In this era of flying stealth supercomputers like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor, many have questioned the wisdom of purchasing a slew of new old fighters. The F-15EX does not boast any stealth capabilities, nor does it have the same knack for sensor fusion that has earned the F-35 the unofficial nickname of “quarterback in the sky.” Despite this apparent lack of capability, the Air Force is procuring F-15EXs at a cost of around $87.7 million each, as compared to the now lower F-35 price of just $77.9 million per aircraft.
This price differential only emboldens the F-15EX’s critics, who point out that the F-35 offers a far wider variety of capabilities and is considered much more survivable in contested airspace (thanks to its stealth capabilities). When you only consider those figures, the F-15EX may seem like a pretty poor choice.
However, the reality of military acquisitions and combat capability are far more nuanced than a side-by-side tale of the tape might represent. While the F-15EX may indeed cost more per airframe than the latest batch of F-35s, it may actually be the savvier purchase. The F-35 is intended to have an operational lifespan of around 8,000 hours, whereas each F-15EX is expected to last 20,000. In other words, in order to fly the same number of hours as an F-15EX, the Air Force would need to purchase not one, but three F-35As.
That price reduction is further bolstered by operational costs. Keeping a high performance fighter in tip-top shape is expensive and time consuming, but in that portion of the ledger, the F-15EX once again shines. The Air Force expects to spend around $29,000 for every hour the F-15EX is in the air, far cheaper than the F-35’s figures recorded in 2018 of around $44,000 per hour. Now let’s do a bit of back-of-the-envelope math to assess how much these aircraft will actually cost in a fight.
The F-15EX costs $87.7 million per aircraft, and can fly for up to 20,000 hours at a cost of $29,000 per hour. So $29,000 per hour x 20,000 hours + $87.7 million for the aircraft comes out to a pretty serious $667.7 million dollars.
In order to match that operational lifespan, it would take three F-35As. So the math would look like $44,000 per hour x 20,000 hours + $233.7 million for three F-35s… and it comes out to more than a jaw dropping $1.1 billion. The F-15EX, then, offers a saving of around $446 million per aircraft over the lifespan of the jet (if things were this simple, anyway).
To give the F-35 a slightly more realistic shake, let’s use larger volumes of aircraft, rather than 1:1 comparisons. The Air Force plans to purchase at least 144 F-15EXs, but for the sake of simple math, let’s call it 100. The above per-aircraft cost times a hundred comes out to $66,770,000,000 spent on aircraft and 2,000,000 flight hours. You would need 250 F-35s to match the same flight hour total, which combined with operating costs come to $109,925,000,000. In this more realistic comparison, the F-15EX offers a less pronounced advantage, but still comes to the tune of some $43,155,000,000 in savings over the span of the program. $43 billion is certainly nothing to scoff at.
Now, it’s important to note here that this math is egregiously simplified: Lockheed Martin and the Air Force are already working tirelessly to reduce the operating costs of the F-35 (because the Air Force says they can’t afford them if they don’t).
The cost per hour of the F-35 is sure to drop in the years to come — and just as importantly, the F-35 is a stealth platform built largely to engage ground targets. The F-15EX, on the other hand, is an air superiority fighter designed to duke it out in the skies. Both of these aircraft are capable of either role, but at a fundamental level, these jets simply aren’t built to do the same jobs. It might help to think of them as NASCAR and Formula 1 racers: Both are extremely capable platforms, but they’re each highly specialized for their specific use. The new F-15EXs the Air Force buys won’t fill F-35 spots, but will instead replace aging F-15s in America’s existing arsenal.
I did not see it mentioned, but the -15EX is an absolute weapon truck transport compared to the -35. With ongoing evolution of sensor fusion, avionics improvements, power plant and strath tech evolution, we might see the -15EX reflect what’s happening with B-52s. We might see the -15EX follow the path the B-52 has. None of us can predict future power plant/weapons/stealth tech which could be applied to the -35 AND the -15EX.
I’m an F35 advocate, but even 200 F15EX purchases doesn’t change the paradigm of the Air Forces aerial strategy. There’s no major mistakes to be made this early in the F15EX purchase. There are plenty of roles where the F15EX can fill superbly. We’ll be just fine either way. Decisions may become more crucial maybe even problematic should the number of F15EX purchased begin to fill roles the F35 was specifically created to fill. It very well could jeopardize missions.
This article is nonsense.
The math to require 2.5 F-35s to replace 1 F-15EX is total BS 💩.
One would need 70-100 years to fly off 20.000 hours on the F-15. By that time the F-15 will be long gone.
Furthermore the F-35 will undergo an MLU like every fighter before and that will add thousands of hours of airframe life.
The F-15 also started with only a few thousand hours and now after 50 years of service it is cleared for 20.000 hours.
Same will happen to F-35 once it matures
Agreed
I’d rather have a mix of aircraft so I can tailor my force to beat the enemy. No one aircraft can be all things for all battles. I know their cost considerations but consider the scenario where A-10s provide the CAS, F-15 provide the top cover with somemix of rapidly available CAS, and the F-35s act as the quarterback with some specialized offensive capabilities.
Weapon carrying capacity or limitations are an issue that is not financial in scope. The F15EX will certainly lend capacity in that field in which the F35 shows a limited growth potential. They are also different systems that are complimentary and should not be considered competitors for the same funds. There are weapon systems in the works that will not be deployable with the F35, the F15EX will definitely have the external stores capacity for such systems which would negate the “stealth” of the F35; should they ever chose to hang things under its wings like the proverbial Christmas tree. All the best to the USA and its Airforce for trying to find “reasonable” financial solutions to the tremendous waste that, from a philosophical standpoint, are modern weapon systems.
I think the F35 was a dark hole to funnel monies to other secret projects like the newer SR-71 type thing.
There is no way a fighter development should cost so much.
It puts things in reality when that plane costs more in 1 hour than most will see in a year.
Flight simulators are the way to hone skills..unbelievable how accurate they are.. pilots still need airtime but sims cut a lot of cost in the long run.
Honestly the flight simulators will be a thing of the past soon as well. With the rapid advances in AI and miniaturized avionics, combat aircraft containing humans is probably going to be a severe disadvantage in the near future. They will probably have a human in the weapons “loop” in a office building somewhere, but we’re probably witnessing the last generation of combat aircraft containing pilots. The amount of equipment to interface with a pilot and keep them alive is probably 1/4-1/3 of the weight on the airframe, plus the physical limitations of human in terms of G forces and physical endurance makes the transition to unmanned aircraft unavoidable.
That will not happen any time soon Elon Musk. You will not replace a man with a computer to do some jobs. Yes you can make a good AI bot plane but it will never be able to make a conscious decision EVER
The real issue is WHY PRODUCE F 15EX WHEN THERE IS F22? SERVING THE SAME ROLE MORE ADVANCELY WITH STEALTH, IN A WORLD OF J20 & SU57??? CAN IT OUTDO THE ENEMY STEALTH JETS? NO
the F-22 makes the F-35 look cheap. Flight hour cost is much more as is acquisition cost. That the air force is already talking about retiring the F-22 tells me that they are becoming hard to maintain indicating that they are close to their end of life. The life span of these stealth aircraft appear to suck really bad. The F-117 came out after the F-16 and it is long gone. Therefore replacing the F-15’s with F-22s is a much more expensive option than the F-35. And the point of this article is the excessive cost of the F-35. And if the US had gone with the F-16XL, then that would make the cost comparison of the F-15 look the cost comparison of the F-15 to the F-35.
I have seen figures that put the F-16 cost per flight hour at about 1/3 the F-15. That may be high, but the F-15 has two engines and they is the most expensive part of the aircraft to buy and maintain. And that 2nd engines just reduces reliability, and seldom will you save an airframe because it has a 2nd engine because of all the other vulnerable parts and failure modes.
We probably need both for now atleast, until something definitive is determined. What about the F-18 , I must have missed the future of it. Worked on f4s in vietnam and thailand, okinawa, love to keep up.
Thanks man,..i neveave been in the military but lucky enough to work at McDonnell Douglas from 1973 at 18 years old until I retired 42 years later. I was lucky enough to work in flight simulation and traveled to Okinawa once.. We went all over setting up flight simulators
The F16 and F15 are both capable of ground bombing and very capable air to air combat craft…. how many other countries use them? With new radar and avionics why do we need over priced junk!
Didn’t we try the ALL services aircraft under Defense Secretary McNamara in the 1960’s and end up with the F 111?
Didn’t work then.
IIRC (its a long way back) naval F-111 turned out out to be too heavy.
F111 kiilled most tanks in Iraq than the rest of the aircraft combined.
Briliant, highly unapriciated plane
Our F1-111s are munched loved and revered in Australia worst decision ever to retire them we lost a major deterrent capability
I think the excuse – “it was designed for ground targets” can quickly be refuted. The designator is F-35, not A-35. That says it all right there. It is also not F/A-35.
While fighters like the F-14, 15, & 16 were adapted to ground attack roles, their primary purpose was air to air. F-16 was a pure interceptor. F-14 was air-to-air fleet defense.
The problem is clearly mentioned above. If the reports of the F-35’s performance toe-to-toe with fighters that were created in the 1970’s are accurate, then this thing is a ostrich and should be scrapped. Salvaged the tech and write it off. Change the designator to X and let’s move on. Tried and tested legacy aircraft with modern improvements can get us to gen 6 where we will eliminate the weakest link in any modern jet fighter – the meat puppet inside.
All the data shows that dogfighting is an outdated means of warfare, it’s like the bayonet.. sure it feels good to have something just in case but the reality is we probably won’t ever see it at a scale that is decisive. Hell even back in Vietnam “dogfighting” was less than a 1/3rd of the engagements If I remember correctly.. it’s always a possibility that I don’t.
In addition the F-35 is designed to work with other aircraft.. these debates remind me of tank v tank ones. You will always (if your not stupid) have support elements with armor. Infantry, Air, and Artillery. It’s not going to be just tank on tank warfare.. so the F-35 the f-22 16 and 15 can all work together to do the job.. I think the whole “specialist” comment hinted at that.
You got it all wrong. The F-35 is an amazing A to A platform with amazing dogfighting and even better BVR capabilities. F-15/16/14 stand no chance against F-35.
In multiple demonstrations the F-15 has been able to identify, engage, and eliminate the F-35. In all of the demonstrations, the F-35 has never won. If the F-15 can find it, so could real adversaries. If the plane can’t achieve it’s mission because it can’t get there, it has no value, regardless of promises.
I am in full agreement with your reply. I can only ask that some ram be added to the 15. It’s a marvelous platform. Never have thought much of the 35. The intent to make one platform operate across the services was a stupidas$ idea. Each service has its own exact needs for what and how they do it.
I believe it was in simulations with the f-16s, however the article did just say that the f-35 does not specialize in air to air combat, “built largely to engage with ground targets”
I bet I can find an article that proves the “never” part wrong.
Thank you. Somebody described the F-35 as a sniper. I would say a sniper with a single round (salvo)–worthless at interdiction. Fire that salvo and turn tail, leaving the airspace to let the enemy do what he wants. Understand pretty worthless as a dogfighter because of high wing loading. Something few seem to realize is that halve the distance you increase cross section by a factor of 4, you turn on your communication system, turn on active sensors, or fire a weapon you give yourself away. Put on more weapons to have more shots you just lost most of you stealth. Need to probably an in factory upgrade to a new sensor package that has different sensor, need to rebuild the aircraft for those sensors because adding a pod kills stealth. The only good mission for this aircraft is the same as the F-117. What else was the F-117 used for beside penetration bombing. The problem is that stealth is one of many design attributes to consider in designing an aircraft and the US puts way too much emphasis on stealth.
You really don’t understand aerial warfare. Fist of all the F-35 and s an amazing dogfighter with unparalleled maneuverability for a non thrust vectoring airframe. Second: Fighters never work alone but in packages that network in 5th generation and F-35s BVR capabilities in a 4ship are amazing.
If people like you would run the world we would still live with in caves!!
I’d really like to see where you get your information from. The F-35 has been smoking F-15s in exercises like Red Flag and Northern Edge for years now. And it hasn’t really been close.
Finally a person with correct information that is not a troll 🙏🏻
I don’t know if you are a troll or just delusional. In ever large scale war exercise F-35s slated F-15s and all other 4the Gen fighters. You can’t really believe that 1970s technology (what current USAF) F-15s are can stand against 21st century tech.
You people really live in a bubble where the past is a better place 🙈
The F-15EX is a highly capable platform, but I’ve read reports of missions in articles undertaken by f-35s with a flight of 4 that would have required almost twice the number of f-15s. So while per airframe the cost might be lower, is the cost per mission lower? That remains to be seen.
Read the article. 2.5 F-35 needed to replace one F-15, so if you need two to one still better deal, and can carry many times the ordinance, and I would be very suspicious of those report. Probably what happens is that the F-35 shoots down an F-15 but gets shot down also. So 2 F-15’s against an F-35 results in the loss of each. And maybe it is even worse, and a lot of the time the F-15’s shoot down the F-35 with no loss. I believe that in a two to one fight, the single airplane is at a major disadvantage.
Feel free to post source/links that say F-15 has beaten the F-35 many times without taking any losses.
I’ll wait.
The math to need 2.5 F-35s to replace 1 F-15EX is total BS.
One would need 70-100 years to fly off 20.000 hours on the F-15. By that time the F-15 will be long gone.
Furthermore the F-35 will undergo an MLU like every fighter before an that will add thousands of hours of airframe life.
The F-15 also started with only a few thousand hours and now after 50 years of service it is cleared for 20.000 hours.
Same will happen to F-35 once it matures.
The differences are stark, but like you say, different needs, different capabilities. We spend more than several countries combined, and still find ourselves trying to play catch up in Cyber Warfare, and in a South China Sea geopolitical struggle. I know the reasons are myriad such as 20+ years of insurgency warfare, and an emphasis on SO. The F15-EX is a welcome expansion, and on a budget so to speak as we shift priorities, and try to reformulate our focus and capabilities.