Let's talk about the F-15EX.

Advertise with us
Wildman Rocketry
eggtimer rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The F-15Eagle was/is probably the most feared heavy air superiority fighter.

The F-35 is very expensive and complicated, and requires much more maintenance for a shorter life.

Both will easily kill a pilot if left to do what they can, from an aerodynamic perspective, so we may have passed the maneuverability limits of human pilots. If you want to go faster, it may have to be by remote.

If you want a reliable deployment vehicle, a large improvement to an existing airframe (incl electonics, radar, etc.) may get you more than a grassroots change to a new more complicated airframe. Maneuverability for the F-15/F-16/F-18 is already more than the pilots can handle.

I'd guess re-integrating this upgraded version is a similar decision as not getting rid of the A-10.
 
Not at all. The A10 is obsolete. The F15EX has a clearly important role to fill.

Simply put, you can't use 5th and 6th gen fighters for every mission. Too much maintenance, too much cost. There are a ton of non stealth required missions, and using an Fxx, NGAD, or F35 on those missions, is very wasteful. The F15 and F18 aren't exactly the easiest things to spot on radar anyways, at least not when they're trying to be sneaky.

A large field of stealths, down for repairs, because they were wasted on low level bombing runs, is silly.

And the F15 still has a few tricks up it's sleeve. Not only can it terrorize 99% of adversary fighters. It can fly 200' off the deck, below radar, at Mach Jesus, with nukes under its wings. It's no joke. If it's A2A missiles work, the F15EX is more than a match for Russian and Chinese fighters. Teamed up with a few invisible F35's, and it's a turkey shoot.

The game plan is tag teaming 4th, 5th, and 6th gen fighters, into an unstoppable force package.

An F35 can only carry so many missiles. But it can target enemy aircraft, and launch missiles from an F15EX that's on the other side of the Horizon (literally).

A dog fight isn't "beyond visual range" anymore. It's beyond, and way the heck over the horizon.

The F35 can launch missiles, from missile destroyers as well.

It's no secret that long range missiles are being brought into the game plan. An F18 flew with an SM6 SAM under its wing just a short while ago.

And an F15 going Mach 2+, without worrying about your RAM melting off, is still handy.
 
Last edited:
It's a great return on investment. There is no debating the capabilities. The F-15 A/B/C/D/E have proven records. Add in the rest of the alphabet (foreign users) and any conversation on that is over. The capabilities of the EX is better.

So why? Money. This fighter is situated between the F-15 and the F-22 in terms of capabilities. However, when you look at the cost to operate and maintain, it's far below. So, now, you have to look at "requirements." The adversaries out there have not kept pace with the US in terms of 6th Gen fighters and aerial warfare has changed a bit since the establishment of the 6th Gen requirements. That means there isn't a requirement for an F-22 but something a little more than the F-15C/E. With the EX, we get the "almost" goodest fighter for a lot less money upfront and the backend is already established (maintenance, manufacturing, logistics and training...well mostly).
 
Last edited:
They're underestimating the life of the 35's to get these. That's a major selling point. But anyone that's seen the main spars and framework on a 35 is saying "wtf" right now.


Especially since the 35's idea of a dog fight, is floating along in a nice straight line.



There's a purpose for the 15EX that we're not being told. Hint: Long ranges, long loiter times, high speeds, and plenty of places to base refueling tankers.

Same reason there's going to be a big 6th gen coming, and a little one.
 
Bill S said:
The Navy is experimenting with air-launching an SM-6 missile w/o booster stage to yield a very long range air to air missile, essentially. Pretty cool. Be interesting if they can refit other fighters to as well.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/06/air-launched-sm-6-spotted-again-on-f-a-18-super-hornet/
Click to expand...
The SM-6 is an amazing piece of hardware and is getting used across the forces. Even the Army likes them. I mean, if the SM-6 is good enough to shoot down Hootie surface to surface anti-ship missiles, they should be good for satellites (like SM-3) and maybe a hypersonic or two...
 
MidOH said:
Not at all. The A10 is obsolete. The F15EX has a clearly important role to fill.
Click to expand...
Yet, the A-10 does one thing better than the rest: ground support and anti-tank warfare. The F-35 and the rest do not do a good job performing that mission.
 
The F35 smokes the A10 in ground support. It just hasn't had a FAIR chance to show that yet.

They had one heavily biased test with A10's, but had all of their technology turned off, or disabled for that fly off. And this was years ago, before getting 5th gen battlefield equipment into the ground troops hands. Which wasn't permitted for that test.

It was mostly a fitness test. Grizzled, experienced warriors, vs skinny children with no experience. And the test was lifting weights.

The A10 is completely obsolete. Might have been great in Iraq, or the many hadji skirmishes since then, but that's not a modern war. If the A10 serves any roll well, then the battle is already won. At best, it's a loud zoomy helicopter. Heck, our coppers have a better chance at leaking up on radars and SAMs than an A10 is. AH64 fired the first shots in desert storm. At critical radar stations.

Nobody likes getting lit up by their own air cover? When it shows up 15 minutes late, and cant tell who's who. Not to mention the A10 is retardedly easy to take out with a shoulder launched missile, that any real military will have plenty of. Those low and slow passes weve all seen on video, aint happening with a near peer adversary like China. And of course, it's hardly optimal at stopping Su37's from dropping bombs on our heads.

The F35 is capable of sending and receiving a ton of strategic information. Sharing that data with the ground. One loud passover and a few bomb drops, and now the ground troops screen is lit up with many adversary positions. Way better eyes. And it's going to be sharing that info with F15's, helicopters, and the ground command. It's a part of a force package. The A10 was a stand alone bird.

Tanks are just tin cans to all the aircraft. If they're accessible, and known, then they're a death trap. Mobile artillery, at best. The F35 can make it through contested air space to hit them. The A10 simply can't.
 
Last edited:
Bravo52 said:
The SM-6 is an amazing piece of hardware and is getting used across the forces. Even the Army likes them. I mean, if the SM-6 is good enough to shoot down Hootie surface to surface anti-ship missiles, they should be good for satellites (like SM-3) and maybe a hypersonic or two...
Click to expand...
Now if the govt would only work on increasing production. 825 missiles over 5 years sounds like a lot, but in an war munitions evaporate at an amazing rate.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Por...dget/FY2024/MYP_Exhibits/SM6_NAVY_MYP_1-4.pdf
 
MidOH said:
The F35 smokes the A10 in ground support. It just hasn't had a FAIR chance to show that yet.
Click to expand...
The issue with the A10 is not if it is good at ground support or if it has a big gun or if it even had a fair comparison to the F-35. The issue is maintainability and the cost to do that. While the A-10 airframe is paid for the logistics trail to support it is costly. There is a point where the two curves cross between the cost of the A-10 and the F-35 in terms of "total cost" and we've passed that point. (I used to know the numbers but since retirement, I stopped looking! 😆 ) Many people will say; "the cost per flight hour is lower on the A-10 than the F-35..." but what they fail to consider is that cost is going up every day on the A-10 and down of the F-35. They are not looking at the total invested for future "value".

One problem with fly-offs is there is really know way of knowing what the right comparison should be. We don't know what the enemy will be or what they will do. All we know is what they "did" so we judge based on that. The A-10 can't do what the F-35 can do. The F-35 can do what the A-10 can do...mostly.
 
I think all non drone aircraft are going to be obsolete in a few years. Drones are just too cheap and effective, I think that propeller aircraft might be effective at operating in environments with more electrical warfare than a drone can deal with.
 
NTP2 said:
I think all non drone aircraft are going to be obsolete in a few years. Drones are just too cheap and effective, I think that propeller aircraft might be effective at operating in environments with more electrical warfare than a drone can deal with.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

I try to keep up with the developments in Ukraine and Gaza. One of the things that is glaringly apparent is that drones are changing how war is conducted... for now. But because they are, much like we did with IED's a generation ago, nations are throwing a LOT of money at the problem and some folks are already predicting that the heyday of drones is already over, or at least that the handwriting is on the wall. I still think that drones are going to have a permanent place at the new table, but it shouldn't be long before we see a whole bunch of unit level, possibly even squad level, anti-drone tech, and not just jamming.
 
Drones are the modern day "booby traps" of the Vietnam era. The are cheap, available and really effective. There are things that counter them really well but those are NOT cheap and available.

I don't think you'll see the pilot removed from the cockpit too soon. The current philosophy is to have parallel tracks for manned and unmanned aircraft. We are at the point now where modern aircraft are "designed" with the thought of being manned or unmanned and that acts as more of a transition stage than an outright switch to unmanned. At the same time, the effectiveness and efficiency we are starting to see with drones is amazing and will eventually be the norm. All of the periphery associated with drones makes them very attractive. Add AI to the mix and it gets even better...
 
Bravo52 said:
The issue with the A10 is not if it is good at ground support or if it has a big gun or if it even had a fair comparison to the F-35. The issue is maintainability and the cost to do that. While the A-10 airframe is paid for the logistics trail to support it is costly. There is a point where the two curves cross between the cost of the A-10 and the F-35 in terms of "total cost" and we've passed that point. (I used to know the numbers but since retirement, I stopped looking! 😆 ) Many people will say; "the cost per flight hour is lower on the A-10 than the F-35..." but what they fail to consider is that cost is going up every day on the A-10 and down of the F-35. They are not looking at the total invested for future "value".

One problem with fly-offs is there is really know way of knowing what the right comparison should be. We don't know what the enemy will be or what they will do. All we know is what they "did" so we judge based on that. The A-10 can't do what the F-35 can do. The F-35 can do what the A-10 can do...mostly.
Click to expand...


What are the initial purchase costs of an A-10 vs F35?
What is the crew compliment for each (maintenance as well)?, and how many are required per plane to keep it airworthy?
What is the lifespan of both airframes? And, what is their durability in combat?

I think the F-35 requires roughly twice the aircrew and has a very limited life. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully. Just seems like a bad application of our taxpayer money for close air support.

Edit: I do believe we need a better close ground support airframe, but trying to make the F35 wear too many hats may not work.
 
Last edited:
Donnager said:
What are the initial purchase costs of an A-10 vs F35?
What is the crew compliment for each (maintenance as well)?, and how many are required per plane to keep it airworthy?
What is the lifespan of both airframes? And, what is their durability in combat?

I think the F-35 requires roughly twice the aircrew and has a very limited life. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully. Just seems like a bad application of our taxpayer money for close air support.

Edit: I do believe we need a better close ground support airframe, but trying to make the F35 wear too many hats may not work.
Click to expand...
There is only one seat in the F-35. There is only one seat in an A-10. That is what an "aircrew" is. If you are talking about a "system" team (maintenance, staff, depot etc) then I would say they are comparable.

None of those initial questions really matter. We can't buy an A-10 today. In general terms, the A-10 design is 55 years old. The plane itself is 47 years old. We shouldn't compare initial cost, we can not compare crew complement (they are the same). We can not compare lifespan. The projected lifespan of any aircraft is not adhered to. The B-52 is 64 yrs old a will keep going. So really, the only thing noteworthy of comparing is capability. "Cost" does not matter. "Value" is basically a historical factor.

History will tell us that the F-16 flew more "close air support" mission in Afghanistan than the A-10 did. History will also tell you the B-52 was a better CAS aircraft in Afghanistan than the A-10. It took the A-10 too long to get to the TIC than it did for the -16s or when a bomber was orbiting on station. The numbers are relative from a historical perspective, not capability perspective.

Regarding CAS, we really shouldn't compare the F-35 to an A-10. It should be compared to an F-16. The F-16 mission set is probably 5-10X more than the A-10 and CAS is a big one of those requirements.

Nerd fact... they did build a single two-seat A-10 for test. It failed because it was basically not needed.
 
Last edited:
Donnager said:
The A2A fighters definitely seem too fast to do this.
Slow orbits with big guns are pretty good, depending on the field.

Maybe we need an A-11.
Click to expand...

Nice slow orbits so my shoulder launched missile can waste it with ease.

NTP2 said:
I think all non drone aircraft are going to be obsolete in a few years. Drones are just too cheap and effective, I think that propeller aircraft might be effective at operating in environments with more electrical warfare than a drone can deal with.
Click to expand...

The F15ex and F35 have open software with room for drone control.

The 6th gen NGAD has an AI copilot.

Donnager said:
What are the initial purchase costs of an A-10 vs F35?
What is the crew compliment for each (maintenance as well)?, and how many are required per plane to keep it airworthy?
What is the lifespan of both airframes? And, what is their durability in combat?

I think the F-35 requires roughly twice the aircrew and has a very limited life. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully. Just seems like a bad application of our taxpayer money for close air support.

Edit: I do believe we need a better close ground support airframe, but trying to make the F35 wear too many hats may not work.
Click to expand...

The F35 can hand off those hats:

AH64 (meh, likely costs as much as an F35, but it kicked arse in desert storm, long before the stealths did anything)

1000018051.jpg


Ghostrider:
1000018052.jpg

Virginia Class, with missile payload upgrade:
1000018053.jpg

Fim92 Stinger:
1000018054.jpg

Ain't force packaging fun.
 
MidOH said:
Nice slow orbits so my shoulder launched missile can waste it with ease.
Click to expand...
Point defense? Like on ships?
MidOH said:
The F15ex and F35 have open software with room for drone control.
Click to expand...
But they’re expensive, I’ll bet you that if I had 1000 dollars then I could kill one with a drone.

Ps I’d run them down, like tribal hunters do.
 
Donnager said:
The F-15Eagle was/is probably the most feared heavy air superiority fighter.

The F-35 is very expensive and complicated, and requires much more maintenance for a shorter life.

Both will easily kill a pilot if left to do what they can, from an aerodynamic perspective, so we may have passed the maneuverability limits of human pilots. If you want to go faster, it may have to be by remote.

If you want a reliable deployment vehicle, a large improvement to an existing airframe (incl electonics, radar, etc.) may get you more than a grassroots change to a new more complicated airframe. Maneuverability for the F-15/F-16/F-18 is already more than the pilots can handle.

I'd guess re-integrating this upgraded version is a similar decision as not getting rid of the A-10.
Click to expand...
There is an article in the June 3-16 2024 Aviation Week and Space Technology page 13 pertaining to the subject with its' shortcomings. One guy wrote a report, "Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed Out the United States Air Force. Some say the stealth requirements are at fault along with specialized electronics that aren't ready yet among other things.
 
It's knee-jerk sensationalism. When you introduce cutting edge tech, it's going to have issues. It's good for click bait. None of these issues, are really all that unexpected.

Plenty of F35's working out the bugs, right now. Heck, Israel flew a bunch of them, and a private jet ECM thing, into Syria. Right past their SAM sites.

The 6th gens are flying now. Won't be in production for 20 more years. These are complex systems.

Good example: Seawolf class subs. What a nightmare.

But now that tech is mature. And the exact same tech on the VA class subs is ahead of schedule, and under budget.
 
MidOH said:
View attachment 654203
Superbug with two SM6 SAMs hung on it. Cause why not.
Click to expand...
A2A--I thought a fully loaded F-15 could carry a couple (or 4) phoenix missiles (AIM54), and/or 2/4 sparrow missiles (AIM-7), along with a couple/few sidewinders (AIM-9 group).
A2G-- Not sure what is all on the menu these days, but this plane can carry a lot and fly very fast. SM6's would be pretty serious.

It also can launch some antisatellite stuff, from my recollection, but that may be a few decades back. They are better than 1:1 thrust to weight and can go quite fast, even vertically. I think they used these to launch ASM 135's on a climb at 35-40K feet, using the F-15 as the first stage. A new F-15 version may be better without all the VTOL BS from the F-35.
 
Bravo52 said:
There is only one seat in the F-35. There is only one seat in an A-10. That is what an "aircrew" is. If you are talking about a "system" team (maintenance, staff, depot etc) then I would say they are comparable.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the ground crew requirements for an F-35 are roughly twice that of an A-10. And, the lifespan of the F-35 is roughly half of that of an A-10. First blush says the cost is MUCH higher, equating to 4X maintenance when you count the 0.5X lifespan.

If you have good information on this comparison, let us know. I'm not really that much of a fan of the A-10, but show me we have something better and more cost effective.

The F-35 isn't really a good comparison to an A-10.
 
Donnager said:
My understanding is the ground crew requirements for an F-35 are roughly twice that of an A-10. And, the lifespan of the F-35 is roughly half of that of an A-10. First blush says the cost is MUCH higher, equating to 4X maintenance when you count the 0.5X lifespan.

If you have good information on this comparison, let us know. I'm not really that much of a fan of the A-10, but show me we have something better and more cost effective.

The F-35 isn't really a good comparison to an A-10.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting the lifespan calculation for the F35?

The A-10 is incredibly effective at dealing with light armor and infantry in an environment with air superiority and no MANPADS, but we can't really count on that to exist.
 
CalebJ said:
Where are you getting the lifespan calculation for the F35?

The A-10 is incredibly effective at dealing with light armor and infantry in an environment with air superiority and no MANPADS, but we can't really count on that to exist.
Click to expand...

I think this site: tells a little about it.... $19,000 per flight hour for an A-10 vs $44,000 per flight hour on an F-35.

I agree with you. A-10 is on borrowed time.

Edit---don't think the original costs are taken into account, and that should be mentioned.
 
Donnager said:
I think this site: tells a little about it.... $19,000 per flight hour for an A-10 vs $44,000 per flight hour on an F-35.

I agree with you. A-10 is on borrowed time.

Edit---don't think the original costs are taken into account, and that should be mentioned.
Click to expand...
I was asking about your life span estimate.
As far as cost per flight hour, that's been steadily decreasing and the last GAO number I saw was $34000 from a couple of years ago.
 

Similar threads

C
Let me talk to the cat owners for a minute
2
Replies
55
Views
1K
Rocket-Fan
R
SolarYellow
Homeschooling/math support?
Replies
18
Views
545
tsmmiller
tsmmiller
MetricRocketeer
Photographing into the sun
Replies
14
Views
359
bjphoenix
B
S
F100 new black powder motor.
Replies
7
Views
517
BEC
BEC
Doug Holverson
Talk about "go"! This "bird" has "it"!
Replies
0
Views
234
Doug Holverson
Doug Holverson

Latest posts

Back
Top