Forum: Technology

Does the F-15C being equipped with the new APG-63(v)3 AESA Radar have good odds beating new 4.5 Generation Fighters in the BVR Arena???

F-16.net Sponsor

does anyone know if the v3 is good against EA? (without getting too in the weeds) that seems to me to be the big question here.

Depends on who gets first look, which is kind of hard to tell given the different RCS's, radar power outputs, and EW. I think it's likely both aircraft will detect each other outside maximum engagement range, so it depends on the missile who gets to shoot first. If they both have AMRAAMs... well which one is the luckiest?

The F-15 has very good range and a large aperture. While some will whine about it, the fact is that an AESA plane should beat a non-AESA plane. The F-15 has lots of wing and engine to lug stuff like CFT's, drop tanks and pods. What is so interesting (and galling to some) is that a 30+ year design is highly competitive, especially in BVR, with much newer stuff.

The real question should not be 1v1 against 4.5's but which plane is best in expeditionary warfare against a foe with A2A capability. The plane will be deployed to wherever is willing to host coalition planes that is within range of the enemy. The plane will then take off and orbit as CAP until AWACS guides them to the target. At that time they need to accelerate and detect the enemy on their own. The F-15, especially with AESA, looks really good in that scenario. The F-22 is better, the F-35 is better, but is anything else hands down better?

shingen wrote:

The F-15 has very good range and a large aperture. While some will whine about it, the fact is that an AESA plane should beat a non-AESA plane. The F-15 has lots of wing and engine to lug stuff like CFT's, drop tanks and pods. What is so interesting (and galling to some) is that a 30+ year design is highly competitive, especially in BVR, with much newer stuff.

The real question should not be 1v1 against 4.5's but which plane is best in expeditionary warfare against a foe with A2A capability. The plane will be deployed to wherever is willing to host coalition planes that is within range of the enemy. The plane will then take off and orbit as CAP until AWACS guides them to the target. At that time they need to accelerate and detect the enemy on their own. The F-15, especially with AESA, looks really good in that scenario. The F-22 is better, the F-35 is better, but is anything else hands down better?

Well, many of the Flanker Supporters talk about its low speed and high angle of attack agility. Does that mean much against the F-15C with Advance AESA Radars and HOBS???

shingen wrote:

What is so interesting (and galling to some) is that a 30+ year design is highly competitive, especially in BVR, with much newer stuff.

The reason the 30 year old design is still competitive is that it was designed from the outset for low wing loading and high thrust to weight and was the first aircraft designed as such.

so while the F-15A was a 7.33 G airframe at combat weight, the rest of the world was operating aircraft that were in the 6 G regime (later A models and all C/D/E models are 9 G rated).

While the rest of the world had fighters with T/W of .5-.65 the Eagle showed up with a 1.1. Now after installed losses, dynamic pressure gains, altitude losses, and airframe drag the Eagle cannot accelerate straight up. It can however out climb/accelerate/turn the competition.

It was designed to be able to engage 4 targets at one time, a feat that would have required the use of the Phoenix missile (which was loooked at IIRC but deemed too heavy) but it had to wait untill the advent of the AMRAAM to utilise it.

Now the F-15C still uses the F100-PW-220 rated at 23,800 lbt (give or take) so several newer fighters have a superior T/W ratio. The Strike Eagle shows us that the Eagle can handle the F100-PW-229 rated for 29,600 lbt, which would give the Eagle 11,600 lbt and a Combat weight (6AIM-120, 2 Aim-9 75% int fuel) T/W ratio of 1.45/ Why dont they do this? because there has not been a need to and engines cost money.

Let me guess, for the same money you can probably pay for the whole Golden Eagle upgrade... and more?

The Golden Eagle upgrade is a great idea for the airframes that still have time left in them. F-15Cs have already demonstrated Structural compromise. It may be better to apply the Golden Eagle upgrades to the F-15E, as they are already slated for AESA radars to give them potent BVR capability with simultaneous precision ground strike, and JHMCS with AIM-9X to help them compensate for the lost turning capability due to their heavier weight. Now if you could integrate EODAS into the front and rear of each CFT (looking out and fore/aft) as well as two on the dorsal side of the AC to look up and fore/aft that would further increase the SA and combat effectiveness of the Strike Eagle.

I'm currently assessing that about 75 F-15C could potentially be airframe and economically viable for upgrading. The E's are reportedly going to get similar upgrades too (between now and 2025 at least), although the current public info on all total upgrade plans is limited.

Interestingly, F-15SE's first flight is expected to fly by end of next month. Anyone want to bet this variant will not become part of tomorrow's USAF 'mixed' recapitalization?

the SE is actually going to fly?

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Could the F-15Cs be equipped with the F110-GE-100 of the F-16Cs block 30/40s when they are retired, for their last few years? If not, could the F110-GE-100 be given to the F-16s block 52s and the F100-PW-229 to the F-15s?

I read once that they have tested the -229 on the F-15C and that they could supercruise up to Mach 1.3.

Does anybody know if the JDRADM will be compatible with the standard AMRAAM launchers and ejectors?

Forum: Technology

AESA F-15 vs 4.5 Gen Fighters