Back when The Raptor was getting IOC I remember reading in books and magazines the idea of the B-1R, imagine an OCA infil and you have 4-8 Boners sitting back getting datalink info from AWACS& others and just ripple firing 30+ missiles per bird with the ability to triple or quintuple tap each bandit. I don't care who you are but I'm will to bet that 240+ missiles will pretty much guarantee a wide open air corridor.
@@GoldPicard Ooo, I wonder if you could make an extended range AIM-120's by just strapping a zero-th stage booster to it. According to the wiki an AIM-120 is 12ft long while the B1's bomb bay is 15ft long, and a Popular Mechanics article mentions an experimental version of the B1 with a 22.5ft bomb bay. So put a 3 or 10 foot booster to missile to get it up to speed and maintain speed, then the 0th stage falls off and the normal booster fires. F/B-1?
I was a F15 Crew Chief with the 125th FW in Jacksonville and we're still flying the C's. Some of those airframes are from 1980 and we're hard pressed sometimes to get 6 birds flying. We are getting F35's sometime in the next year or two and already have the Sim being built. I love the F15 and am thrilled there will still be one flying. Great channel guys. Eagles Forever
Two things: 1. As I understand it, the F-15EX is much more maneuverable than the old Eagle due to the plane to be able to electronically maximize the effect of its control surfaces despite the lack of thrust vectoring. 2. The EX will be capable of carrying 12 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, but will also be able to carry 24 (TWENTY-FOUR!!!) AIM-260 Peregrine missiles which are slated to replace the AIM-120.
@@nunyabusiness9013F-15 ex is cheaper per flight hour so it'll be cheaper on the long run. But don't worry they have a plan! All we have to do is cut Social Security and Medicare bc we Have No Choice!
The current F-15 fleet is definitely long in the tooth. I agree with the AF acquiring the EX. It's a proven airframe with some nice upgrades. I also agree that you don't need a 5th Gen stealth platform to truck bombs and missiles after IAD's have been dealt with. I just hope the cost doesn't spike up over the length of the buy. Current acquisition history has shown cost to always be going up. 12 AMRAAMs sounds cool!
In all honesty, i think it is a great plan, taking an existing aircraft and producing new with upgrades, that way you are not retraining for a new aircraft and as they both side above, stealth is only used in certain ways. I was ask, why not upgrade the current fleet and they answered that. I have learned so much from you guys and your positions and just detailed information that is interesting.
@@checksixivan4921 adding new electronics to an outdated platform is LITERALLY like adding new electronics to an outdated platform. For homework assignment look up "metaphor" and "compare/contrast."
What struck me was the modern fly by wire system, as Mover pointed out. He also had a good point that stealth is only useful at the start of a campaign. The F-35 would also be useful to pass targeting data to the EX. Stay out of the line of fire and use all that data fusion.
I dont think this would be true in a near peer campaign. Look at ukraine today they just shot down 5 fourth gen birds in 1 week with the patriot missile system. Russia is wishing they had more stealth jets they could use.
@@user-mm1nt1it5vbut russia never destroyed the patriot. Thats the whole point of things like the F-35 is to go in day one and kill the air deffence systems and clean up the skies to open the door for the 4th gen bomb trucks and missile trucks to deal with the rest.
@@user-mm1nt1it5v I was thinking that too. I wouldn't want to be in a F=15EX flying in the south china sea even if only half the Chinese fleet was still above water.
As you guys point out, we already have day one capability that can't maintain the mission tempo of any invested action. We can't focus strictly on cutting edge stealth to win a sustained conflict. The price tag listed here is only the initial sticker price. Whether talking about sustained combat or a long period of peace time training, we have to focus on the mantra of 'logistics logistics logistics.' At least if our goal is a wartime viable, cost effective, force. I have no idea what the part crossover is from the E model but even at 40-50% compatibility, there are extremely substantial budget savings for each operational squadron. The tooling is still active. The supply lines are already there. Shelves are stocked. The chance for a 70-90% FMC rate is achievable immediately as they enter service compared to what we've seen for new platforms. I'm a former F-15 crew dog who watched the F22 come online. Those growing pains aren't acceptable for an extremely thinned force who need combat operational squadrons right now. In the next 10 years, the savings incurred by buying the F-15EX will show this to be the low budget/high value choice.
The price might be a little bit expensive by government standards, but the Air Force still need that plane because it has some good advantages over the F-15C aircraft, which is getting older and cost expensive for upgrades. So getting a new aircraft would be a new investment and it’s hard for them to upgrade the older F-15C because it’s past beyond is service life and it’s due for retirement.
F-15EX AESA radar is the current/only 36” class array. That’s a lot of ability to see things smaller radars cannot. The Airforce should just commit to retiring all the C/D’s asap and the oldest half of the E fleet and pickup 250+ EXs
@Cwomack07 is right, and physical size is a key element a lot of people fail to understand as key advantage both in number of radar dipoles/antenna and also cooling capacity. Cooling these high powered AESA arrays and the growing heat output of the avionics is actually a big... lets not call it a problem, it's been a long standing 'opportunity' on the F-35 program. Beautiful thing is that those opportunities translate very well to the F-15 platform that has the physical real estate to employ these technologies without melting down or temperature throttling.
I always assumed the anti-air strategy was to send in a set of F-35s to provide essentially a "forward AWACS" capability so that missile trucks (like the EX) could launch long range 120-Ds or fitted Meteors and immediately defend while the F-35s would guide the missiles in increasing probability of kill.
We've done a similar thing in the RAAF. F35s to be attacking whilst unseen. Growlers to blind what the enemy can see and Rhinos to truck the bombs in. Followed by the BBJ to bring the Prime Minister for a tour afterwards 😂
@@vmpgsc I'm pretty sure they were at the age where they spent more time on ground than airborne sadly. I don't know if there's going to be anything like that again come along 😞
F-35's are anything but "unseen" they have been called "low observability" for well over a decade which means it gets picked up and tracked and a shorter range
@@daleferber2096 it will get picked up and tracked at a much closer range than previous aircraft. By that time the inbound weapon is already on it's way.
Amn of the Quarter (explicitly non-MX amn) and NFL cheerleaders getting free rides is exactly right. Can't let any of the maintainers get anything other than a half-assed verbal appreciation at the end of a speech when everyone has already lost interest. Now get about to work! 16's until the MC rate goes up one more percent! -Big Air Force.
Ever since the EX was announced, I thought it was an awesome idea. This thing is a flying SAM site that easily converts to a fast, heavy-duty bomb truck when you need one. I could even envision mods that would turn an EX into a CJ or Growler equivalent for EW and SEAD. It made perfect sense to me that the USA Guard units with Air Defense Missions should all replace their C/D models with the EX and that we should buy at least 144 of these jets. I have no idea what the AF brass was thinking when they decided to buy the EX for the Portland, Klamath Falls, Fresno and Nawlins units.....but then decided that the Jacksonville and Westfield units should get the F-35. WTFO?? In their primary mission, these Guard units are not likely to face masses of 5th gen fighters. The flying SAM site with the big-ass radar is what they really need.....and are pretty much already trained to fly. It also has two engines, which is really nice for coastal defense.
All they need for doing SEAD is to integrate a HTS pod, software updates and firing tests for the HARM… which possibly had already been done before for foreign custom F-15 projects.
@eatdriveplay There's so much more to SEAD than just being able to make a decent HARM shot. We're lucky we have been able to forget that & still have air superiority when we want it. Next time any of us fight someone smart, motivated, trained & equipped with decent air defence, we'll see how much we lost when the USAF decided to get out of the EW mission.
@eatdriveplay To be fair too, plenty of air forces have invested in various commercial aircraft packed to the bulkheads with EW gear. They might not last long in a shooting war, but they're a whole lot better than nothing.
Mover joked about who gets backseat rides, but I was actually bumped from my Eagle ride at Nellis by a local female newscaster. It took me until my 29th year in the Guard to get a ride in the backseat of a Viper. Yeah, I got sick but wouldn’t trade it for anything - that max takeoff!
I would KILL to get a ride in the F-15E Strike Eagle. It is my favorite plane by far. Such a good looking jet, plus the sheer amount of laser guided hate that it can carry makes me feel things 😅
Back in the day, they offered me a catapult launch and wire recovery in a Tomcat ... I would have loved that but really didn't want to sign another 4 years of my life away for a one hour thrill ride... the Navy Reserve was a generally better fit for me.
Concur! Near retirement ANG flight doc here. We traded in our A, B, C and D model Eagles for Raptors back in 2009 so I lost my back seat. I thought it was important to experience the same thing our pilots were experiencing especially when making medical decisions regarding fitness for duty. It also was a great recruiting incentive to offer typically difficult to recruit doc AFSC’s. Great job Mover! Recent subscriber and appreciate the great content.
@@docvern7I retired out of NCANG. We always had seats. C-130 and now C-17. My only fighter ride was in T38 out of Randolph during AMP. But you are correct. Being able to fly with crews is critical in understanding stresses of flight, but more importantly, developing rapport with the crews.
@@Hyposonic "Two other sensors are planned to be integrated on the F-15EX, the Legion Pod InfraRed Search and Track system (IRST) and the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod. Both systems are already integrated on the F-15C and will be transferred to the new aircraft, without the need to acquire new ones."
@@AWD-mu3sq I checked your source and you are correct. My info was from the early contract for just the development phase, not the procurement phase. Good info!
Not true, both Sniper and Litening are fielded for EX. IRST was a later addition. They will have the capabilityto put Sniper on Sta 5 as well as 5a.@Hyposonic
I said USAF should split the F-15K line for new upgraded F-15s ten years ago, to keep the fighting force capable. I was 100% correct. I will state now for the record, retiring ALL the B-1B Bombers is a bad idea. A few BONEs should be upgraded too as standoff air-to-air missile truck, with the rest for spare parts.
The B-1 has a very low mission-capable rate. Because of the way they were built, many parts are not even interchangeable--making even the idea of scavenging older ones tough. On paper and in combat, the B-1B is awesome. For the maintainers and budget guys, it's a nightmare.
Some of these points make me think of two comparisons- 1) look how WWII Germany pigeon holed themselves by staking their bet on technological superiority in small numbers vs the USA or even the then USSR grinding them down with good enough technologies but in greater numbers that were sustainable to replace. 2) I look at these 5th Gen or "wonder weapons" like the tip of the spear or special forces, they’re mission specific and give an enormous edge in their mission set over adversaries allowing us to mitigate and open up defenses for the bulk work horses forces as you guys stated. It seems that the politicians, DOD, or heads of respective service branches are more interested in spending under the guise of staying ahead of any near peer with tech than keeping the branches well supplied with proven viable materials/hardware albeit dated it’s still equal to or better than our adversaries. Then I’m just an enthusiast with an opinion armchair quaterbacking here.
I think the F15EX has a lot of value to add to warfighting. I think it’s a great move. I really like the idea of the WSO controlling drones from the backseat adding even more capability.
All about those tradeoffs. We can't cease acquisition of front-line top-end F-35's, but nor can we compromise other capabilities. It's perhaps why a cheap side-by-side drone (or man-in-the-loop semi-autonomous) platform could help, but those run into the issues with general capabilities and stealth in terms of cost/maintenance hours per flight hour in the same ways that manned aircraft do. The main issues with too many kinds of platforms becomes sustainment in operations, where there are too many jet types with too many parts. Or not enough people to maintain all the various kinds of aircraft (a recruiting and personnel retention factor). Thus, common aircraft types in the fewest configurations becomes the best possible case for a hot war, assuming those aircraft can provide the required edge in combat.
You touched on what I feel is often overlooked and the recent UKR/RUS conflict has highlighted. In a hot war, the missiles are going to dry up quickly. True for ships (we desperately need better and more naval guns), aircraft, and anti-air/anti-ship.
Good point, especially long range missiles are needed in a conflict like that. Taking down a swarm of drones also eats missiles like it's nothing. Its alot different then Afghanistan and Iraq where on day 150 you pretty much have the most need for an A-10 when an F-35 its stealth isn't really needed.
Isn't a fully equipped F-35A like 80-85 million? With 85 million being after it's price hike. Where are people getting the information that a F-15EX is cheaper than a F-35 and why are we comparing it with a F-35C?
I’m convinced that sensors and avionics are going to be the dominant factor, not stealth, in future conflicts. New airframes should incorporate basic elements, but shouldn’t be the focus.
The TAI KANN really is the love child of the F-15E and F-35A. The 3 prototypes are to have many a common component, from the F-110 engines, through to the MB ejection seat of the F-15E, but in an airframe knocked out by TAI's Advanced Carbon Composites fuselage facility (with the help of BAE), that was established to churn out the airframes for the F-35A, till someone elected to purchase S-400, rather than F-35A for their airforce, and F-35B for their navy (Leaving their STOVL carrier feeling rather unloved). Cockpit appears to ape the side stick and large LCD display of the F-35. Also as TAI have manufactured, under licence, and upgraded the avionics of 100+ F-16, not forgetting manufacturing many a component for Boeing, wouldn't be surprised if some inspiration, if not parts, are borrowed from current F-16 blocks.
Seems the F-15EX carries almost as much as what the F-111 could carry. That is just insane. Seems the new F-15 is what the F-111 was supposed to be. Considering that there are no true Gen 5 fighters outside of the US, and the F-35 seems ideally suited for taking out ground based air defense assets, the “clean up” to ensure air space domination can be well taken care of by the F-35/F-15EX team. If targeting of Chinese (and the 6 Russian) “Gen 5” jets can be done with Gen 4+ jets, then stealth is reall not necessary. I like the idea of F-35s flying to within 30 miles of their stealth jets, out of sight. Sending targeting info to F-15EXs 120 miles away, and getting kills. Way cool.
I was listening to a YT video about Desert Storm and there were fighters configured for air to ground and in mid flight had to go fight airplanes, the F-15EX would still be pretty good for that. As for cost, it is still cheaper than a F-35 and a lot more capable.
This makes me wonder why the USAF hasn't tried to buy some Block 70 F-16s. A lot of those airframes are quite old by now as well, and the newer version solves the main weaknesses of the Block 50 with its CFTs and stronger radar. It would seem logical, especially since F-35 procurement hasn't been as fast as expected.
The F-16 production line is still going with plenty of foreign orders. F-15 production line was on the verge of closing down (along with the F-18 line). Makes some sense to keep Boeing producing fighters.
In an Air to air conflict this is designed to be a missile truck for 5th gens, and to use the Air Forces upcoming long range missle, which the f35 and f22 wont even be able to carry internally. Also its a really good bombing platform since its bones are from the E model.
What I have read, 75 percent parts in common with previous F15. It is cheaper to operate by hour and has a much longer lifespan than F35. Along with the F35 can't carry the new hypersonic missile
Yes it’s expensive at 93.5 million but take into consideration that a small jet like the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen E/F is 85 million so I don’t think it’s that bad. But the run cost for maintenance are a different matter, more emphasis should be put on that.
For context, the typical heavy load of a B-29 is 20,000. They could carry the T-12 at 40+ thousand pounds, though, and I doubt the F-15EX could carry that monster.
I love this platform mainly for its ability to carry a large loadout. Stealth is great, but it's not the hammer for every nail. IMO as an armchair, DCS fighter pilot with 18 months of intense player-vs-AI experience, a combined approach of 1) Stealth and EW platforms for suppression of air defenses and high-value, heavily protected targets, 2) Weapons platforms that have range and can actually carry significant ordinance, and 3) Less-expensive platforms that can be produced in quantity. Stalin had a point - quantity has a quality all its own. The F-35 may be very capable in certain situations, but IMO platforms like the F-16 and A-10 still have a place as lower-cost but capable platforms to "fill in the blanks" and work alongside more expensive platforms. Ukraine has shown (again) that Russian technology is not as effective as some would like us to think, and I am willing to be China is the same.
The F-16 doesn’t have the range or radar to be as effective towards long range defensive SAMs or MIG-31, they will get the first shots each time. There’s more redundancy and payload options for the F-15 as well. Cost and mildly better low speed maneuverability are the only benefits a F-16 could have.
I keep saying this in discussions online when they're all going on about who's latest and greatest tech is the best, if we are talking near peer conflict then eventually losses will take their toll. The ability to keep manufacturing up with losses is a major factor and the latest greatest technology is slower to manufacture than the previous gen. It's a lesson we havn't learned from ww2, latest tech is great but we should always have a fallback design we can rely on when losses start to be taken.
Well let's keep things in perspective. During WWII, the defense manufacturing was greatly increased when the US took advantage of its commercial manufacturing to build weapons instead of cars and appliances.
Sadly, the five sided wind tunnel won’t buy enough to keep up with attrition, and will allow the manufacturers to destroy the tooling after the purchase is complete. During SEA, F-105’s were replaced with those from the states, and eventually by F-4’s since they were available and the F-4’s were being built. The command structure is so short sighted it’s a real shame.
@@andreabindolini7452 It's very 'inside baseball', I only know about it from interviews with an epic retired EWO called Starbaby. He is a huge advocate for the Wild Wiesel mission & EW in general.
In some article was about NGAD and NATO future plans, and how they are going to use f-35 "with big fleets of NGAD". But in the meantime, while NGAD is not here, F-15EX will be used instead of the NGAD. So, if I understood correctly it adds up pretty much with this. In article was also explained f-35 going front, SEAD etcetc AND showing goals for these "missile trucks". This really is good idea, and it maby also gives some "age-continuum" to training itself also, dunno, just thinkin...
50 years later the only replacement for a F-15 is another F-15. In 2050 the only replacement for a F-15 is likely to be another F-15...and the EX has two pods by default like the E...
F/A-18E/F/G can do 12 AMRAAMs. The -15EX is still cheaper & better. Also, thrust vectoring is for airshows only. If you're slow enough to need it you're already dead.
I feel like you guys haven't been watching videos from Lockheed's RUclips channel on Fat Amy. I am not a fighter pilot but have worked on them my whole adult life and "feel" like I'd rather take the F-35 every time regardless. But to be fair, I'll take anything baby! I'm really easy to please. lol
@CWLemoine No no. Lockheed propaga...er...promotion videos! Btw, when I was working on legacy Hornets in the Marines and had ready room duty, I would watch all the hud tapes of our guys fighting Eagles. Every time you pick on them, I chuckle because I saw how easy it was for our pilots to defeat them in dogfights.
a bomber loaded with missiles reminds me of an old game called Zone66 where you could hop into the big slow bomber and load it up with 60 something AAM's and just go to town on the enemy aircraft
The F-15EX program reminds me of the Attack Super Tomcat 21 program. What i hate about that is that a proper competition wasn’t allowed and Boeing was just handed the contract to build Super Hornets.
Everything is always too expensive unless it comes from the district of a congressmen who has power in government. So we get 'cheaper' less capable aircraft that can't do the job. Everyone complained about how expensive the Tomcat-21 was going to be, but no one really bitched about the price of the B-2.
@@RickActual That is probably my only serious gripe with the F-35A having 182 rounds. The F-35B and C have a pod with only 220 rounds. I'm guessing this was highly debated inside and outside the Pentagon, but simulations showed it to be enough.
@@Hyposonicthe threat of the gun is more useful than the gun itself, perhaps? Main thing is drone hunting and other things to do on the cheap, as Israel experienced recently.
If they are going back to tried and tested airframes with a view to modernising them with current tech and flight control systems, how about an F-14EX? Now that I would love to see back in the air!
The only existing and flying Tomcats out there are the Iran ones. They are no match for the EX and I think they have no hopes to be upgraded by the Iranians to the same level. Very old airframes though.
The greatest threat and Bain to stealth and the f35 fighter is upgraded sensers and radars and new and improved Sencers and radars that can easily detect stealth aircraft, to put a new modern radar and sensers on an f15ex and nothing could really hide in the air, even stealth.
I would love to see the Air Force quit trying to do things on the cheap and just go ahead and buy like 250 F-15EXs. We are acting like nobody else has aspirations of being the sole superpower. There are plenty of countries that would like to knock us off the top of the hill, and I would bet one of them will take their shot in the next decade.
Until RAM becomes more common place, BVR and inventories will rule. Once RAM is common, the fight zones will close to within detectable IR. If there is a day that IR and Radar masking becomes so good without a new detection paradigm to take their place, then we might see a new age of dog fighting come back. Then again, if you have to close to within Line of Sight, you might as well let the computers handle the shooting since it'll react faster than the pilot at both craft ID and engagement.
Cheap workhorses for airspace that's either secure or unchallenged. Theyre getting modern sensor suites so theyll be even more powerful than the legacy eagles. Theyll be very very capable birds. More than just a missle truck imo
I recall hearing someone say that the f15ex has long combat range, and thus will be important for the pacific against china. It might have been someone on ward carroll's channel, perhaps justin bronk.
There's a difference in "cost to acquire" and "cost to maintain." The F-15EX may be rather expensive to procure, but over the long run how much cheaper is it to operate per flight hour?
We're buying like a hundred B-21's but we're only getting an plastically an equal number of F-15's? We should tell Boeing that we'll buy 500 EX's if they get the price down to 50 million per frame.
The more you buy, the cheaper each one is... Plus per hour flight costs will be substantially below what fifth gen costs. And let's talk availability: just nicking the stealth coating on a fifth gen requires major rework, whereas a dirty EX can fly and fly and not give sh*t. And the EX has gigantic space and cooling for upgraded avionics vs the tightly constrained F-35s. Need more smash? Stuff GE F110-GE-132s into the airframes; minimal rework and a large bump in thrust. Being able to update EW and sensors (moderns systems can do this PER SORTIE with OTA or similar updates) will, at some point, obviate the need for ever more expensive exquisite stealth solutions.
Flight hours are similar to 5th gen, and newer stealth coatings aren't like the old ones. Stealth gets you where you need to be. An aircraft broadcasting its position is less effective at using EW and sensors.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD EX can do the datalink thing where any sensor can provide track and the F-15s can remain EMCON. They are 5th gen in many ways on the sensor and EW side.
You fly something so long and so often the enemy is bound to get a beat on it in one day, inevitably shoot it down. the less we use our stealth aircraft and instead using strategically the more of a chance of them not being shot down
What I didn’t see in the literature on screen and what I understand of the F-15 EX is that it is cheaper to operate than the F 35 currently quite considerably I can’t remember the figures but they are significantly lower per operational hour
🇦🇺 The US Air Force procurement system is very confusing. Back in the 1960s : let's make an air superiority fighter = F15. Too expensive, need something cheaper = F16. Two decades later : we need an air superiority fighter = F22. Too expensive, need something cheaper = F35. Seems to be going around in circles or am I missing something? BTW - all four aircraft appear to be excellent.
Is it realistic to expect the US air force to eliminate any threats to aircraft on "day one"? Could it take much longer or not happen at all? What would the F-15EXs do then?
🎉. There is no back seat to tie off but we left the ability to add one if we needed for future. The AF sold its sole to stealth and has done years of studies to justify their narrow vision. F-15 numbers kept declining over years in their studies - 360 then 212 then 188 now 124. Mission didn’t change. Go figure. The EX is way less expensive per flying hour than F-22 and F-35. Also modern IRST capability can overcome most stealth advantages for far less cost in the air-to-air environment. The EX has enormous capabilities that will become known as the weapon system matures. Im not a cheer leader for Boeing but they did a great service to the country by getting the AF to consider the EX and for keeping costs down. You could do an entire show on just the strategic implication of keeping the production line open all the way down to the tactical applications.
I agree 100% If you want 4 full mission capable f35 aircraft for a mission, then you will need at least 6 of them to get a reasonable probability of having 4 that are full mission capable. F35 is not reliable (poor mean time between failure and poor mean time to repair). F15EX does not have this problem so when comparing initial costs, F35 is much more expensive than F15EX to field equivalent Full Mission Capable aircraft. When F35 low observable/stealth capabilities are countered by a new technology, then the whole fleet of F35 aircraft will become less effective than gen4 aircraft overnight. The F15EX does not have this Achilles heel. The F15EX is a platform that is conducive to upgrades for future new requirements. Particularly upgrades requiring more electrical power, larger and heavier missiles launched at high airspeed and high altitude, etc. The single engine F35 with lots of drag is not conducive to upgrades. The F35 is “acquisition malfeasance” and the government will never get a fair cost schedule performance result but will get lots of disappointments, hidden risks and more schedule delays, cost overruns,and continue to accept deliveries that require waivers. The F15EX is much more capable in many ways. Plus, If for any reason the F35 gets in trouble, it can not run away from danger (too slow, and don’t count on hiding the IR of that big engine in full AB when trying to escape). Acquisition Malfeasance includes hiding risks by calling them “watch items”, “concerns”, and other names instead of risks that must be formally tracked.
Even if it's pricey, it is worth it. The Air National Guard needs an aircraft that can replace all of those 50 year old F-15Cs while having similar capabilities.
exactly. 288 makes a bit more sense and if that cost per airframe continues? It's more than worth it. As far as stealth // LO ... I just don't understand the utility of it as used to run intercepts. You're just repeatedly giving your "adversaries" all the sigint they can eat to try to perfect any R&D they feel like doing ... all while wasting tremendous cost in the "per hour" consumption of budget where visual confirmation is always required. It's utterly nonsensical use of their airframes. Another option would've been making some number of F-35x which didn't use any LO tech (RAM); saving the cost of maintenance // price per hour yet letting your pilots acclimate to the airframe. Better still would've been to make an F-15 with absolutely all sensors and computers from the F35. Such that a pilot could train in one and transfer to the other; identical interfaces in an airframe with two engines, costs less per hour, is certified for more hours, has a greater payload but with the same sensor fusion capabilities. Why shouldn't all airframes have those identical features?? The F-16 or Super Hornet wouldn't benefit from an APG-85 or an EOTS..? Such standardization of knowledge and flight control and training across platforms in which the services are then deciding if pilots need a missile truck, LO etc. Obviously you aren't going to ask pilots that train in 7G aircraft to fly Hornets or Vipers ... or ask a Viper driver to land on a boat. But there's just no reason not to standardize what these pilots are interacting with inside the cockpit and the sensors they're using.
Cost per hour of flight and man hours of maintenance are much more exp in the long run than the sales price. The total support paid for in the disclosed contract is specified either. $50k per flight hour is thrown around on some frame types. If that includes depreciation and total material/personelle support an 8000 hr airframe is 400 million in lifecycle cost. Cost to maintain the ram needing climate control hangers like the b 2 requires are all huge issues affecting life cycle cost.
What I don't understand is why did we spend all of this money designing and building a 5th generation fighter that is faster with a fully loaded weapons bay, has more maneuverability, and has the ability to shoot first because of its' stealth capabilities if all we are going to do is keep making changes to an airframe that was originally designed in the late 70's. Everyone says that the F-22 was designed for air superiority, and given its capability it gives a person pause to want to attack one, but this whole thing kinda sounds like one of those wipe before you poop scenarios. On a different note is the last Alex Shepard book going to be available on Audible anytime soon?
There is another issue regarding the acquisition of new fighter aircraft. With the F35 Block 4 being delayed, the US and Allied Air Forces are getting old and is the F35 programmed to replace all of the old aircraft in the inventory? The F15 is old. The F16 is old. The A10 is old. The F35 build rate is limited and Allied Air Forces are also purchasing some of the production. Where can you get more fighter aircraft in a reasonable amount of time to replace all the old airframes and technology? This is the best aircraft available in the quickest time.
It would be cool but there’s no room. You would lose precious range just for weapons and sensors, on top of the fact SR-71s needed days between missions.
are radar intercept officer, or anyone who sits in the rear seat ,are they pilots? do they have flight time in a jet be it training jet or any other traditional prop plane ?
Points for bringing up the B1-R.
Also credit to the absolute Chads in the USAF that convinced brass to designate an aircraft the B-ONE-R.
You know they were giggling the whole time. 😂
Who said pilots didn’t have a sense of humor? 😆
Back when The Raptor was getting IOC I remember reading in books and magazines the idea of the B-1R, imagine an OCA infil and you have 4-8 Boners sitting back getting datalink info from AWACS& others and just ripple firing 30+ missiles per bird with the ability to triple or quintuple tap each bandit. I don't care who you are but I'm will to bet that 240+ missiles will pretty much guarantee a wide open air corridor.
@@GoldPicard Ooo, I wonder if you could make an extended range AIM-120's by just strapping a zero-th stage booster to it. According to the wiki an AIM-120 is 12ft long while the B1's bomb bay is 15ft long, and a Popular Mechanics article mentions an experimental version of the B1 with a 22.5ft bomb bay. So put a 3 or 10 foot booster to missile to get it up to speed and maintain speed, then the 0th stage falls off and the normal booster fires. F/B-1?
Same guys that named the F 1 5EX?
I was a F15 Crew Chief with the 125th FW in Jacksonville and we're still flying the C's. Some of those airframes are from 1980 and we're hard pressed sometimes to get 6 birds flying. We are getting F35's sometime in the next year or two and already have the Sim being built. I love the F15 and am thrilled there will still be one flying.
Great channel guys.
Eagles Forever
Two things:
1. As I understand it, the F-15EX is much more maneuverable than the old Eagle due to the plane to be able to electronically maximize the effect of its control surfaces despite the lack of thrust vectoring.
2. The EX will be capable of carrying 12 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, but will also be able to carry 24 (TWENTY-FOUR!!!) AIM-260 Peregrine missiles which are slated to replace the AIM-120.
So you're not going to complain any more about the inflation our military budget causes then? Good.
@@nunyabusiness9013F-15 ex is cheaper per flight hour so it'll be cheaper on the long run. But don't worry they have a plan! All we have to do is cut Social Security and Medicare bc we Have No Choice!
Source on the Peregrine?
Also notable, the F-35s are rated for 8,000 flight hours. The EX is rated for 20,000. That's a huge factor.@@Nick-kn6il
MFW one F-15EX can wipe out an entire squadron assuming all missiles hit.
The current F-15 fleet is definitely long in the tooth. I agree with the AF acquiring the EX. It's a proven airframe with some nice upgrades. I also agree that you don't need a 5th Gen stealth platform to truck bombs and missiles after IAD's have been dealt with. I just hope the cost doesn't spike up over the length of the buy. Current acquisition history has shown cost to always be going up. 12 AMRAAMs sounds cool!
It's an equivalen of GM adding a back up camera to a Chevy Lumina. LITERALLY.
You can disable an IADS but still have individual SAMs spread out creating an opportunistic threat.
In all honesty, i think it is a great plan, taking an existing aircraft and producing new with upgrades, that way you are not retraining for a new aircraft and as they both side above, stealth is only used in certain ways. I was ask, why not upgrade the current fleet and they answered that. I have learned so much from you guys and your positions and just detailed information that is interesting.
@@bessarion1771 You literally do not know the meaning of the word literally. LITERALLY.
@@checksixivan4921 adding new electronics to an outdated platform is LITERALLY like adding new electronics to an outdated platform. For homework assignment look up "metaphor" and "compare/contrast."
What struck me was the modern fly by wire system, as Mover pointed out. He also had a good point that stealth is only useful at the start of a campaign.
The F-35 would also be useful to pass targeting data to the EX. Stay out of the line of fire and use all that data fusion.
I dont think this would be true in a near peer campaign. Look at ukraine today they just shot down 5 fourth gen birds in 1 week with the patriot missile system. Russia is wishing they had more stealth jets they could use.
@@user-mm1nt1it5vbut russia never destroyed the patriot. Thats the whole point of things like the F-35 is to go in day one and kill the air deffence systems and clean up the skies to open the door for the 4th gen bomb trucks and missile trucks to deal with the rest.
stealth has a way of making holes in defence networks while also improving air to air effectiveness becaus of dificulty locking on to stealth aircraft
This is true if we only have a few if most of the fleet is 35s it’s gonna make a big difference especially with older radar arrays
@@user-mm1nt1it5v I was thinking that too. I wouldn't want to be in a F=15EX flying in the south china sea even if only half the Chinese fleet was still above water.
As you guys point out, we already have day one capability that can't maintain the mission tempo of any invested action. We can't focus strictly on cutting edge stealth to win a sustained conflict. The price tag listed here is only the initial sticker price. Whether talking about sustained combat or a long period of peace time training, we have to focus on the mantra of 'logistics logistics logistics.' At least if our goal is a wartime viable, cost effective, force. I have no idea what the part crossover is from the E model but even at 40-50% compatibility, there are extremely substantial budget savings for each operational squadron. The tooling is still active. The supply lines are already there. Shelves are stocked. The chance for a 70-90% FMC rate is achievable immediately as they enter service compared to what we've seen for new platforms. I'm a former F-15 crew dog who watched the F22 come online. Those growing pains aren't acceptable for an extremely thinned force who need combat operational squadrons right now. In the next 10 years, the savings incurred by buying the F-15EX will show this to be the low budget/high value choice.
Agreed sir ! Completely a solid plan . If we don’t do this we may find ourselves in shet .
Never know when you will need that back seat. The movie, Iron Eagle comes to mind. :)
The price might be a little bit expensive by government standards, but the Air Force still need that plane because it has some good advantages over the F-15C aircraft, which is getting older and cost expensive for upgrades. So getting a new aircraft would be a new investment and it’s hard for them to upgrade the older F-15C because it’s past beyond is service life and it’s due for retirement.
I think its cost has to compared to the F-18, not just F-35. IMO the higher cost of current Rhino's demonstrates how good a deal the -15EX is.
F-15EX AESA radar is the current/only 36” class array. That’s a lot of ability to see things smaller radars cannot. The Airforce should just commit to retiring all the C/D’s asap and the oldest half of the E fleet and pickup 250+ EXs
I don't see a lot of people commenting about the radar/sensor upgrades these are getting. It's a whole new animal
Gets the f35s passive sensors aswell
I wonder how much of an upgrade are the APG-82 vs. APG63v3 - both relatively young AESA.
@Cwomack07 is right, and physical size is a key element a lot of people fail to understand as key advantage both in number of radar dipoles/antenna and also cooling capacity. Cooling these high powered AESA arrays and the growing heat output of the avionics is actually a big... lets not call it a problem, it's been a long standing 'opportunity' on the F-35 program. Beautiful thing is that those opportunities translate very well to the F-15 platform that has the physical real estate to employ these technologies without melting down or temperature throttling.
I read somewhere the E models are going to be retrofit with the EX's radars.
I always assumed the anti-air strategy was to send in a set of F-35s to provide essentially a "forward AWACS" capability so that missile trucks (like the EX) could launch long range 120-Ds or fitted Meteors and immediately defend while the F-35s would guide the missiles in increasing probability of kill.
Yes, and since an F-35 would have something to do even if it doesn't have any ordinance left, the lower payload capacity is less of an issue.
@@196cupcake exactly
Yes that’s correct, people spend so much time picking at little details of an individual aircraft’s capabilities but don’t think about the big picture
If the F-35 switches on its radar it loses its stealth. It can use its IRST though.
Air force should get Honda Accord EX instead. They get great mpg and can seat 5 instead of just 2 in the f15 EX
Your comments about getting zero hour airframes is so on point. We are doing PBR, PSSR & CSL repairs on F-16’s because those airframes are tired!
We've done a similar thing in the RAAF.
F35s to be attacking whilst unseen.
Growlers to blind what the enemy can see and Rhinos to truck the bombs in.
Followed by the BBJ to bring the Prime Minister for a tour afterwards 😂
Really wish you guys still had the capabilities of the F-111 on tap...
Bareback BlowJob? Is that even legal unless it's free
@@vmpgsc I'm pretty sure they were at the age where they spent more time on ground than airborne sadly.
I don't know if there's going to be anything like that again come along 😞
F-35's are anything but "unseen" they have been called "low observability" for well over a decade which means it gets picked up and tracked and a shorter range
@@daleferber2096 it will get picked up and tracked at a much closer range than previous aircraft.
By that time the inbound weapon is already on it's way.
Amn of the Quarter (explicitly non-MX amn) and NFL cheerleaders getting free rides is exactly right. Can't let any of the maintainers get anything other than a half-assed verbal appreciation at the end of a speech when everyone has already lost interest. Now get about to work! 16's until the MC rate goes up one more percent!
-Big Air Force.
Ever since the EX was announced, I thought it was an awesome idea. This thing is a flying SAM site that easily converts to a fast, heavy-duty bomb truck when you need one. I could even envision mods that would turn an EX into a CJ or Growler equivalent for EW and SEAD. It made perfect sense to me that the USA Guard units with Air Defense Missions should all replace their C/D models with the EX and that we should buy at least 144 of these jets. I have no idea what the AF brass was thinking when they decided to buy the EX for the Portland, Klamath Falls, Fresno and Nawlins units.....but then decided that the Jacksonville and Westfield units should get the F-35. WTFO?? In their primary mission, these Guard units are not likely to face masses of 5th gen fighters. The flying SAM site with the big-ass radar is what they really need.....and are pretty much already trained to fly. It also has two engines, which is really nice for coastal defense.
I will always hold out hope for an F-15G.
All they need for doing SEAD is to integrate a HTS pod, software updates and firing tests for the HARM… which possibly had already been done before for foreign custom F-15 projects.
@eatdriveplay There's so much more to SEAD than just being able to make a decent HARM shot. We're lucky we have been able to forget that & still have air superiority when we want it. Next time any of us fight someone smart, motivated, trained & equipped with decent air defence, we'll see how much we lost when the USAF decided to get out of the EW mission.
@@corvanphoenix I get u. The Israelis have been geniuses at this… just get their Elisra systems, they don’t need to carry lots of jammer pods.
@eatdriveplay To be fair too, plenty of air forces have invested in various commercial aircraft packed to the bulkheads with EW gear. They might not last long in a shooting war, but they're a whole lot better than nothing.
The tiny radar returns of stealth aircraft like the F-35 will never become obsolete as long as radars are still used to detect or track aircraft.
Mover joked about who gets backseat rides, but I was actually bumped from my Eagle ride at Nellis by a local female newscaster. It took me until my 29th year in the Guard to get a ride in the backseat of a Viper. Yeah, I got sick but wouldn’t trade it for anything - that max takeoff!
I would KILL to get a ride in the F-15E Strike Eagle. It is my favorite plane by far. Such a good looking jet, plus the sheer amount of laser guided hate that it can carry makes me feel things 😅
Back in the day, they offered me a catapult launch and wire recovery in a Tomcat ... I would have loved that but really didn't want to sign another 4 years of my life away for a one hour thrill ride... the Navy Reserve was a generally better fit for me.
As a retired USAF Flight surgeon, I love seeing new airframes with a backseat!.
Concur! Near retirement ANG flight doc here. We traded in our A, B, C and D model Eagles for Raptors back in 2009 so I lost my back seat. I thought it was important to experience the same thing our pilots were experiencing especially when making medical decisions regarding fitness for duty. It also was a great recruiting incentive to offer typically difficult to recruit doc AFSC’s.
Great job Mover! Recent subscriber and appreciate the great content.
@@docvern7I retired out of NCANG. We always had seats. C-130 and now C-17. My only fighter ride was in T38 out of Randolph during AMP. But you are correct. Being able to fly with crews is critical in understanding stresses of flight, but more importantly, developing rapport with the crews.
Great Episode, Guys! Like hearing what you two bring to conversations.
Gonky's comment "everything i did i could've done in an A4 "was very telling.
Yep. Fancy ass shit is rad but when it becomes a numbers game it may not add up.
The EX is planned to get both the Legion IRST pod and the SNIPER pod as well
The Sniper Pod is not currently planned for the EX, but the Legion is. Sniper would require currently out-of-scope software and hardware upgrades.
@@Hyposonic "Two other sensors are planned to be integrated on the F-15EX, the Legion Pod InfraRed Search and Track system (IRST) and the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod. Both systems are already integrated on the F-15C and will be transferred to the new aircraft, without the need to acquire new ones."
@@AWD-mu3sq I checked your source and you are correct. My info was from the early contract for just the development phase, not the procurement phase. Good info!
Not true, both Sniper and Litening are fielded for EX. IRST was a later addition. They will have the capabilityto put Sniper on Sta 5 as well as 5a.@Hyposonic
I said USAF should split the F-15K line for new upgraded F-15s ten years ago, to keep the fighting force capable. I was 100% correct. I will state now for the record, retiring ALL the B-1B Bombers is a bad idea. A few BONEs should be upgraded too as standoff air-to-air missile truck, with the rest for spare parts.
The B-1 has a very low mission-capable rate. Because of the way they were built, many parts are not even interchangeable--making even the idea of scavenging older ones tough. On paper and in combat, the B-1B is awesome. For the maintainers and budget guys, it's a nightmare.
Some of these points make me think of two comparisons- 1) look how WWII Germany pigeon holed themselves by staking their bet on technological superiority in small numbers vs the USA or even the then USSR grinding them down with good enough technologies but in greater numbers that were sustainable to replace. 2) I look at these 5th Gen or "wonder weapons" like the tip of the spear or special forces, they’re mission specific and give an enormous edge in their mission set over adversaries allowing us to mitigate and open up defenses for the bulk work horses forces as you guys stated. It seems that the politicians, DOD, or heads of respective service branches are more interested in spending under the guise of staying ahead of any near peer with tech than keeping the branches well supplied with proven viable materials/hardware albeit dated it’s still equal to or better than our adversaries. Then I’m just an enthusiast with an opinion armchair quaterbacking here.
I think the F15EX has a lot of value to add to warfighting. I think it’s a great move. I really like the idea of the WSO controlling drones from the backseat adding even more capability.
Freedom isn't free, nor is it cheap!
What the USAF/Lockheed Martin really should do, is create an updated 21-century F-16XL, and the produce a 300 of them.
@@phillipbanes5484 Because look at it! And it could have enough hard points to carry the entire Norwegian Air Force stockpile of missiles
@@phillipbanes5484 You're comparing the real airplanes, not my imagined new, improved F-16X(X)L. Which is so much better looking. And much cheaper.
@@superkjell So F-16EX and F-16FX? I could get behind that.
All about those tradeoffs. We can't cease acquisition of front-line top-end F-35's, but nor can we compromise other capabilities. It's perhaps why a cheap side-by-side drone (or man-in-the-loop semi-autonomous) platform could help, but those run into the issues with general capabilities and stealth in terms of cost/maintenance hours per flight hour in the same ways that manned aircraft do.
The main issues with too many kinds of platforms becomes sustainment in operations, where there are too many jet types with too many parts. Or not enough people to maintain all the various kinds of aircraft (a recruiting and personnel retention factor). Thus, common aircraft types in the fewest configurations becomes the best possible case for a hot war, assuming those aircraft can provide the required edge in combat.
You touched on what I feel is often overlooked and the recent UKR/RUS conflict has highlighted. In a hot war, the missiles are going to dry up quickly. True for ships (we desperately need better and more naval guns), aircraft, and anti-air/anti-ship.
Good point, especially long range missiles are needed in a conflict like that.
Taking down a swarm of drones also eats missiles like it's nothing.
Its alot different then Afghanistan and Iraq where on day 150 you pretty much have the most need for an A-10 when an F-35 its stealth isn't really needed.
Cost-wise you really have to consider the price per flight hour which is where the f-15EX has a very significant advantage over the F-35.
Be cool to see the new batch all looking like the F 15 ATD with front canards and thrust vectoring.
Isn't a fully equipped F-35A like 80-85 million? With 85 million being after it's price hike. Where are people getting the information that a F-15EX is cheaper than a F-35 and why are we comparing it with a F-35C?
Even after day 1, the F35 would play a critical role. It does not have to fight other aircraft to be valuable.
I’m convinced that sensors and avionics are going to be the dominant factor, not stealth, in future conflicts. New airframes should incorporate basic elements, but shouldn’t be the focus.
The TAI KANN really is the love child of the F-15E and F-35A. The 3 prototypes are to have many a common component, from the F-110 engines, through to the MB ejection seat of the F-15E, but in an airframe knocked out by TAI's Advanced Carbon Composites fuselage facility (with the help of BAE), that was established to churn out the airframes for the F-35A, till someone elected to purchase S-400, rather than F-35A for their airforce, and F-35B for their navy (Leaving their STOVL carrier feeling rather unloved).
Cockpit appears to ape the side stick and large LCD display of the F-35. Also as TAI have manufactured, under licence, and upgraded the avionics of 100+ F-16, not forgetting manufacturing many a component for Boeing, wouldn't be surprised if some inspiration, if not parts, are borrowed from current F-16 blocks.
Smart thinking, gents - from my 4th gen fighter experience, I agree.
You know, for all the time you guys talk about Fat Amy, I'm surprised you haven't gotten Hasard Lee on to actually talk about flying it.
Seems the F-15EX carries almost as much as what the F-111 could carry. That is just insane.
Seems the new F-15 is what the F-111 was supposed to be.
Considering that there are no true Gen 5 fighters outside of the US, and the F-35 seems ideally suited for taking out ground based air defense assets, the “clean up” to ensure air space domination can be well taken care of by the F-35/F-15EX team.
If targeting of Chinese (and the 6 Russian) “Gen 5” jets can be done with Gen 4+ jets, then stealth is reall not necessary.
I like the idea of F-35s flying to within 30 miles of their stealth jets, out of sight. Sending targeting info to F-15EXs 120 miles away, and getting kills. Way cool.
I think the flight cost hours are cheaper on the EX vs the F-35. Plus it has a 20,000 hour flight hour rated airframe.
It has expandability, you can have a drone operator in the back seat someday when it calls for it.
I was listening to a YT video about Desert Storm and there were fighters configured for air to ground and in mid flight had to go fight airplanes, the F-15EX would still be pretty good for that. As for cost, it is still cheaper than a F-35 and a lot more capable.
This makes me wonder why the USAF hasn't tried to buy some Block 70 F-16s. A lot of those airframes are quite old by now as well, and the newer version solves the main weaknesses of the Block 50 with its CFTs and stronger radar. It would seem logical, especially since F-35 procurement hasn't been as fast as expected.
@@phillipbanes5484 Interesting, I was not aware of this. That should definitely help their capabilities immensely.
The F-16 production line is still going with plenty of foreign orders.
F-15 production line was on the verge of closing down (along with the F-18 line). Makes some sense to keep Boeing producing fighters.
In an Air to air conflict this is designed to be a missile truck for 5th gens, and to use the Air Forces upcoming long range missle, which the f35 and f22 wont even be able to carry internally. Also its a really good bombing platform since its bones are from the E model.
What I have read, 75 percent parts in common with previous F15. It is cheaper to operate by hour and has a much longer lifespan than F35. Along with the F35 can't carry the new hypersonic missile
Yes it’s expensive at 93.5 million but take into consideration that a small jet like the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen E/F is 85 million so I don’t think it’s that bad. But the run cost for maintenance are a different matter, more emphasis should be put on that.
The F-15 EX can carry any weapon that the F-35, F-18, or F-16 can carry, and much more. 29,500 lb payload.
@@phillipbanes5484 And in the A/G role, targeting pods.
For context, the typical heavy load of a B-29 is 20,000.
They could carry the T-12 at 40+ thousand pounds, though, and I doubt the F-15EX could carry that monster.
Regarding DCA missile trucks, some of the scems of the B-21 I've seen show AAM racks.
I love this platform mainly for its ability to carry a large loadout. Stealth is great, but it's not the hammer for every nail. IMO as an armchair, DCS fighter pilot with 18 months of intense player-vs-AI experience, a combined approach of 1) Stealth and EW platforms for suppression of air defenses and high-value, heavily protected targets, 2) Weapons platforms that have range and can actually carry significant ordinance, and 3) Less-expensive platforms that can be produced in quantity. Stalin had a point - quantity has a quality all its own. The F-35 may be very capable in certain situations, but IMO platforms like the F-16 and A-10 still have a place as lower-cost but capable platforms to "fill in the blanks" and work alongside more expensive platforms. Ukraine has shown (again) that Russian technology is not as effective as some would like us to think, and I am willing to be China is the same.
I don't know anything, but I think I'd rather see 200 or 300 new F-16s over 100 new F-15s.
The F-16 doesn’t have the range or radar to be as effective towards long range defensive SAMs or MIG-31, they will get the first shots each time. There’s more redundancy and payload options for the F-15 as well. Cost and mildly better low speed maneuverability are the only benefits a F-16 could have.
When was expense ever a concern, cost plus contracts encourages more expense not less.
I keep saying this in discussions online when they're all going on about who's latest and greatest tech is the best, if we are talking near peer conflict then eventually losses will take their toll. The ability to keep manufacturing up with losses is a major factor and the latest greatest technology is slower to manufacture than the previous gen. It's a lesson we havn't learned from ww2, latest tech is great but we should always have a fallback design we can rely on when losses start to be taken.
We should be learning this lesson from Ukraine... but I'm pretty sure we aren't.
Well let's keep things in perspective. During WWII, the defense manufacturing was greatly increased when the US took advantage of its commercial manufacturing to build weapons instead of cars and appliances.
I wonder who proposed writing EX after the 5, so that it became 5EX in F15EX.
Sadly, the five sided wind tunnel won’t buy enough to keep up with attrition, and will allow the manufacturers to destroy the tooling after the purchase is complete. During SEA, F-105’s were replaced with those from the states, and eventually by F-4’s since they were available and the F-4’s were being built. The command structure is so short sighted it’s a real shame.
I will always hold out hope for an F-15G.
G?
@andreabindolini7452 Wild Wiesel variant. Boeing have had plans for it for years, they just put the F-18G's electronics in a Strike Eagle.
@@corvanphoenix I didn't remember it.
@@andreabindolini7452 It's very 'inside baseball', I only know about it from interviews with an epic retired EWO called Starbaby. He is a huge advocate for the Wild Wiesel mission & EW in general.
@@corvanphoenix Thank you for the insight.
In some article was about NGAD and NATO future plans, and how they are going to use f-35 "with big fleets of NGAD". But in the meantime, while NGAD is not here, F-15EX will be used instead of the NGAD. So, if I understood correctly it adds up pretty much with this. In article was also explained f-35 going front, SEAD etcetc AND showing goals for these "missile trucks". This really is good idea, and it maby also gives some "age-continuum" to training itself also, dunno, just thinkin...
50 years later the only replacement for a F-15 is another F-15. In 2050 the only replacement for a F-15 is likely to be another F-15...and the EX has two pods by default like the E...
No it’s really because America is broke.
@@bobbyraejohnson AOC: "Taxes will pay for some, the government will pay for the rest."
F/A-18E/F/G can do 12 AMRAAMs. The -15EX is still cheaper & better.
Also, thrust vectoring is for airshows only. If you're slow enough to need it you're already dead.
Ex should also be perfect for training fighter pilots & drone pilots into effective teams for NGAD.
I feel like you guys haven't been watching videos from Lockheed's RUclips channel on Fat Amy. I am not a fighter pilot but have worked on them my whole adult life and "feel" like I'd rather take the F-35 every time regardless. But to be fair, I'll take anything baby! I'm really easy to please. lol
Real life experience > RUclips videos. 🤣
@CWLemoine No no. Lockheed propaga...er...promotion videos! Btw, when I was working on legacy Hornets in the Marines and had ready room duty, I would watch all the hud tapes of our guys fighting Eagles. Every time you pick on them, I chuckle because I saw how easy it was for our pilots to defeat them in dogfights.
a bomber loaded with missiles reminds me of an old game called Zone66 where you could hop into the big slow bomber and load it up with 60 something AAM's and just go to town on the enemy aircraft
The F-15EX program reminds me of the Attack Super Tomcat 21 program. What i hate about that is that a proper competition wasn’t allowed and Boeing was just handed the contract to build Super Hornets.
Everything is always too expensive unless it comes from the district of a congressmen who has power in government. So we get 'cheaper' less capable aircraft that can't do the job. Everyone complained about how expensive the Tomcat-21 was going to be, but no one really bitched about the price of the B-2.
This is the modern day F-4E Phantom
Yep. The Eagle replaced the Phantom for the USAF. Only fitting that it fills the role.
@@GrizzAxxemannAlso, unlike Phat Amy, F-15’s carry plenty of ammo for the gun.
@@RickActual That is probably my only serious gripe with the F-35A having 182 rounds. The F-35B and C have a pod with only 220 rounds. I'm guessing this was highly debated inside and outside the Pentagon, but simulations showed it to be enough.
@@Hyposonicthe threat of the gun is more useful than the gun itself, perhaps?
Main thing is drone hunting and other things to do on the cheap, as Israel experienced recently.
If they are going back to tried and tested airframes with a view to modernising them with current tech and flight control systems, how about an F-14EX? Now that I would love to see back in the air!
The difference is this assembly line is still open. No/limited retooling needed. They're not reviving a dead airframe.
@@CWLemoine Thanks Mover. I knew it was very unlikely but would love to see that big cat fly again... Tomcats!
That would be awesome! Sadly, not meant to be.
The only existing and flying Tomcats out there are the Iran ones. They are no match for the EX and I think they have no hopes to be upgraded by the Iranians to the same level. Very old airframes though.
@@andreabindolini7452the Iranians potentially using the parts also means there’s a reason not to have more F-14 production.
The greatest threat and Bain to stealth and the f35 fighter is upgraded sensers and radars and new and improved Sencers and radars that can easily detect stealth aircraft, to put a new modern radar and sensers on an f15ex and nothing could really hide in the air, even stealth.
I would love to see the Air Force quit trying to do things on the cheap and just go ahead and buy like 250 F-15EXs. We are acting like nobody else has aspirations of being the sole superpower. There are plenty of countries that would like to knock us off the top of the hill, and I would bet one of them will take their shot in the next decade.
Until RAM becomes more common place, BVR and inventories will rule. Once RAM is common, the fight zones will close to within detectable IR. If there is a day that IR and Radar masking becomes so good without a new detection paradigm to take their place, then we might see a new age of dog fighting come back. Then again, if you have to close to within Line of Sight, you might as well let the computers handle the shooting since it'll react faster than the pilot at both craft ID and engagement.
Buycost is one thing, maintenance over 25 years is another costfactor that is way more important.
Cheap workhorses for airspace that's either secure or unchallenged. Theyre getting modern sensor suites so theyll be even more powerful than the legacy eagles. Theyll be very very capable birds. More than just a missle truck imo
You'd think they'd want around 300 of these things.
If we need more workhorse aircraft, why not double the number of F-16 block 70s?
I recall hearing someone say that the f15ex has long combat range, and thus will be important for the pacific against china. It might have been someone on ward carroll's channel, perhaps justin bronk.
There's a difference in "cost to acquire" and "cost to maintain." The F-15EX may be rather expensive to procure, but over the long run how much cheaper is it to operate per flight hour?
We're buying like a hundred B-21's but we're only getting an plastically an equal number of F-15's? We should tell Boeing that we'll buy 500 EX's if they get the price down to 50 million per frame.
The more you buy, the cheaper each one is... Plus per hour flight costs will be substantially below what fifth gen costs. And let's talk availability: just nicking the stealth coating on a fifth gen requires major rework, whereas a dirty EX can fly and fly and not give sh*t. And the EX has gigantic space and cooling for upgraded avionics vs the tightly constrained F-35s. Need more smash? Stuff GE F110-GE-132s into the airframes; minimal rework and a large bump in thrust. Being able to update EW and sensors (moderns systems can do this PER SORTIE with OTA or similar updates) will, at some point, obviate the need for ever more expensive exquisite stealth solutions.
Flight hours are similar to 5th gen, and newer stealth coatings aren't like the old ones.
Stealth gets you where you need to be. An aircraft broadcasting its position is less effective at using EW and sensors.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD EX can do the datalink thing where any sensor can provide track and the F-15s can remain EMCON. They are 5th gen in many ways on the sensor and EW side.
You fly something so long and so often the enemy is bound to get a beat on it in one day, inevitably shoot it down. the less we use our stealth aircraft and instead using strategically the more of a chance of them not being shot down
What I didn’t see in the literature on screen and what I understand of the F-15 EX is that it is cheaper to operate than the F 35 currently quite considerably I can’t remember the figures but they are significantly lower per operational hour
For $93 million I hope the Pepsi dispenser doesn't jam up.
🇦🇺 The US Air Force procurement system is very confusing. Back in the 1960s : let's make an air superiority fighter = F15. Too expensive, need something cheaper = F16. Two decades later : we need an air superiority fighter = F22. Too expensive, need something cheaper = F35. Seems to be going around in circles or am I missing something? BTW - all four aircraft appear to be excellent.
Honda makes the EX version of the F-15.
So the EX in F15EX stands for EXpensive…?? (It’s a joke)…
Great plane. Love the Strike Eagle and the F15C’s.
Is it realistic to expect the US air force to eliminate any threats to aircraft on "day one"? Could it take much longer or not happen at all? What would the F-15EXs do then?
A lighter single seat f15 ex, man!! They need to get it done by any means necessary lol
🎉. There is no back seat to tie off but we left the ability to add one if we needed for future. The AF sold its sole to stealth and has done years of studies to justify their narrow vision. F-15 numbers kept declining over years in their studies - 360 then 212 then 188 now 124. Mission didn’t change. Go figure. The EX is way less expensive per flying hour than F-22 and F-35. Also modern IRST capability can overcome most stealth advantages for far less cost in the air-to-air environment. The EX has enormous capabilities that will become known as the weapon system matures. Im not a cheer leader for Boeing but they did a great service to the country by getting the AF to consider the EX and for keeping costs down. You could do an entire show on just the strategic implication of keeping the production line open all the way down to the tactical applications.
I agree 100%
If you want 4 full mission capable f35 aircraft for a mission, then you will need at least 6 of them to get a reasonable probability of having 4 that are full mission capable. F35 is not reliable (poor mean time between failure and poor mean time to repair). F15EX does not have this problem so when comparing initial costs, F35 is much more expensive than F15EX to field equivalent Full Mission Capable aircraft.
When F35 low observable/stealth capabilities are countered by a new technology, then the whole fleet of F35 aircraft will become less effective than gen4 aircraft overnight. The F15EX does not have this Achilles heel.
The F15EX is a platform that is conducive to upgrades for future new requirements. Particularly upgrades requiring more electrical power, larger and heavier missiles launched at high airspeed and high altitude, etc. The single engine F35 with lots of drag is not conducive to upgrades.
The F35 is “acquisition malfeasance” and the government will never get a fair cost schedule performance result but will get lots of disappointments, hidden risks and more schedule delays, cost overruns,and continue to accept deliveries that require waivers.
The F15EX is much more capable in many ways. Plus, If for any reason the F35 gets in trouble, it can not run away from danger (too slow, and don’t count on hiding the IR of that big engine in full AB when trying to escape).
Acquisition Malfeasance includes hiding risks by calling them “watch items”, “concerns”, and other names instead of risks that must be formally tracked.
Even if it's pricey, it is worth it. The Air National Guard needs an aircraft that can replace all of those 50 year old F-15Cs while having similar capabilities.
The question is what will it cost per hour to run them? Also, how much per airframe if we get hundreds of them?
exactly. 288 makes a bit more sense and if that cost per airframe continues? It's more than worth it. As far as stealth // LO ... I just don't understand the utility of it as used to run intercepts. You're just repeatedly giving your "adversaries" all the sigint they can eat to try to perfect any R&D they feel like doing ... all while wasting tremendous cost in the "per hour" consumption of budget where visual confirmation is always required. It's utterly nonsensical use of their airframes.
Another option would've been making some number of F-35x which didn't use any LO tech (RAM); saving the cost of maintenance // price per hour yet letting your pilots acclimate to the airframe.
Better still would've been to make an F-15 with absolutely all sensors and computers from the F35. Such that a pilot could train in one and transfer to the other; identical interfaces in an airframe with two engines, costs less per hour, is certified for more hours, has a greater payload but with the same sensor fusion capabilities. Why shouldn't all airframes have those identical features?? The F-16 or Super Hornet wouldn't benefit from an APG-85 or an EOTS..?
Such standardization of knowledge and flight control and training across platforms in which the services are then deciding if pilots need a missile truck, LO etc. Obviously you aren't going to ask pilots that train in 7G aircraft to fly Hornets or Vipers ... or ask a Viper driver to land on a boat. But there's just no reason not to standardize what these pilots are interacting with inside the cockpit and the sensors they're using.
is there between Boeing construction for civilian vs mil
Was the f22 or f353 too expensive? They built and put in service both of those.
Cost per hour of flight and man hours of maintenance are much more exp in the long run than the sales price. The total support paid for in the disclosed contract is specified either. $50k per flight hour is thrown around on some frame types. If that includes depreciation and total material/personelle support an 8000 hr airframe is 400 million in lifecycle cost. Cost to maintain the ram needing climate control hangers like the b 2 requires are all huge issues affecting life cycle cost.
Yep it’s a bad ass missile truck
Indian Air Force should go for at least 50 of EX and about 70 more Rafael F4s in upcoming MRFA.
What I don't understand is why did we spend all of this money designing and building a 5th generation fighter that is faster with a fully loaded weapons bay, has more maneuverability, and has the ability to shoot first because of its' stealth capabilities if all we are going to do is keep making changes to an airframe that was originally designed in the late 70's.
Everyone says that the F-22 was designed for air superiority, and given its capability it gives a person pause to want to attack one, but this whole thing kinda sounds like one of those wipe before you poop scenarios.
On a different note is the last Alex Shepard book going to be available on Audible anytime soon?
F15ex is currently the strongest 4.5gen
Agree.
I agree that there's a place for a "workhorse". But then why only 100 of them? There's enough money for 2000+ F-35's but only enough for 100 EX's? odd
Gonna need a missile truck with long legs in the Pacific.
OMG is this a Viper driver propping up an Eagle?
What is happening here?
4th gen is family, even if it’s /that/ brother.
There is another issue regarding the acquisition of new fighter aircraft. With the F35 Block 4 being delayed, the US and Allied Air Forces are getting old and is the F35 programmed to replace all of the old aircraft in the inventory? The F15 is old. The F16 is old. The A10 is old. The F35 build rate is limited and Allied Air Forces are also purchasing some of the production. Where can you get more fighter aircraft in a reasonable amount of time to replace all the old airframes and technology? This is the best aircraft available in the quickest time.
Looks like it has the nose authority of a Hornet with the power/weight ratio of an Eagle. Sounds like a win/win.
Very good observation. Boeing learned a thing or two from the Hornet (specifically HARV) that made its way into this plane and all later Hornets.
Bring back the SR-71 as a missile truck. What kinda stand-off range would that have launching 120D's at 70k feet mach 3+ Lol
It would be cool but there’s no room. You would lose precious range just for weapons and sensors, on top of the fact SR-71s needed days between missions.
are radar intercept officer, or anyone who sits in the rear seat ,are they pilots? do they have flight time in a jet be it training jet or any other traditional prop plane ?