F-15C the latest Eagle avionics update

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 01:33

marsavian wrote:For pure air defense where it is the primary aim to intercept long range strike aircraft and the missiles they release the F-15X is probably more suited than the F-35. In a clean natural state it is a Mach 2+ aircraft with greater supersonic acceleration than F-35. With CFTs and EFTs it will have more range and endurance and it will be able to carry more missiles. It also has a bigger AESA antenna as well as a more modern Legion IRST. In the air superiority role it could hang with F-22 at high altitude that could send target tracks to it when it gets Link 16 transmit capability. It just could not fly over IADs that have not been neutralized but you won't find many of those over the Sea where it will probably do most of its operating.


If you really want to get silly you could put bags or CFT on F-35s too (and then likewise claim you have better combat range and performance ... phft!). We all know why that's a terrible idea for a penetrating strike fighter. It adds range and takes away agility, adds drag (oh yes it does), decreases available weapon weight and available weapon stations decreases survivability against SAMs, and then takes away the ability to do a wide range of missions, without many much more expensive independently operating (autonomous) standoff weapons and a separate ISR support, etc. Which are all backward steps.

It's incredible that anyone who could buy F-35 would even considering buying a severely modified less capable and more expensive F-15X at this point. What are they going to do, fly it into a high-end battle in 2050 with the good ol' A-10? Use it as a pure bomb truck? What's the point?

In 2025, 20 x F-35A fight could be configured to carry 24 SDBII per aircraft (480 attack weapons) and be escorted by a flight of 4 x F-35A (i.e. 36 x AAM plus 8 x anti-radiation). And those 20 attack configured F-35A still have speed, power and fuel performance plus 2 internal AAM each, plus 2 external AAM each for another 80 x BVR AAMs.

In total it's ...

116 x AAMs
8 x anti-radiation missiles
480 standoff PGM (maximum)

24 aircraft (which of course would be configured with any weapon mix needed).

So what's the advantage of having F-15X festooned with AAMs again? And has anything approaching 116 AAMs ever been used in a squadron scale attack? The 4 x F-35A escorts alone would be sufficient to suppress SAMs and fighters for the mission. And if not as the attack weapons come away the other F-35s are freed to fight with AAM as well. Good luck with that lot.

A new F-15X type is just another glorified "... back of the bus ..." capability from here.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 02:03

mixelflick wrote:That and presumably it would stand shoulder to shoulder with the F-22 as a flying magazine.


I have a hard time seeing how this hopey concept even works in tactical practice without F-15X being detected and fired at first, and either made to go defensive or extend (pointing the wrong way, not meeting the launch parameters, not useful) or perhaps get shot down. Certainly the F-15 would be the first to be targeted by a SAM and will give the game away to early warning and tracking systems.

Horrible concept - it's more like a salesman's best pitch and it's a stinker.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 02:11

element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:That and presumably it would stand shoulder to shoulder with the F-22 as a flying magazine.


I have a hard time seeing how this hopey concept even works in tactical practice without F-15X being detected and fired at first, and either made to go defensive or extend (pointing the wrong way, not meeting the launch parameters, not useful) or perhaps get shot down. Certainly the F-15 would be the first to be targeted by a SAM and will give the game away to early warning and tracking systems.

Horrible concept - it's more like a salesman's best pitch and it's a stinker.



Existing US Fighter can already carry a large number of missiles. This honestly is nothing but a gimmick......


"IMHO"
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 02:17

Frankly this whole thing looks like an attempt to apply on-going downwards competitive price pressures on LM, than any sort of serious desire to buy new F-15 squadrons.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 02:28

element1loop wrote:
For pure air defense where it is the primary aim to intercept long range strike aircraft and the missiles they release the F-15X is probably more suited than the F-35. In a clean natural state it is a Mach 2+ aircraft with greater supersonic acceleration than F-35. With CFTs and EFTs it will have more range and endurance and it will be able to carry more missiles. It also has a bigger AESA antenna as well as a more modern Legion IRST. In the air superiority role it could hang with F-22 at high altitude that could send target tracks to it when it gets Link 16 transmit capability. It just could not fly over IADs that have not been neutralized but you won't find many of those over the Sea where it will probably do most of its operating.


If you really want to get silly you could put bags or CFT on F-35s too (and then likewise claim you have better combat range and performance ... phft!). We all know why that's a terrible idea for a penetrating strike fighter. It adds range and takes away agility, adds drag (oh yes it does), decreases available weapon weight and available weapon stations decreases survivability against SAMs, and then takes away the ability to do a wide range of missions, without many much more expensive independently operating (autonomous) standoff weapons and a separate ISR support, etc. Which are all backward steps.



Actually this is the problem many make comparing the Strike Eagle vs the Lightning. As while the former has a higher MTOW. To get any load any distance. You usually have to carry both CFT's and EFT's. Yet, they don't come for free. You have to subtract the number of weapons, weight, fuel, and drag for them. Which, is substantial to say the least.

In short a fully loaded F-15E with 5- 2,000 lbs PGM's (bombs) is at gross. While, an F-35A/C with "6" such weapons is not...

So, on paper while the Strike Eagle stated payload in higher than the F-35. In the real world it is not or at least in most cases.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 03:09

F-15E fuel load

F-15 Internal 13,455 lb
3 x 600 US Gal 13,770 lb
2 x CFT 750 US Gal 9,825 lb
TOTAL FUEL = 37,050 lb

Remaining weapon payload = 9,750 lb

Max weapons and full fuel MTOW P:W
Dry-Thrust @ 100% fuel = 0.431
AB-Thrust @ 100% fuel = 0.716

So it only has ~40% of the available weapon payload of an F-35A’s potential, and it does not have spectacular power to weight performance in that condition. And when it's that dirty, it’s not going to keep up with the cruise speed of an F-35A, without setting for a positively fuel-guzzling throttle setting, so there goes its range advantage as well, so what advantage does F-15E have over an F-35A?

I just don’t see anything I’d prefer to have within an F-15X upgrade. If it's an argument on performance and combat merits the F-35 wins rather easily and obviously. Then F-35 is cheaper.

The only merit here is an option to supply US strike fighters to countries that can't get approval to buy F-35.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 03:22

element1loop wrote:F-15E fuel load

F-15 Internal 13,455 lb
3 x 600 US Gal 13,770 lb
2 x CFT 750 US Gal 9,825 lb
TOTAL FUEL = 37,050 lb

Remaining weapon payload = 9,750 lb

Max weapons and full fuel MTOW P:W
Dry-Thrust @ 100% fuel = 0.431
AB-Thrust @ 100% fuel = 0.716

So it only has ~40% of the available weapon payload of an F-35A’s potential, and it does not have spectacular power to weight performance in that condition. And when it's that dirty, it’s not going to keep up with the cruise speed of an F-35A, without setting for a positively fuel-guzzling throttle setting, so there goes its range advantage as well, so what advantage does F-15E have over an F-35A?

I just don’t see anything I’d prefer to have within an F-15X upgrade. If it's an argument on performance and combat merits the F-35 wins rather easily and obviously. Then F-35 is cheaper.

The only merit here is an option to supply US strike fighters to countries that can't get approval to buy F-35.



Yes, this idea that a "dirty" F-15 has superior performance over a dirty F-35. Is just another one of the many "misconceptions" when comparing 4th Generation Fighters with 5th Generation Fighters. Especially, in the case of the F-35 Lightning.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests