Unmasking The F-15X, Boeing's F-15C/D Eagle Replacement Fighter

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,500
The F-35 is the poster child for aircraft development gone wild and has rightfully been criticized for being late and costing too much. Knowing some of the limitations of the F-35 the Air Force has entered into talks with Boeing to potentially provide a replacement for the F-15C/D aircraft that is approaching EOL and will require millions of dollars to upgrade. The Air Force already has an enormous F-15 infrastructure in place and it makes sense to take advantage of it to save money. Imagine a new F-15X with a 22 air-to-air missile load and put that behind the stealth aircraft as a barrage platform and enemies won't know what hit them. To me it makes sense for the Air Force to pursue this aircraft as a compliment to our 5th generation fleet. The long article is definitely worth the read.

With the help of the company's new AMBER missile carrying racks, the F-15X will be able to carry a whopping 22 air-to-air missiles during a single sortie. Alternatively, it could fly with eight air-to-air missiles and 28 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), or up to seven 2,000lb bombs and eight air-to-air missiles.
 
Not going to sell. This is the 2nd or 3rd attempt by Boeing to try and sell more F-15's to the USAF. Last time, they tried to pitch the F-15E Silent Eagle but the USAF didn't bite. All they did was take one of their old F-15E, made significant modifications to make it a demonstrator and pitched it. It failed.
 
Not going to sell. This is the 2nd or 3rd attempt by Boeing to try and sell more F-15's to the USAF. Last time, they tried to pitch the F-15E Silent Eagle but the USAF didn't bite. All they did was take one of their old F-15E, made significant modifications to make it a demonstrator and pitched it. It failed.

This time the Air Force approached Boeing so this one might end up making the cut.
 
This time the Air Force approached Boeing so this one might end up making the cut.
Against Lockheed Martin. It's a tactic but Boeing isn't going to win shit. They've gotten their hands full with the tanker and it isn't going well for them still.
 
Against Lockheed Martin. It's a tactic but Boeing isn't going to win shit. They've gotten their hands full with the tanker and it isn't going well for them still.

Yeah, the tanker program is definitely causing them problems.
 
Yeah, the tanker program is definitely causing them problems.
The fact that they keep fucking up in 2018 is amazing despite destroying a KC-46's internals in 2015 with the wrong fluid. They should have gotten the program straightened out then. I'm glad I don't work for Boeing anymore. If anyone wants to work for Boeing, work commercial, not defense.
 
And who is this going to be used against?
Goat fucking terrorists flying on their donkeys trying to split the moon again while raping 12 yo girls?
Maybe Europe when they finally get tired of 45's ass-hattery.
Uhh, they just announced Tempest and I doubt they want to replace the Eurofighter with an F-15X.
 
Without any Stealth, this is pointless on today's let alone tomorrow's battlefield. For lower cost, the Raptor makes more sense. Boeing - stick to commercial or come up with something new and Stealthy.
 
Without any Stealth, this is pointless on today's let alone tomorrow's battlefield. For lower cost, the Raptor makes more sense. Boeing - stick to commercial or come up with something new and Stealthy.

Eh? Even if they could make more F22s, the price would be significantly more than even the F35. The cost for the F-15X is less than half of what we are paying for F35s let alone what F22s would be.
 
We already spent a whole bunch of money redesigning the F-22 for a strike fighter role.

What exactly is the argument for buying more big strike fighters? It seems like we have enough, and once you have air superiority there are cheaper ways of hitting targets. Unless we're gearing up for WWIII where do they plan on using them?
 
Eh? Even if they could make more F22s, the price would be significantly more than even the F35. The cost for the F-15X is less than half of what we are paying for F35s let alone what F22s would be.

Good point, didn't know Raptor was out of production. The next Air Superiority fighter will be a drone anyways.
 
We already spent a whole bunch of money redesigning the F-22 for a strike fighter role.

What exactly is the argument for buying more big strike fighters? It seems like we have enough, and once you have air superiority there are cheaper ways of hitting targets. Unless we're gearing up for WWIII where do they plan on using them?

First we've spent almost nothing adapting the F22 for anything let alone enhancing it for its actual only role of air superiority.

Second, the F-15X isn't intended as a strike fighter, it is intended to replace the existing F-15C/Ds in an air superiority role. That the F-15X will be able to do any role that the F-15SE can is just a bonus.
 
Eh? Even if they could make more F22s, the price would be significantly more than even the F35. The cost for the F-15X is less than half of what we are paying for F35s let alone what F22s would be.
Actually no, the cost of an F-15X would be around $75-$100 million. F-35 production is at around $90 million depending on which model it is. By comparison Saudi Arabia paid $100 million per F-15SA. It's far more reasonable to buy more F-16V's at half the cost that delivers the same air superiority capabilities. The big money comes from AOG support that Boeing can provide AFTER which they're more than happy to give a fixed price contract on delivery.

Qatar is purchasing 36 F-15QA's which they're paying $171 million per aircraft which also comes with support from Boeing.
 
Last edited:
Actually no, the cost of an F-15X would be around $75-$100 million. F-35 production is at around $90 million depending on which model it is. By comparison Saudi Arabia paid $100 million per F-15SA.

No, F-15X will be in the 60-70 mil range full USG purchasing fly away. The USG would be putting in an order for in the range of 250-300 F-15Xs whereas SA bought a small handful by comparison. The additional volume will allow the plant to ramp up to full production, significantly reducing cost per plane. Boeing is apparently offing fixed price fly away costs which means they are fairly confident in the costs. No variant of the F-35 is anywhere close to sub-$100 mil. Actual USG data puts the real fly away costs closer to $200+ mil per plane.

The Qatar order price included the planes, weapons, support, spare parts, and both ground and air training, not at all comparable to anything the US would pay.
 
With all that new and enhanced carrying capacity, what they are REALLY going to be doing with these are to add these instead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO

and THATS!! how we are getting our new "space force"


you read it here first folks....

:blackalien:
 
No, F-15X will be in the 60-70 mil range full USG purchasing fly away. The USG would be putting in an order for in the range of 250-300 F-15Xs whereas SA bought a small handful by comparison. The additional volume will allow the plant to ramp up to full production, significantly reducing cost per plane. Boeing is apparently offing fixed price fly away costs which means they are fairly confident in the costs. No variant of the F-35 is anywhere close to sub-$100 mil. Actual USG data puts the real fly away costs closer to $200+ mil per plane.
It will be nowhere near 250-300 F-15X's. What wing would be getting it? National Guard? Unlikely since F-35A is going to full rate soon and the NG is getting them to replace their F-15C/D's. Saudi Arabia has 170 F-15's in total which is not a small handful by any measure. Then you also have the NGAD in the next decade which will draw money away from acquisitions like this.
 
It will be nowhere near 250-300 F-15X's. What wing would be getting it? National Guard? Unlikely since F-35A is going to full rate soon and the NG is getting them to replace their F-15C/D's. Saudi Arabia has 170 F-15's in total which is not a small handful by any measure. Then you also have the NGAD in the next decade which will draw money away from acquisitions like this.

The plan as laid out in the article is full replacement of current F-15C/D fleet which is 250+ frames. The F-35A is primarily replacing F-16s and simply isn't a viable F-15C/D replacement (for a whole host of reasons not the least of which are payload, cost per hour, shitty radar, etc). USAF basically either needs to completely retrofit the entire fleet of F-15C/Ds or buy replacements.

SA has 62 F-15Cs which are 30+ years old, ~70 F-15SE which are old, and has ~17 F-15SQ with another 28 on order for a total F-15SQ order of 45 planes which is a small order and is being fulfilled at a low rate hence the high cost per plane.

NGAD is well over a decade at best from being an actual useful plane and it is needed to replace the aging and increasingly outdated F22 fleet (which if the F35 wasn't such a POS boondoggle might have actually gotten some upgrades).
 
Without any Stealth, this is pointless on today's let alone tomorrow's battlefield. For lower cost, the Raptor makes more sense. Boeing - stick to commercial or come up with something new and Stealthy.
The new trend is actually away from stealth in theoretical designs. Stealth is expensive and actually much easier to counter than people think. Instead, its much easier to go the drone/master route where you can simply saturate the airspace and the at home industrial capacity is more important than the performance of the individual airframe.

For the short term, you will see all kinds of odd airframes.. the saturation design actually makes sense with modern anti-missile systems.. even if you are effectively also labelling the pilots as disposable.
 
The new trend is actually away from stealth in theoretical designs. Stealth is expensive and actually much easier to counter than people think. Instead, its much easier to go the drone/master route where you can simply saturate the airspace and the at home industrial capacity is more important than the performance of the individual airframe.

For the short term, you will see all kinds of odd airframes.. the saturation design actually makes sense with modern anti-missile systems.. even if you are effectively also labelling the pilots as disposable.

No the new trend is much more complicated than that. Saturation isn't achieved with UAVs or airframes, but MALDs which are just basically cruise missiles with jamming/spoofing warheads. In that mix, you have stealthy scout frames like the F22 providing targeting information. Behind that you have your primary EW assets like the EA-18G and your missile trucks (which is what the F-15X has as its primary role on the offensive battlefield). Stealth isn't losing its importance, it will still be a critical capability, anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand physics.
 
The plan as laid out in the article is full replacement of current F-15C/D fleet which is 250+ frames. The F-35A is primarily replacing F-16s and simply isn't a viable F-15C/D replacement (for a whole host of reasons not the least of which are payload, cost per hour, shitty radar, etc). USAF basically either needs to completely retrofit the entire fleet of F-15C/Ds or buy replacements.

SA has 62 F-15Cs which are 30+ years old, ~70 F-15SE which are old, and has ~17 F-15SQ with another 28 on order for a total F-15SQ order of 45 planes which is a small order and is being fulfilled at a low rate hence the high cost per plane.

NGAD is well over a decade at best from being an actual useful plane and it is needed to replace the aging and increasingly outdated F22 fleet (which if the F35 wasn't such a POS boondoggle might have actually gotten some upgrades).
Actually yes it is a viable replacement.
1. Shitty radar? It uses the AN/APG-81 which *drumrolls* is based on the same generation as the F-22 and does far well in jamming warfare.
2. The payload is nearly equivalent to the F-15C/D since it has 8 hardpoints which they haven't even gotten to rails yet.
3. The cost per hour is unfortunately not measurable yet because there aren't that many F-35A's in service. If they were actually comparable in number in relative to the F-15's, the cost per hour then can be measured. So of course the cost per hour now is high. The same would also apply to the F-15X which is a separate variant from the F-15C and would have a higher cost per hour too at first.

Yes, the USAF is replacing the F-15C/D fleet with F-35A's and the NGAD. That is still the plan.

This F-15X / Lockheed Martin competition is a gambit, nothing more.
 
Agreed, the end of the locally piloted aircraft is probably nearing it's end. Your new commercial jets land themselves now anyways. A fighter pilot is limited to 9Gs in a turn, a Drone is not. Again talking about an Air Superiority Fighter, which the F-35 is not.
 
Agreed, the end of the locally piloted aircraft is probably nearing it's end. Your new commercial jets land themselves now anyways. A fighter pilot is limited to 9Gs in a turn, a Drone is not. Again talking about an Air Superiority Fighter, which the F-35 is not.
Yes, it is and has been designed for air superiority with the CTOL.
 
Yes, it is and has been designed for air superiority with the CTOL.

Actually, its a multi-mission role fighter. The F-15 can outmaneuver it as can a lot of other aircraft. It was never built to dogfight, which is the role of a pure Air Superiority Fighter.
 
Actually, its a multi-mission role fighter. The F-15 can outmaneuver it as can a lot of other aircraft. It was never built to dogfight, which is the role of a pure Air Superiority Fighter.
Now what does the term "multi-mission role" encompass? You really overrate the concept of dog fighting. The F-15X is not being pitched for dog fighting, it is pitched for missile payloads. Why do we need to buy more F-15X's to do dogfighting when we can buy more F-16's to do the same job?
 
Actually yes it is a viable replacement.
1. Shitty radar? It uses the AN/APG-81 which *drumrolls* is based on the same generation as the F-22 and does far well in jamming warfare.
2. The payload is nearly equivalent to the F-15C/D since it has 8 hardpoints which they haven't even gotten to rails yet.
3. The cost per hour is unfortunately not measurable yet because there aren't that many F-35A's in service. If they were actually comparable in number in relative to the F-15's, the cost per hour then can be measured.

1) Yes, shitty radar. The F35 has a small radar which has a rather limited range. Both the F22 and F-15X have significantly more powerful radars with the new radar for the F-15X being both more powerful than the F22 and significantly more capable. Its amazing how much technology advances in 30 years. Likewise, the F35 radar is now also ~20 years old.
2) the F35 can't lift what the F-15 can and even with what it can lift, its performance dives off a cliff. Even without external stations, the F35 is severely under powered and overloaded.
3) the cost per hour for f35 is only beaten out by the F22 for high cost. The f35 simply has significantly more maintenance than pretty much any other plane in existence. Not even LM or the USAF is claiming that the cost per hour numbers for the F35 are good.


Yes, the USAF is replacing the F-15C/D fleet with F-35A's and the NGAD. That is still the plan.

This F-15X / Lockheed Martin competition is a gambit, nothing more.

No they are not. The F35A's were never going to replace the F-15C/D fleet. The original plan was to have roughly double the number of F22s and use those to replace the F-15C/Ds but that didn't happen. Nor is it likely that F35s replacing F-15 C/Ds going to be viable to congress, which is why the current plan of record is to do full retrofit of the entire existing F-15 C/D fleet so they can last another 20+ years. Nor is it a competition or gambit that the USAF went to boeing to look at new build F-15s. The idea with new built F-15s is to save money over retrofitting the existing F-15 fleet. Based on the data presented, the USAF/Boeing are looking at a break even point of roughly 10-15 years with new build F-15X vs retrofitted F-15 C/D and then saving money beyond that point all the while getting increased capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, the end of the locally piloted aircraft is probably nearing it's end. Your new commercial jets land themselves now anyways. A fighter pilot is limited to 9Gs in a turn, a Drone is not. Again talking about an Air Superiority Fighter, which the F-35 is not.

Eh? there isn't a single commercial jet that lands itself. Nor will there ever likely be. All commercial jets in production AND design firmly have pilots in control for all take offs and landings. There are a lot of very good technical and human factors reasons for this and nothing has fundamentally changed to make those factors go away.
 
Now what does the term "multi-mission role" encompass? You really overrate the concept of dog fighting. The F-15X is not being pitched for dog fighting, it is pitched for missile payloads. Why do we need to buy more F-15X's to do dogfighting when we can buy more F-16's to do the same job?

multi-role basically means it is a bomb truck that doesn't need a separate fighter escort. It doesn't mean it is an air superiority fighter. F-16s are pretty shitty in reality with crap range. F-16s are small and cheap fighters that could be built in large numbers, they were never designed to be air superiority fighters as they lack the range and performance required. F-16s make ok bomb trucks but the air superiority role was the F-15 C/Ds job with the f-16 as a backup jet.
 
Now what does the term "multi-mission role" encompass? You really overrate the concept of dog fighting. The F-15X is not being pitched for dog fighting, it is pitched for missile payloads. Why do we need to buy more F-15X's to do dogfighting when we can buy more F-16's to do the same job?


I was using the F-15 as an example for Air Superiority Fighter. Should have qualified it with "Strike Eagle" A/B/C/D. (non-x). Yes, low cost with the current F-16 is a good option to fill that space now.
 
I was using the F-15 as an example for Air Superiority Fighter. Should have qualified it with "Strike Eagle" A/B/C/D. (non-x). Yes, low cost with the current F-16 is a good option to fill that space now.
The F-15E and its variants are the only ones designated "Strike Eagle." The C/D are simply "Eagle."
 
1) Yes, shitty radar. The F35 has a small radar which has a rather limited range. Both the F22 and F-15X has significantly more powerful radars with the new radar for the F-15X being both more powerful than the F22 and significantly more capable. Its amazing how much technology advances in 30 years. Likewise, the F35 radar is now also ~20 years old.
The F-15X is non-existent. What you're talking about is PROPOSED. The AN/APG-81 is 160 km ~ up to 300 km depending on RCS compared to the 200 km ~ on the F-22. The F-16 block 52 has 80 km by comparison. The F-15C/D's range is limited to 100 km to around 175 km.
2) the F35 can't lift what the F-15 can and even with what it can lift, its performance dives off a cliff. Even without external stations, the F35 is severely under powered and overloaded.
What are you basing this on? It has 8 hardpoints which it can indeed carry 8 AIM-X's. A recent test where they overloaded an F-35B (STOVL) past its designed capacity and it still flew just fine. It limited the range sure.
3) the cost per hour for f35 is only beaten out by the F22 for high cost. The f35 simply has significantly more maintenance that pretty much any other plane in existence. Not even LM or the USAF is claiming that the cost per hour numbers for the F35 are good.
Because there aren't that many of them in existence. When there are comparable planes, then the cost per hour will drop.
No they are not. The F35A's were never going to replace the F-15C/D fleet. The original plan was to have roughly double the number of F22s and use those to replace the F-15C/Ds but that didn't happen. Nor is it likely that F35s replacing F-15 C/Ds going to be viable to congress, which why the current plan of record is to do full retrofit of the entire existing F-15 C/D fleet so they can last another 20+ years. Nor is it a competition or gambit that the USAF went to boeing to look at new build F-15s. The idea with new built F-15s is to save money over retrofitting the existing F-15 fleet. Based on the data presented, the USAF/Boeing are looking at a break even point of roughly 10-15 years with new build F-15X vs retrofitted F-15 C/D and then saving money beyond that point all the while getting increased capabilities.
No, The Air Force went to BOTH Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Boeing rebidded their F-15 Silent Eagle minus the stealth capabilities. All they did was recycle the 2040C proposal which the Air Force rejected years ago.
 
And who is this going to be used against?
Goat fucking terrorists flying on their donkeys trying to split the moon again while raping 12 yo girls?
Maybe Europe when they finally get tired of 45's ass-hattery.
Having a strong military is more of a deterrent then anything. We have enough nukes to end this planet 10 times over but we don't use them either.
 
Eh? there isn't a single commercial jet that lands itself. Nor will there ever likely be. All commercial jets in production AND design firmly have pilots in control for all take offs and landings. There are a lot of very good technical and human factors reasons for this and nothing has fundamentally changed to make those factors go away.

AUTOLAND
 
This is a good idea. They're cheap, the airframe is proven, they're cheap, and they're cheap. We're making Raptors that will be very useful...when the ID4 Aliens arrive. But prior to that, we're still trying to figure out something better than the A10 and those Prop-based planes, basically Sandy's from the Viet Nam war, are what they are going to turn to. Cheap and Simple is in again.
 
This is a good idea. They're cheap, the airframe is proven, they're cheap, and they're cheap. We're making Raptors that will be very useful...when the ID4 Aliens arrive. But prior to that, we're still trying to figure out something better than the A10 and those Prop-based planes, basically Sandy's from the Viet Nam war, are what they are going to turn to. Cheap and Simple is in again.
1. No, the airframe is not cheap. The flyaway cost is around $80-100 million depending on what Boeing negotiates with their suppliers
2. No, we're not making Raptors anymore. That line is dead. Feel free to go to Marietta and ask to see the F-22 line. It isn't there anymore.
3. CAS isn't even remotely the same territory as fighters.
 
Back
Top