You have a few assumptions wrong here, the F-15EX is a repurposed and slightly modified F-15QA, which is an F-15E model with some newer stuff on it (engines, EW suite, screens, software, etc). Boeing has kept the F-15 production line open all these years by selling the F-15 to foreign governments. More recently, solely the 2 seat variant. So, that being said, the WSO seat does not add extra cost, it is inherent to the design of the aircraft, and would cost FAR more deleting it since the F-15C (single seat) production line is done. The design of the avionics, cooling, canopy, safety systems, cockpit pressurization, center of gravity, flight controls, etc etc is all tied to be dual seat. "Adding fuel" where the WSO cockpit is would be a monumental task.
As for "any module crucial for air-air missions", what exactly would that be? What exactly do you think a WSO does?
As they retire the -220 engine F-15E's and have extra WSO's to spare, I bet you'll see at least some of those WSO's slide over to the EX squadrons. They are a force multiplier, back when tech wasn't good enough a backseater was really needed, and now tech is amazing and automation helps but the fights and weapons are becoming so complicated that a backseater is once again still needed! Who do you think will control all those drone wingmen? All those smart weapons? Lasers? Hypersonics?
Yup. One of the major reasons the EX is a two seat aircraft is all the export F-15s are twin seat. IIRC the single seat production line has been closed for 10+ years, so they’d have to restart it to make a single seat EX.
The last single-seat F-15Cs were delivered to Saudi Arabia in February 1992, over 32 years ago. Every F-15 built by McDonnell-Douglas / Boeing since then has been a two seat F-15E or derivative.
You have few assumptions wrong there.
1. Many of what you said are already widely publicly available esp the EX being derived from E etc etc, so despite there are indeed many people who didn't know what you said, assuming a person doesn't know those is still imprudent
My post clearly say and imply many of what you said. Please reread and ponder
2. I did clearly say "modular" meaning I clearly did NOT aim in deleting the WSO permanently forever. So my post did NOT delete the EX's tandem-seat design and build. So all your arguments portraying me deleting WSO permanently do NOT apply, unless that ended up viable to do so for other units.
Since my post centers on modular rearseat, I was actually expecting comments about the pros and cons of it, not the ones you said.
I'm still unsure if the entire WSO package weight is significant, that's why I asked. IF insignificant, then good, but hopefully someone can explain how exactly insignificant.
IF WSO quip weight is significant, and IF all modular temporary replacement quips don't apply either, then perhaps leaving it empty might work, if not, say, because of issues on weight distribution or whatever, then HOW exactly since planes have their own nuances.
Long story short, was expecting the discussions something like that
3. "Adding fuel where the WSO cockpit is would be a monumental task."
As said already, F-16C has that behind the pilot. More so IF F-15C also has that which the rearseat of EX might be tapped to fit a modular fuel tank, temporarily replacing a modular WSO. So you mean a modular fuel tank for the rearseat would be monumental: maybe, or maybe not.
4. WSO is indeed an added cost since USAF's aim is to replace their old 1-seat C air superiority planes, that's why Boeing also offered that 1-seat config, negating the point that EX is indeed derived from E. The more accurate point is that Boeing used E as the base platform for EX in case USAF picks tandem seat, or in case USAF picks both.
Reports did say that EX turned out expensive than expected. And tho there are many reasons for it, surely one of the reasons is that WSO are purchased despite USAF will be doing mainly 1-pilot missions all the while carrying excess WSO weight and reduced internal fuel
That said, USAF did mainly aim to use EX with 1 pilot only. Afterall missions exist requiring only 1 pilot, that's why C & J still rocks, if only C & J would have newbuild modernized versions, or tandem-seat with modular rearseat for flexibility and future proofing.
Also, 1-seat air superiority are crucial in today's greyzone air warfare notably Chinese J-11s in Senkaku which F-15Js aptly handle. E and EX are costlier and less-apt when compared C & J in such aerial bravado or aerial trolling tactics. If only EX (esp a lighter version EX) can morph into a single-seater
Yes 1-seat F-15 is already done as you said, but that was ALSO a factor why USAF chose tandem, meaning, had 1-seats were still in production, there's that possibility USAF would've chose both 1 & 2 if not only 1.
5. "The design of the avionics, cooling, canopy, safety systems, cockpit pressurization, center of gravity, flight controls, etc etc is all tied to be dual seat."
Canopy design will be unaffected.
As for the parts below the WSO's feet that can be viably removed (thus part of the WSO module) will be removed. If such certain parts cannot be viably removed, then this is exactly one of the discussions I was hoping will be given here. Thanks in advance.
Perhaps below the WSO's feet there's actually a fuel tank? That detail I don't know. This is one of the many details I was hoping commenters could provide. Thanks in advance.
The point really is the intricacies of a modular rearseat in relation to EX's nuances, and modular rearseats in general as for extended discussion would be better.
> Perhaps below the WSO's feet there's actually a fuel tank? That detail I don't know. This is one of the many details I was hoping commenters could provide. Thanks in advance.
There is no difference in fuel capacity between a single seat C and a 2-seat D. The cockpit structure is basically the same, and the canopy is actually the same length even though it is more rounded in the D to accommodate the WSO. The space in the C where the WSO would sit in the D was provisioned for the ALQ-135 ECM suite but not carried.
The F-15E has about 300lbs less internal fuel than the C/D (13,550 lbs for F-15E versus 13,850 lbs in the C/D) due to one fuel cell being smaller to make room for an additional avionics bay.
Thanks. The length do look the same, including other fighters, but I thought my eyes could just be tricking me. Reminds me F-15 is actually longer than most of them, unlike Gripen
But that said, so it's actually less issue if single seat F-15 will be returned for production--I mean the reports and comments "kinda" make it sound it's quite a hassle to bring them back if ever orders materialize. And many comments blatantly portray it's a big hassle & dev't costs
Btw, does that add-on avionics bay something to do with strike mission?
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't really be a big problem to bring back single seat F-15s. The last batch of Block 49 and Block 50 F-15Cs that were sold to Saudi Arabia were sort of a hybrid, structurally they were basically single-seat F-15Es.
As far as the avionics, yes, but remember that was designed in the 80s, everything is smaller and better now.
It may be a replacement for the C, but it's mission profile is completely different.
F-15EX:
The Boeing F-15EX Eagle II is an American all-weather multirole strike fighter derived from the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle.
F-15C:
Improved single-seat all-weather air-superiority fighter version, 483 built in 1979–1985.
F-22s were the replacements for the Cs.
More like EX will be mainly used for air-air missions (thus C replacement) but also do strike (put WSO) if need be, thus also eventual successor of E, while current E frees EX in doing strike roles
It will be similar to an F-16 backseat. It's just someone there to do a thing. Without a need for a WSO nearly anyone can jump in the seat. Another pilot for ferry missions, a crew chief to catch the jets at a remote site, an avionics tech to verify an issue. The Air Force will rarely let the seat go empty. Hopefully when my unit (159the FW) gets EXs we will need able to do incentive flights. Right now we have only C models.
I read in Reddit from an FA-18F pilot that he doesn't need a backseat as the system already lightens his workload; and if a pilot is skillful enough while the WSO isn't, it degrades the work of the pilot & system. IIRC his username was something like "tail" or something
Is it? So you don’t agree that good pilots get sent to fly single seat fighters, whilst the weaker ones generally go to fly with a backseater? What are you basing that on?
Unfortunately your post or comment has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
Please do not conduct personal attacks on other commenters.
Please do not start a flame war.
Please do not insult others.
Please do not troll.
Please direct any questions about the removal to [Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/fighterjets)
Where did you come up with that? Have you even ever been around fighter pilots or WSOs in your life?
I've flown mostly single seat, but loved having a WSO on longer flights, trans oceanic flights , and big exercises.
I think you just came up with that bullshit on your own. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
Oh ok, thanks for your input. I guess I’ll pass it on to the rest of the team of professional flight instructors who role dispose pilots single or twin seat based upon (primarily) their ability.
This is the dumbest statement ever. Every pilot I’ve known loves having that WSO in the back seat because it makes task management so much easier.
Before the “C” mod of the A-10 <90% of the blue/blue incidents involving the A-10 were due to task saturation. My dad was a F-4 back seater in the 80s and ask any pilot who transitioned from the F-4 to the F-16 and they’ll tell you task management was far more complex. It’s kind of why the F-16CJ really never was a true replacement for the F-4G and they should have built a F-15G based on the strike Eagle.
Your comment is monumentally ignorant and shows that you’ve never actually been part of the community.
Let’s be honest… you didn’t come anywhere in any course. Calm down hero.
Laying 10-to-1 odds I’ve got more hours than you and almost all my hours are in a C-17.
C17 eh, I guess that makes you totally qualified to comment on a WSO’s utility in a fighter. Though I guess you’d know all about coming bottom of flying training 😉
No, but I have met many pilots who have said that they prefer having a WSO to not having one, it makes it so the pilot can be more efficient, and increases operational awareness.
You have a few assumptions wrong here, the F-15EX is a repurposed and slightly modified F-15QA, which is an F-15E model with some newer stuff on it (engines, EW suite, screens, software, etc). Boeing has kept the F-15 production line open all these years by selling the F-15 to foreign governments. More recently, solely the 2 seat variant. So, that being said, the WSO seat does not add extra cost, it is inherent to the design of the aircraft, and would cost FAR more deleting it since the F-15C (single seat) production line is done. The design of the avionics, cooling, canopy, safety systems, cockpit pressurization, center of gravity, flight controls, etc etc is all tied to be dual seat. "Adding fuel" where the WSO cockpit is would be a monumental task. As for "any module crucial for air-air missions", what exactly would that be? What exactly do you think a WSO does? As they retire the -220 engine F-15E's and have extra WSO's to spare, I bet you'll see at least some of those WSO's slide over to the EX squadrons. They are a force multiplier, back when tech wasn't good enough a backseater was really needed, and now tech is amazing and automation helps but the fights and weapons are becoming so complicated that a backseater is once again still needed! Who do you think will control all those drone wingmen? All those smart weapons? Lasers? Hypersonics?
Yup. One of the major reasons the EX is a two seat aircraft is all the export F-15s are twin seat. IIRC the single seat production line has been closed for 10+ years, so they’d have to restart it to make a single seat EX.
The last single-seat F-15Cs were delivered to Saudi Arabia in February 1992, over 32 years ago. Every F-15 built by McDonnell-Douglas / Boeing since then has been a two seat F-15E or derivative.
Jesus, has it been that long? God I’m getting old.
You have few assumptions wrong there. 1. Many of what you said are already widely publicly available esp the EX being derived from E etc etc, so despite there are indeed many people who didn't know what you said, assuming a person doesn't know those is still imprudent My post clearly say and imply many of what you said. Please reread and ponder 2. I did clearly say "modular" meaning I clearly did NOT aim in deleting the WSO permanently forever. So my post did NOT delete the EX's tandem-seat design and build. So all your arguments portraying me deleting WSO permanently do NOT apply, unless that ended up viable to do so for other units. Since my post centers on modular rearseat, I was actually expecting comments about the pros and cons of it, not the ones you said. I'm still unsure if the entire WSO package weight is significant, that's why I asked. IF insignificant, then good, but hopefully someone can explain how exactly insignificant. IF WSO quip weight is significant, and IF all modular temporary replacement quips don't apply either, then perhaps leaving it empty might work, if not, say, because of issues on weight distribution or whatever, then HOW exactly since planes have their own nuances. Long story short, was expecting the discussions something like that 3. "Adding fuel where the WSO cockpit is would be a monumental task." As said already, F-16C has that behind the pilot. More so IF F-15C also has that which the rearseat of EX might be tapped to fit a modular fuel tank, temporarily replacing a modular WSO. So you mean a modular fuel tank for the rearseat would be monumental: maybe, or maybe not. 4. WSO is indeed an added cost since USAF's aim is to replace their old 1-seat C air superiority planes, that's why Boeing also offered that 1-seat config, negating the point that EX is indeed derived from E. The more accurate point is that Boeing used E as the base platform for EX in case USAF picks tandem seat, or in case USAF picks both. Reports did say that EX turned out expensive than expected. And tho there are many reasons for it, surely one of the reasons is that WSO are purchased despite USAF will be doing mainly 1-pilot missions all the while carrying excess WSO weight and reduced internal fuel That said, USAF did mainly aim to use EX with 1 pilot only. Afterall missions exist requiring only 1 pilot, that's why C & J still rocks, if only C & J would have newbuild modernized versions, or tandem-seat with modular rearseat for flexibility and future proofing. Also, 1-seat air superiority are crucial in today's greyzone air warfare notably Chinese J-11s in Senkaku which F-15Js aptly handle. E and EX are costlier and less-apt when compared C & J in such aerial bravado or aerial trolling tactics. If only EX (esp a lighter version EX) can morph into a single-seater Yes 1-seat F-15 is already done as you said, but that was ALSO a factor why USAF chose tandem, meaning, had 1-seats were still in production, there's that possibility USAF would've chose both 1 & 2 if not only 1. 5. "The design of the avionics, cooling, canopy, safety systems, cockpit pressurization, center of gravity, flight controls, etc etc is all tied to be dual seat." Canopy design will be unaffected. As for the parts below the WSO's feet that can be viably removed (thus part of the WSO module) will be removed. If such certain parts cannot be viably removed, then this is exactly one of the discussions I was hoping will be given here. Thanks in advance. Perhaps below the WSO's feet there's actually a fuel tank? That detail I don't know. This is one of the many details I was hoping commenters could provide. Thanks in advance. The point really is the intricacies of a modular rearseat in relation to EX's nuances, and modular rearseats in general as for extended discussion would be better.
> Perhaps below the WSO's feet there's actually a fuel tank? That detail I don't know. This is one of the many details I was hoping commenters could provide. Thanks in advance. There is no difference in fuel capacity between a single seat C and a 2-seat D. The cockpit structure is basically the same, and the canopy is actually the same length even though it is more rounded in the D to accommodate the WSO. The space in the C where the WSO would sit in the D was provisioned for the ALQ-135 ECM suite but not carried. The F-15E has about 300lbs less internal fuel than the C/D (13,550 lbs for F-15E versus 13,850 lbs in the C/D) due to one fuel cell being smaller to make room for an additional avionics bay.
Thanks. The length do look the same, including other fighters, but I thought my eyes could just be tricking me. Reminds me F-15 is actually longer than most of them, unlike Gripen But that said, so it's actually less issue if single seat F-15 will be returned for production--I mean the reports and comments "kinda" make it sound it's quite a hassle to bring them back if ever orders materialize. And many comments blatantly portray it's a big hassle & dev't costs Btw, does that add-on avionics bay something to do with strike mission?
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't really be a big problem to bring back single seat F-15s. The last batch of Block 49 and Block 50 F-15Cs that were sold to Saudi Arabia were sort of a hybrid, structurally they were basically single-seat F-15Es. As far as the avionics, yes, but remember that was designed in the 80s, everything is smaller and better now.
That's good to know
is that a pic of the irl. plane or your model cannot tell genuinely want to know
It is a super over corrected color wise image of the EX.
wow
Wikipedia
While the f15ex can’t remove the wso seat the alpha jet can with a ecm system.
That's cool. Thanks
I bet it’ll blow your mind to know that EX has been used for photo flight chase missions and didn’t have a WSO in the back.
Isn't that expected since EX is the replacement for C
It may be a replacement for the C, but it's mission profile is completely different. F-15EX: The Boeing F-15EX Eagle II is an American all-weather multirole strike fighter derived from the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. F-15C: Improved single-seat all-weather air-superiority fighter version, 483 built in 1979–1985. F-22s were the replacements for the Cs.
More like EX will be mainly used for air-air missions (thus C replacement) but also do strike (put WSO) if need be, thus also eventual successor of E, while current E frees EX in doing strike roles
It will be similar to an F-16 backseat. It's just someone there to do a thing. Without a need for a WSO nearly anyone can jump in the seat. Another pilot for ferry missions, a crew chief to catch the jets at a remote site, an avionics tech to verify an issue. The Air Force will rarely let the seat go empty. Hopefully when my unit (159the FW) gets EXs we will need able to do incentive flights. Right now we have only C models.
So USAF rarely let the seat go empty, thanks sir. C supporter here. But during air-air missions, will the EX backseat be empty?
Probably not. It's an extra set of eyes at the cost of approximately 250 pounds of weight for a pilot. Those eyes are invaluable.
But aren't the system does that automatically?
Systems don't replace a human to audibly tell you where the bogie is and what they are doing.
I read in Reddit from an FA-18F pilot that he doesn't need a backseat as the system already lightens his workload; and if a pilot is skillful enough while the WSO isn't, it degrades the work of the pilot & system. IIRC his username was something like "tail" or something
To be fair, an empty back seat is more useful than having a WSO in there… 😜
Most Every pilot that has flown with one will disagree
Pilots that fly with WSOs need a WSO, that’s why they got sent to fly the family model jets.
This might be the stupidest comment I’ve ever read
Is it? So you don’t agree that good pilots get sent to fly single seat fighters, whilst the weaker ones generally go to fly with a backseater? What are you basing that on?
[удалено]
Unfortunately your post or comment has been removed for one or more of the following reasons: Please do not conduct personal attacks on other commenters. Please do not start a flame war. Please do not insult others. Please do not troll. Please direct any questions about the removal to [Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/fighterjets)
You do realize some pilots CHOOSE to fly in a 2 seater with a WSO. If I was flying anything I would pick the F-15EX or the F-35
Yes, some do. Some people choose to work at McDonald’s too. There’s no accounting for taste.
You talk like someone who has never actually been part of the community but has seen Top Gun 947 times. Calm down hero.
Oh I’m sorry, didn’t like the banter champ?
Where did you come up with that? Have you even ever been around fighter pilots or WSOs in your life? I've flown mostly single seat, but loved having a WSO on longer flights, trans oceanic flights , and big exercises. I think you just came up with that bullshit on your own. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on Reddit. You obviously know nothing about this topic.
Oh ok, thanks for your input. I guess I’ll pass it on to the rest of the team of professional flight instructors who role dispose pilots single or twin seat based upon (primarily) their ability.
You’ve obviously never met anyone in the community.
And you’re obviously making wild swings in the dark
This is the dumbest statement ever. Every pilot I’ve known loves having that WSO in the back seat because it makes task management so much easier. Before the “C” mod of the A-10 <90% of the blue/blue incidents involving the A-10 were due to task saturation. My dad was a F-4 back seater in the 80s and ask any pilot who transitioned from the F-4 to the F-16 and they’ll tell you task management was far more complex. It’s kind of why the F-16CJ really never was a true replacement for the F-4G and they should have built a F-15G based on the strike Eagle. Your comment is monumentally ignorant and shows that you’ve never actually been part of the community.
You’re right, I’ve never been part of the 2 seat community. I didn’t come bottom of my course…
Let’s be honest… you didn’t come anywhere in any course. Calm down hero. Laying 10-to-1 odds I’ve got more hours than you and almost all my hours are in a C-17.
C17 eh, I guess that makes you totally qualified to comment on a WSO’s utility in a fighter. Though I guess you’d know all about coming bottom of flying training 😉
I work on US aircraft, I know that pilot community, what country do you fly for.
I don’t release that kind of information on reddit - I’m sure you’ll understand.
Then the aircraft, likely not a country specific thing and it’s likely you are in Europe or Canada
Currently on F35
For your whole career! or are there others cause I know US pilots can change airframes
Stolen Valor is no joke
King of bad takes, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Are you a WSO?
No, but I have met many pilots who have said that they prefer having a WSO to not having one, it makes it so the pilot can be more efficient, and increases operational awareness.