Boeing retracts MACH 3 F-15EX claim... but who cares?

[@ground_news]

Thank you Alex! For anyone wanting to stay up to date on news about Boeing, check out the link above and let us know if you have any questions.

[@The_ZeroLine]

You should start an aviation version called Air News. Boom! Welcome to the future.

[@eugenemurray2708]

He weirds me out ngl. His right arm is always jerking away on something below the frame.... Makes his videos hard to watch without being grossed out.

[@The_ZeroLine]

@@eugenemurray2708 Who does?

[@billcape9405]

The F-229 Improved Performance Engine was deployed on the F15 way back in the early 1990s at Lakenheath, England. I was stationed there when they went from the f111 to the F15E. The F229 is so powerful, the Eagles weren't allowed to use full AB in formation takeoffs since the loss of one engine could push the aircraft into the other. As you pointed out though, the EX will play a completely different roll with greater payload, For what it's worth, and F16 would turn out the lights of any iteration of the F15 if they can manage to get in close. Good luck with that.

[@shaneofcanada7042]

Wow, classified speed of the f-15EX gets reported, and it didn't even come from a War Thunder forum this time.

[@OldStreetDoc]

By this point, I’ve got to think that there are as many or more Feds on that forum as there are War Thunder players. 😉🤣

[@Austin-cx2xe]

This is not a surprise. Unlike China and Russia the US understates the capabilities of virtually every single weapon or vehicle they possess. Similar to how they’ve claimed to cancel a certain project than years late we found out was the weapons. Not only in use before the program started but it was never cancelled. Classified leaks mainly come from people like this pilot accidentally saying something without realizing the seriousness or just forgetting.

[@markhenkel2484]

Any aircraft that does what the SR71 does will always be a "Maintenace hog"

[@fistpunder]

🤣

[@jordostan]

...or he mistakenly said the wrong number. No way to know one way or the other, really.

[@NinjaRunningWild]

Sounds like he accidentally revealed the truth.

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

That’s what I was thinking as well.

[@flossordie2256]

Yeah has higher thrust to weight ratio and is slower.... Sure....

That sounds about right. The US are known to underplay their hardware.

[@yujinhikita5611]

@rdie2256 can very much happen i mean look at the f35 has extemly high thrust but only mach 1.6. more things go into top speed that t/w ratio. limits can come from structural limits, inlet pressure limits, engine speed limits, drag, weight and supersonic flow vibrations. and so on.

[@Nr15121]

@@yujinhikita5611the 35’s limit is mostly due to the stealth coating

[@jeremyortiz2927]

Mach 2.9? Maybe. It really depends on how badly you want to piss off the maintenance crew.

[@Fuck_Snowflakes]

Crew chief will be waiting with a piece of metal pipe to have a “talk”

[@galacticdragon9841]

the plane wouldnt be doing so hot at those speeds, or should I say be doing extremely hot

[@weasle2904]

No different than how the original Mig-25 top speed was a boogeyman as traveling above mach 3 caused serious damage to the engines, canopy, and wings for any prolonged period of time. Very limited use, combine that with the short range, and it was an overrated fighter, making it only really effective for bomber intercepts and quick ambushes. F-15EX, on the other hand, has far better range, maneuverability, radar, and avionics. It is overall superior to the mostly outdated MIG-31, at least once they adopt the AIM-260

[@tango_uniform]

The most that would happen is some paint would peel. It wouldn't be there long enough to stretch the skin and pop rivets.

[@tango_uniform]

All Warsaw Pact fighters are overrated. Since the US captured German ball bearing technology at the end of WW2, the Soviets were not able to product turbine engines good for more than tens of hours before they were discarded. That's why Soviet aircraft were made in immense numbers. There was at least one KC-10 engine (CFM-56) that never left the wing for the life of the airframe. CFM wanted to buy the engine from USAF, but they refused. @@weasle2904

[@johncheatham6616]

Prototype Pratt engines were doing 2.8 back in 1982. Leading edges of the wings began to melt.

[@Trigger_Treats]

Prototype Pratt engines were flown in 1972, not 1982. And the canopy would encounter heat damage well before the metal leading edges of the aircraft.

[@geargeekpdx3566]

Not in Russia. Their wings were intentionally shape-shifting in a natural reaction to adjusting for thermal maximization!

[@rgloria40]

The fast passenger car you can buy is actually a Telsa if you plan to strip all the crap on the inside.

[@mcamp9445]

@@Trigger_Treats this is correct it’s why and practice the Eagle never goes more than 2.2 or really almost any other plane.

[@Trigger_Treats]

@@mcamp9445 And that's on a *clean* jet. No bags, no pylons, missiles, pods, or bombs. Once you start adding those things, you add weight and drag. Combat configured, you're probably around Mach 1.5 give or take. And you'll burn up a lot more gas to get there, thanks to the parasitic drag from all the stuff you're carrying.

[@bryonmartin8463]

There is a former F15E bubba on KZbin that mentioned that the F15C has a one time brake glass setting where the afterburner can push it to mach 2.8 but the motors would be absolutely trashed. It’s not difficult to think that the new motors can do 2.9 without breaking.

[@dickslocum]

THE VMAX switch wired down break in case of emergency.

[@redslate]

We saw the USSR do the same thing with the FOXBAT. Scared us shirtless, but ruined the engines.

[@landonluebke7627]

“How many missiles do you want to carry?” “Yes”

[@Hungary_0987]

So true

[@baomao7243]

Correct answer: “All of them.”

[@radustana]

An engineer once played ace combat and said "why cant planes have 72 missiles?" And thus the F-15EX was created

[@BlyGuy]

​@@baomao7243came here to say this

[@brettlane6908]

Ha. Yes, the legendary response from the Skipper of The Big E after the Battle of Midway when it went in to refit. How many more anti aircraft stations do you want? Yes!

[@erasmus_locke]

Just imagine how advanced the NGAD is if this is how badass a fifty year old design is...

[@skyhorseprice6591]

50 year old airframe basic design. Everything else in this jet is basically 5gen. It would be a 5gen Eagle if it had stealth.

[@Dwight511]

The engines and electronics are very recent tech.

[@kathrynck]

@seprice6591 Ehhh... I'd go with it being a weird conglomeration of gen 4, gen 4.5, and gen 5 parts, with a cumulative result of around gen 4.5 (or 4+ whatever terminology). - The EW & radar suite got really good. Not nearly as sophistocated as the F-35's radar, but arguably a 'soft' gen5 (4.9?). More importantly, it's high-powered. So it can play "strong antenna" for other aircraft which may wish to remain 'passive-RF'. - The engines are 1990's (same as on the C's & D's after being upgraded, and the original E's). Not that it needed any more thrust.. - Airframe strengthening is kinda unique here. The original F-15E had a stronger airframe than anything else flying, and the EX just extends that lead substantially. It's kind of in a class of it's own on that metric. - The FBW is later gen4 tech. Although with the huge control surfaces on the F-15, it should perform really _really_ well. - I'm surprised they didn't incorporate some of the Silent Eagle tech in the EX. Silent Eagle was a proposed version which targeted all the key areas of poor RCS, and got it down from around 15m^2 to somewhere around 1.5m^2. I guess it was a matter of cost, and the fact that it's intended selling point was low-R&D investment, and ready to produce on Monday. Really it was originally developed for Saudi Arabia, as the F-15X. But they offered a somewhat fancier EX model (with numerous unnamed differences) to the air force to bolster their aging F-15E fleet, while at the same time creating a teflon-smooth upgrade path for any E-models which they wanted to update their systems. It was a bit of a "F-15 line is wrapping up, Last Call for more F-15's anyone?". Missle truck, bomb truck, deep strike, 'eye in the sky', and EW platform now though. Not a front line fighter anymore. The deep strike part is useful... even without stealth, and even if it's never used. Because it forces opposition air defense to cover dramatically more territory to remain safe. That's a large burden on EAD without even leaving the tarmac. Lastly, it's competitive with the Grippen on overall cost (flight hour cost is much less on Grippen, but the sticker price is similar, and you need 3 grippens to last as long). But with much greater range & payload. So it's just an impressively economical workhorse.

[@chilbiyito]

What's NGAD?

[@qwertyqwerty-zi6dr]

​@@chilbiyitongad is next gen air dominance. It s USA 6th gen initiative to replace f22 with a familly of manned and unmanned aircrafts and drones

[@johnharris6655]

Remember the line in Red Dawn from the F-15 pilot when asked how he got shot down "It was 5 on one, I got 4"

[@cliffhooper3558]

The F15 is 105W-0L in real life 🙌

[@ThirdLawPair]

The precision of these new fly-by-wire systems is unreal.

[@rgloria40]

This is over a 20 year technology. I think Boeing and Northrop Grumman can run lighter fiber optic cabling or Fly by Light which highly resistant to interference. However, I think the name would be confused with faster than light FTL aircraft or Star War fighters.

[@mcamp9445]

It does help a lot although it’s effect on the angle is still limited by the fact that the Eagle was originally designed to not have it. It is what we call a stable design the F-16, all the fighters that followed it with flyby wire, were designed to be unstable that is, they can’t fly without the computer correcting things, this instability lets them turn and maneuver faster so while this is an improvement for the eagle, it is still not as good as it would’ve been if the Eagle had been designed to be unstable

[@mcamp9445]

@@rgloria40 it’s 50-year-old technology. Also, the F3 5 does use fiber optics, so it can be said to fly by light

[@mrkeogh]

​@@mcamp9445Funnily enough there was an Eagle variant with canards that was testing high-alpha manoeuvres and FBW systems. Instability is good for *instantaneous* manoeuvrability from stable flight, but you still need thrust vectoring and control surface authority to maintain control throughout the flight envelope: hence why the later Flanker variants grew canards despite being an "unstable" design from the outset, IIRC.

[@casematecardinal]

​@@mcamp9445 when your airframe is that fat you need to shave weight wherever you can.

[@icare7151]

I thought the top speed of the Eagle II is classified. Thus, it likely is closer to or over Mach 3.

[@MrSJPowell]

It's probably a factor of what the body can handle rather than what the engine can output. Friction is a pain.

[@andrewyork3869]

​@@MrSJPowell I also question if the wings could handle the drag.

[@FrostYT4444]

@@andrewyork3869hehe who needs wings with speed like this? - F15

[@83917Michael]

@@andrewyork3869luckily F15 has proven it doesn't actually NEED those

[@PasleyAviationPhotography]

Bull... shit

[@appa609]

He mixed up the engine designation. He said F-110-GE-229 He meant F-110-GE-129 there's a competing and largely equivalent engine competing for the contract which is the F-100-PW-229.

[@neuropilot7310]

I noticed that too.... I'm surprised they didn't consider the F110-GE-132

[@TraditionalAnglican]

⁠@@neuropilot7310- The F-110-GE-132 apparently wouldn’t fit in the airframe without significant modifications to the airframe, and the F-110-GE-129 was available for installation now!

[@matchesburn]

Mach 2.9, and it's only limited to that due to thermal limitations on the engine at that speed, not from a lack of thrust. And capable of pulling 12Gs, limited, in an emergency - loadout dependent. Can carry 12+ AIM-120s. "BuT iT'S aN aNcIeNt 1970s rElIc"

[@Hungary_0987]

Yeah😂

[@well-blazeredman6187]

Could a pilot cope with 12g?

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

Yeah. As much as some people like to think so, physics doesn't change. Our understanding of physical phenomenon hasn't changed drastically in the past 60 years or so.

[@matchesburn]

@@well-blazeredman6187 Yes. The question is for how long. Car crashes exceed this by leaps and bounds. Fun Fact: If you are in a car going 30MPH and crash into a brick wall, you'll experience about 30Gs worth of force. It will just be for a very, very short time period. Look up legendary F-14 Tomcat pilot Dale Snodgrass talking about back in the Gulf War (the first one) where he had to evade a SAM launch. Pulled an 11G maneuver in the Tomcat (in an aircraft designed for 7.5G maneuvers, limited to 6.5G in non-emergencies and which Snodgrass remembers one of the F-14 engineers/test pilots telling him it was a 13G aircraft).

[@Gentleman...Driver]

@@matchesburn Exceeding g limits isnt well seen, tho. Only to be used in emergency, as everything above will damage the plane.

[@terryfreeman1018]

Hey Alex, I just want you to know that I'm mesmerized every time that you start talking. I love Sandboxx. You're an amazing narrator. You just have the ability to hold people's attention. You're amazing buddy.

[@BafflingBS]

Totally agree

[@jimgraham6722]

F15 likely has the thrust and power to weight ratio for M2.9. Issue will be airframe heating and engine wear and tear. These will likely lead to VNE M2.5. The F111C was similarly placarded. Clean on a cold day it could really hump and had to be throttled back to keep under M2.5. I recall seeing M2.5 in a gentle climb at 50,000ft.

[@francishill6365]

Thanks!

[@ARabidPie]

So we almost had the F-15-S. Now we have the F-15-EX. The question now becomes, "when do they slap a stealth coating on this thing and give us the F-15-SEX?"

[@DPain82]

They are more powerful, yet slower? I doubt it. Even looking at the birds you can tell they are more aerodynamic.

[@juzoli]

Speed is matter of choice. All jet engines are most powerful at a given inlet air speed. Modern jets are designed to have maximum performance at Mach 0.8-1.5 (rough estimate). They lose max speed in exchange.

[@jameson1239]

Speed is more complicated than power and aerodynamics it also has to do with engine design

[@appa609]

Not really. The major external changes between the F-15C and the F-15EX are the addition of MAWS antennae, extra missile pylons, a two-seat canopy, and turkey feathers. Except for the turkey feathers, all of those features marginally increase drag. The F-15's maximum mach number was never really drag limited in a clean configuration anyways. You were limited to 6 minutes above Mach 2.3 for canopy heating. You were limited by external air temperature for the inlet temperature limit. And if you ignore all those, your ramp inlet would only keep the shocks off the blades up to about Mach 2.7. The F-110-GE-129's have more static thrust, but they achieve that with a higher bypass ratio. Which means they lose more thrust at high speeds compared to the F-100-PW-229 and other PW engines.

[@LackofFaithify]

Also weighs more

[@geargeekpdx3566]

wow you can tell just by a picture? "Boys, throw away the supercomputers we got us a savant!"

[@RavenRunFoxRoam]

My guess is that the EX has technology that is orders of magnitude more advanced than the SU57 or J20. I'd love to see someone do a scenario with the F15EX and B21 as missile trucks over the South China Sea for F35s.

[@CaptRR]

That’s probably a safe bet. Let’s be honest, the F-15EX was built to be a missiles truck for stealth fighters while also keeping Air to ground capabilities.

[@_Epsilon_]

_My guess is that the EX has technology that is orders of magnitude more advanced than the SU57 or J20._ More hype dude, give us more hype. Disappontment will be similar to Abrams and other NATO wunderwaffes in UA. Meanwhile Su-57 enjoys essentially hypersonic R-37 with 400 km range. What's the longest F15EX missile range? 160 km if that? _I'd love to see someone do a scenario with the F15EX and B21 as missile trucks over the South China Sea for F35s._ And from where those F-15s would take into the air? Either way, airfields and aircraft carriers would be hit and it would be game over for US hype.

[@RavenRunFoxRoam]

@_Epsilon_ sure thing Russian bot. The 57 is barely low observable and when you consider the abysmal readiness rate, the 57 is a ghost in the worst way. Objectively, the west makes the most technologically advanced equipment in the world and its not even close. If you're pointing to a lone 1980s Era M1 Abrams SA operating without support and by a crew with a crash course as some 'gotcha' moment, your pimp hand is weak and full of palsy. This brings me to my next point; none of this equipment talk matters when your military is completely outmatched by well-paid, well trained professional airmen, marines, and soldiers. Russia is struggling to fill their cockpits with capable pilots and have resorted to emptying their prisons for frontline duty. Regardless, Russia does not have an air superiority doctrine. They know they could never establish air superiority against a NATO force. This is evidenced by the undeniable fact that they can't even establish air superiority over Ukraine. Just look at the lost number of SU34 and 35s and even the A50 (which they only have 10 of and are now down to 8). Meanwhile the F15 has the impressive combat record of 104 and 0. That's right zero lost in air to air combat by any nation. It's not hype when it's proven true over and over again. By the way, the R37 was never meant to shoot down fighters. That albatross can not maneuver fast enough to shoot down an agile target. Congratulations, they made a fast Phoenix missile that the US retired 30 years ago.

[@madkabal]

🎉😂😂😂​@@_Epsilon_

[@redslate]

​@@_Epsilon_Cyka-57 hasn't even solved the issue with fault-bubbles in its glass canopy. Seriously, how hard is it to shape glass Russia? And, you've only got a handful of prototypes. That's it.

[@lawrenceralph7481]

Love your explanation of "semantic framing". It happens everywhere. I use it too.

[@jonshaffer5793]

You're complementing on the embedded ads? What a sad day.

[@HoosierLarry]

“dog fights are really considered to be a thing of the past.” Except for when they happen.

[@BubbyDurCat]

i would be interested in a separate video on the capabilities of modern IRST and how it works!

[@SandboxxApp]

I’ll be honest, the latest and most capable IRST systems don’t have tons of publicly available info - but I’ll see what I can do!

[@Meatball1407]

Awesome stuff Alex. Props to you and your team for 4 videos in 6 days!

[@milkoil]

F15's loaded up with 20 aim 260's 😂 'the widow maker'

[@LordOceanus]

One thing I noticed in the ordering but that has not been covered widely is that it appears the Air Force is not buying CFTs for the EX meaning they are missing 10 weapon stations and lacking the range increase. Do you know anything about this? Any idea why this choice was made or if my information is inaccurate?

[@recoilrob324]

Many people aren't aware that a jet engine needs to inhale subsonic airflow....so to go supersonic the inlet ducting must be able to slow the incoming air down and this becomes one of the limitations to the actual top speed. A fixed inlet duct can be designed to hit Mach 2'ish...but not much more which is what's limiting the Raptor along with the skin surface temperature limits. F-15's have a variable geometry inlet system able to feed the motors which also have enough power to go faster than the airframe can take without damage. It's entirely possible that if one chose to destroy his aircraft by seeing how fast it could go with no regard to durability....maybe the fellow's original statement might hold true, but would be of little use since the aircraft would be destroyed doing it. The SR-71 had a VERY complicated inlet ducting system able to diffuse the incoming air up to about Mach 3.4'ish and the ability to endure the heat such speeds create for an entire fuel load which is why it's still the fastest air breathing aircraft ever made. The Russians made aircraft that could sprint to nearly the same speeds...but it's like a runner sprinting as fast as he can for 50 yards to match a marathon runner who runs that same pace for 26 miles. Not quite the same thing.

[@DectalCorp]

Your videos keep getting better and more insightful. Amazing and Thank you.

[@tonyromano4341]

Your enthusiasm for this aircraft really comes through. Terrific work Alex.

[@pju28]

As always great 👍 Job you did with this information video! Keep on it! Greetings from Austria 🇦🇹

[@ParZIVal19D]

That thing is gonna be a bad ass.

[@The_ZeroLine]

It’s already been flying for years.

[@ParZIVal19D]

@@The_ZeroLine well, I’m about to see the first ones where I live here before too long. So I haven’t been seeing them for years.

[@The_ZeroLine]

@@ParZIVal19D Awesome. That’ll be quite a privilege. I genuinely envy you.

[@ParZIVal19D]

@@The_ZeroLine I can’t wait. Our ANG unit here in the PNW is getting them next month I think. I see the C and E variants often. Can’t wait to see this baby!!🙏🏻

[@kowalityjesus]

Thanks for all the great videos. Enjoy them extremely

[@sya_7489]

I smell classified documents

[@44hawk28]

The original f-15s, although not officially, we're known in Trials against efforts to travel in excess of about 1950 to 2000 miles per hour. Which puts them easily at Mach 3. Even the F4 on occasion when properly tuned could actually run them down and even stay with them for a bit. The f-111f model, was known, unofficially, to have a burst speed in excess of the numbers I just gave you. But it could not maintain it because you don't carry nearly enough fuel on the F model to run more than about 20 to 25 minutes at the outside. I'd also like to point out the overall power of the engine is not what the issue here and is not necessarily commensurate with overall speed. The place that the engine is most powerful might not be at its highest range but if it's powerful enough at a lower range it should be powerful enough to go at least as fast as the original F-15.

[@BlahGuyson]

22 air to air missiles - we’re getting to the point where actual in-service aircraft can carry more onboard weapons than some starter Ace Combat aircraft 😂

[@NoName-ds5uq]

Great to see the Boeing Australia MQ-28 Ghostbat in there at 16:39 mate! 😉🇦🇺👍 I would love the RAAF to get them when the time comes to replace our F/A-18Fs. It would give us a strike capability we haven’t had since the retirement of our F-111s. There was talk in the public domain about B-21 being purchased, but that has gone quiet. To be honest, I think a larger number of the EX would give us far greater flexibility than the B-21 at a fraction of the cost when combined with our F-35As, E-7s and upcoming MQ-28s.

[@jaycooper2812]

The top speed is irrelevant in combat. There is no way that the Eagle 2 would be able to maintain that speed for long anyway. I remember when they were testing the ASAT anti satellite missiles that the Eagle would take off and do a mid air refueling to get as much fuel on board as possible. When they went to fire the missiles they had to maintain a certain angle of climb and speed so the missiles could find the target and launch. This profile would empty the Eagle's fuel tanks in under 6 minutes and the aircraft would have to refuel again just to have enough fuel to land without crashing. The Eagle can burn through 2,000 gallons of jet fuel in 4 minutes at full afterburner. Most combat is done at much lower speeds because the airplane can maneuver and fight better at lower speeds. Besides, the 1489 mile per hour top speed is only really needed to get the hell out of the area after you have fired all of your missiles anyway. My cousin flies the F-15E and says that flying above mach 1 is very hard on the airplane and if you go too fast you will rip the external fuel tanks and missile pylons off of the aircraft damaging the wings and

[@dennisleighton2812]

The greatest pity is that the F-15EX can't utilise the European Meteor! Being able to do so would add a whole new dimension of capability, until the Aim260 eventually arrives at some undetermined future date. Thanks for a really informative video, clearing up some misconceptions I previously had. Cheers Alex!

[@silverblueshadow]

you actually spent almost 20mins going through everything the eagle 2 can do. for the record my fav plane is the eagle, so seeing the eagle 2 so awesome is so enjoyable

[@McsMark1]

Every Day is Christmas when there's a new KZbin from Alex Hollings & Sandboxx!

[@nunyabusiness4651]

Have no doubts that the F-15ex Does mach 3, they retracted their claim cause they were't suppose to reveal it is my guess!

[@jaycooper2812]

What you failed to mention is that while the airframe is still huge and not stealthy, the Eagle 2's radar cross section is 40% less than the F-15C. This quite the improvement considering that the aircraft is 4 feet longer and 7,000 pou ds heavier. The only thing that I see that could have been an even greater improvement would be for Boeing to have included the slanted tail fins from the Silent Eagle program which actually improved the maneuverability and cut the radar cross section of the aircraft by 20%. Add that to the better materials and the Eagle 2 could have been even more badass than it already is.

[@Andrew-en4zx]

I have to wonder if the Silent Eagle is not secretly operational right now.

[@joecrisp9060]

That's so cool. I worked with Capt Li at Wetstone. Great video as always.

[@bretdaley6869]

If we ever do end up in a war we are going to find that renewing these platforms instead of retiring them is a huge advantage

[@verdebusterAP]

Well if they fitted with the F-22s F119s or F-35 F-135, it would have likely done Mach 3 with ease but consider the amount of equipment the F-15EX carries externally Mach 3 while cool is not advisable

[@mrkeogh]

It has been assumed that stealth coatings limit the extent of aerodynamic heating the F-22 and F-35 can endure before they get damaged. But that's assuming we actually know anything about the resilience of the coatings...

[@spackle9999]

​@@mrkeoghAlso, it doesn't make sense to be radar stealthy yet hot enough to be detected by satellites. For the moment, speed and stealth don't mix.

[@roblockhart6104]

They wanted to use F-135 engines but unfortunately that conversation ended before it even began. The diameter of those engines are just too large to fit inside the F-15's engine housing. If they did go that route, the cost and time delays would be exponentially more.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@roblockhart6104 Yup It would have been a totally a new air frame design

[@Christian-fg3we]

22 air to air missiles?! Jeez that means a single Eagle EX can kill every operational su57 russia has 5 times over, likely with ease.

[@robertthompson5858]

😂😂😂😂

[@richdurbin6146]

What I’m wondering is how much speed and skin heating the airframe can take.

[@ryelor123]

One thing I don't understand is why doesn't any military put rockets on a couple hardpoints that stay fixed until spent in order to rapidly accelerate the plane or reduce takeoff? Seems like an easy modification that could be useful if you're going to get into an unexpected dogfight or to recover from an unrecoverable spin.

[@spackle9999]

Dangerous, expensive, and largely unnecessary considering the thrust and fuel capacity of EX. Besides, an afterburner is basically a rocket. You might as well just burn the fuel in your drop tanks. Same difference.

[@estiar1956]

There's actually something called JATO (Jet Assisted Take off) that does exactly that. It's used for short takeoffs. It's not used often, mostly at airshows now, but it's a capability that could be used in ACE operations

[@buckwheat6722]

Most Excellent Sir! PLEASE keep it up

[@meanman6992]

Not everything needs to be 5th or 6th gen… having a crap ton of good missiles on board and a heck of a radar and sensor suit, is its own genre… I think this will be the backbone of the AF so the F35 doesn’t need to take on so many flight hours.. just my guess.

[@aboutwhat1930]

3 things: -There's no point to pairing a powerful active radar with a stealth fighter. -Stealth is best paired up with not-stealth in an active battlefield. More radar signatures means stealth has more shadows it can hide in. And active EW would probably need to be filtered out, preventing most radars from even detecting the presence of stealth. -External weapons etc also generally undo stealth. They'd prefer F-35 flies as clean as possible anyway. And the F-117 was most vulnerable with a weapons bay open, so why even open the bays if you have missile trucks nearby?

[@jimbodimbo981]

I agree as we’ve learnt the Russians fight attritional warfare,as do the Chinese as they did in Korea

[@RatusPretentious]

Excellent analysis as usual! I suspect that onboard jammers like on the Gripen may make stealth a mute issues!

[@spackle9999]

The EX has EPAWSS, which is a state of the art radar and EW suite that operates automatically to detect, defeat, and geo locate airborne and ground threats as well as simultaneously jamming radars without interfering with the onboard AESA radar. It will also upload that geo location to the "battle net" so it can be targeted by other friendlies.

[@fistpunder]

I like this guy's enthusiasm and passion for these amazing aircraft.

[@jimmcneal5292]

The idea that speed doesn't matter is absolutely false. The thing is, the more speed you have, the more kinetic energy you have, and this kinetic energy can be transferred to your missiles and maybe even guided bombs, adding range, which is one of the most important things on a battlefield. That's why it's good that US started production of F-15EXs instead of just more F-35s, J-20s won't defeat themselves. As for F-15EXs speed, am I the only viewer that remembers that on this exact channel archive footage was demostrated where F-15 characteristics were compared with Mig-25 during some military presentation, and the speed of F-15 was stated as Mach 3?

[@melancholiusmonkey-mann5749]

As a die hard Tomcat fan, specifically the F14D with its AN-APG 71 radar and it's integrated IRST system, which for a time superceded the capabilities and performance of the Eagles radar systems, I am happy to see the F-15, now with its exclusive Tandem seating configuration prove all the so called experts wrong with respect to the RIO / WSO role being somehow redundant and unnecessary. So happens the technology FINALLY caught up to the brilliant designs both the F14 and F15 share... Unfortunately, America would sell the F14 to a country that would later become part of its "Axis of Evil". Which is why all F14's including the Super Tomcats would literally be shredded. Too bad the Shah chose the Tomcat... Or perhaps good thing he passed on the F15 😊

[@melancholiusmonkey-mann5749]

@onslambert Yes the A model was notoriously laborious to maintain for sure. The Navy didn't properly initiate a training syllabus for the newer D-model with maintenance crews since the program was winding down. This even though the later model were supposed to be less intensive maintenance wise. But your point is taken. that said, ever notice how 'economy of scale' doesn't seem to apply to the MIC... it all seems to work in reverse for the defense industry? re. Hornet, I hear you there as well. But occupying a role and fulfilling it i would argue are not the same... here's a quote from CDR Robert 'Jungle' Jones famed Naval Fighter Pilot, Top Gun Instructor who logged time in both F-14D and Super Hornet "Hornet is a Striker, Not a Fighter: --Hornet has got one good turn in a BFM and doesn't have the legs or the power to really challenge the Tomcat" he continues... "If I had to do mission that calls for close ground support, I would choose the Hornet, for anything else: locking down airspace, BVR, fleet defense etc. Tomcat hands-down" I mean I would hate to just fanboy F-14 although some might... But If the good Commander says the only thing Hornet did better compared to the Tomcat is CAS, then who am I to argue...

[@joebago1679]

Great stuff as always.

[@m1k3droid]

When I worked on F-15A/B models in my 318th FIS unit in the late 80s, they would often come back from alert flights to intercept bogies identified by NORAD with their mach meters pegged at M2.8. And these planes were loaded with 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders.

[@mcamp9445]

Nope

[@m1k3droid]

@@mcamp9445 Sorry bruh, you are the ignorant one here.

[@swiftycortex]

I love it, what an awesome airframe, system, and capabilities. Thank you very much Alex

[@MeanMachine1992]

It's a missile mule. Basically an F--35 or the NGAD can sneak in, detect targets, relay that info back and the EX can lob that massive payload at them from outside the target's engagement range.

[@MultiVeeta]

How, the range of a jdam is about 20 mile. The range of a maverick is 10 mile. The range of a lgb is over the target. The range of a typical SAM against an F15 is 50 mile. The only weapon would be the JSOW and it carries the same amount as a Hornet or Viper so what is the point. The only targets that will need anything as big as a JSOW or bigger are static targets that can be seen via satellite which means GPS coordinates which is what JSOW and other large munitions use for targeting. So no, the only effect an F35 will have is to be able to close in enough to enemy stealth fighters to detect them and datalink air targets for the F15 to fire AIM120D at.

[@isaacbrown4506]

​@MultiVeeta there's the stand in attack weapon, the JDAM-ER is 45 miles disclosed, there's the Mako missile, ARRW, other new larger hypersonic missiles that the F-15 is meant to carry... this is the mid 2020s lol there's been a lot of new additions to our arsenal

[@Ruska_o7]

@@isaacbrown4506 not to mention the agm-88 harm has recommended range of 30 miles and a theoretical maximum range of 80 miles when fired from high altitude's

[@dragunovbushcraft152]

From someone who knows a "few" fighter pilots, EVERYone I know of who were "Eagle drivers" say ANY F15 has the capability of Mach 3 flight. 20 years ago, Mach 2.85 was the "official" top speed, according to the USAF.

[@iGoldenWax]

I’m so freaking glad to be american

[@ilmarilah1195]

I’m so freaking glad to be from an allied country of the US of A🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🔥🔥 (I’m from Finland🇫🇮)

[@Joemama555]

oooooooo that's the one that did the sonic boom all across Illinois in 2023.... lol "pilot error" my butt, he punched it!~~~~~~

[@THE-X-Force]

21:00 .. are those prescription glasses? I was denied my dream of becoming an Air Force pilot because I did not have 20-20 vision, corrective surgery wasn't available back then, and corrective glasses were not allowed. You could wear glasses / contact for commercial flight .. but not in the military. Has that changed? I mean for the lenses, as far as I know if you get lasik etc, you're good to go now.

[@DavidSherman-m5l]

I have seen countless videos of Hornets pulling high-g maneuvers. I am also a former F/A-18C Plane Captain. I have also seen the Blue Angels several times, but I have never seen a fuselage bend. I know for a fact that the wings can bend significantly under high G loading. However, the fuselage is not supposed to bend.

[@jbyrd1309]

AWESOME video Boxx. As always. I can rest easier at night now knowing what I know. You teach well. Cheers and FLYSAFE my friend.

[@byronharano2391]

Another exciting informative report Alex. We need this new F15E version.

[@danlemke6407]

Thanks, awesome presentation. Boeing should hire you.

[@davidpalmer4184]

I am an ex-grunt. Loved this video! Semper Fi from an ex Semper gumby. Much love from Australia.

[@Traveler1973-jz7qo]

It's not about speed now it's about what the plane and pilots are capable of teamed up with other assets!

[@ph11p3540]

As a base brat, I always dreamed of flying an F-15 as my mighty steed.

[@danielhahn2897]

Alex, dude, it sounds like you are crushing a little on the F-15EX. Welcome to the club. I have been since the early 80's when an A model demo flight came to our F4 base. That thing did what airplanes are not supposed to be able to do.

[@gregHames-u6n]

This is the best information podcast that exists. Thanks Alex

[@ChrisMcChesney-p1d]

2 problems with the F-15EX going Mach 3ish. Aerodynamic heating probably means the airframe would be damaged; you really don't want to mess with the heat treatments of structural aluminum. Concorde was limited to Mach 2 for the same reasons, although Concorde could supercruise at that speed. I know they redesigned the structure to extend service life, but I highly doubt they significantly increased the use of steel and/or titanium to allow for higher temperatures. The other major limiting factor would be the engine intakes. As Mach # increases, the shock pattern at the engine intake changes. The intake needs to control that shock pattern to ensure the shock fronts don't distrupt the airflow, or worse reach the compressor. The F-15 has variable geometery inlets to help manage that, but they only have so much travel. It would not suprise me that the travel maxes out before reaching Mach 3 because there's never an operational need for such a speed. Why waste resources on something that doesn't provide a useful capability. Still, the F-15EX is an impressive aircraft, and a fitting end (assuming it is the end) for one of the best 4th generation aircraft.

[@thepassman]

Awesome presentation Alex! Everyone who designed, built, flew, and maintained this aircraft gets my salute and appreciation! Who knew the USA would produce another aircraft that may last a century or more and still be operating in front line service!🦅

[@i-love-space390]

I wonder why Boeing didn't cant the tail fins of the EX like they did in the Silent Eagle. That might have reduced the RCS a little bit, right?

[@emmettcunninghamjr.5207]

Wow! I'm convinced. Rightfully named the Eagle (all variants). Thanks.

[@kayakutah]

The F-16N (Navy's adversary model) would accelerate to M2.0 in level flight, at 30,000 feet very nicely! But it was very slick, with no stores.

[@RANGER73CPT]

You do a great job, you really do. You make everything understandable, even a ground-pounding Ranger. Thanks and keep it up!

[@billisaacs702]

I was not under the impression that the EX was replacing the C. They have different roles. Are they planning to put the EX into air to air engagements in close quarters? I hope not. The C is a pure air superiority fighter as I understand it, far more maneuverable than the EX. The EX on the other hand can engage in BVR very competently but has a suite of other capabilities like SEAD, air to mud, etc at which nothing excels it. Do clarify, please.

[@Joseph-Colin-EXP]

Why do the Inlet ducts move?

[@mrthingy9072]

How far have we come? The B-17 Flying Fortress could carry 8,000 pounds of bombs. This FIGHTER can carry close to 30,000 pounds of ordnance. This fighter actually carries more than the B-29 Superfortress as well. Weird. Plus the bombs can be precision guided, they don't need to carpet large swathes of ground to get the target. One drop one destroyed target, most of the time. It's kinda terrifying how good we've become in destroying each other.

[@cwstewart69]

Excellent, as always!

[@kostaskritsilas2681]

One thing to keep in mind is that the military isn't going to be 100% accurate, by policy, about the exact performance of its planes, not matter which they are, and even more so, a just entered into service improved fighter plane that is the latest and greatest of its type. Example: the F-111F has a listed top speed of Mach 2.5. A F-111 pilot stated flat out (on the Aircrew Interview Channel on KZbin, the pilot being Fred Guinn) that an F-111 hit Mach 3 at altitude, in clean configuration during a check flight (after the plane has had major service, they take it up to see if it is OK). So the Boeing guy, saying it can hit Mach 2.9 was probably right, but shouldn't have said so publicly. As well, top speed is not really all that useful as stated in the video. It can help if you are running from a fight, but only if you have enough fuel to make it home or to the nearest tanker plane.

[@unknownuser069]

Regarding missions that do NOT need stealth ... show of force missions. Sometimes you want to fly out and BE SEEN so the opponent reconsiders any hostile intent. Of course, these days a lot of potential opponents assume we would never actually pull the trigger - but that is politics and diplomacy... it should never be a technical issue.

[@choctaw2sticks193]

love this channel . . . Alex is the best.

[@xyz-hj6ul]

The F-15EX should not be compared to the F-35A/B/C but to the B-1B, B-2A, B-52 or B-21. You can throw 24 JASSM on a Bone. But normally, it will be 16 with a rear bay fuel tank. Sixteen cruise missiles is 3-4 F-15EX, depending on how you load them. Wing tanks will cost you two missile stations. But if the F-15EX is in-theater, within 1,500nm, it becomes a defacto 'Regional Bomber' with twice a day service rates. If the B-1B has to come from Mildenhall, Diego Garcia or Guam, it's probably a three day bomber, assuming you can find fuel for it. If the Bone has to come from Dyess or Ellsworth, it's going to be two days _in the air_ on a 48hr mission rotation. Unlike fighters, which can operate from a 3-5,000ft civilian strip in places like North Field Tinian, the heavies have to have a 10,000ft runway with reinforced ramps and large scale underground fuel which is simply not available in a lot of places like SWAPR. They can be hit a lot easier, due to their basing mode predictor. Add to this the fragile MMH:FH and MTBF of the Bone and BUFF especially and you have a once per week airframe, best case. Not a good idea in a war apt to be dictated by high utilization rates and max tempo operations. AIM-260 is not a 'super duper ultra long range wowee VLRAAM'. It's a 500-600lb, 12ft long (fits inside F-22/F-35 weapons bays) missiles with a probable 8-10" diameter. i.e. It's an American PL-15 which, _in the honest version_ is capable of 145km. Put another way, it is a properly packaged, next-gen, AIM-7 Sparrow. While it may be dual staged and thus able to mass dump the expended aft section to adjust sectional profile and tail-wags-dot CG profile (think AIM-152 AAAM), without a ramjet/HFDR capability, it's not going over a hundred miles. More like 60. If the target chooses to close. At 100nm simple tac turns are going to wreck the kinematic setup as every forty to fifty degrees of offset is a natural crank which fighters will be doing because of the Stealth threat. Flying ASA in a 90 million dollar airframe is stupid, no matter how cheap it is to fly, when you could shift the F-15E to that role and buy 300+ F-15EX as your proper strike option, with the better avionics and defense penetration/suppression capability given to an active service unit, likely to be first respondered into a combat theater. The issue at that point is the USAF accelerating it's B-xx retirement plans to pay for upgrades on ONE, or at most two, B-21 and B-1B or B-52 types in a drastic neckdown. IMO, throwing money at the B-52 at this point is stupid. But the B-1B has multiple fatigue issues (skin panels which are rapidly becoming too think and are full of stress cracks) as well as some maintenance tasks (lifting out the wings with the nitrogen treatment dip to extract the bearing) that are simply beyond the present, highly restricted, industrial base. It's time to admit what we have done to retard our industrial base by having program after program never reach fruition until engineers refuse to do defense/aerospace because it is so lacking in rewards. While at the same time condensing through leveraged mergers all the diversity of innovation we once had. Purely for profit on some mega programs which come around once every 30-50 years. If you add to this the likely coming debt and dollar crises which will fall out from a defeat in Ukraine, you reach the inevitable conclusion that _our eyes are bigger than our wallets can afford_. We may get *ONE* NGAD as F/A-XX/F-X program. We will not get both. The flying pukes will insist that they have their day and say, as job security, despite what Ukraine has shown are the necessities of a rapidly fieldable expeditionary capability which can be used, sans pilots, by proxy allies. And the Chinese are already at 300 vs. 160 on the J-20 vs. F-22 fleet, so simply replacing the Raptor with another 250-300 or so NGAD is only going to bring us to parity with an industrial power that has the engineering talent, spare production capacity and deep-wallet ability to match us, probably inside 7 years. At that point, the J-20 will become their F-35 and the Sino NGAD will become the pacing overmatch threat on numbered air superiority. What good the F-15EX will be to anyone at that point is questionable, given there are no published figures showing what a retracted Luneberg Reflector on the J-20 does to reduce its natural RCS. The APG-82V1 is a 20-25KW radar which is pretty good but the Chinese have halted all exports of neodymium and gallium nitride as the two essential rare earths used in providing enhanced radar technology upgrades. Even if the NGAD is supported, with only 200 of them we will lose the attritional capacity fight on China's doorstep. And frankly the shift to CCA UCAVs would be a better coverage capability idea, just on the notion that an F-15EX, search-lighting the ether is easy for a genuine stealth to run the flanks on. But you know that collaborative combat aircraft will be sabotaged at every turn, even when they are blatantly superior (X-45A: 1,100nm radius with 2.3hr hold, carrying 2X MMTD) for the kinds of mission capability needed for large, open airspace, combat theaters. Like Southwest Asia. Like the South China Sea and Pacific Rim. If you go automated, you don't have to be fast to maximize hang time on the pointy end. If you go automated, you cam replace acquisitino costs with billable hours ops account for training costs. There is a third offset, for which a 90 million dollar strike asset is a viable alternative to a 250 million dollar, Gen-6, uber fighter. The issue then becomes whether we have the guts to take another Ukraine theater lesson and shift to primary GLCM/GLBM with, an emphasis upon survivability as buyable numbers in the capacity shot count and pennies per ton mile endurance of a sea-launch submarine or arsenal ship alternative to penetrating manned air at all. It's never an either/or solution. There are always combat mix and economic modifier variables worth mentioning. If we go into a major Depressionary Event, thanks to the stupidity of the 'ten percent for the big guy', Biden payola schemes, the ability to buy our warfighter restock, one FY at a time, with highly automated factories producing thousands of missiles (at 2-5 million each, in mass production) per year, could be the better choice than one-time purchases of a few hundred airframes and then whoring NGAD to the world like we foolishly did with JSF. Only to watch the technology base vanish into other nation's DIBs after they buy a paltry few F/A-XX as copyable baselines.

[@Corbots80]

I expect it is faster then what they are disclosing

[@JoelVanboening]

Top tier music every video, & military aerospace reporting.

[@juliusdream2683]

Great 👍🏼 video maybe less smoking 😅.. really good work . Why am I thinking of myth busters all of a sudden?

[@gruntusmc8922]

The F-15 EX is a Powerhouse just with the incorporation of "the fly by wire" System, new Radar, new Powerplants, new reinforced Frame, higher load carrying capability, new Computers are a huge plus. I'm sure that it'll rack up more victories to be added to the F-15s Weapons Platform. Keep up the good work!.

[@dontdeletehistory]

Sounds like the ACE COMBAT games in real life. I love it

[@jessesmithers7579]

I think the A B C and D's were limited by the canopy overheating at m 2.25

[@carlosvasquez9890]

Wait...can a figther really "emulate" thrust vectoring using computer power? Even adding FBW to the equation, that really doesnt sound accurate, Alex...can you explain how exactly that works, from a technical point of view? Was it for real...or just overhyped exageration?

[@PabloMayrgundter]

there's a video clip of an eagle in a sharp turn when he's talking about it. that's similar to the vectored tricks.. so maybe what the computers are doing is helping put the craft into its max turn rate without stalling, which would get it lots closer to the vectored performance

[@RedTail1-1]

The F-15EX doesn't need to go near Mach 3 to shove 15 AMRAAMS up your exhaust....

[@Lightspeed-eo6nw]

I’ll always love Tomcat for its looks and cachet, but as a Gen Xer, the F-15 was always the cream of the crop. The Echo made the whole airframe seem even more amazing. These new Eagle IIs are just off the charts cool though.

[@Liberty_or_Ded]

If it hits 2.2 it's already a monster. Mach 3 seemed unrealistic. It CAN probably reach Mach 3 but at operational altitudes it probably starts to deform the airframe. Also this thing isn't gonna be carrying AMRAAMs, at least not the 120s. It's gonna be carrying the AIM-260, the LRAAM, the LREW, the CUDA, and/or the Peregrine, depending on which replacements they go with for the ancient and long-outdated AIM-120.

[@nil981]

The F-15EX capable of mach 3? Now that is the funniest shit I have ever heard.

[@NeroontheGoon]

It’s funny, when I was a freshmen in high school in 1974, we used to get news blips about the then new F-15! I was enthralled and amazed when in the winter of that year, the Streak Eagle broke out a can of American whoop ass and broke every time to climb record that ever was! Then we started hearing about the F-15’s top speed, somewhere north of Mach 2.5, in 1974. It causes me a case of the ass when I hear the mighty F-15 called a Boeing product, this was McDonnell’s swan song, nothing but beautiful!

[@appa609]

I'm the biggest F-15 fanboy you'll find. The F-15EX has basically three things going for it. 1. It leverages existing production lines and pilot training to deliver an logistically easy upgrade for F-15C's about to hit the end of their service lives. 2. It's a big strong jet that you can carry lots of stuff. All the extra sensors, munitions, fuel, countermeasures, or other payload you could want. 3. It's maintenance has been fine tuned through nearly 50 years of service to the point that Boeing feels comfortable guaranteeing more than double the airframe service life of other fighters given only very minor structural changes. This could possibly all be modern Boeing bullshitting. Oh right one more 4. It keeps Boeing alive in the fighter game and prevents Lockheed Martin from getting too complacent despite clearly winning the 5th gen arms race. It has very little to do with superior kinematics, though they are quite good.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

F-15EX and F-22A are my two favorite modern day fighters. They look sleek and packs the meanest punch

[@DavidSherman-m5l]

With an IRST pod, that would eliminate one store station. Isn't there some other way of having this capability without losing a store station?

[@spackle9999]

I believe they can use a hard point on the fuselage for that. No worries. The EX could still carry an insane number of missiles, regardless.

[@albertvanlingen7590]

More power yes but structural integrity of the frame is a limiting factor at that speed. Without titanium shielding metals for heat build-up it's unlikely any aircraft besides the Mig 31 and SR-71 can safely go faster than mac2.7