Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

[bring_it_on]

ADCP Updates from the FY19 budget ...

 

[Colonial-Marine]

1) The Navy didn’t prioritize it over other programs (even though Congress kept trying to give them money for it).

So Congress tried to give them money for it and yet they let the program falter? I thought the F-14 was one of the Navy's top priorities at the time?

 

[Sundog]

You mean like the F-14Bs & Ds? And even those didn't have quite as much power as the originally planned F401-P-400

" The winner of the engine contest was the Pratt & Whitney entry, which was later redesignated F401-P-400. This engine was a derivative of the JTF22 Advanced Technology Engine, which had also spawned the F100 turbofan that was used by both the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F401-P-400 offered 16,400 pounds of thrust dry and an afterburning thrust of 28,000 pounds.

The seventh Tomcat (BuNo 157986) was set aside to serve as the prototype. It flew for the first time on September 12, 1973 with one F401-P-400 engine and one TF30 engine. Later, the aircraft was equipped with two F401 engines. With the new engine, the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-14B was raised to greater than unity, offering a much improved performance. "

vs 27k for the F110-GE-400

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1985/1985%20-%200882.PDF

Thanks, I hadn't realized it ever actually was flown with the 401s.

 

[GeorgeA]

So Congress tried to give them money for it and yet they let the program falter? I thought the F-14 was one of the Navy's top priorities at the time?

As I read the historical info in that thread, while the F-14 was a major priority for the Navy, the improved engine was not. Like today, there were a lot of competing needs and budgets were tight.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

As I read the historical info in that thread, while the F-14 was a major priority for the Navy, the improved engine was not. Like today, there were a lot of competing needs and budgets were tight.

I see although it seems a questionable decision considering that the F-14 really needed a better engine to reach its full potential. It might well have paid for itself too considering all of the F-14As lost to troubles with the TF30s over the years.

 

[GeorgeA]

I don’t disagree, but that’s what seems to have been the case.

 

[sferrin]

As I read the historical info in that thread, while the F-14 was a major priority for the Navy, the improved engine was not. Like today, there were a lot of competing needs and budgets were tight.

I see although it seems a questionable decision considering that the F-14 really needed a better engine to reach its full potential. It might well have paid for itself too considering all of the F-14As lost to troubles with the TF30s over the years.

Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[LowObservable]

By 1975, the TF30-powered aircraft was apparently performing well and the F100, upon which the F401 was based, was in trouble. (It would be in trouble for almost another decade.) Also, the rising cost of the F-14 had led to the low-end VFAX program, which would suck in more R&D funding.

And since the F401 never completed development, it's a stretch to argue that it would have been a safer engine than the TF30.

 

[sferrin]

And since the F401 never completed development, it's a stretch to argue that it would have been a safer engine than the TF30.

Except that the F100 was out of the woods before they started replacing TF30s on the Tomcat.

 

[aim9xray]

Except that the F100 was out of the woods before they started replacing TF30s on the Tomcat.

No.

It was is different stretch of the woods in the early eighties (when P&W had quite thoroughly bent their pick with the Air Force). See: "Great Engine War".

 

[sferrin]

Except that the F100 was out of the woods before they started replacing TF30s on the Tomcat.

No.

It was is different stretch of the woods in the early eighties (when P&W had quite thoroughly bent their pick with the Air Force). See: "Great Engine War".

The TF30 didn't start being replaced by the F110 until the late 80s.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Early F100-PW-100s suffered from flame outs and production issues but how many F-15s were actually lost due to those engines?

 

[thefrecklepuny]

Early F100-PW-100s suffered from flame outs and production issues but how many F-15s were actually lost due to those engines?

I think early F-15 pilots employed often minimum afterburner to avoid said flameouts. Reduced the range and endurance considerably.

 

[F-14D]

1) The Navy didn’t prioritize it over other programs (even though Congress kept trying to give them money for it).

2) The F100 had a troubled development and the F401, as a derivative, might have been affected by the same issues.

More discussion here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,23340.0/all.html

This is coming from memory, so the details may be a bit off...

The way the deal went was that the F100 and F401 were to be developed simultaneously from a common core, with USAF as the lead because they were going to buying the lion's share of engines. They would both pitch in pay for this, Navy bearing costs of its unique components At the point where USAF accepted/certified the F100, any further development would be borne by USN alone.

The F100 in development was having trouble with performance and reliability. While USN had a fallback engine to power the F-14, the TF30 (which was only supposed to be in the first 13-69 Tomcats until they could be re-engined with the F401), the F100 was absolutely critical for USAF. . Without it there could be no F-15. The most critical go/no go test was the 150 hour run, where the F100 would have to run for 150 hours without failure, and the engine was repeatedly having trouble accomplishing this. So the story goes, USAF finally decided to run the test and monitor the engine extremely closely. When a component seemed to be about to fail, the test would be frozen and the part replaced before any actual failure occurred and then the test would be resumed. With this strategy, the F100 "passed" the test and AF accepted it.

By the provisions of the agreement, AF no longer would be helping pay for further development and reliability improvements of the joint project, Navy would have to pay it all from their own R&D dollars. Since the F-14 was suffering from cost growth (as was everything else) and Congress was threatening to cut off money, the Navy couldn't see paying what it would cost to put an unreliable engine in the Tomcat when they already had an unreliable engine of their own flying in the Tomcat, so their interest in the F401 petered out. They didn't like the TF30 and had to accept significant performance shortfalls, but this would allow them to keep the program going.

 

[Flyaway]

F-15s could at China’s doorstep as Taiwan might be leasing them

This is where this is relevant to this thread.

The proposal is to lease aircraft that still have half of their lifespan remaining and upgrade them with new mission computers and fire control radars.

http://alert5.com/2018/03/20/f-15s-at-chinas-doorstep-as-taiwan-could-be-leasing-them/

 

[sferrin]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

 

[NeilChapman]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

1000 nmi combat radius, 65000k foot ceiling, mach 2.5 beast on the PRC's doorstep? Uhhh, yea.

So long as they use them as expected. It's a lease. You can specify the terms any way you want. This has possibilities.

Besides, the USAF wants lot's of F-35A's. Timing is good with full rate production expected in the next couple of years. It will take that long to make the F-15 deal work.

More complete article...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19411/the-united-states-could-offer-taiwan-leased-f-15c-eagles-according-to-report

It will be interesting to see what package they'll get.

 

[Airplane]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

1000 nmi combat radius, 65000k foot ceiling, mach 2.5 beast on the PRC's doorstep? Uhhh, yea.

So long as they use them as expected. It's a lease. You can specify the terms any way you want. This has possibilities.

Besides, the USAF wants lot's of F-35A's. Timing is good with full rate production expected in the next couple of years. It will take that long to make the F-15 deal work.

More complete article...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19411/the-united-states-could-offer-taiwan-leased-f-15c-eagles-according-to-report

It will be interesting to see what package they'll get.

Precisely. The F-35S will be rolling off the line at 40-50 per year. 1 F35 = 1 F15 even with reduced missile load because of LO and SA.

On a side note, I would have loved to see the F-15SE built at 24/year for until PCA/NGAD begins LRIP to make up for the truncated F-22 production. That would have been hands down the single best Gen 4/4.5 fighter in the skies. More than a match for poor Flanker and Fulcrum. So many wasted opportunities over the last 20 years.... Instead we're giving the Saudi's the most advanced Eagle ever built (84).

 

[sferrin]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

1000 nmi combat radius, 65000k foot ceiling, mach 2.5 beast on the PRC's doorstep? Uhhh, yea.

Unless they're in REALLY hard shelters they'll last about 2 minutes against the PLA's missile force. Think BLU-109s hitting shelters at missile speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-15

 

[Ainen]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

1000 nmi combat radius, 65000k foot ceiling, mach 2.5 beast on the PRC's doorstep? Uhhh, yea.

Unless they're in REALLY hard shelters they'll last about 2 minutes against the PLA's missile force. Think BLU-109s hitting shelters at missile speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-15

Aircraft can be dispersed , and so on.
PLA's missile force isn't anything new, really.

 

[sferrin]

Aircraft can be dispersed , and so on.

They still need runways, and if they're dispersed they aren't going to be protected.

PLA's missile force isn't anything new, really.

It is, really.

 

[Triton]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

The plan calls for using 100 F-15C and a handful of F-15D fighters currently in the boneyard.

 

[marauder2048]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

The plan calls for using 100 F-15C and a handful of F-15D fighters currently in the boneyard.

That sounds like the combat-coded ANG F-15C fleet.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

PLA's missile force isn't anything new, really.

It is, really.

Serious question here, what is "new" about it compared to the very large ballistic missile force the Soviet Union had? At least today we have some limited ability to counter such missiles thanks to PAC-3 and THAAD, although I don't think Taiwan has been cleared to buy either.

Admittedly there are probably far less spare airfields to go around on small Pacific islands than in West Germany which presents a problem.

 

[Blitzo]

F-15s could at China’s doorstep as Taiwan might be leasing them

This is where this is relevant to this thread.

The proposal is to lease aircraft that still have half of their lifespan remaining and upgrade them with new mission computers and fire control radars.

http://alert5.com/2018/03/20/f-15s-at-chinas-doorstep-as-taiwan-could-be-leasing-them/

If ROCAF have to fork out to refit them and lease them, PLAAF are probably secretly begging their counterparts across the strait to buy F-15s.

Less money for buying large amounts of highly mobile SAMs...

 

[SpudmanWP]

1 F35 = 1 F15 even with reduced missile load because of LO and SA.

Try 1 F-35 = 4 F-15Cs (at least)

Remember the 24+:1 ratio at Red Flag?

 

[Airplane]

1 F35 = 1 F15 even with reduced missile load because of LO and SA.

Try 1 F-35 = 4 F-15Cs (at least)

Remember the 24+:1 ratio at Red Flag?

I know all about red flag, and it doesn't have the latest soviet and Chinese stuff that will ne in the field in another dozen years. At minimum its safe to say a 1 to 1 replacement. 1 35 with 4 aims cannot equal 4 15s. Math alone will tell you its not possible. What's the 35 going to do after launching 4 aims at an on average 3 targets? Is it going to approach to wvr AND gun the others to death? It can't even do that because of the MINUSCULE number of rounds

Its going to launch its 4 120s at an average of 3 bogeys and then she has shot her load and is just burning gas at that point.

Unlike red flag it isn't going back to home plate and starting over again with anew hypothetical missile load as is done in some exercises.

 

[SpudmanWP]

You missed the point.

When F-35s go up against 4th gen Red Flag (or other LFEs) assets, they do much better than said 4th gen assets. Their VLO airframes let them disengage after running out of AAMs & cannon rounds to fight another day. I don't think 1 F35 could replace 24+ F-15s, which is why I only said 1:4.

Life is not a video game. IRL pilots do not fight to the last man after seeing 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% of their allies blow up without having a clue of where the enemy is. They turn around and GTFO ASAP.

 

[Ainen]

It is, really.

Compared to Soviet capability in the same field(even just in ballistic Missiles), it's unremarkable.
Even if conventional, and WW3 planners always had to realistically account for a much more disruptive payload option.

Fundamentally, airfield network being fully within reach and under constant threat (one way or another) is an often emerging feature since at least ww2. Options are many, and they're still as effective, if your fighter was designed for it.
F-15 certainly belong to fighters built with ww3 in mind.

 

[Blitzo]

It is, really.

Compared to Soviet capability in the same field(even just in ballistic Missiles), it's unremarkable.
Even if conventional, and WW3 planners always had to realistically account for a much more disruptive payload option.

Fundamentally, airfield network being fully within reach and under constant threat (one way or another) is an often emerging feature since at least ww2. Options are many, and they're still as effective, if your fighter was designed for it.
F-15 certainly belong to fighters built with ww3 in mind.

I think F-15 and F-22 that succeeded it were built primarily with the European theater in mind when thinking about the threat to airfields, vs say the availability of airfields in the western Pacific.

 

[NeilChapman]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

1000 nmi combat radius, 65000k foot ceiling, mach 2.5 beast on the PRC's doorstep? Uhhh, yea.

Unless they're in REALLY hard shelters they'll last about 2 minutes against the PLA's missile force. Think BLU-109s hitting shelters at missile speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-15

Then perhaps the ROCAF needs to keep them on alert - practicing strikes against PRC and recovering to alternate locations.

ROC is in a tough spot to be sure. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves and their liberty in whatever way they see fit.

 

[Blitzo]

The the F-22 buy severely cut, I'd think we'd need every F-15 that can fly. And we're going to lease them? ???

1000 nmi combat radius, 65000k foot ceiling, mach 2.5 beast on the PRC's doorstep? Uhhh, yea.

Unless they're in REALLY hard shelters they'll last about 2 minutes against the PLA's missile force. Think BLU-109s hitting shelters at missile speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-15

Then perhaps the ROCAF needs to keep them on alert - practicing strikes against PRC and recovering to alternate locations.

ROC is in a tough spot to be sure. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves and their liberty in whatever way they see fit.

ROCAF has been inducted a few stand off range powered weapons intended for offensive strikes, and have also practiced using highways as runways for their fighters as well.

But at a system of systems level, I think it is increasingly becoming apparent that continuing to seek an air force with a conventional structure heavy on fighter aircraft emphasizing A2A and A2G capability would be somewhat playing into the PLA's hands.

The balance of of strategic depth, as well as quality of weapons systems and especially quantity of weapons systems, all favour the PLA either slightly or overwhelmingly. The volume and rate of damage each side can inflict on the other, as well as the volume and rate of damage each side can endure, is not one which favours the ROC military much at all.
As in any confrontation, training, morale are potential wildcards, but even these are no longer the safe advantages that ROC could once safely assume to hold, say in the 1990s.



As for ROCAF leasing F-15s -- in the end it comes down to opportunity cost. Are they better off modernizing and leasing X number of F-15s, or are they better off using that same amount of money elsewhere, like buying more SAMs etc?

 

[totoro]

It's all about mission goal and potential disparity between initial intelligence data and actual data.

If the mission for F15 attacking is to bomb a base where F35 are stationed, and if f15's side has intelligence that is believed to be true- the F15 side will attack only if it think it has enough forces to fight through. And if the intelligence happens to be fairly correct, then even if a package of F15s attacking are ambushed by intercepting F35 to such a degree that F15s don't ever see their attackers - the remaining F15s will likely NOT turn around but will be counting with those losses and carry on, reach the F35 base and bomb it.

Some people will run away, some will not. Those that run will get court-martialed. (since mission was approved knowing full well there would be losses) Some civilians would run, some would not. With trained pilots, the percentage of those running away would be smaller.

Of course this is very much a simplified situation depicted. There would be countless other variables involved on both sides, so it's next to impossible to theretize about it. Which is why simplified situation is only one worth talking about.

F35 was tailor made for US air forces, their numbers and US economy. US knows it will enjoy not just the technological edge of F35 but also numerical edge against any other enemy for the next few decades. If some other, smaller, air force uses them and for whatever reason can't enjoy any allied help, and finds itself outnumbered enough - those f35s may lose.

Basically, F35 will not achieve a victory in almost any situation on its own. But compared to a legacy fighting force, the new force equipped with *same or smilar* number of F35s will perform the same mission with less losses.

 

[sferrin]

It is, really.

Compared to Soviet capability in the same field(even just in ballistic Missiles), it's unremarkable.

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

 

[sferrin]

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?

 

[SpudmanWP]

If the mission for F15 attacking is to bomb a base where F35 are stationed

Thanks for clarifying the scenario. Now that we are talking about a defensive mission, the F-35 is in an even better position to succeed. There is a tactic called "shooter is not the spotter" aka "deep magazine". The US has for a long time been working on connecting everything on the battlefield into a unified network of data. The US has also demonstrated multiple times the ability to detect a target over the horizon with an F-35, launch a SAM based on that networked data, update the SAM with data from the F-35 directly, and manage the endgame engagement directly from the F-35. Since we are talking a defensive action, the F-35 would have that "deep magazine" of SAMs to draw on and could continue to decimate the attacking forces long after they run out of their own missiles. Since we are talking a bombing mission by the F-15s, they would be easy pickings for the F-35s to take out with their guns.

This is of course all moot after SACM comes online :

 

[Blitzo]

If the mission for F15 attacking is to bomb a base where F35 are stationed

Thanks for clarifying the scenario. Now that we are talking about a defensive mission, the F-35 is in an even better position to succeed. There is a tactic called "shooter is not the spotter" aka "deep magazine". The US has for a long time been working on connecting everything on the battlefield into a unified network of data. The US has also demonstrated multiple times the ability to detect a target over the horizon with an F-35, launch a SAM based on that networked data, update the SAM with data from the F-35 directly, and manage the endgame engagement directly from the F-35. Since we are talking a defensive action, the F-35 would have that "deep magazine" of SAMs to draw on and could continue to decimate the attacking forces long after they run out of their own missiles. Since we are talking a bombing mission by the F-15s, they would be easy pickings for the F-35s to take out with their guns.

That of course, is for a situation where the USAF (or perhaps a similarly well networked and armed air force that may emerge in the foreseeable future) is the one defending, rather than another nation's air forces that is operating with F-35 and which may lack either the networked systems to make use of the F-35's sensors and datalinks, and/or lacking the "deep magazine" to fire in the first place.

 

[Airplane]

Precisely on two accounts.

The importance of magazine size cannot be understated. The 35 has 4 missiles. Considering missile failures and looking for guarantied kills, you're looking at 3 boogies per 35. That's it. In some cases only 2.

Sure throw some crap under the wings and you've got a gen 4.5 fighter with good SA.

The 35 is the wrong horse for the wrong rodeo in a near peer shooting match.

36k ft, M.85 4 aims. Its outclassed by everything new our adversaries are fielding. It remains to be seen how many 57s get built. But its not the Russians that would risk war. The Chinese would do so over north Korea.

You can't even evaluate its stealth features factually unless you're part of the program.

But back to point its a fine one to one replacement for the eagle... It does a lot better than the eagle but my oh my only 4 aams. Go ahead lease the beagles away. We don't need them if we get enough 35s.

I don't hate the 35, its just being forced to be something it was never meant to be.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Adding the F-35 to one's own country's IADS is a relatively simple thing to do and some are already doing it. Northrop Grumman even makes a 50lb data terminal that acts as a gateway that outputs standard J-Type messages. 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 and the UK has already talked about getting F-35 data into their Carrier's network. Considering many US allies already operate Aegis cruisers, adding F-35 datalinks are a no-brainer.

Don't forget that many Allies have more flexible defense plans since they do not have to worry about large projects.

 

[NeilChapman]

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 ROC 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 ROC 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 ROC 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.




** Edited to fix SNAFU **

Thx B