F-15X as an interceptor

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

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2208
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 04:47

It's a shame we don't just lease the 100 surplus Typhoon T1's from the UK. I hear they come cheap.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3192
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 15:12

The only real solution to the F-15C dilemma is to build more F-35's.

That's it. It's cheaper, far more capable and will only cost less to fly (per hour) as time goes on. More importantly, it will remain relevant for the next 20/30 years, unlike the F-15EX that'll be obsolete the minute its built. So unless and until USAF decides these F-15EX won't be leaving the US where it'll perform air policing, they're a lousy investment.

And I'm a BIG F-15 fan..
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 16:14

I believe the F-35 will eventually replace the F-15EX, just decades down the line near the end of its intended production line.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 19:47

marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote: Most contacts are Bears and Blackjacks and their possible offensive missiles or rogue civilian aircraft. Something as rangey and ultimately fast (when stripped down) as the F-15EX is probably better suited than the F-35 for this policing type job.


Cruise missile defense with the F-22 + AWACS involves the F-22 supercruising to a position where
it can come in beam aspect on the cruise missiles in order to give its own radar and the
active RF missiles a reasonable chance against CMs with any amount of signature reduction.

The F-15EX can't do this kinematically or safely since it would have to contend with enemy fighters
echeloned behind the cruise missile raid...or the "raid" of cheap decoys that the enemy has launched hoping to
lure out your fighters.

There are no AWACS attached to ANG units and no persistent OTH detection capability that would permit
an F-15EX to intercept a Bear or Blackjack before they could launch.

That really just leaves air policing against civilian aircraft for which an armed version of the new trainer
is a far better fit. Or the F-16s from the squadrons that convert from the F-35. Or the F-35s that aren't
FMC.


Bears/Blackjacks are usually detected/tracked/followed by NATO assets when they leave Russia. Any non stealth fighters and tankers with them will also be noted. Yes, F-22 will have an easier job of intercepting cruise missiles with its supercruise and stealth although F-15 does have a bigger AESA and an IRST to perhaps better track them. In Spurts models an F-15/APG-82 would get a first look/shoot opportunity against an Su-35 so it has all the non stealth opposition well covered from long BVR range. The only problems would be Su-57/J-20 and that would depend primarily how well EPAWSS could detect their AESAs to allow F-15EX to either take evasive positions away from their Radar/IRST or to start jamming them. Obviously the low RCS of the opposition would mean having to get closer then they would like to prosecute good guided AMRAAM shots.

The biggest downside would be either facing enemy AWACS or Ground/Sea search radar with 360 degree radar as they will be spotted at range and then targeted by accompanying fighters. However if it's facing incoming long range bombers/interceptors over the Sea or following in after F-35 over land those risks would be minimised. I don't buy the common belief that F-15EX would be helpless against J-20/Su-57 but it would have to work much harder but it all depends on how well EPAWSS works against them. BAE who are building EPAWSS also built the F-35 AN/ASQ-239 which detected and jammed the F-22 APG-77. If it can repeat the same trick against the Chinese/Russian AESAs then the odds get much shorter.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 21:06

madrat wrote:It's a shame we don't just lease the 100 surplus Typhoon T1's from the UK. I hear they come cheap.


UK is keeping their tranche 1’s in service till circa-2030. Germany has a bunch that are basically grounded for want of upgrades, and ex-Austrian airframes are somewhere. Would be perfect, but also a pipe dream. Unpalatable to Congressional districts with Boeing or L-M presence, and lack of available spares. UK is cannibalizing some T1’s to keep others in service.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4184
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 21:10

marsavian wrote:BAE who are building EPAWSS also built the F-35 AN/ASQ-239 which detected and jammed the F-22 APG-77. If it can repeat the same trick against the Chinese/Russian AESAs then the odds get much shorter.

Remember that jamming effectiveness is related to the size of the RCS being hidden. For now, I do not assume anything other than Barracuda or AN/ALR-94 can jam an F-22. I just wouldn't bet on it.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 689
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 21:55

marsavian wrote:BAE who are building EPAWSS also built the F-35 AN/ASQ-239 which detected and jammed the F-22 APG-77.


When?

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Remember that jamming effectiveness is related to the size of the RCS being hidden.


That only applies to noise jamming. Not deception jamming.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4184
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 22:26

marauder2048 wrote:That only applies to noise jamming. Not deception jamming.

And the jamming method you would use to jam a radar that changes PRF, power, frequency, and waveform in a random manner a thousand times a second would be?

noise.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 689
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 22:50

marsavian wrote:Bears/Blackjacks are usually detected/tracked/followed by NATO assets when they leave Russia.


Which assets? And how would that help with CONUS?

By the time any fighter could reach them they've launched their payload.

marsavian wrote:and an IRST to perhaps better track them.


Only a devious enemy would choose to launch his cruise missile raid in conditions where IRST performance is degraded.
And that would only be within the forward hemisphere which isn't so useful against leakers or azimuth raids.

Almost like you would want a spherical IIR capability. Hmm....

marsavian wrote:In Spurts models an F-15/APG-82 would get a first look/shoot opportunity against an Su-35 so it has all the non stealth opposition well covered from long BVR range.


How? The Su-35, like every fighter except the F-15EX built in the last 30 years, has some actual frontal signature reduction for the airframe and the weapons. The F-15EX has none whatsoever. And it has no infrared treatment whatsoever
so in practically any IR detection battle it loses. The F-15EX has a huge frontal and side skin area which is awful for infrared signature and its altitude for max radius is too low to permit sufficient cooling due to ambient.


marsavian wrote:The only problems would be Su-57/J-20 and that would depend primarily how well EPAWSS could detect their AESAs to allow F-15EX to either take evasive positions away from their Radar/IRST or to start jamming them.


Why would the Su-57/J-20/J-31 need to emit? The F-15EX is a huge, hot target.

And there's nothing preventing the stealth birds from operating bi-statically (one of the points of stealthy data links)
especially since even very low power settings are sufficient against the F-15EX.

marsavian wrote:Obviously the low RCS of the opposition would mean having to get closer then they would like to prosecute good guided AMRAAM shots.


As opposed to unguided AMRAAM shots?

marsavian wrote:The biggest downside would be either facing enemy AWACS or Ground/Sea search radar with 360 degree radar as they will be spotted at range and then targeted by accompanying fighters.


Translation: in any realistic expeditionary employment mode against a high-end threat it has huge downside.

marsavian wrote:However if it's facing incoming long range bombers/interceptors over the Sea or following in after F-35 over land those risks would be minimised.


I don't see how given that at sea you want MWIR so unless the F-15EX is carrying two pods or the
IRST became dual-band and I didn't get the memo...

marsavian wrote:I don't buy the common belief that F-15EX would be helpless against J-20/Su-57 but it would have to work much harder but it all depends on how well EPAWSS works against them.


The F-15C wasn't helpless against the Flanker either but the exchange ratios were pretty unfavorable.
Staking the utility of a very expensive F-15EX with the worst signature of any fighter in serial production
on a towed decoy and self-protection jammer is questionable; the Israelis did the same thing with the
lower signature F-16I and there's a debris field in Northern Israel to show for it.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 689
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 22:54

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:That only applies to noise jamming. Not deception jamming.

And the jamming method you would use to jam a radar that changes PRF, power, frequency, and waveform in a random manner a thousand times a second would be?

noise.


A predictive DRFM jammer. Or at worse, a pulse-behind DRFM jammer.

But somehow this extremely pulse, PRF, frequency and waveform agile threat radar was picked up
by your ESM in the first place.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1041
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 22:56

Guys, guys, guys, if everybody does his/her job properly then :

- Stealth is mandatory on the first day of a war.
- It becomes more and more optional when you move down the first week.
- It is NO requirement from the second week and onwards.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4184
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 23:07

marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:That only applies to noise jamming. Not deception jamming.

And the jamming method you would use to jam a radar that changes PRF, power, frequency, and waveform in a random manner a thousand times a second would be?

noise.


A predictive DRFM jammer. Or at worse, a pulse-behind DRFM jammer.

But somehow this extremely pulse, PRF, frequency and waveform agile threat radar was picked up
by your ESM in the first place.

A sensitive enough receiver can tell it is being painted (especially if the host radar operates in a similar manner) but may not necessarily be fast enough to send a lagging signal. Plus the host radar could simply ignore a lagging return. That is an existing ECCM function. I am going to discount "predictive" as being countered 95% by the "random" nature of the Radar. So, that leaves us with noise (Barrage, or Sweep most likely) as the best bet to jam the return.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 23:40

marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:BAE who are building EPAWSS also built the F-35 AN/ASQ-239 which detected and jammed the F-22 APG-77.


When?


http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20110117#!&pid=20

Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may already be operational. In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., In 2009, Lockheed Martin's CATbird avionics testbed-a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's entire avionics system-engaged a mixed-force of F-22s and Boeing F-15s and was able to locate and jam F22 radars, according to researchers. Raytheon's family of X-band airborne AESA radar-in particular, those upgraded F-15Cs stationed in Okinawa-can detect small, low-signature cruise missiles.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 00:10

marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:Bears/Blackjacks are usually detected/tracked/followed by NATO assets when they leave Russia.


Which assets? And how would that help with CONUS?

Norway, UK, Iceland. If it's coming over the Atlantic it will be spotted.

By the time any fighter could reach them they've launched their payload.

marsavian wrote:and an IRST to perhaps better track them.


Only a devious enemy would choose to launch his cruise missile raid in conditions where IRST performance is degraded.
And that would only be within the forward hemisphere which isn't so useful against leakers or azimuth raids.

Almost like you would want a spherical IIR capability. Hmm....

marsavian wrote:In Spurts models an F-15/APG-82 would get a first look/shoot opportunity against an Su-35 so it has all the non stealth opposition well covered from long BVR range.


How? The Su-35, like every fighter except the F-15EX built in the last 30 years, has some actual frontal signature reduction for the airframe and the weapons. The F-15EX has none whatsoever.

Based on APG-82 vs Irbis-E, AESA vs PESA. Su-35 frontal RCS reduction is based on RAM on the exposed inlets and some sensor shape modification not enough to make up for the radar difference IMO but you could be right.

And it has no infrared treatment whatsoever so in practically any IR detection battle it loses. The F-15EX has a huge frontal and side skin area which is awful for infrared signature and its altitude for max radius is too low to permit sufficient cooling due to ambient.

IRST21 vs OLS-35 might even that up again.

marsavian wrote:The only problems would be Su-57/J-20 and that would depend primarily how well EPAWSS could detect their AESAs to allow F-15EX to either take evasive positions away from their Radar/IRST or to start jamming them.


Why would the Su-57/J-20/J-31 need to emit? The F-15EX is a huge, hot target.

And there's nothing preventing the stealth birds from operating bi-statically (one of the points of stealthy data links)
especially since even very low power settings are sufficient against the F-15EX.

marsavian wrote:Obviously the low RCS of the opposition would mean having to get closer then they would like to prosecute good guided AMRAAM shots.


As opposed to unguided AMRAAM shots?

marsavian wrote:The biggest downside would be either facing enemy AWACS or Ground/Sea search radar with 360 degree radar as they will be spotted at range and then targeted by accompanying fighters.


Translation: in any realistic expeditionary employment mode against a high-end threat it has huge downside.

marsavian wrote:However if it's facing incoming long range bombers/interceptors over the Sea or following in after F-35 over land those risks would be minimised.


I don't see how given that at sea you want MWIR so unless the F-15EX is carrying two pods or the
IRST became dual-band and I didn't get the memo...

marsavian wrote:I don't buy the common belief that F-15EX would be helpless against J-20/Su-57 but it would have to work much harder but it all depends on how well EPAWSS works against them.


The F-15C wasn't helpless against the Flanker either but the exchange ratios were pretty unfavorable.
Staking the utility of a very expensive F-15EX with the worst signature of any fighter in serial production
on a towed decoy and self-protection jammer is questionable; the Israelis did the same thing with the
lower signature F-16I and there's a debris field in Northern Israel to show for it.

Was that recently in Syria and wasn't the pilot publicly admonished for not utilizing all his defensive equipment like his colleagues ?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5394
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 00:48

Many in the US Congress still oppose the F-15EX. In addition the Democrats want a much smaller Defense Budget. This would make a long-term buy of the F-15EX questionable at best.


So, it's still very much up in the air. :wink:
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests