One fact makes it worth it. The F35 and F22 can maintain internal only load outs of their munitions to maintain stealth. The F15X can data link with those 5th gen. The 5th gen act as the eyes and the F15 further away act as the source of all the munitions.
@@John_shepard Exactly, the F15 is still better than most. The F15x will cost less to maintain, developed via exports, and can still dog fight with the best. It’s really a super strike eagle. Navy will use the Super Hornets that same way with the F35.
This is actually insane, we didn't have this technology when the F15 was around now the F35-F22 can act as Point man feeding information to F15's that dont see the enemy yet but are able to unleash their payload becasuse the F35-F22's gave them targets well beyond their range. Meanwhile the F35-22 can stick to their own role where they excel at which is stealth and situational awareness on steroids XD Its like a spotter-sniper situation except in the air.
It's not a matter of each one is "better" nor "one or the other". It's about a symbiosis of capabilities. The F-22 and F-35 stealth capabilities make them excellent "forward edge" platforms for engaging the enemy while the F-15EX is a high tech missile monster. The F-15EX's upgraded avionics and electronic warfare suites along with its massive missile loadout makes it the perfect companion to the stealth aircraft. The inter-connectability of the three platforms, along with EWACS and other electronic warfare aircraft gives the US a multi-layered forces that protects each other and yet are able to operate separately.
@@riskinhos When the NGAD becomes operational the F-22's will go to the Air National Guard, but that's going to be awhile, I'm not going to hold my breath until they're "shacked", you can if you want.
@@riskinhos the Comanche program got "shacked" and then look what was left behind when Osama got "shacked" who knows what these guys have up their sleeves
I feel like someone at a board meeting considered that. "So we plan to designate this variant the F-15X" "Did you ever notice that a 5 looks a bit like an S?" "Yeah, I guess, what of it?" "What if we designated it the F-15EX? Then it would look like it's called the F-1SEX" "You absolute madlad, I'll make some calls, this is gonna be hilarious."
@@anguswaterhouse9255 i doubt it, f-15 have numbers total in the thousands in US along, if u counted it ally numbers and those sold to other cuntry as well, there enough out there to give enough sells point to make upgraded version. f22 on the other hand number less then 200 total, ban for export, rather then it gettign upgrade version, they will just replace it with the next 6th gen fighter. rather then complete retire teh f22, if anything they will most likely be use as front line intercepter cause of it stealth and speed.
I love that a plane designed with a slide rule is still being used and produced today, if a bit updated. The f-15 is still an extremely capable air frame
If only the F-15EX had front canards and thrust vectoring nozzles....(as a literal ode to the F-15 S/MTD) it would have looked dope AF. (Which it may not even need).
im so glad this channel is finally getting around in recognizing just how stubbornly well-designed the f15 eagle really is. massively understated is how maneuverable it is at all speeds, keeping it a favorite in many situations. this is also the first plane that went supersonic going vertical.....
The EX is based off of the Strike Eagle, not the air superiority version, the C/D Eagle. It's no contest between the C and E variants so far as ACM. The EX will see mostly NORAD Homeland Security missions. The Eagle has had its issues though. Stood down from securing North America in 2007 while the Canadian CF-18s assumed the missions for 2-3 weeks IIRC. The platform had to be stood down due to a wing failure requiring fleetwide inspections. Apparently the Strike Eagles wing is better designed, a plus to the EX's superlong service life. 25,000 hours or something like that. The Streak Eagle attained some amazing thrust/weight ratios during its record attempts. The holdback devices used hold the Eagle back while the engines throttled allowed for some wicked short takeoffs. The video of the Streak Eagles on youtube.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 Yes, never said it wasn't. The Charlie Eagles are a much better air sup. platform. The EX is a Strike Eagle variant built for air sup.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 The Charlies are still in service without an operational replacement until EX comes online. WVR/ACM are still major drivers for current training. The EX won't be survivable against modern air defenses much beyond 2028 but will be perfect to perform homeland/airbase defense/no-fly zone enforcement against limited or no air defense systems as well as deploying standoff munitions, similar to the Charlies current mission..
The F-15 is like the Great White Shark. It's so perfectly designed that with just minor changes it's still an apex predator long after it's introduction.
Only problem is if the Chinese are further ahead than we think in missile/radar/ECM department. Fighters never operate in a vacuum either. There's always the possibility of assets on the ground or at sea either friendly or hostile that will add to the general mayhem and "fog of war"
It's a very powerful, versatile machine but without stealth it's only as good as its longest range missle and it will be forced to rely on stealthier units to help find its targets. Nothing wrong with a missle truck. But it doesn't work without more advanced assets in the field.
Geez, I remember years ago when I was just out of college, I did some work for a team of consultants who were partnering with the USAF and certain contractors as they took early steps for transition to the F-22. Basically, EVERYONE on the F-15 side (maintenance, training etc) thought that the Eagle was doomed and would be a career dead end - you'd maybe get a few more years supporting the airframe, but the groundbreaking F-22 was where the future lay. Everyone was trying every trick in the book - and a few outside the book - to get fully into the F-22 program asap. Now, almost a quarter of a century later, it's the Raptor that that's more of a career dead end, and its the Eagle is going to be around for at least another 20-30 years in USAF service, with probably another 15+ on top of that when the USA sells the aircraft. It's going to get a lot of upgrades also, as that big, tough airframe can take a lot of punishment and trial new technologies. Someone starting an aviation career today in their 20s could likely retire working with Eagles both in the USA and with allied nations. Anyone saying this back in the late 1990s would have been laughed at. But here we are.
the f22 is just too expensive to get any use out of it. it probably has gotten to a point where they are afraid to use it because of the cost of losing one. idk im no expert
@@atif1538 The biggest problem is the factories/machines that produced the F-22 were shut down long ago. It's not so much the planes themselves, it's that starting production again would be a huge expense. The F-15 on the other hand has been in constant production, so it's just easier to upgrade.
@@atif1538 I agree. I've been saying for a while now that the F-22 & F-35 were both dead ends, due to budgetary issues. The USAF would NEVER have enough of either, or both for that matter, to effectively fight a war with a peer level adversary, and that they would both fall to aircraft designed decades before them.
A fantastic 4++ generation high performance airframe like the F-15 makes a great addition to the F-35 and F-22. The ability to carry future long range air to air and air to ground missiles allows great flexibility to any strike mission. Costing less to maintain is a great plus also!
Glad the USAF has some people with common sense procuring weapons. You did a good job of enumerating the many practical reasons to keep the F-15 assembly line going. It is the best system to augment our stealth fleet. Some designs have long legs, like the B-52's. It is said that the crews of the B-1s, B-2's will be ferried back from the Boneyard by the BUFF's. It might be that the pilots of the F-35, F-22 will fly an F-15EX back to base from the boneyard...
Wouldn't really say Binkov is the best in terms of detail, but his content is definitely the most approachable, require little advance knowledge to get the general idea, whilst not sacrificing too much in terms of accuracy.
F-35: "I'm stealthy and can get super close before taking out 2 enemies in one sortie!" F-15-2: "Nice, kid. I'm not stealthy, but I can take out 6+ enemies in one sortie! Maybe even drop some bombs too, while I'm out there."
The whole point is long range munitions fired from beyond radar range with the F-35s as spotters. Air and ground. And then once the enemy air defenses are down up to a certain radius for a plane that can come in and rain lots and lots of bombs while the F-35s continue to push deeper into territory.
The fear is stealth coating will be difficult to impossible to maintain in a prolong conflict. F35 has about a 50% readiness rate during peacetime. So sure if F35 destroys all air defense in a few weeks everything fine, however that’s probably not going to happen. It took 6 months to degrade Iraq air defense.
@@jaredyoung5353 how long did it take to take down iraq's air defense in gulf war 1? how long did it take in Vietnam? any of the Israeli conflicts? ww2? my point is that it's getting easier. So most likely the chinese know this and the tactics will be to spread out assets on a defensive level and only go for targets of opportunity. they have military industry so far inland that it makes it difficult to penetrate without losses/refueling. They are set for a prolonged war and they know we may create a corridor quickly. But if we don't get the decisive victory because of lack of battles it'll just be attritional. Which we absolutely wont and thus your point is right. But technologically we could have if tactics weren't changed. I really think if we do any war with china... less is more. We now more than ever need the chinese people on our side. But because of strategic realities this will be a cold war style proxy war instead. Which goes back to the idea that, yeah maybe stealth is good enough to beat underequipped PRC allies.
It's a shame too, the F-22 would have replaced the F-15 had its production not been cut at 170/750 ordered fighters. But sadly there was no point in fielding a fighter that expensive when the military was focused on counter terrorism and counter insurgency.
@@HomelessCows There is an additional wrinkle, and this is at least in part why more Raptors weren't made (price being the big one though), and that is that the US doesn't want an F-22 falling into enemy hands. SO, fewer F-22s used only when the F-22 is particularly needed helps prevent the proliferation of its stealth and sensor fusion tech. But you still need all those missiles to hit whatever the F-22 (or F-35) finds - hence the F-15 EX. And if a few F-15 EXs get downed, well that's less of a big deal than losing an F-22. In reality, stealth drones are what will be killing the F-22 (and F-35) mostly, not other fighters.
@@EmperorLionflame It doesn't fly like a brick for a start and beast mode will be used in conjunction with other jets using stealth mode. One can detect other platforms without being detected at range or easily and the other can light it up from maximum range
@@EmperorLionflame Comparing the F35 to a spy plane is disingenuous at best. Most of the bad press the F35 has had has come from states who seek to undermine the F35 program. The F35 isn't designed to operate on its own and beast mode just adds in more flexibility. Having a platform undetectable to radar that is operating along side strike platforms is a huge advantage. It's how the UK nuked the US in war games, twice.
@@EmperorLionflame there totally different platforms with different roles. Nearly all of the info I've seen out of the US on the F35 rubbishes the scare stories about the platform. Exactly the same tactics will be used with the F35 as we're used on those Vulcan led excersises. The Vulcans had to go high to avoid radar, the F35 with go stealthy to do the same. In beast mode the F35 can carry up to 16 missiles. You have 1 jet that can forfil both roles in this kind of scenario. It's a struggle to put the meteor on it? It can either be done or it cannot and we both know it can. The F35 is also designed with the future in mind, it will operate along side armed drones, identify targets while remaining unseen and will allow it's drones to take the shot remaining hidden. The F35 can do an awful lot the F16 can't do as great a platform as it is.
The REAL reason I've found from working on F-15's? Maintenance. We have so many spare parts for them that until we've reached something that's leaps and bounds better for a cheaper price, we're probably not transitioning for a LOOOOOOONG time. Originally the F-22 was supposed to phase out the 15's, but since the 22 was more expensive, we opted to keep the 15's as a stable backbone and simply improve on a tried and true hardworking jet.
I always championed the f-15 for these and other reasons. It's cheaper, easier to maintain, bigger, faster and more deadly than the f-22 or f-35. What did the guy say? 16 AMRAMs? I would never load it like that unless I was fighting a pack of other 4th gen fighters but it shows what a monster it is. Pity no stealth. J-20s and j-24s with pr-15s or that other 6 meter beast would be a threat
Makes sense for trained pilots, logistics and experience. The airframe hour increase is good too. Will it make a great missile truck for the F-35? That is the big question.
A couple of points. Mach 2+ fighters can't do that speed when loaded with externals. The F-16 with 3 EFTs, two 2,000 lb bombs & 2 AIM-120 has its top speed reduced to Mach 1.3...... Even when lightly loaded, the penalty is substantially - EF Typhoon for instance, with Mach 2 top speed is limited to Mach 1.6 with 6 AAMs and NO drop tank. The Eurofighter's top speed is reduced to Mach 1.6 with just 4 BVRAAMS, and 2 SRAAMS, which is just a light air-to-air load. The Rafale with 2 SCALP missiles, 4 MICA and 3 EFTs is restricted to 4 g instantaneous turn and Mach 0.9 top speed. ...... I don't know what the specs are for the F-15EX, but you can rest assured it's not Mach 2.5 when loaded with externals, including just air to air missiles The F-35 can actually do it's top speed of Mach 1.6 with a full internal load, soon to have 6 internal AMRAAMs. And did you hear about the Dutch exercise with Blue Air having 2 F-35s and 4 F-16s vs Red Air with 8 F-16s? The 4 F-16s killed all 8 of the F-16s without loss. The Dutch purpose was to see if F-16s could be used to shoot down enemy aircraft under F-35 guidance, while preserving their own air-to-air load. The excellent sensor system of the F-35 guiding F-16s worked perfectly. ..... In recent Red Flags, the US is also fighting F-22s, F-35s, and 4 gen fighters with both Red Air and Blue Air. I'm sure the USAF knows how to enhance 4 gen fighter capabilities with F-35s and F-22s too.
imagine putting Sidewinders on top of those AMRAAM's so when you launch the AMRAAM you spoof the radar than you see each split into 5 different missiles.
I mean, you COULD use a missile like the JASSM, but instead of its own warhead and seeker add three or four AIM-9x, launch the package toward the enemy formation and have the missiles engage when in optimal range. Launch that boom-stick in TWS mode with semi-active guidance and the enemy might never know what hit them...
Sounds unrealistic to me. The four Sidewinders weigh more than one AMRAAM rocket. So AMRAAM would have a lot of parasite mass to carry. This would drastically decrease range. But nice idea.
Yeah, same here, but at the back of my mind floats the image of a gull winged, twin engined, tandem seat fighter with a funny looking tail and an M-61 20mm cannon directly in front of the nose gear. I'm not sure what this "Phantom" in the back of my mind is, but it's so ugly that it is pretty.
I think the EX was a smart move for the Airforce .. and I think the EX pave the way for taking a look back and beefing up proven platforms instead of trying to make future star fighters that are to costly to operate. The catch 22 is the EX uses a lot of lessons learn from the F22 / F35 programs.
It's still worth it and still makes sense. Especially when paired with F-35/stealth fighter's sensors. Also, majority of enemy fighters are still non-stealthy.
The fact that it was getting upgraded by other countries is fantastic because that means the production line is still running and that the US didn't have to pay for the R&D.
I am so happy that my country will be the only one getting the F-15EX with the USA. We are gonna get 42 F-15EXs in total and 60 F-35s. We would be the strongest Air Force in the region.
That opening line was just unexpected, it just wasn’t Binkov… AND I LITERALLY REPLAYED 3-4 TIMES IN THE BEGINNING TO SEE IF MY EARS WERE OKAYING TRICKS ON ME!!! 😂😂😂😂😂
Indonesian here. There are a lot of rumors that our air force will choose both Rafale and F15 ex (or more specific F15 id). I think F15 ex will be useful for us because: 1. It's airframe capability with so many hardpoints and weapon choices mean that it can fulfill multiple roles that our air force limited budget desperately needed. 2. F15 ex is useful to tackle UAV/UCAV that usually designed to avoid ground radar/SAM. With many hardpoints, several F15 ex equipped with massive number of cheap short range missiles could handle swarms of drones.
The Legion Pod ( IRST) will provide F-15X pilots with the ability to identify, track and target aircraft, including stealthy platforms that cannot be “seen” on radar, in complex electronic warfare environments. The Legion Pod pre-developmental test phase began in early 2019.
The B-52 was supposed to be scrapped during the Carter years but being a flying launch platform saved the BUF and billions in development and years in lag time
Carter canceled the B-1 which was supposed to replace B-52, so the USAF had no choice but to hang on to B-52s. USAF said that the B-52 would no longer be likely to enter contested airspace and survive by the mid 1980s. The solutions offered were to reverse the cancellation of B-1, wait on the B-2 and get some of those, or rely on more standoff weapons that can be used from the edge of defended airspace. In the end, all of these options were partially pursued but none in sufficient numbers to fully replace B-52. The treaty that banned B-1 from carrying nukes prevented it from replacing the nuclear mission of B-52. The very small numbers of B-2 prevented them from doing all nuclear missions. Thus despite being replaced by two new bombers that are both more effective than B-52s, they hung on in service because of political and budget decisions.
@Fred Garvin He was wrong. The B-1 is better than the B-52 in almost every way. Even the B-1A model that was less focused on reducing observabilty and more focused on speed. Building hundreds of B-1 could have meant earlier retirement of B-52. Half of the B-52s were chopped up at the end of the Cold War to comply with a treaty. All of the B-52s could have been destroyed instead if there were enough B-1 already built to replace them. This would also have eliminated the possibility of sacrificing nuclear fusing on the B-1 by treaty since the B-52 would be gone and the B-2 still secret and in small numbers. We could have had 200 B-1A plus 200 B-1B all with nuclear weapons capability retained. B-1B even now can carry more standoff weapons than B-52, with about the same cost to operate them. B-1B have are tiny on radar compared to B-52 and much easier to hide using electronic warfare. The speed of B-1B, even with much sacrificed for lower observability, is still much better than B-52 and allows them to respond faster to urgent target missions and get in and out faster. The only thing the B-52 does better is maximum unrefueled range but B-1B can still reach all the same targets because of pretty good range of thousands of miles and aerial refueling. If B-1kept the nuclear fusing and fully replaced B-52 it is likely we would now see a B-1C model that like the F-15EX would be better under the skin with easier maintenance and lower cost to operate in addition to some incremental capability enhancements.
@Fred Garvin B-2 were not built in enough numbers to do such missions on a large scale. They also arrived much later than the original B-1. Furthermore, the B-2 cost vastly more to operate than B-1 which is why B-1 has been the workhorse bomber for the last few decades while B-2 mostly sit in hangars.
@Fred Garvin We agree saving the BUF proved functional. But with over 1,462 days in office, getting 1 right is making contact once in a career of T-Ball
As an Australian, I would like us to purchase two or three squadrons of these. They could follow the F35s in on a strike and cause a huge amount of grief after air defences were neutralised. They would be equality deadly against land or sea assets.
@@covenant_mog05 Most countries make plans for the next 5-20 yrs, Australia inks deals for current tech delivered in 50 years. Just an announcement for its own sake.
Given the huge upgrades to the underlying technology/computing power of the F-1SEX, I think it should be considered a Gen 4.5 aircraft. A good blend of the technololgy of the 5th Gen, with the proven capabilities of a 4th Gen.
The separating factor between 4th and 5th gen fighters is stealth. Unless its been given some form of stealth upgrade I would disagree as it being between the two. I wouldn't say Russia or China have any genuinely 5th gen fighters either. The only fighters that are genuinely above 4th gen are the f35 and f22 IMO
I used to be sad as a child thinking my favorite jets were being replaced but now the viper, eagle 2 and block 3 super hornet will outlive their successors
maybe not the viper/hornet, the F-35 was an actually good program and the F-35 is needed to continue service so J-20s and Su-57s don't start seal clubbing 4th gen jets, so when a J-20 is found by EWR F-35s can be scrambled, although there are tactics to beat 5th gen jets with 4th gen jets, they only work if there is only 1/2 5th generation jets to atleast 3 4th gen jets
@@demun6065 it is true at Mach 1.8 the exterior of the F18 does not experience the rigorous temps experienced by the F15. So it is cooler. The F15 capable of Mach 2.5+ and able to accelerate in vertical climb and surpass Mach 1 along with weapons loading far beyond the F/A 18s capabilities. The F15 is the king of air combat until another platform surpasses its kill/loss ratio. Also I have great respect for the F/A 18.
Working with the F35 and F22 this is just a legandary Battle wagon! They lock on and the F15 Ex launches 🚀 16 missles at 16 planes! That’s a lot of dead Floppy fish, all the whole the F22 and F35 have full weapon load outs still and remain in complete stealth mode! No nation stand a chance vs these 3 !!!
With the new larger weapon ejector racks and the emphasis on mission flexibility, i would fully expect rack mounted towed decoy options and expanded decoy dispensers
Great coverage on the new F 15ex(y). It’s great to see the full potential of these platforms coming into reality. The platforms were very advanced in design for their initial releases, but the computer tech (while great for the time) wasn’t anywhere near it’s full potential. Now, the tech has caught up and we can turn these old frames into modern masterpieces. Would love to see the F16 get updated to the most modern level possible.
I read in another article that the main purpose of the F15 EX is the role of a missle barge: Their numerous missles can be directed by F-22 and F-35 fighters. Thus, the more stealthy jets can find opposing fighters and direct F-15 EX missles without betraying the stealth fighters' positions.
As much as I love the look of Mig-29 & SU-27 ( family ) , there is 1 fighter, that proved himself as the best - the ( already ) legendary F-15. I red alot of stuff about F-15 developement, I was sad when F-15 STOL/MTD was not put into operation, and / but after all the years of focusing on stealth fighters, here we go again, back to the best, combat approved king of the figters. Murica, you surprised me in the possitive sence of the word 😎👍
The thing is, the F-15 has yet to meet a Flanker in combat, and has mostly shot down ground-attack planes or drones in its service history. The only key exception is 5 Fulcrums during Desert Storm, which is a small sample size.
The F-15 EX it's an excellent support weapons platform for the F-35 and F-22. The only thing they need is an F-15 or F-16 with an ECM System, that way the F-15 EX would be totally protected.
It has it. EPAWSS on the F-15EX performs multiple functions. Some of the hardware is also similar enough to Growlers that it could replace them in the EW role for the USAF instead of leaning on the Navy for that capability since the EF-111 were retired.
@@stupidburp That was my thought. Though that EW role is kind of becoming obsolete because of the sheer power and bandwidth of modern radars. For now it's still viable, but I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of jamming by small aircraft becomes useless in the next couple decades
What I've heard is this will be a second line missile truck that launches radar guided missiles from behind the stealth platforms at oncoming hostiles, then either bugs out if facing superior platforms, or can hang around and dogfight if needed against peer or inferior platforms.
Ahhh that's the stuff I needed. Nothing like having a sock puppet with a Russian accent telling me about war and its tools to start my morning. Coffee ☕!!
It’s basically the answer for a high- low system like today’s F-15CDE and F-16’s of different blocks. F-22 or F-35 basically just how high-low is working with 5th generation jets. They don’t need stealth priced jets for the majority of their missions but they are paying for them. This makes sense and gives them the opportunity to decide how they want to configure their stealth combinations for the future.
Spot on. Why have 100% stealth when you only need that capability to achieve air superiority? Once you control the skies you can use non-stealth aircraft to deal damage.
@@Mugdorna Exactly. Once you have control over the contested airspace like America did in Iraq with their First 5th generation “Fighter” bomber that blasted the door down and Destroyed their Russian S-200 and S -300 anti air suppression system that the USAF total destroyed in one of the most highly contested airspace zones in the world at that time. The Bush/Obama Administration literally put the country in this horrible situation by going to war for 20 years and not supplying our forces with the equipment in the numbers that they needed like the order for almost 800 F-22 that ended up being less than 200 aircraft with the cost of the R&D and the unit costing the country over 300 million dollar a piece! The F-35 program was a 1.5 Trillion dollar mistake. It has only one engine, can’t hold enough fuel, horrible range and can’t hold enough bombs or AIr to air weapons. The only saving grace is the experience lockeed Martin got in building this new 6 generation fight that they say they have flown and will have in the early 2030’s but they also said that about the F-35 so I guess we will all be surprised one way or another!
I wonder if the Russian AF has come to a similar conclusion regarding the SU-57. I know they are building them in relatively low numbers, and it seems they are focusing more on keeping the SU-27, 30 and 35's up to date as their main-line air superiority fighters.
Possibly, although I watched a Russian made "documentary" (propaganda vid) that made blatant claims that the SU57 is superior to the F22 and F35. If they truly believe this they'll try to keep building as many of them as they can (which won't be many let's face it). They're likely to concentrate on their own 6th Gen research as other countries are skipping 5th gen and reaching for 6th. Either way, I think the F15EX will be a deadly complement to the F22s and F35s (and the F X(6th gen) successor to the F22....
@@ildart8738 Please you don't make sense, Russia can build them in large numbers they just don't want to. This is because it goes against their strict operations guidelines. They are terrified of repeating the mistakes of the Soviet Union. That is their weakness, easy example is Afghanistan. They have a budget and are very tight to that. They are focus on having just enjoy military and the rest is on internal development of society (population growth included)
Mysterious Chinese missile isnt meant to kill fighters though. Its meant as a bomber/cruise missie/awacs killer. It can most likely be out maneuvered they dont have infinite fuel. We need a new phoenix missile that can maneuver as well as fly 400 miles a hypersonic long range Air to air missile.
Our CF-18s had to take up the slack when the 15s were grounded. These Ex Lightning-IIs are based off the heavier Strike Eagle chassis, with the wing improvements.
Those Chinese long range air to air missiles really arent a threat to US fighters at that kind of range, especially the F-35 and F-22. That is because any modern fighter will detect and perform evasive maneuvers. Those long range missiles are only a threat to slow transport and AWACS type aircraft. Lastly we all know that the J-20 isnt very stealthy and is totally outmatched by the F-35 and F-22.
How much you have access to classified information including classified information on how stealth works, I'm not sure how you're making your assessments. Now based on the angles used by stealth aircraft, I personally question how stealthy the J-20 is from any angle other than head on. But I'll be the first to admit that it's a relatively uninformed position, even if it's been backed up by the analysis of defense analysts and former pilots. Then again, how good is good enough? There are many who say that the YF-23 was stealthier than the YF-22, but lost out because of issues with its complicated missile bays
Modern long range missiles are becoming much more effective due to various improvements. They are more of a threat than previous generation missiles even when used against agile evasive aircraft.
@Fred Garvin what makes you think they're slow flying? And she only speaking, the more energy a missile has, I eat the more speed it has in the terminal phase, the more dangerous the missile is
The pics of F-15EXs I'm seeing have CFTs/FAST packs. That said, it depends on what mission they are intended for. From what I'm seeing F-15s intended to dogfight would not have CFTs because they can't be jettisoned to save weight. So if they have FAST packs then the USAF is probably intending them primarily as missile trucks - which is the ideal air superiority role for them, IMO.
@@j.f.fisher5318 as far as I know CFTs are put in low pressure areas to minimize the performance and considering they got new engines it should balance out. And those CFTs are hard to take off so not taking them off reduces maintenance
@@Aaron-wq3jz yeah, I meant more as a strategic choice the apparent decision to equip them with FAST packs/Conformal Fuel Tanks suggests that the F-15EX is primary intended to be a missile truck, not primarily a dogfighter. Whether it is a low pressure thing or not the FAST packs on F-15s are mounted und the wing roots along the sides of the intakes as can be seen comparing the F-15E with other varients.
If ABMS pans out the way that has been reported/rumored, the F-15EX's can wind up being great "arsenal planes" for forward scouting F-35's. F-35's can fit very few missiles in their internal bays, and if they use their external hardpoints, it compromises their low radar observeability. Using ABMS to be forward, using low RCS to scout targets, and have missiles fired from a remote F-15EX safe just beyond enemy radar range sounds like something that could work very well to multiply the capability of the F-35.
Silver bullets are great to have but are extremely expensive and are not always needed. The F-15 airframe is a masterpiece and capable of dealing with almost all scenarios!
Like the B-52, changes in weapons and electronics and changes in operational plans can make an older aircraft still useful. It is no longer being used as an air superiority in the classical sense. Remember that the F-22 was the air superiority fighter and the F-35 was to be the equivalent to the F-16 when it was first deployed, i.e. a fighter bomber. The main reason for the delays in the F-35 and its cost was refitting the design to do roles for which it was not originally designed. There is only between 40 and 60% commonality between the three versions, meaning that actually there is no economy in parts inventory since many different components are needed. So, like many bad decisions before it, the real failure isn't the aircraft; but the bad decisions. Solution, having a gun truck firing at range with the stealth platform providing the targeting. Is the concept workable, we shall see
Ironically, this is usually the tactic you see in strategy games as well. A few high end units augmented by a mass of slightly lower end units always beats a elite only build.
Ironically this reminds me of a tactic I used in MoO3 - small fast spotter loaded with ECCM followed by a bunch of slow dumb hulks that were basically missile racks with engines. Spotter marked the target (often being lost in the process) and the hulks would launch and leave.
The F-22 is so good, they had to retire it early to give enemies a fair chance. In reality, as cool as it is, its basically the fighter equivalent of the guy who peaked in high school.
The only issue was have with the F-22 is that we didn't buy enough of them to get economies of scale for the replacement parts and it's literally impossible to build more of them. Same with the B2. In fact lack of economies of scale is a serious problem that drives up the cost of most major weapon systems in the military. As more F-35s are made the maintenance cost per plane will drop as the spare parts can now be made in large batches - getting us economies of scale.
They're retiring the F-22 because they have designed built and flown the FA-X 6th gen prototype . I'll be willing to bet the production start date is just a secretive as the prototype and development has been . They're going to spring it on us like they did the B-2 stealth bomber .
@@colincampbell767 The F-22 has many problems. It's an 80s design built on 90s hardware that can't be modernized or upgraded due to cost and complexity going up against enemies that will soon be equal or superior.
The reason for this change and the reason for the increased load out is to better work with 5th gen items.. it will be 5th gen targeting using the more heavily loaded 4th gen aircraft to carry the payload and fire from a distance without having to actually enter into engagement ranges… one f35 will target for 6-7-8-10 f15’s
Enemy: "They've sent up a single fighter plane." General: "Send our fighters to intercept." "Sir, he's shot our planes down." "WHAT? How many of them are lost?" "Uh...all of them, General."
Imagine a Wolfpack of 6 F-15EX led by a F-22 stealth being used as a platform to identify enemy aircraft, radio information to the EXs firing 12 missiles each. 72 enemy aircraft gone without ever seeing them. Then imagine 50 of these Wolfpack’s attacking an enemy at once. Total air superiority within hours.
The F15s will be required to throttle back while their lead fights to maintain speed. Radar cannot see the f35 as of today. Unfriendlies scanning their surroundings visually......Imagine a turd f35 up against a far more capable dog fighter in close quarters.....
The F-15 might be able to hit mach 2 with conformal fuel tanks, but I have it from a buddy who used to fly F-15 before moving to F-35, if they have regular external fuel tanks and any amount of ordinance, they barely make it above mach 1.2 or so. Also, while external stores will reduce the F-35s RCS, that doesn't mean it still won't be harder to detect than a F-15 EX so be able to get closer before being detected/tracked. If the mission was to deliver stand-off munitions, it's conceivable that the F-35 with external stores (especially if those are stealthy cruise missiles themselves) could get close enough to complete the mission without being engaged by air defences, while an F-15 EX couldn't. Finally, the F-35 turned out to be more expensive to maintain than planned. There is no guarantee that the F-15 EX won't also increase its maintenance costs (especially with 2 engines vs the 1 on the F-35). I'd also question if the stats are including naval F-35B and C aircraft as those are expensed to need more maintenance anyway.
No It's not. The F-15EX will get *obliterated* if it ever faced 5th Gen Stealth Fighter enemies and will not be meaningfully superior against 4.5 Gen fighters. Even F-35's would likely kick it's ass much less F-22 Raprors....
@deleted_user_ So the F-15EX will essentially be used as *Cannon Fodder* to be eaten alive by enemy 5th Generation Aircraft and Modern SAM systems while stealthy F-22's and F‐35's do the actual hard work?
@@michaelstodovski2219 I don't think you understand the role it's intended to play. It wouldn't be deployed solo against a 5th gen enemy, so it's not a debate about "OoO mY pLaNe WoUlD bEaT yOuRs". It's clearly intended to supplement 5th gen, not supersede it.
@@michaelstodovski2219 Did you watch the video until the end? An F35 carries a limited number of missiles cause of its stealth. F15 can carry twice as many. You fly a squad of 3x F15 and 6x F35, you bait enemy squads in. F15s spam their missiles which will be guided by invisible F35s who will spot incoming targets, flank and take them out.
It looks like the high low mix will be with the “low” f15 and a high 6th gen fighter. There is a tip of the spear in the form of stealth and the f35/22 but since they are constantly needing to be at the bleeding edge they will be swapped more often. Lastly looks like f15s are gonna be the same as the B52 as a work horse of the airforce
@@tomx641 Not really, the Navy came to this conclusion years ago. The F-35 is a strike airplane, it was never designed to go toe to toe against fighters designed from the ground up for ACM. That is what the F-22 was designed for, but they bought less than half that they would need to replace the F-15C/D squadrons, and the Navy cancelled the NATF program (basically a Navy F-22). So the Navy bought modernized F-18s, and while unlike the USAF the squadrons are multi-role, they are the air group's interceptor force. Now the Air Force is basically doing the same thing with the F-15EX.
@@Teampegleg No. The F15 is a worse fighter than the F35. This contract is to keep Boeing in business, it has nothing to do with the aircraft's capabilities. The F15 is a crappy plane but having LM run a monopoly is even more expensive.
@@tomx641 The F-15 is one of the best fighters that the USAF has fielded in the jet age. Only the F-16 is better at ACM, but the Viper was designed for ACM from the ground up.
