Boeing F-15EX / F-15QA and related variants

[Blitzo]

Doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves and their liberty in whatever way they see fit.

Did somebody say they shouldn't?

Not directly. The direction from the thread is...

1. US needs airframes. Leasing them to Taiwan is a bad idea.
2. PLA has an overwhelming missile force. Leasing F15's to Taiwan is a bad idea.

Conclusion? Leasing F-15's to Taiwan is a waste of an F-15.

The PRC is making exceptional changes to the threat level in the ROK and the region. The PRC feels very bold in their push on Japan, Korea and the PI to break out of the first island chain. So much so that Japan is moving quickly to create amphibious forces and pushing defensive systems all the way down to Yonaguni Island.

F-15's, while an older air superiority platform is a beast. It brings a transformational shift in capability. Well handled and equipped, F-15's could introduce a level of uncertainty into the PRC's planning calculus. I would hope that the plan is for ROK pilots to train in the US prior to moving to this platform. Perhaps even on a regular basis. It's important for them to get time integrating into this new system.

I tend to think that F-15's with appropriate radar, munitions, EW systems, information sharing, allies and tactics will give the PRC an additional reason to pause before crossing the strait or continuing raise the threat level on the island. Especially if the ROC is willing to defend themselves long enough for assistance to arrive. The pain point for the PRC will be that much higher.

That assistance will come quicker if the ROK is integrated into US theater defensive systems - sharing information as appropriate.

If the PRC decides to cross the strait, it will do so. The repercussions for Taiwan will be devastating. It will hurt the US economically and politically as well. If the little green men are in the ROC already will the US be able to extricate them without massive civilian casualities? It will be better that they never attempt to do so.

I don't believe that leasing F-15's to Taiwan is a waste of an F-15.

I know you mean to write "ROC" in every instance, but you use "ROK" a few times ;D

In any case, I don't think the sferrin's point is about whether the US is willing to provide assistance to Taiwan, but more about whether pursuing F-15s are the best way for the ROC military to try and deter China.


I don't think anyone doubts the F-15 is a potent fighter aircraft, especially if it is modernized... but ROC's military budget is not exactly exhaustive, and how survivable are ROC airfields and fighters expected to be in the opening phases of a Taiwan contingency, in a manner where the very capable F-15s and their well trained crews have an opportunity to get up in the air to begin with?


In any case, it looks like the ROCAF are not completely brainless and are denying they want F-15s.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2018/03/21/2003689723

 

[NeilChapman]

1. I know you mean to write "ROC" in every instance, but you use "ROK" a few times ;D

2. In any case, I don't think the sferrin's point is about whether the US is willing to provide assistance to Taiwan, but more about whether pursuing F-15s are the best way for the ROC military to try and deter China.


I don't think anyone doubts the F-15 is a potent fighter aircraft, especially if it is modernized... but ROC's military budget is not exactly exhaustive, and how survivable are ROC airfields and fighters expected to be in the opening phases of a Taiwan contingency, in a manner where the very capable F-15s and their well trained crews have an opportunity to get up in the air to begin with?


3. In any case, it looks like the ROCAF are not completely brainless and are denying they want F-15s.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2018/03/21/2003689723

1. Thx - edited in the fixes.

2. I got what he meant. The PRC would like to overwhelm the ROC without firing a shot. Lobbing missiles into your "wayward" brothers is not their first choice - regardless the rhetoric. They want to make it "inevitable" so that no one contests their actions. Raising the stakes is important because it's what the PRC fears most - pushback.

For deterrence, I suspect F-15's would help in interdiction and suppression of PRC pressure tactics prior to an invasion attempt. There are ways to move jets around such that they are not such an easy target. In fact, it's probably incumbent on their AF to get used to moving their squadrons around.

3. I don't read the article that way. They're denying the US offered them, not that they don't want them.

 

[Blitzo]

2. I got what he meant. The PRC would like to overwhelm the ROC without firing a shot. Lobbing missiles into your "wayward" brothers is not their first choice - regardless the rhetoric. They want to make it "inevitable" so that no one contests their actions. Raising the stakes is important because it's what the PRC fears most - pushback.

For deterrence, I suspect F-15's would help in interdiction and suppression of PRC pressure tactics prior to an invasion attempt. There are ways to move jets around such that they are not such an easy target. In fact, it's probably incumbent on their AF to get used to moving their squadrons around.

What do you envision as PRC "pressure tactics" before an invasion attempt occurs? And what do you envision as "interdiction and suppression"?

Because what we're really talking about is when the first shot is fired in anger.


Any PRC invasion (i.e.: amphibious landing) will occur after a high intensity ballistic missile, cruise missile, ALCM bombardment alongside SEAD, DEAD, and CAP in the Taiwan strait to target any ROCAF fighters that make it into the air.


If a shot is fired in anger by China, that will likely be the first wave.


Chinese "pressure tactics" might involve flying some bombers and fighters around Taiwan, but those would not involve firing shots at anyone. And whether ROCAF has F-15s or not won't really "deter" the PLA from flying those aircraft around Taiwan, but it might mean they are able to escort the PLA aircraft for longer (especially on Taiwan's eastern side) and take more pictures of them...

... however I cannot see how F-15s would assist in deterring or changing the overall balance of power, in particular in regards to the first wave of PLA bombardment.

 

[Ainen]

Wow. Exactly which conventionally armed, terminally guided, missiles did the USSR field? Scaleboard? Scarab? Oka? None were accurate enough. None were terminally guided.

Not accurate enough? Against airfields?
But they were, and it was a major concern through whole 1970s, 1980s and on.

Furthermore, as I said earlier - through the whole CW NATO had first use policy, so retaliatory use was to be expected.

Nevertheless, it's not an insolvable problem. Air capability is far too important to give it up just because opponent does whatever he can to deny it to you.

 

[Jeb]

Turkey has already stated that they want to add their new Russian S-300 system into the IADS to receive data from the F-35

Wow, think of that...imagine if we figured out how an F-35 could break into an adversary's S-series SAM datalink and retask an inbound SAM to a target that the F-35 designated (like the launch site?).

 

[Hanse]

Wow. Exactly which conventionally armed, terminally guided, missiles did the USSR field? Scaleboard? Scarab? Oka? None were accurate enough. None were terminally guided.

Not accurate enough? Against airfields?

Against individual HASs.

But they were, and it was a major concern through whole 1970s, 1980s and on.

Yeah, with nukes not conventional warheads. So no, the mighty USSR didn't field anything comparable to what China has pointed at Taiwan today.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Yeah, with nukes not conventional warheads. So no, the mighty USSR didn't field anything comparable to what China has pointed at Taiwan today.

Last I knew the Soviets/Russians used to (and probably still do) have plenty of conventional warheads for their ballistic missiles. They'd start smashing airbases from the very start even without permission to go nuclear.

 

[Hanse]

Yeah, with nukes not conventional warheads. So no, the mighty USSR didn't field anything comparable to what China has pointed at Taiwan today.

Last I knew the Soviets/Russians used to (and probably still do) have plenty of conventional warheads for their ballistic missiles. They'd start smashing airbases from the very start even without permission to go nuclear.

Go read what we've been talking about.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I have been, yet I don't see a huge difference between demolishing individual hardened aircraft shelters thanks to better terminal guidance or simply rendering an airbase non-functional through greater volume of less precise missiles.

 

[Blitzo]

I have been, yet I don't see a huge difference between demolishing individual hardened aircraft shelters thanks to better terminal guidance or simply rendering an airbase non-functional through greater volume of less precise missiles.

Demolishing individual hardened shelters allows destruction of the aircraft themselves, in addition to making an airbase non-functional through targeting both chokepoints in the runway, but also targeting important sites on the airbase, like fuel, ammunition structures, air control tower, etc.

 

[Moose]

The return of new-Eagle production returns, as Boeing pitches F-15X.

 

[SpudmanWP]

That is just Boeing desperation.

The F-35A costs less to build, fly and upgrade than the F-15X. It has beaten the F-15E in exercises too. To existing F-35 customers, new-build F-15X makes no operational, fiscal, or tactical sense,

 

[Airplane]

The return of new-Eagle production returns, as Boeing pitches F-15X.

We should be buying new beagles as fast as Boeing can build them... 36 annually until PCA enters service. We should have been buying advanced eagles alongside the 22 production years when it became evident the USAF was not going to get the required 381.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Why given that F-35A is cheaper & better?

 

[Sundog]

It has beaten the F-15E in exercises too.

Has the F-15E beaten the F-35 in combat? As that argument is something of a non-sequitur at the moment, as there are other aircraft that have beaten the F-15E in combat as well.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Has the F-22 beat anything in A2A combat?

No.. yet nobody doubts it's A2A prowess.

 

[NeilChapman]

Why given that F-35A is cheaper & better?

Maybe 'better' is not the criteria. Replacement rate may be important.
Perhaps because you can't get F-35's fast enough. Full production is a way's off and that will be 15-17 per month.
As an aside, Boeing is only producing 2 F-18's per month and won't ramp up production rate for several more years. Hard to get fast jet quantities where you want them with such low production rates.
F-15 is a known article. Still a fantastic airplane. Great mods available. Less expensive to operate than an F-35. New weapons and radar on a Mach II airplane might make it a nice, big, missile truck. Would be nice to consider new capability for refueling from either AF or Navy's coming MQ-25.

US has F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22 and F-35. One could make a good case to trim the mix. Especially with the rapid growth in overall personnel costs. Less platforms, less complication for maintainers and supply. If PCA progress is moving along then perhaps it would make sense to dump the F-15C. F-16's w/mods will jump from 8k to 12k hour service lives. Upgrade F-16's instead. But if India buys F-16's then production moves to India. That might make you want to keep F-15 production going if PCA is behind.

Personally, I wouldn't expect the USAF to purchase new F-15's unless...on the off chance India selects F-16 and US wants to maintain another production line.

It might make more sense to accelerate PCA while pushing LM to increase F-35 production capacity and continue with NGJ and other upgraded munitions.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 is coming off the line MUCH faster than the F-15 ever can. It's also cheaper to fly (ie less CPFH) than the F-15E, let alone the F-15X. Who is going to pay the Billions to develop the "X" version? Don't forget to add those costs.

 

[Airplane]

It has beaten the F-15E in exercises too.

Has the F-15E beaten the F-35 in combat? As that argument is something of a non-sequitur at the moment, as there are other aircraft that have beaten the F-15E in combat as well.

Anyone can defeat anyone on any given day of the week.

An F-15C/E with JHMCS and HOBS could defeat an F-35 in close range combat. Not all fighting is possible to do at arms length BVR. There are situations where opponents can be WVR. I would even argue the F-15E to be better than a F-15C because of 2 sets of eyes and maintaining SA while engaging WVR.

 

[bobbymike]

F-15SA construction time lapse. Usually only seeing the finished product or still shots from the factory floor, you really forget (or at least I do) how incredibly complex these machines are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=279&v=AVkmSvHHwVE

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet

The Israeli Air Force is in the middle of a major effort to adapt its capabilities for the future, oriented to counter its two immediate enemies—Syria, which is backed by the Iranians and Iran itself. That is leading the service to prioritize an upgrade and expansion of its Boeing F-15 fleet.

Earlier this year, Israel publicly confirmed for the first time that in 2007 it had carried out a strike against a nuclear reactor in Syria, built with North Korea’s help, that could have produced fuel for nuclear weapons.

The attack managed to blind Syrian sensors without that country’s knowledge. Syria does not have an operational air force that can confront Israel’s, but there is no such mismatch with Iran, located nearly 1,000 mi. away from Israel.

 

[LowObservable]

Who is going to pay the Billions to develop the "X" version?

Saudi and Qatar have already done so. The accounts of the X all seem to suggest that it's an SA/QA variant - developed and on a hot production line - with a single-seat cockpit. Logistics and training for the SA/QA are being/will be extensively supported from the US, so introductory costs will be minimal.

Meanwhile, I await an explanation of how dumb the Israelis are for buying more F-15s.

The F-35 and the advanced F-15 are good at different things. Israel has a concept called "mass precision" which depends on carrying large numbers of Israeli-developed standoff weapons, along with the multiband Litening 5 targeting pod. If it is correct that the USAF is looking at single-seat F-15s to replace C/Ds, an obvious motivation is the fighter's ability to carry a large missile loadout while retaining high performance in A2A.

 

[Hanse]

Who is going to pay the Billions to develop the "X" version?

Saudi and Qatar have already done so. The accounts of the X all seem to suggest that it's an SA/QA variant - developed and on a hot production line - with a single-seat cockpit. Logistics and training for the SA/QA are being/will be extensively supported from the US, so introductory costs will be minimal.

Meanwhile, I await an explanation of how dumb the Israelis are for buying more F-15s.

The F-35 and the advanced F-15 are good at different things. Israel has a concept called "mass precision" which depends on carrying large numbers of Israeli-developed standoff weapons, along with the multiband Litening 5 targeting pod. If it is correct that the USAF is looking at single-seat F-15s to replace C/Ds, an obvious motivation is the fighter's ability to carry a large missile loadout while retaining high performance in A2A.

I don't know why anybody would think it "dumb". The F-15 can do things like this:

 

[marauder2048]

Israel is a country increasingly on the short-end of the salvo competition, with no strategic depth
and vulnerable air bases.

Its standoff capability is not constrained by the INF treaty, but it looks to buy a last gen, big twin fast jet
with uncertain survivability (e.g. Yemen) and whose main utility in the strike role depends
on relatively long, intact runways, relatively large munitions bunkers and special handling equipment.

If not dumb it's at least questionable.

For the USAF, the "X" might be useful in the counter cruise-missile role or if the
Air Force got serious about an airborne weapons layer for ABM a la ALHTK.

So maybe something the ANG could get congressional set-asides for...

 

[Airplane]

Sometimes all that is needed is a US aircraft with USAF painted on it. The X fills that role and is more than a credible threat to the thousands of non-5th gen AC around the globe. That frees up the minuscule Raptor fleet for the highest threat environments. The X is something that the USAF should not have been put in a position to consider it...

 

[bring_it_on]

Pentagon To Request $1.2 Billion for New Boeing F-15 Fighters

The Pentagon is planning to request $1.2 billion for 12 Boeing F-15 X fighter aircraft—the newest version of the decades-old jet—in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, according to two people familiar with the decision who asked not to be named because it’s not yet official.

The decision to buy the newest kind of F-15 aircraft, so far only sold to U.S. allies, comes from the Pentagon’s top leadership, including with some prodding from Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes, the two people said. Shanahan, a former Boeing Co. executive, recused himself from any decisions related to Boeing when he was confirmed by the Senate.

 

[Airplane]

Pentagon To Request $1.2 Billion for New Boeing F-15 Fighters

The Pentagon is planning to request $1.2 billion for 12 Boeing F-15 X fighter aircraft—the newest version of the decades-old jet—in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, according to two people familiar with the decision who asked not to be named because it’s not yet official.

The decision to buy the newest kind of F-15 aircraft, so far only sold to U.S. allies, comes from the Pentagon’s top leadership, including with some prodding from Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes, the two people said. Shanahan, a former Boeing Co. executive, recused himself from any decisions related to Boeing when he was confirmed by the Senate.

Considering Lockheed cannot deliver enough 35s to revitalize the USAFs aging fleet, the USAF has to inject new blood into the fleet. This is the only way to do it. 55 billion to build another 180 raptors isn't viable as it would steel the thunder from PCA. 265 over 8 years would be good.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The USAF did not ask for the F-15X, it's a corporate welfare buy instigated by Boeing employees who also happen to be moonlighting at the Pentagon.

LM is completely capable of increasing the F-35's produced. Then increased it by 30% in 2018 and are going for a 40% boost in 2019.

 

[LowObservable]

If you're concerned about Russia renewing its nuclear forces, including bombers and cruise missiles, you might want something with more range and load-out than the alternative.

Also, you might consider a no-fly-zone scenario, or a similar operation, where even if you did have an LO aircraft with persistence and payload close to an F-15, you'd fly it with reflectors so that the Almaz-Antey tech support crews on the other side couldn't get any naughty ideas.

And sources notwithstanding, the USAF has been considering a similar move, off and on, for three years.

 

[jsport]

Aircraft that can destroy more than 5 vehicles per sortie (F-35 according the Rand A-10C replacement study) would be useful and F-15 would seem to fit the bill.

...believe there is reason the AF will not be heading up the JCS this coming term.

Likewise the Boeing industrial base argument remains.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1724z1.html

'The need to strike a variety of targets creates a need to carry a diverse set of weapons. The need for a wide variety of munitions implies carriage of a large number of weapons, regardless of the number of targets. In highly intense cases, we found that a loadout sufficient to kill two armored targets per sortie was a minimum capability, with a preferred capacity closer to five kills per sortie (is this a joke). Laser-guided rockets with armor-piercing warheads could be a highly effective addition to the force."

 

[bring_it_on]

I wonder whether this move will also lead to an acceleration to the LREW and bring back the ALHTK concepts with PAC-3 or NCADE.

Edit: Saw this later...

For the USAF, the "X" might be useful in the counter cruise-missile role or if the
Air Force got serious about an airborne weapons layer for ABM a la ALHTK.

So maybe something the ANG could get congressional set-asides for...

This could be an explanation why this move, if the report is to be believed, seems to have originated (at least in its most latest incarnation) at the OSD.

 

[Airplane]

I wonder whether this move will also lead to an acceleration to the LREW and bring back the ALHTK concepts with PAC-3 or NCADE.

Edit: Saw this later...

For the USAF, the "X" might be useful in the counter cruise-missile role or if the
Air Force got serious about an airborne weapons layer for ABM a la ALHTK.

So maybe something the ANG could get congressional set-asides for...

This could be an explanation why this move, if the report is to be believed, seems to have originated (at least in its most latest incarnation) at the OSD.

I've been thinking perhaps a carrier for a HVM... No centerline on the 35s. Remember asat? Still, the USAF needs new airframes, and lack of stealth aside, it would be a good system. Lets see how many stealth fighters china fields! We already know the Russian situation.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't think a lack of a supply of airframes is the main concern here. There is some slack in the F-35 production and the Air-Force could always ramp its procurement up to 80 a year earlier and get additional tails faster. That said, as others have opined there is likely a mission need which the F-15X more than amply meets and may in fact be better suited for particularly when the cost of simply swapping out F-15's with some of the ANG squadrons are concerned. There are probably also industrial base reasons to keep boeing in the game given that they deliver all of Qatar's F-15's by late 2022 early 2023.

 

[TomS]

It's a SECDEF request, not Air Force, so probably not mission-driven. Defense industrial base is probably the justification. Not for nothing, the incoming SECDEF (formerly deputy) is a former Boeing exec...

 

[marauder2048]

Defense industrial base is probably the justification.

"owning the technical baseline" gets interesting when you discover the TDP for everything that makes the
F-15X remotely compelling is property of a guy with الشيخ in his name.

 

[NeilChapman]

How quickly could these planes be delivered? What is the status of the F-15X production line?

 

[bring_it_on]

Qatar expects to receive its aircraft by 2022 so if ordered in FY20, the AF could expect to receive the first jets probably in 2023 minus any production break.

 

[Airplane]

Qatar expects to receive its aircraft by 2022 so if ordered in FY20, the AF could expect to receive the first jets probably in 2023 minus any production break.

I have heard that Boeing has kept the f15 line in a state of readiness to ramp up production almost immediately if the AF ever placed orders. Not true? Or are you speculating about delivery?

 

[NeilChapman]

Qatar expects to receive its aircraft by 2022 so if ordered in FY20, the AF could expect to receive the first jets probably in 2023 minus any production break.

I have heard that Boeing has kept the f15 line in a state of readiness to ramp up production almost immediately if the AF ever placed orders. Not true? Or are you speculating about delivery?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qatar-defence-f15/qatar-expects-to-receive-six-f-15-fighter-jets-from-u-s-by-march-2021-idUSKCN1NV1AV


As of November 2018, six expected to be delivered by March, 2021.

Further six, six months later.

Four more every three months thereafter.

Just over one per month?

----

Recall Boeing said it was going to be 2021 before they increased the production of F-18's from 2 per month regardless the Navy orders.

Even if the money comes and the orders are placed I expect it will be several years before any new F-15's for the Air Force.

 

[bring_it_on]

Qatar expects to receive its aircraft by 2022 so if ordered in FY20, the AF could expect to receive the first jets probably in 2023 minus any production break.

I have heard that Boeing has kept the f15 line in a state of readiness to ramp up production almost immediately if the AF ever placed orders. Not true? Or are you speculating about delivery?

My delivery date guess (2023) was strictly based on when Boeing delivers the last order currently on the books (late 2022) and the normal 2 year lead time for long lead items etc. I think early 2023 is a reasonable ballpark estimate. Boeing may well have slack to increase final assembly but they will still need lead time for their suppliers to deliver on new orders so technically they may be able to push things a bit and deliver a year ahead.