Boeing Wants Washington To Clear F-15EX Pitch To India

[Smarana Mitra]

You are just being a stubborn.
Yes in the past jets would fly straight to border because their was no long range threat from BVR missiles or SAMs and did not have to perform evasive manover.
Even P-51 had longer range and more ammo then Gnat does that make it a better plane? No. Loitering for longer period is not going to do much when your opponent can climb and accelerate much faster to escape from chasing fighter and quickly change the position where Gnat is on Sabre's tail. But due to IAF's POOR training they were not able to use Gnat better performance to their advantage and PAF better pilots were able to turn the table because of their better tactics.

Again, you are not understanding the problems of air to air fighting in the past. Just read about the various maneuvers being done in the past. It was not simple stright flight and shooting. Gnat's low range and small size was a major disadvantage and there is no question of comparing to F86.

F-86 was the only fighter of 50s and 60s to carry more bullets where as its opponents in europe and USSR carried higher caliber guns with less bullets.
Both Mig-15 and even mig-17 carried only 200 bullets and if USSR saw this as a draw back then they would have added lower caliber gun with more ammo.
Sidewinder scored only few kills and did not contribute much in PAF air dominance in 65 war.

Sidewinders has a psychological impact where Indian fighters would be more careful and hence reduces efficiency

More bullets is a thing of the past, its higher caliber gun that is better.

We are speaking of 60s which is the past.

ah sure, F-22 F-35 makers are stupid to even add a gun in such a expensive plane where every inch of space is worth millions of dollars! lol indiot

This is the present. In modern times, guns are not major weapons but only used to strike down drones, aerostats and to threaten during escort. WVR shooting is minimal but a provision has to be made for it.

A fast maneuvering fighter could out maneuver Aim-9b very easily since it was made for shooting slow moving targets.

Most planes were not fast in 60s. The maximum speed rarely exceeded 1 Mach. So, it was effective then for the planes which existed back then.

Aim-9b could only engage targets less then 4 km distance because its motor burnt for only 2 seconds and and after that it was just a flying brick.

AIM9B had range of 5km and it burnt for more than 2 seconds, though it was not for long. Nevertheless, when the guns had maximum range of 2km (in most cases 1km as the gravitational pull and air resistance would skew the flight path), the sidewinders more than doubled the range. This is very important in air-air combat

How many indian aircraft were shot down by sidewinders in 1965?

I don't know. Even the data of how many planes of each side was lost is difficult to find out due to varying claims

F-35's ACE in WVR combat situations is its cutting-edge EO/IR sensor suite (EOTS + DAS) which is electronically fused with the powerful AN/APG-81 radar system; this revolutionary architecture enables the pilot to have a 360 degree view of all types of threats throughout the duration of the mission as well as automatically producing a weapons-grade lock on each visible threat type. The pilot just has to select a threat type and press the button and watch an AIM-9X or an AIM-120D do the dancing with an opposing aircraft on a moment's notice. Must be fun to watch...

Why do you think other countries can't do that? What is so special about USA which others can't do?

Excuse me.

1. Americans are not sitting idle.
2. Russia have shortage of funds.
3. USA is able to invest far more in R&D programs and have world class education centers for all fields of study. Russia does not compare.

Russian defense applications are not necessarily in response to American defense applications. Su-57 is not an answer to F-22A - both are vastly different aircraft shaped by distinct thought processes behind them. Refer back to revelations in the Russian patent above.

This assumption that Russia is able to field an American-equavilent in each case in spite of significantly lacking in funds and/or investments in relevant R&D programs, is utter folly.

Russia has current account surplus and is fully capable of funding as much as it needs. USA just has bloated economy due to petrodollars but that does not mean Russia does not have funds. Russia has enough funds and there is no dearth of investment in R&D. Don't simply take USD as the base as it is bloated.

Point was/is that USA left Russia in the dust, in the aspect of developing AESA radar technologies and applications.

Russia is really late in equpping one of its combat aircraft with a credible AESA radar system whereas USA continues to develop more powerful and advanced AESA applications over time - USA is the first country to develop and use (GaN)-based AESA systems. Russia is unable to keep up with American advances because American semiconductor industry is miles ahead of Russian, and this dynamic won't shift anytime soon.

That is like Russia finally figured out how to develop a capable sedan while USA is rolling out supercars in large numbers.

If history lessons are of significance in this debate then Japan was the first country to achieve breakthrough in AESA radar applications, back in the 1980s.

Japan is a vassal state of USA. The Japanese AESA was actually USA made and fitted on Japanese plane.

USA semiconductor is ahead of Russia but strategic semiconductor is not. Strategic semiconductor technology uses only 90nm+ nodes as the latest ones are too fragile to handle fluctuations and external temperature and voltage variations. Russia has 90nm nodes and it works well for its strategic needs. As I have mentioned before, the semiconductor advancement of recent 15 years have only been in civilian era and can't be used in military areas due to unreliability of smaller nodes in high operational stress conditions.

Russia was never interested in sedans as it is a utility based economy, not overconsuming economy like USA. Russia always focuses its energy on strategic technology instead of consumer goods.

Are you alluding to Uttam AESA? Work on Uttam AESA started in 2008, right?

Well, 11 years have passed and counting.

India does have the luxury to receive much technical input from Russia and Israel. So best of luck.

India started UTTAM radar in 2008. It is undergoing testing in business and civilian jets since 2019. The hardware is already complete and the software is now being tweaked using test data. It is expected to be tested for 2-3 years. It will be ready in 2022, about 14-15 years from project start date.

 

[Zapper]

Big question is will India buy it when they have fighters like Su-30MKI and Rafael??

The F-15EX is great bird and have edge over what India have, but with above mentioned 2 type already in fleet its not necessary to have it now, F-35 make sense at this point.

I agree, IAF isn't keen on going with US fighters as their frontline jets nor in significant numbers. Some very favorable deals including maximized local production and ToT were offered for the F-21 aka F-16 (Be advised that Tata already produces a lot of components for LM & Boeing). We're well aware of how PAF and most recently Turkey were ditched. Selecting F-16 or F-15 would force us to give up S-400 or Russian arms purchases all together

Also, F-15EX falls in the category of Su-30 which we have over 200 and IAF's current requirement is a medium weight fighter, be it the Rafale or F-16/Gripen based on SE or TE

Regarding F-35, US wouldn't offer it unless we procure one of their older jets in significant numbers since they want the production lines running and to keep suppliers in business.

India has had many fighters pitched to it, wether they buy that’s another thing and there’s lots of pro and cons here.

The only feasible option is to go for 36 more Rafales and if IN decides to procure Rafale-M's for IAC-3 (54 required), MoD could negotiate license production and ToT along with major components being sourced from Indian suppliers

 

[dbc]

I agree, IAF isn't keen on going with US fighters as their frontline jets nor in significant numbers. Some very favorable deals including maximized local production and ToT were offered for the F-21 aka F-16 (Be advised that Tata already produces a lot of components for LM & Boeing). We're well aware of how PAF and most recently Turkey were ditched. Selecting F-16 or F-15 would force us to give up S-400 or Russian arms purchases all together

Also, F-15EX falls in the category of Su-30 which we have over 200 and IAF's current requirement is a medium weight fighter, be it the Rafale or F-16/Gripen based on SE or TE

Regarding F-35, US wouldn't offer it unless we procure one of their older jets in significant numbers since they want the production lines running and to keep suppliers in business.


The only feasible option is to go for 36 more Rafales and if IN decides to procure Rafale-M's for IAC-3 (54 required), MoD could negotiate license production and ToT along with major components being sourced from Indian suppliers

Isn’t Trump visiting India this month? There has been some talk in Washington about his displeasure at the trade deficit of 24 B$ and tariffs. Let’s hope New Delhi can massage his ego enough so he does not start another trade war.

USA semiconductor is ahead of Russia but strategic semiconductor is not. Strategic semiconductor technology uses only 90nm+ nodes as the latest ones are too fragile to handle fluctuations and external temperature and voltage variations. Russia has 90nm nodes and it works well for its strategic needs. As I have mentioned before, the semiconductor advancement of recent 15 years have only been in civilian era and can't be used in military areas due to unreliability of smaller nodes in high operational stress conditions.
.

@gambit - are you getting lazy?
I did expect you to talk about XQ Ultrascale and such...
See you made me come out of lurker mode...
@LeGenD a hint google
Xilinx

 

[Zapper]

Isn’t Trump visiting India this month? There has been some talk in Washington about his displeasure at the trade deficit of 24 B$ and tariffs. Let’s hope New Delhi can massage his ego enough so he does start another trade war

We're procuring 24 MH-60 Seahawks, 6 more Apaches, NASAMS-II to shield Delhi, 10 more P8I's in addition to the current fleet, MK-45 naval guns. That should hopefully compensate to a certain extent

 

[Basel]

I agree, IAF isn't keen on going with US fighters as their frontline jets nor in significant numbers. Some very favorable deals including maximized local production and ToT were offered for the F-21 aka F-16 (Be advised that Tata already produces a lot of components for LM & Boeing). We're well aware of how PAF and most recently Turkey were ditched. Selecting F-16 or F-15 would force us to give up S-400 or Russian arms purchases all together

Also, F-15EX falls in the category of Su-30 which we have over 200 and IAF's current requirement is a medium weight fighter, be it the Rafale or F-16/Gripen based on SE or TE

Regarding F-35, US wouldn't offer it unless we procure one of their older jets in significant numbers since they want the production lines running and to keep suppliers in business.


The only feasible option is to go for 36 more Rafales and if IN decides to procure Rafale-M's for IAC-3 (54 required), MoD could negotiate license production and ToT along with major components being sourced from Indian suppliers

US never give enough tech to its most closest allies, always some loop hole is there.

There are rumors that F-15 is offered to PAF if project AZM is ditched, which means loosing independence for PAF.

 

[hussain0216]

We're procuring 24 MH-60 Seahawks, 6 more Apaches, NASAMS-II to shield Delhi, 10 more P8I's in addition to the current fleet, MK-45 naval guns. That should hopefully compensate to a certain extent

This could be brutal for India

Not only do they have to buy billions worth of U.S equipment to try and placate the U.S

But they have also hope the consessions are enough to stop Trump trying to "balance" the trade which is in Indias favour

 

[Zapper]

US never give enough tech to its most closest allies, always some loop hole is there.

There are rumors that F-15 is offered to PAF if project AZM is ditched, which means loosing independence for PAF.

I agree, no wonder US gave us some of the most favorable deals in terms of offering F-21 to ditch the LCA project. Infact, US once rejected THAAD a decade ago but offered both Patriot & THAAD after we signed the S-400 deal

This could be brutal for India

Not only do they have to buy billions worth of U.S equipment to try and placate the U.S

But they have also hope the consessions are enough to stop Trump trying to "balance" the trade which is in Indias favour

That still wouldn't balance the trade deficit since these are one-off purchases and I don't expect any follow-up orders in this regard. Maybe additional Apaches since the initial tranche was taken by IAF wherein, it makes more sense for the Army aviation corps to have these gunships

Secondly, it's unlikely India would go for any major US weapons system in significant numbers given the threat of sanctions and India is also trying to reduce it's dependency on imports

 

[Turingsage]

I agree, no wonder US gave us some of the most favorable deals in terms of offering F-21 to ditch the LCA project. Infact, US once rejected THAAD a decade ago but offered both Patriot & THAAD after we signed the S-400 deal


That still wouldn't balance the trade deficit since these are one-off purchases and I don't expect any follow-up orders in this regard. Maybe additional Apaches since the initial tranche was taken by IAF wherein, it makes more sense for the Army aviation corps to have these gunships

Secondly, it's unlikely India would go for any major US weapons system in significant numbers given the threat of sanctions and India is also trying to reduce it's dependency on imports

Just vague paranoid speculations based on nothing more than the conspiratorial sub-continental mind

There are rumors that F-15 is offered to PAF if project AZM is ditched, which means loosing independence for PAF.

See above

 

[Tanveer666]

Strategic semiconductor technology uses only 90nm+ nodes as the latest ones are too fragile to handle fluctuations and external temperature and voltage variations.

you know this for a fact? (i am genuinely curious about semi conductor fabrication)

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Again, you are not understanding the problems of air to air fighting in the past. Just read about the various maneuvers being done in the past. It was not simple stright flight and shooting. Gnat's low range and small size was a major disadvantage and there is no question of comparing to F86.

If you had an ounce of basic understanding you would not be making stupid comments.
During war time IAF and PAF operated from air bases within 100km distance from border. The fighter would fly pretty much straight to border engage in a quick 10 to 15 min dogfight and then go home. Their were no after burner in neither Gnat or Sabre so fuel would not be lost as much as in modern fighters with after burner. Gnat
with even 800km range is more then enough for PAK-INDO theatre which was within 100-200km radius.
Also a smaller size meant harder to spot by foe and more maneuverable which is more important factor then range. Again, P-51 had more bullets and range then Gnat but it does not mean its better then Gnat.

This is a better assessment.
F-86<Dassault Mystere<Gnat<Hunter

Sidewinders has a psychological impact where Indian fighters would be more careful and hence reduces efficiency

No that just called being p$$y! As long as the fighter was not flying straight with Sabre on their tail they were fine. Also, 20 Sabres armed with AIM-9B with less then 10% kill rate is less psychological impact vs 500+ better fighters.

We are speaking of 60s which is the past.

Name me 2 fighters of 50s or 60s that was the best but had more bullets! In fact after F-86 induction, all fighters had higher caliber guns with less bullets.

This is the present. In modern times, guns are not major weapons but only used to strike down drones, aerostats and to threaten during escort. WVR shooting is minimal but a provision has to be made for it.

Just more bullsh1t.
Btw, can we go back to the topic about Guns being more effective in 1950s planes then less accurate Sidewinders?

Most planes were not fast in 60s. The maximum speed rarely exceeded 1 Mach. So, it was effective then for the planes which existed back then.

Why are you trying to change facts with your bullsh1t theories? Regardless of how low 1950s jets were they were still able to out maneuver Aim-9B.

AIM9B had range of 5km and it burnt for more than 2 seconds, though it was not for long. Nevertheless, when the guns had maximum range of 2km (in most cases 1km as the gravitational pull and air resistance would skew the flight path), the sidewinders more than doubled the range. This is very important in air-air combat

Most dog fights of the past were engaged in less then 1 km range. Aim-9B require more IR signature which only could be achieved at short range.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

you know this for a fact? (i am genuinely curious about semi conductor fabrication)

Yes, I know that reliability and node size is inversely related.

If you had an ounce of basic understanding you would not be making stupid comments.
During war time IAF and PAF operated from air bases within 100km distance from border. The fighter would fly pretty much straight to border engage in a quick 10 to 15 min dogfight and then go home. Their were no after burner in neither Gnat or Sabre so fuel would not be lost as much as in modern fighters with after burner. Gnat
with even 800km range is more then enough for PAK-INDO theatre which was within 100-200km radius.
Also a smaller size meant harder to spot by foe and more maneuverable which is more important factor then range. Again, P-51 had more bullets and range then Gnat but it does not mean its better then Gnat.

In war time, the bases were under attack too. Also, radars of 1960s were not good enough to detect enemy planes. So, lot of loitering and maneuver was done to first detect enemy planes, prevent them from attacking bases and then to interdict. Also, 800km was total range. Ine sided range was 400km. This is simply too low and was a disadvantage.

No that just called being p$$y! As long as the fighter was not flying straight with Sabre on their tail they were fine. Also, 20 Sabres armed with AIM-9B with less then 10% kill rate is less psychological impact vs 500+ better fighters.

Because of lack of radars, it was easier to do scoot and shoot. So, the fact that someone could shoot even when you're not able to see them was a major threat.

Name me 2 fighters of 50s or 60s that was the best but had more bullets! In fact after F-86 induction, all fighters had higher caliber guns with less bullets.

I don't know. But can you give me proof that 30km cannon is better than 12.7mm cannon with 3 times bullets?

Why are you trying to change facts with your bullsh1t theories? Regardless of how low 1950s jets were they were still able to outmaneuver AIM-9B.

I don't claim that AIM-9B was impossible to evade. I am only saying that AIM-9B was far more effective than mere guns.

Most dog fights of the past were engaged in less then 1 km range. Aim-9B require more IR signature which only could be achieved at short range.

AIM-9B had range of 5km. Infrared signature of older planes were high enough to be detected at 4-5km range. Modern planes can detect IR from 50km in IRST ajd about 20-25km in WVR missile like R73. 5km in 1960s sound right range for IR sensors then

 

[Myth_buster_1]

In war time, the bases were under attack too. Also, radars of 1960s were not good enough to detect enemy planes. So, lot of loitering and maneuver was done to first detect enemy planes, prevent them from attacking bases and then to interdict. Also, 800km was total range. Ine sided range was 400km. This is simply too low and was a disadvantage.

dude this is getting really annoying answering to your dumb comments....
neither f-86 or gnats had radars that searches for targets! both fighters relied on communication with ground radars to vector towards the target and had only gunsight radar that helps with accuracy of gunsight...
800km range was more then enough for a small fighter jet operating from 50-100km away from border. F-86 was designed to escort long range bombers while Gnats were best suitable for air defense role. Gnats were smaller and agile which was a big advantage as it was hard to spot and dogfight with since it could also out climb and accelerate as well.

Because of lack of radars, it was easier to do scoot and shoot. So, the fact that someone could shoot even when you're not able to see them was a major threat.

Who the fk gives you these kind of information? just stupid waist of time bullsh1t.

I don't know. But can you give me proof that 30km cannon is better than 12.7mm cannon with 3 times bullets?

If you don know then shut the fk up and stick my information up your head and dont ask stupid question again!
The fact that all fighter jets developed after F-86 adopted either 20mm or 30mm caliber guns is a proof 12.7mm was inferior world war 2 gun!

I don't claim that AIM-9B was impossible to evade. I am only saying that AIM-9B was far more effective than mere guns.

AIm-9B was useless in head on engagements and also useless when target is maneuvering. This is where Guns had advantage!

AIM-9B had range of 5km. Infrared signature of older planes were high enough to be detected at 4-5km range. Modern planes can detect IR from 50km in IRST ajd about 20-25km in WVR missile like R73. 5km in 1960s sound right range for IR sensors then

you need to find out first how IR missile works. Even AIM-9X is useless towards a target moving away from its max range. Since aim-9b could only engage from behind the max range was useless..

 

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

U.S. arms-maker Boeing is considering pitching its F-15EX Eagle fighter to India. But some experts are warning the Chicago company not to get its hopes up for big international sales for the upgraded F-15.


New Delhi wants 114 new fighters to replace older Russian planes. Several types are in the running for the $18-billion acquisition, including the Saab Gripen from Sweden, the European Eurofighter Typhoon, the MiG-35 from Russia, Lockheed Martin’s “F-21” -- an unupgraded F-16 -- and Boeing’s own Super Hornet.

"While awaiting further definition on the Indian Air Force's requirements, we have requested a licence for the F-15EX so that we're ready to share the full spectrum of potential solutions across our fighter portfolio when appropriate," Boeing stated.

But Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group in Virginia, told Defense News the enhanced F-15 might be too expensive for the capabilities that it offers. Aboulafia said the F-15EX is a profitable product for Boeing. “But in terms of transforming the fighter business, not so much.”

India for years has been struggling to replace a large fleet of old, Russian-made warplanes. The Indian air force operates more than 200 1960s-vintage MiG-21s and recently retired scores of MiG-27s that were only slightly younger.

The MiG-21s, in particular, are accident-prone. Since the first of 874 MiG-21s entered Indian service in 1963, around 490 have crashed, killing around 200 pilots.

New Delhi wants new fighters to replace the old MiGs. The planes would fly alongside European-designed Jaguars, French Mirage 2000s and Rafales, Russian MiG-29s and Su-30s, and India's own indigenous Tejas fighter in what Lockheed Martin described as "the world’s largest fighter aircraft ecosystem."

Some observers believe the Rafale is the favorite to win the 115-plane contract, as the Indian air force under a separate effort already has begun buying the type.

But Lockheed is lobbying hard for the contract. The Maryland company added some uniquely Indian systems to its latest, single-engine F-16V, rebranded the type the “F-21” and offered it to New Delhi as a low-risk, non-stealthy fighter that could serve as a bridge to the stealthy F-35.

"The F-21 has common components and learning from Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 and will share a common supply chain on a variety of components," Lockheed stated on its website on the morning of Feb. 20, 2019. A few hours later, that claim disappeared from the site.

The F-15EX is the latest version of the 1970s-vintage Eagle. It boasts a tougher airframe, better sensors and more weapons hardpoints than older Eagles do.

The U.S. Air Force in a surprise move in 2019 ordered the first eight of as many as 144 F-15EXs in order to replace the oldest of the service’s roughly 240 F-15Cs that fly air-superiority missions. Prior to the 2019 purchase, the last time the Air Force ordered an F-15, an E-model fighter-bomber, was in 2001.

The Air Force insisted the F-15EX purchase would not interfere with the service’s plan to acquire as many as 1,700 F-35s. The flying branch is buying F-35s at a rate of around 50 per year and standing up new squadrons as fast as it can train pilots and maintainers and build facilities. The Air Force could field as many as 300 F-35s by 2021.

Air Force leaders explained that acquiring F-15EXs in parallel to F-35 buys allows the branch more quickly to convert more squadrons to new planes. But the non-stealthy F-15EX actually isn’t cheaper to build than an F-35 is. Both types cost around $80 million per plane.

At $29,000 per flying hour, the F-15EX at present is less expensive to operate than an F-35 is, but the stealth fighter’s maintenance costs lately have dropped year on year. In 2018 it cost more than $40,000 to fly an F-35 for one hour. The F-35 program office believes by 2025 it can reduce the per-hour cost to $25,000.

And that’s the F-15EX’s biggest weakness on the international market. Mark Gunzinger, an analyst at the Virginia-based Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Defense News. “If you can get a real fifth-gen [stealth] capability for even a little more than what it would cost to sustain the F-15EX or other fourth-gen aircraft, then that’s a better deal.”

As long as India isn’t trying to buy a stealth fighter, the F-15 might have a chance. But if New Delhi takes seriously Lockheed’s implication that the F-21 could function as a bridge to the stealthy F-35, the F-15 might be at a disadvantage.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/imagine-india-buys-f-15ex-eagle-fighter-122901

 

[Zapper]

U.S. arms-maker Boeing is considering pitching its F-15EX Eagle fighter to India. But some experts are warning the Chicago company not to get its hopes up for big international sales for the upgraded F-15.


New Delhi wants 114 new fighters to replace older Russian planes. Several types are in the running for the $18-billion acquisition, including the Saab Gripen from Sweden, the European Eurofighter Typhoon, the MiG-35 from Russia, Lockheed Martin’s “F-21” -- an unupgraded F-16 -- and Boeing’s own Super Hornet.

"While awaiting further definition on the Indian Air Force's requirements, we have requested a licence for the F-15EX so that we're ready to share the full spectrum of potential solutions across our fighter portfolio when appropriate," Boeing stated.

But Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group in Virginia, told Defense News the enhanced F-15 might be too expensive for the capabilities that it offers. Aboulafia said the F-15EX is a profitable product for Boeing. “But in terms of transforming the fighter business, not so much.”

India for years has been struggling to replace a large fleet of old, Russian-made warplanes. The Indian air force operates more than 200 1960s-vintage MiG-21s and recently retired scores of MiG-27s that were only slightly younger.

The MiG-21s, in particular, are accident-prone. Since the first of 874 MiG-21s entered Indian service in 1963, around 490 have crashed, killing around 200 pilots.

New Delhi wants new fighters to replace the old MiGs. The planes would fly alongside European-designed Jaguars, French Mirage 2000s and Rafales, Russian MiG-29s and Su-30s, and India's own indigenous Tejas fighter in what Lockheed Martin described as "the world’s largest fighter aircraft ecosystem."

Some observers believe the Rafale is the favorite to win the 115-plane contract, as the Indian air force under a separate effort already has begun buying the type.

But Lockheed is lobbying hard for the contract. The Maryland company added some uniquely Indian systems to its latest, single-engine F-16V, rebranded the type the “F-21” and offered it to New Delhi as a low-risk, non-stealthy fighter that could serve as a bridge to the stealthy F-35.

"The F-21 has common components and learning from Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 and will share a common supply chain on a variety of components," Lockheed stated on its website on the morning of Feb. 20, 2019. A few hours later, that claim disappeared from the site.

The F-15EX is the latest version of the 1970s-vintage Eagle. It boasts a tougher airframe, better sensors and more weapons hardpoints than older Eagles do.

The U.S. Air Force in a surprise move in 2019 ordered the first eight of as many as 144 F-15EXs in order to replace the oldest of the service’s roughly 240 F-15Cs that fly air-superiority missions. Prior to the 2019 purchase, the last time the Air Force ordered an F-15, an E-model fighter-bomber, was in 2001.

The Air Force insisted the F-15EX purchase would not interfere with the service’s plan to acquire as many as 1,700 F-35s. The flying branch is buying F-35s at a rate of around 50 per year and standing up new squadrons as fast as it can train pilots and maintainers and build facilities. The Air Force could field as many as 300 F-35s by 2021.

Air Force leaders explained that acquiring F-15EXs in parallel to F-35 buys allows the branch more quickly to convert more squadrons to new planes. But the non-stealthy F-15EX actually isn’t cheaper to build than an F-35 is. Both types cost around $80 million per plane.

At $29,000 per flying hour, the F-15EX at present is less expensive to operate than an F-35 is, but the stealth fighter’s maintenance costs lately have dropped year on year. In 2018 it cost more than $40,000 to fly an F-35 for one hour. The F-35 program office believes by 2025 it can reduce the per-hour cost to $25,000.

And that’s the F-15EX’s biggest weakness on the international market. Mark Gunzinger, an analyst at the Virginia-based Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Defense News. “If you can get a real fifth-gen [stealth] capability for even a little more than what it would cost to sustain the F-15EX or other fourth-gen aircraft, then that’s a better deal.”

As long as India isn’t trying to buy a stealth fighter, the F-15 might have a chance. But if New Delhi takes seriously Lockheed’s implication that the F-21 could function as a bridge to the stealthy F-35, the F-15 might be at a disadvantage.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/imagine-india-buys-f-15ex-eagle-fighter-122901

It is highly unlikely IAF would go for an American jet in significant numbers

 

[dbc]

It is highly unlikely IAF would go for an American jet in significant numbers

Yes you said that before and we agreed with you. Trouble is India can’t afford a 114 Rafale and don’t want the Gripen, F-21,F-15,MiG 35, Typhoon or the F/A 18 SH. It’s a pickle

May be buy another 36 Rafale in a few years and call it a day?