Israel Pays for Additional F-35s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6896
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Dec 2019, 05:51

marsavian wrote:In Israel's real world enemies are between 10 to 1000 miles away with any combination in between. The F-15 can use its absolutely proven higher speed or range or payload for useful war purposes in that environment. It could reach Mach 2.5 over its territory, Mach 2 with CFT to intercept incoming aircraft/missiles. It could use twice the fuel the F-35 carries to bomb further into Iraq/Iran. The fact that they want new F-15s and wish to modernize their old ones to the same standard should clue you up that the F-35 is not the answer to every military problem. Or rather it would do if you wasn't so obviously a blatant F-35 lobbyist.



Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about..... :doh:


No, production representative F-15 has ever came close to Mach 2.5 Nor can a combat loaded one with CFT reach speeds remotely close to Mach 2. Hell, most F-15 pilots never exceed Mach 1.4 - 1.5 during their entire careers.


The issue with the F-15 like all 4/4.5 Generation Fighters. Is they must carry everything externally. In addition they don't have much internal fuel in most cases. This means you have to sacrifice payload for more fuel. The latter comes at a big performance cost....


A good example that I have posted many times is this F-15E with a load of 4- Air to Air Missiles, 5- 2,000 lbs Bombs, CFT's, 2-External Fuel Tanks, plus the usual Target/Nav Pods. Under such a load the F-15E would be at "GROSS WEIGHT".

F15E.jpg



The F-35A/C on the other hand doesn't need all that external fuel and weapons. Hell, it carriers a third of those weapons internally. (less drag) As a matter of fact in this comparison. The F-35 could actually carry another 2,000 lbs class weapon vs the F-15 Eagle and still be a few thousand pounds under gross. It could also exceed the speed of sound in such a configuration...






F35CGBU31.jpg
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4157
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Dec 2019, 13:41

marsavian wrote:In Israel's real world enemies are between 10 to 1000 miles away with any combination in between. The F-15 can use its absolutely proven higher speed or range or payload for useful war purposes in that environment. It could reach Mach 2.5 over its territory, Mach 2 with CFT to intercept incoming aircraft/missiles. It could use twice the fuel the F-35 carries to bomb further into Iraq/Iran. The fact that they want new F-15s and wish to modernize their old ones to the same standard should clue you up that the F-35 is not the answer to every military problem. Or rather it would do if you wasn't so obviously a blatant F-35 lobbyist.


You really should spend some time with F-15 pilots. Failing that, chat with some the next time an airshow comes to your neck of the woods.

The F-15 is a fine aircraft. Actually, fine would be an understatement. But you are citing brochure numbers for which no operational F-15 has ever even come close. Your comments about using twice the fuel vs. the F-35 to bomb further into Iran stands in direct contrast to F-35 PILOTS who cite the fact they have much greater range. See discussion here at around the 16 minute mark, where its PILOTS compare it very favorably to an F-15C with 2 bags..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTgDTC8_PM0

Mach 2 with CFT's? Never once have I heard of it achieving such, even in early test birds. If you have a source for that, I'm all ears. The PILOTS I've spoken to tell me that while CFT drag isn't too bad at subsonic speeds, its an absolute albatross when going supersonic.

I have a feeling you know all this already and are trolling, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you're young and just learning about this topic now? In that event, its tempting to believe everything you read. A healthy dose of critical thinking and questioning assumptions though are your friends. Hang with them long enough, and you start to realize quoted max speeds, altitudes, plasma stealth and 100% missile PK's aren't really true.

I do agree with you on one point: The F-35 isn't the best solution to every problem presented by modern military aviation. But the world isn't so black and white. Sometimes, good enough is the best you can do. In today's world of shrinking budgets, good enough isn't just the best solution - it's the only one.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Dec 2019, 18:15

Mach 2 with CFT's? Never once have I heard of it achieving such, even in early test birds.


You obviously don't look at manufacturers flight test graphs

viewtopic.php?p=408876#p408876

Image

The combat radius of the F-15EX is a maximum of 1100nm, with loiter 1000nm, which is 300-400nm more than a F-35. Spurts confirmed that with CFT and EFT the less fuel efficient -229 US F-15E could get close to these numbers but certainly further than F-35. Even with drag penalties having twice the total fuel will get you further.

viewtopic.php?p=415749#p415749

Image
Image

Yes external stores add drag but so does a fat airframe designed to carry 2klb weapons internally and a STOVL lift fan like an F-35. The Iranians got much closer to the brochure limits of the F-14 than the USN because fuel was not an issue as they were defending their territory and had tankers standing close by so they could be heavy on the gas pedal. The Israelis would have similar easier restrictions so they could configure their F--15s to optimize any flight parameter they wanted whether it be speed, range or payload. US aircraft abroad invariably have to act at considerable range or carry payloads to have considerable strategic effect leading to the Desert Storm type payloads but that does not mean that all F-15s are so restricted.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2549
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post22 Dec 2019, 21:03

Image

If I'm reading this chart correctly, this F-15E had to punch all external fuel tanks on a day 10°C colder than a Standard Day, to just tickle 2.0 Mach with CFT's, correct?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Dec 2019, 21:55

Correct or Mach 1.9 on a standard day, both with 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders. That's with 23 klb of fuel and a T/W greater than 1. So more missiles and more speed than a F-35 and with similar or slightly greater range even without EFTs.
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 00:26

On paper, Mach 1.9 with the F-15E with CFTs, 4 AIM-7s and 4 AIM-9s at 40K ft is possible.

The question is rather how likely is it ; the 1F-15E-1, figure B9-22 on page B9-29 shows a fuel flow of 1,300 lb/min to sustain Mach 1.8 at 40K ft, while figure B9-31 on page B9-38 shows it takes some 270 seconds to accelerate from 0.8M to 1.8M at that altitude and loadout, some 380 seconds to Mach 1.9. The fuel flow for these maximum thrust accelerations is likely above the 1,300 lb/min figure, so we're talking about at least 5,850 lb and 8,233 lb of fuel burned for these 2 dashes.

And a rough estimation of the distance covered during these dashes gives about 56nm and 88nm.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2763
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 00:36

viper12 wrote:On paper, Mach 1.9 with the F-15E with CFTs, 4 AIM-7s and 4 AIM-9s at 40K ft is possible.

The question is rather how likely is it ;


And this not to mention how survivable it will (not) be against near-future threats.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6896
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 00:47

marsavian wrote:
Mach 2 with CFT's? Never once have I heard of it achieving such, even in early test birds.


You obviously don't look at manufacturers flight test graphs


LOL The Manufacturers graph says it can go Mach 2.5 Which, we know isn't true in the real world. Just like it's never going to fly at the max gross weight either........


:doh:


All that matters is how the F-35A and F-15EX perform in the "Real World". :wink:
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 23 Dec 2019, 01:08, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6896
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 01:05

marsavian wrote:Correct or Mach 1.9 on a standard day, both with 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders. That's with 23 klb of fuel and a T/W greater than 1. So more missiles and more speed than a F-35 and with similar or slightly greater range even without EFTs.



Absurd.....


You realize the F-15EX carries ~ 13,500 lbs of internal fuel vs ~ 18,500 for the F-35A. Which, has far less drag and a more fuel efficient F135 Engine (vs two F100/F110's for the Eagle)
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 23 Dec 2019, 01:20, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6896
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 01:07

viper12 wrote:On paper, Mach 1.9 with the F-15E with CFTs, 4 AIM-7s and 4 AIM-9s at 40K ft is possible.

The question is rather how likely is it ; the 1F-15E-1, figure B9-22 on page B9-29 shows a fuel flow of 1,300 lb/min to sustain Mach 1.8 at 40K ft, while figure B9-31 on page B9-38 shows it takes some 270 seconds to accelerate from 0.8M to 1.8M at that altitude and loadout, some 380 seconds to Mach 1.9. The fuel flow for these maximum thrust accelerations is likely above the 1,300 lb/min figure, so we're talking about at least 5,850 lb and 8,233 lb of fuel burned for these 2 dashes.

And a rough estimation of the distance covered during these dashes gives about 56nm and 88nm.



In "theory" yes but never operationally with a combat load......
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 01:20

So 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders is not a combat interceptor load ? That's double the missiles the F-35 normally carries in delivering an inferior kinematic intercept. You should try dealing with facts rather than constantly hand waving about what you subjectively and erroneously think is 'real world' conditions. In Israel's real world missiles are coming in from Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran etc whose distances away vary from just next door to thousand miles away enough to benefit from both extremes of F-15 performance, i.e. short range with high speed or payload or long range with slow speed and light payload.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 01:25

Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:Correct or Mach 1.9 on a standard day, both with 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders. That's with 23 klb of fuel and a T/W greater than 1. So more missiles and more speed than a F-35 and with similar or slightly greater range even without EFTs.



Absurd.....


You realize the F-15EX carries ~ 13,500 lbs of internal fuel vs ~ 18,500 for the F-35A. Which, has far less drag and a more fuel efficient F135 Engine (vs two F100/F110's for the Eagle)


The F-35 does not have far less drag otherwise it would accelerate better than a F-15 and would not be slower at both low and high altitude, the F-35 is consistently 0.2 Mach slower than the F-15/F-16 at low to medium altitude before it even reaches its top speed at high altitude. My post was also talking about an F-15EX with CFTs which add 10,000 lb of fuel and even then it still is faster and less draggy than your beloved F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6896
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 01:31

marsavian wrote:So 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders is not a combat interceptor load ? That's double the missiles the F-35 normally carries in delivering an inferior kinematic intercept. You should try dealing with facts rather than constantly hand waving about what you subjectively and erroneously think is 'real world' conditions. In Israel's real world missiles are coming in from Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran etc whose distances away vary from just next door to thousand miles away enough to benefit from both extremes of F-15 performance, i.e. short range with high speed or payload or long range with slow speed and light payload.




Which, role are you talking about??? We had been discussing a max weapons load over long distance. Yet, if you want to talk Air Superiority or Interception you'll do no better...

As the Eagle will still have to carry external pylons and weapons and usually "external fuel". At very least a single centerline fuel tank. This dramatically impacts the performance of the F-15C or F-15EX.

Also, the F-35A can carry "six" internal Air to Air Missiles. This and the other points I've made are well known to this forum. Yet, you make a claim you know to be wrong! In addition the US is developing new Air to Air Missiles that are half the size of the Amraam but with similar range. This will increase the load from 6 -12 more than enough for any mission.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6896
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 01:32

marsavian wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:Correct or Mach 1.9 on a standard day, both with 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders. That's with 23 klb of fuel and a T/W greater than 1. So more missiles and more speed than a F-35 and with similar or slightly greater range even without EFTs.



Absurd.....


You realize the F-15EX carries ~ 13,500 lbs of internal fuel vs ~ 18,500 for the F-35A. Which, has far less drag and a more fuel efficient F135 Engine (vs two F100/F110's for the Eagle)


The F-35 does not have far less drag otherwise it would accelerate better than a F-15 and would not be slower at both low and high altitude, the F-35 is consistently 0.2 Mach slower than the F-15/F-16 at low to medium altitude before it even reaches its top speed at high altitude. My post was also talking about an F-15EX with CFTs which add 10,000 lb of fuel and even then it still is faster and less draggy than your beloved F-35.


You have "absolutely" no idea what your talking about. Honestly, go waste someone else's time........ :doh:
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post23 Dec 2019, 01:44

I was talking about all roles and how the F-15 can beat the F-35 in all of them from a simple speed / range / payload parameter pov. The F-15EX does not have to carry any speed sapping external stores if the mission requires it. It can fight with internal fuel, recessed missiles and wing missiles and hit Mach 2.5 over short range. It can add CFTs and hit Mach 1.9 with the same missile load out with even more fuel than any F-35 variant. The F-35 does not carry six internal missiles now, that's just a LMT unfunded concept. As to wasting time err that would be you with your continual non-factual biased statements for your obvious dog in this hunt. The rest of us just want to get to the unvarnished facts but we have to constantly wade through those pom-poms you keep waving in our face.
Last edited by marsavian on 23 Dec 2019, 02:03, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests