Dawes Posted January 5, 2023 Posted January 5, 2023 Not sure if 12 missiles would be a realistic combat load, though. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/01/05/f-15ex-tests-added-missile-capabilities/
Josh Posted January 8, 2023 Posted January 8, 2023 Why not? Shouldn't be a weight issue. There aren't too many scenarios where I could see it being useful, but I think the USAF has kicked around the idea of pairing F-15s with F-35s that have a much lighter load with internal missiles only. Hunter/Killer arrangement. The fact that they are actually testing these stations for carriage seems to imply they envision and actual use for it.
seahawk Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 Or use the F-15 as UAV and cruise missile hunters.
Sardaukar Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 Well, F-18C can carry 10 AIM-120s, so nothing special. Word is *can*, different thing is *should it*
Angrybk Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 They need to go back! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer
Skywalkre Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 Haven't followed the EX closely... I thought it was a 1-seater meant to replace the C model? Why the back seater? (Channeling CW Lemoine in my head here.)
TrustMe Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Skywalkre said: Haven't followed the EX closely... I thought it was a 1-seater meant to replace the C model? Why the back seater? (Channeling CW Lemoine in my head here.) It's enhanced version of Qatari F15QA which was an enhanced version of the Saudi F15SA. Basically, it's an improved F15E which was ordered for the USAAF in around 1988. Both pilot and weapon systems officers have helmet mounted symbology helmets, which allow two seperate engagements of different enemy aircraft at the same time. One per person. Kinda cool PS I thought that the F15EX could carry a maxinium of 22 different missiles rather than 12.
Skywalkre Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 So it's multirole unlike the C? While the multi engagement thing is... interesting... I'm still curious if it outweighs dropping the back seater for more fuel ( Lemoine on his channel oftenly jokes that back seaters are worthless and would rather have the fuel).
TrustMe Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 39 minutes ago, Skywalkre said: So it's multirole unlike the C? While the multi engagement thing is... interesting... I'm still curious if it outweighs dropping the back seater for more fuel ( Lemoine on his channel oftenly jokes that back seaters are worthless and would rather have the fuel). The F15E verson introduced conformal fuel tanks (CFT's) so it has more fuel even though a certain amount of fuel space was given up for the back seater. History has shown that having two pairs of eyes whilist flying really increases aircraft survival rates. Having a two seater is also a doctrine issue. France and the Israeli's (with the F16I) are seemingly of the opinion, that for the ground attack part of fighter design, it requires that two head's in the cockpit rather than one to deliver accurate air to ground ordnance. With the European EF2000 and now the F35 the idea is, that sufficiently advanced avonics allows them to accomplish ground sorties having only one pilot. I personnely believe that two is necessary. But i'm just a back seat driver (pun intended).
Josh Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 3 hours ago, Skywalkre said: Haven't followed the EX closely... I thought it was a 1-seater meant to replace the C model? Why the back seater? (Channeling CW Lemoine in my head here.) It’s essentially a F-15QA. I think USAF just didn’t want to spend any money changing the design. But I suspect in the future they will replace the F-15E as more F-35s become available.
bfng3569 Posted January 12, 2023 Posted January 12, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 12:25 PM, Skywalkre said: Haven't followed the EX closely... I thought it was a 1-seater meant to replace the C model? Why the back seater? (Channeling CW Lemoine in my head here.) future growth? Controlling drones potentially, who knows...
Dawes Posted January 12, 2023 Author Posted January 12, 2023 In it's "bomb truck" role, a backseater might be useful.
shep854 Posted January 14, 2023 Posted January 14, 2023 (edited) In a peer conflict, they would be useful for escort of standoff aircraft such as tankers, EWACS, etc., that an enemy might consider valuable enough to send saturation intercept missions. Edited January 14, 2023 by shep854
Dawes Posted January 14, 2023 Author Posted January 14, 2023 IIRC, most (all?) of these will be assigned to Air National Guard units to replace their geriatric C/D models.
Josh Posted January 14, 2023 Posted January 14, 2023 For the moment F-15EX is a C replacement with just pilot. It seems likely it sees other uses long run. In the short term I think it was cheaper for the USAF to buy the 15QA with no alterations, besides having other possible roles in the future. So they will fly with an empty seat initially.
Dawes Posted January 14, 2023 Author Posted January 14, 2023 I believe the EX has a stronger airframe than the C, and possibly the E (?). The E's are getting long in the tooth, and in a world with an unlimited budget the EX would appear to be an ideal replacement.
bfng3569 Posted January 26, 2023 Posted January 26, 2023 Interesting video recap on the EX and some history. Two seater because that is what the existing production line is set for (as Josh indicated, time and money). i had asked about the two bump outs on the side of the cockpit thinking it was some type of sensor. Nope, they are empty. Its a missile warning system for the F-15QA that the us didn't purchase. The two existing EX's are off the Qatar production line Mach 2.493 is the fastest they have flown it.....
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 26, 2023 Posted January 26, 2023 Thanks for posting that up, I meant to do that the other day.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 27, 2023 Posted January 27, 2023 Yeah, Ive even found his DCS F14 landing videos useful. Check out his novels too, at least two of the 'punk' novels are well worth it, particularly the first one.
Josh Posted January 28, 2023 Posted January 28, 2023 To his point about outsized loads, it has come out that HACM's first integration platform will in fact be the F-15, not the B-52. Personally I suspect part of the reason for that is because HACM will have a very high ceiling limitation and I've been told the B-52 struggles above 40,000 feet; Balls 8 just barely made it to 49,000 feet to drop the X-51. It also seems likely ARRW will be integrated into the centerline station as well, assuming the AGM-183 program actually end up going to production (call it 50/50 right now).
Dawes Posted January 28, 2023 Author Posted January 28, 2023 So the Air National Guard may be getting some new missions?
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 29, 2023 Posted January 29, 2023 10 hours ago, Josh said: To his point about outsized loads, it has come out that HACM's first integration platform will in fact be the F-15, not the B-52. Personally I suspect part of the reason for that is because HACM will have a very high ceiling limitation and I've been told the B-52 struggles above 40,000 feet; Balls 8 just barely made it to 49,000 feet to drop the X-51. It also seems likely ARRW will be integrated into the centerline station as well, assuming the AGM-183 program actually end up going to production (call it 50/50 right now). That and there are some 70 B52's now. Considering the relative lack of Bomber Platforms, its really rather misusing it. Push come to shove, they could just as easily use surplus 747's for the role, as the UK is doing for its new satellite launch project.
bfng3569 Posted January 30, 2023 Posted January 30, 2023 On 1/28/2023 at 4:23 PM, Josh said: To his point about outsized loads, it has come out that HACM's first integration platform will in fact be the F-15, not the B-52. Personally I suspect part of the reason for that is because HACM will have a very high ceiling limitation and I've been told the B-52 struggles above 40,000 feet; Balls 8 just barely made it to 49,000 feet to drop the X-51. It also seems likely ARRW will be integrated into the centerline station as well, assuming the AGM-183 program actually end up going to production (call it 50/50 right now). will the re-engining of the B-52 change that at all?
Josh Posted January 30, 2023 Posted January 30, 2023 1 hour ago, bfng3569 said: will the re-engining of the B-52 change that at all? No. The engines are of roughly equivalent thrust, just with much higher efficiency.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now