you can actually field, but deep reserves allow you to soak up attrition during a sustained campaign and maintain a strong training program for pilots at home. It also lets you commit to fights that will cause high attrition on both sides where as you'd need to avoid them if you were unable to replace frontline units.

    If the US can commit 1800 aircraft to the Gulf War, they can commit a lot more than that to a conflict with Russia. I’m not all that convinced Russia would have superior fixed mobility among fixed wing forces either. They’d be fighting on essentially 3 fronts with limited tanker assets as the US/Nato hit them from the West in Europe, from the south via Turkey/ME, and from the East in Japan. The ring of allies acts very much like internal supply lines for the US.

    Using US pilots as missile bait isn’t going to fly. (sorry couldn’t help it) China or Russia could probably get away with that, but short of an attack on CONUS I don’t see it for the US. Luckily there are other good options in the bait department. One of the most interesting in my opinion is that MALD decoys have apparently been modified for deployment by the Ohio SSGNs and Virginias via the TLAM tubes, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that AARGMs could be deployed that way as well. It's a whole little SEAD campaign in a box that doesn't require a single jet!

    Besides, 5th gens can fill the role of missile truck with more utility than a 4th gen by hanging back and firing externally mounted missiles until they run dry, then dropping their external pylons to go full stealth and move in close to serve as a sensor/shooter node for those coming in behind them with all 6 (F-35 block 4) internal AMRAAMs still untouched and ready to go.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 30 Jul 18, at 17:50.

  13. #13
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Oct 13
    Posts
    96
    The sortie rate in theater is much more relevant than total aircraft strength. Although Russia's ability to surge aircraft to a front against NATO is going to be pretty limited - first, they have a fairly low tanking strength. Second, it's not like they can just abandon their border with China - in fact their dedicated air defense units pretty much have to remain in place since the US could stage a cruise missile strike on any part of the country at any time, if they wanted to escalate that way. So I personally wouldn't be worried about being outnumbered ten to one against the Russians, which is the problem that an arsenal plane is trying to solve.

    The Chinese have similar problems with their total fighter stength - and even bigger lack of tankers and a need to keep at least some aircraft on patrol against India and Russia, plus any place the US might decide to hit with cruise missiles. But they have the advantage that the only US bases on US territory are Guam and any deployed CVs in the area. Depending on the scenario, other Asian countries may or may not opt to participate or let the US operate from their bases against their single largest trading partner and nuclear power next door. Also all of those bases are in easy ballistic/cruise missile range. So if comes down to a CV or two against the PLA-AF/PLAN-AF, plus sorties from Guam which is over a thousand miles from any potential point of conflict (and itself vulnerable to long range strikes), a ten to one situation becomes more possible.

    That said I don't think the idea especially useful, especially against the Chinese who are going out of their way to develop long ranged AAMs to shoot down obvious large RCS targets - which an F-15 draped with ordnance will be. But the USN definitely needs to up the internal load of the F-35 to at least a half dozen weapons.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Josh View Post
    That said I don't think the idea especially useful, especially against the Chinese who are going out of their way to develop long ranged AAMs to shoot down obvious large RCS targets - which an F-15 draped with ordnance will be. But the USN definitely needs to up the internal load of the F-35 to at least a half dozen weapons.
    F-35 is scheduled to get 6 internal AMRAAMs with the Block 4 updates.

    Name:  RclUR2V.jpg
Views: 681
Size:  114.0 KB

    DOD is also developing 3 entirely new missiles specifically designed for use with 5th gen aircraft that are set to debut in the late 2020s.

    The first and most prominent is SACM (Small Advanced Capabilities Missile). It offers medium range AIM-120C type performance in a package half the length by eliminating the warhead in favor of Hit to Kill guidance and utilizing new avionics that allow more volume to be used for propulsion. The idea being that you can fit 12 inside an F-35 loaded up for Air-to-Air or to load up heavy munitions for a strike mission and bring 4 AAMs along on the bay doors.

    The next is LREW (Long Range Engagement Munition) that should serve as an AIM-120D/Meteor replacement. Not a lot out there on this one but there has been some suggestion that it might be a 2 stage extended range SACM with a booster of some variety that allows for more commonality and accelerated development.

    The third is the MSDM (Miniature Self Defense Missile) which is a small missile interceptor. It could potentially replace the Aim-9 but wouldn't have the same kind of range.

  15. #15
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Oct 13
    Posts
    96

    new missiles

    I've heard of two of those. The long range weapon I've not heard mentioned. To me those are still pie in the sky items that may or may not make it into inventory. The USN decided AIM-9X block 3 wasn't worth funding; I could easily see one or more of those three projects being canned for cost overruns, especially the self defense missile which seems very pie in the sky. Also it seems more likely a solid state laser would fulfill that role before technology to create such a system was developed; there is already a test bed for ~100kw airborn free electron laser I believe.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •