Stealth Eagle?

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

cywolf32

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 619
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 12:04
  • Location: USA

Unread post25 Mar 2009, 03:08

I think the USAF seems to have a grasp of the situation as there are more GE powered vipers than PW ones. Any pilots want to get in on this? There seems to be no disappointment in engine choice from what I have read here regarding GE powered Eagles, other than the fact that some one got there pockets lined with some greenbacks. That happens everday...... Look at Boeings fiasco with the first Tanker contract for 100 aircraft. And I agree Biff, GE makes some damn good engines. Hornet population, F-117, B-2, F-16, F-15, F-14, etc... quite a few satisfied customers.
Offline

biffbutkus

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:05

Unread post25 Mar 2009, 03:13

That_Engine_Guy wrote:I wasn't talking about their engines... I know they are "okay" :poke:

What I'm getting at with my previous posts is how that GE has had some "shady" dealings of late.

Bribes with the Korean officials
CEOs who are under investigation for stock fraud
A company who's status has slipped in the S&P
A huge company that has hinted at a "break-up" then not

I must agree, the J79, J85, F110, etc have been great motors! :cheers:

TEG


I got ya :cheers:

Times are tough for leading US companies...I'd like to see both Pratt and GE do well...healthy competition :D
USAF B52 ECM TECH '92-'97
Flight Sim In-Flight Technician
Charter Member Virtual Mile High Club
Offline

jbrobbo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 00:53

Unread post07 Oct 2010, 01:40

cywolf32 wrote:I totally like its versatility. You can either hang the new CFT's for the stealth profile or hang regular CFT's and restore it to its regular configuration. PhillyGuy, considering the F-15's excellent air combat record (no losses), its performance against most other acft types, and the fact that new coatings and stealth features ala superbug can be applied should not be discounted. Lets not also forget what happened at Red Flag with India's Su-30 MKI's. JHMC, data links, hobs missiles, AESA, etc..... lots to still offer here in the Eagle. Stick a couple of 132's in her if your worried about kinematic performance. Look at what Russia has done with the Su-27. Potential is there if you want to look for it (F-16XL,F-15E). Everyone would love a Ferrari if money were no object. I think its a sound idea. :2c:



Totally agree, F100-PW-232's would be an ideal choice to improve its already very good rate of climb and thrust-to-weight ratio of over 1.2:1, and the new canted tails and reduced weight should slightly decrease wing loading to around 375-380kg/m2 which is roughly the same as an F-22's 375kg/m2. This compares to the SU-35BM's thrust to wieght ratio of 1.1:1 and wing loading of over 408kg/m2. High thrust to weight ratio and low wing loading have traditionally been the most critical factors in producing a fine air superiority aircraft, and although the SU-35BM features thrust vectoring and the F-15SE initially doesn't, the F100-PW-229/232 are designed to accept thrust vectoring nozzles and have before during the F-15STOL/MTD tests. Any advantage the SU-35BM has in manouvrability with its thrust vectoring will be largely offset by it having to carry all of its missiles externally, while the F-15SE's externally clean configuration and minimal drag, enables higher agility when fully loaded, greater fuel efficiency and allows it to operate at higher speeds, while dual cockpit joint helmet mounted cueing systems will mitigate any slight advantage the SU-35BM might have in low speed manouvrability in a within visual range 'dogfight'

Apart from that the F-15SE beats the SU-35BM in every way

* superior avionics suite - APG-82 large aperture AESA radar, AAS-42 IRST system, DEWS digital electronic warfare system, 2x joint helmet mounted cueing systems, 2 x large area missionized LCD displays, SNIPER XR targeting pods & TIGER EYES navigation pods

*greater stealth - Boeing officials state that if approved by the US government they could potentially reach F-35A levels of radar cross section in a frontal aspect (0.1-0.01m2). The already RCS reduced SU-35BM has an estimated RCS of 1m2 without any weapons. Fixed radar blockers would be used to shield the massive fan blades and variable geometry intake ramps, and durable radar absorbent treatments, coatings and materials would be used on critical places of the aircraft such as leading edges. As well as the new conformal weapon bays, which are critical to this capability.

*higher speed - the fastest fighter in its class, mach 2.5+ or over 2,650km/h at 40,000ft altitude, gives it the speed to escape any threat after expending its payload, or chase down escaping aircraft.

*greater payload capacity and compatibility with US sourced weapons - Boeing states a higher payload capacity of 29,500lb over the F-15E strike eagle's 23,000lb and SU-35BM's 17,630lb (29,500lb is nearly in the same class as an F-111 regional bomber). I am unsure as to why it has increased so much, but hey, its statistics from the people who make the aircraft so i figure they'd know.



This is a gift from god for the RAAF, it ticks every box and is an absolute must buy if the F-22 cannot be exported. I still believe the RAAF should buy the F-35A as a multirole fighter, but buy only 3 squadrons for a total of 75, buy about 30 F-15SE's filling the role of air dominance fighter or F-111 bomb truck. It is stealthier than a super hornet as it features internal weapons carriage; has a much higher payload capacity and combat radius - essential for replacing the f-111 adequately; is much faster, has a greater thrust-to-weight ratio, and a lower wing loading than the super hornet, has a very similar if not more capable avionics suite with its larger aperture AESA radar face, is based ona proven design and is ready to enter service with minimal 'risk' and at a fixed cost price.................. how is there still an argument? the 12 super hornets pre-wired to become E/A-18G Growlers in the future should get the go-ahead to equip them with ALQ-99 pods or its future rpelacement. and the other 12 sold back to the US Navy.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2940
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post07 Oct 2010, 04:14

Sounds like some fair and calculated input and analysis there, jb, welcome to F-16.net.. :)

With regards to the upgraded powerplant issue, it's interesting you agreed to PW-232 in particular as your first point, when cy whom you quoted in support, suggested GE132? Any elaboration on that? Just a minor issue of course, but I'd be curious as to your bias, when an operational engine is already available? Regardless of the powerplant, indeed, an upgraded 32.5k class engine regardless of brand (one which I would support as thrust-reversing 2-D vectoring) would be a 'next-gen' performance multiplier. Cheers and respects to RAAF :mrgreen:
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

jbrobbo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 00:53

Unread post07 Oct 2010, 06:55

geogen wrote:Sounds like some fair and calculated input and analysis there, jb, welcome to F-16.net.. :)

With regards to the upgraded powerplant issue, it's interesting you agreed to PW-232 in particular as your first point, when cy whom you quoted in support, suggested GE132? Any elaboration on that? Just a minor issue of course, but I'd be curious as to your bias, when an operational engine is already available? Regardless of the powerplant, indeed, an upgraded 32.5k class engine regardless of brand (one which I would support as thrust-reversing 2-D vectoring) would be a 'next-gen' performance multiplier. Cheers and respects to RAAF :mrgreen:


the F110-GE-129 is the only general electric engine to be used in an F-15, albeit by Singapore and South Korea only. Pratt & Wittney's however are used in every other F-15 and would more than likely be chosen by the RAAF for commonality with the USA. I referred to the Pratt & Wittney's because of their much greater time in service in F-15's of all types. Apparantly, the F100-PW-232 has the option of running at 32,500lb of thrust with the same service life as the 229, or running at the same thrust as the 229 (29,000lb) with a 50% improved engine life. It also features the fan turbine and other modern features from the F-22's F119 engine, which is the main reason why the F-22 has a greater rate of climb than an F-15 even though it has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio.
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3297
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Oct 2010, 08:54

As far as i can see, a SE's primary advantage over the SH is better stealth and aerodynamic performance due to internal weapons. OTOH, the SH is available today for a known price whereas the same is not true for the SE. The time it will take to make the SE operational and how much more it will cost than a standard Strike Eagle are serious concerns.

Can the RAAF realistically wait several years for the SE to become operational? Is it willing to shoulder the higher costs, including R&D, that will be entailed? How about the larger logistical footprint having to support a SE fleet in addition to the F-35 and F-18SH?

If the RAAF did ever consider reducing its SH order, I think the money would be better spent acquiring more F-35s.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post07 Oct 2010, 14:32

jbrobbo wrote:Totally agree, F100-PW-232's would be an ideal choice to improve its already very good rate of climb and thrust-to-weight ratio of over 1.2:1, and the new canted tails and reduced weight should slightly decrease wing loading to around 375-380kg/m2 which is roughly the same as an F-22's 375kg/m2. This compares to the SU-35BM's thrust to wieght ratio of 1.1:1 and wing loading of over 408kg/m2.


You should take into account that the Su-35 carries about twice the internal fuel of an F-15E.



while the F-15SE's externally clean configuration and minimal drag,


CWBs add much more weght and also add some drag. If you consider equal load outs (4 AAMs) there isn't any great advantage for the F-15SE wrt performance.

* superior avionics suite - APG-82 large aperture AESA radar, AAS-42 IRST system, DEWS digital electronic warfare system, 2x joint helmet mounted cueing systems, 2 x large area missionized LCD displays, SNIPER XR targeting pods & TIGER EYES navigation pods


A listing of systems is no prove of superiority. You may assume everything is superior, but how do you back this up? What makes the AAS-42 better than the OLS-35? What makes the DEWS better than the Khibiny-M etc. Btw Tiger-Eye won't be used any more, it was just the name for the upgraded LANTIRN+IRST for the F-15K. The APG-82 is at least not yet cleared for export, so the aircraft is offered with the APG-63(V3).

*greater stealth - Boeing officials state that if approved by the US government they could potentially reach F-35A levels of radar cross section in a frontal aspect (0.1-0.01m2). The already RCS reduced SU-35BM has an estimated RCS of 1m2 without any weapons. Fixed radar blockers would be used to shield the massive fan blades and variable geometry intake ramps, and durable radar absorbent treatments, coatings and materials would be used on critical places of the aircraft such as leading edges. As well as the new conformal weapon bays, which are critical to this capability.


Which is a ridiculous claim besides Boeing. Do you really believe they can achieve a similar level of RCS with some radar blockers and a bit RAS/RAM alone? That's naive to believe if you ask me.

*higher speed - the fastest fighter in its class, mach 2.5+ or over 2,650km/h at 40,000ft altitude, gives it the speed to escape any threat after expending its payload, or chase down escaping aircraft.


M 2.5 is more a theoretical value the aircraft would never fly as fast in combat conditions anyway, it doesn't make much sense either.

compatibility with US sourced weapons


That's a moot point.
Offline

jbrobbo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 00:53

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 02:26

Boeing claims a 1,488km combat radius for the F-15SE in stealth configuration with 4 x AIM-120C-7/D AMRAAMS' carried in the new conformal weapons bays (which still contain fuel), and an 1,852km combat radius carrying external weapons and the original conformal fuel tanks, this compares to the SU-35BM's total range of 3,600km which translates into an 1,800km combat radius not including time on station, so your claims of 'twice the internal fuel' are largely unfounded. True, the SU-35BM's avionics and cockpit are very modern and can offer very similar if not identical capabilities to the US sourced avionics in many areas, however in my opinion i'd give the edge to the (DEWS) digital electronic warfare system considering it was borrowed from the F-35, and the APG-82 AESA over the Irbis-E PESA (export shouldnt be a problem considering that the APG-82 is the back end of an APG-79 and the radar face of an APG-63(V)3, both of which have been exported, the APG-79 to Australia), i am unsure as to whether the SU-35BM is fitted with a helmet mounted cueing system however i'm sure it will in the future if not already. The minimised drag would definately go a long way in allowing it to reach mach 2.5, atleast easier than anything that carries external weapons, to include the SU-35BM, a factor which only increases in likeliness when paired with the more powerful F100-PW-232 engines and slightly decreased weight compared to an original F-15E. I agree that the radar cross section will most likely never be an F-35 'steel golfball' from a frontal aspect, however Israel has expressed interest in the aircraft specifically because Boeing has made these claims and were in talks with Boeing officials as to what sort of RCS reduction level is possible and apparantly came out very pleased, however even if it had a radar cross section three or four times the size of an F-35 it would still have an RCS of less than 1m2, or atleast better than the SU-35BM.

Lets break it down

*combat cruise speed and max. speed - F-15SE
*Avionics/Cockpit - equal, if not F-15SE
*Wing Loading - F-15SE
* Thrust:Weight ratio - F-15SE
* Combat radius (internal fuel) - SU-35BM
* Payload capacity - F-15SE
* RCS - F-15SE
* Manoeuvrability - SU-35BM, (would be largely offset if the F-15 was ever fitted with thrust vectoring nozzles which is definately feasable however sadly unlikely) - external drag would gracefully degradate at the SU-35BM's advantage depending on total payload, and dual joint helmet mounted cueing systems can still defeat the SU-35BM in within visual range air-air combat)

The F-15SE has too many advantages over the SU-35BM, and although in most instances only slight or identical, a multitude of slight advantages means an overall more capable aircraft. The SU-35BM's only current advantage is manoeuvrability (which could be mitigated if Boeing was smart), and slightly greater combat radius on internal fuel.

This is without doubt, the best aircraft for the RAAF to replace the F-111C/G/RF 'Aardvark' bombers, albeit they will be twice as useful as they can be used in air superioirty or counter-air intercept missions to great effect. F-15C's and F-15E's from the Oregon Air National Guard regularly ferry over to Williamtown RAAF base in Newcastle, Australia (our main fighter base) for exercises with our F/A-18's, and you would imagine that they would have swapped aircraft to give the RAAF pilots a feel for the aircraft. Referring to 'Popcorn' the F-15SE has been fixed priced by Boeing as $100 million USD per aircraft including spares and training support, and has already been offered to South Korea as we speak, there will be no wait at all, it is basically just a Singaporean F-15SG with better Electronic warfare systems, better radar, improved cockpit displays, greatly reduced radar cross section and possibly more powerful engines that are dimension-wise identical to the former engine.
Offline

JetTest

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 00:22

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 02:55

You will not see any PW-232. You would have a better chance of seeing an F119 installed. It's a real production engine, will fit in the bays, and already has TVC.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 03:38

JetTest wrote:You will not see any PW-232. You would have a better chance of seeing an F119 installed. It's a real production engine, will fit in the bays, and already has TVC.

Agreed.
IF PW and Boeing ever got the approval to export the F119.
:shrug: TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

jbrobbo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 00:53

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 05:05

No way will it have F119's, although it would be ideal it would make it inheritently more expensive because the aircraft would need major design changes, the F119 will not just simply 'slot in' as 'jet test' seems to imply, the F100-PW-232 is the newest evolution of an engine that has been in F-15's for years, and already features alot of the components of the F119 anyway, modern materials, cooling management techniques, compressor aerodynamics, FADEC controls and even borrows the exact same fan turbine as the F119, which could even facilitate 'supercruise.
Offline

VarkVet

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1443
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2006, 04:31

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 06:00

F-15

"You put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig"
My eyes have seen the glory of the Lord and the esthetics of the Flightline
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3297
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 07:18

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ation.html

...To be fair, Boeing acknowledges the F-15SE’s stealth improvements do not help against ground-based radar systems, which are critical for waging offensive strikes against opponents armed with surface to air missile systems. Lowering the F-15SE’s thermal signature - a critical stealthy feature for the Lockheed Martin F-22 - is also not part of Boeing plans.

Not much better than a SH. Definitely inferior to the F-35.


...Notionally, Boeing estimates the F-15SE’s cost, including airframe, spares and training, at $100 million each.

I think that's far from a sure figure. I think its safe to assume a SE costs more than a SH or probably even a F-35A.

...Flight trials for a risk reduction programme are scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2010. The first aircraft could be available for delivery to foreign customers three years after a deal is signed

3 years delivery after contract signing.. assuming there are no development issues along the way. By then, the F-35A would be available. So why buy an an inferior legacy jet?
Offline

jbrobbo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 00:53

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 08:10

Why? because it vastly outperforms the F-35A in payload, speed, combat radius, thrust to wieght ratio, wing loading, rate of climb, and manoeuvrability while its avionics suite is roughly on par with the F-35, with some common components and featuring a larger aperture radar than what the JSF can offer due to it being a smaller aircraft. Sure its stealth isn't designed to be effective against ground based radars, no matter, use the F-15SE as a 1st day of war air superiority fighter, and once air superiority has been achieved convert to original CFT's for greater bomb truck capacity and more tactical options in the later stages of a conflict. I said buy around 30 F-15SE's as a replacement for the F-111 bombers - not the F/A-18. The RAAF should still buy F-35A's to replace the Hornet on a 1 for 1 basis, a total of 3 squadrons, not 4, for a total of 75 aircraft, not 100, and they would be used for the SEADS missions typically, although an F-15SE with 2 x AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles would provide our furthest reaching strike capability which would be essential against advanced SAM systems such as the SA-20 Gargoyle or SA-21 Triumf, and would be supported in this role by RGM-109 block IV Tomahawk cruise missiles from Australia's future Destroyers, Frigates and Submarines.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2940
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post08 Oct 2010, 08:53

jb... interesting viewpoints and contribution to the 'Tacair recap alternatives' discussion, I must say.

FWIW, I've assessed that a 'super Eagle' concept of sorts would have been an overall 'reliable' and strategic option going forward and have supported the option for some years. It was actually the original motivation for my 'fantasy', asymmetrical F-15XL Super Eagle concept, which I was calling something like the F-15OZ or AU back then if I recall. :shrug:

As far as your enthusiasm goes, I would have no problem still considering an F-15SE type a/c a credible and legit alternative for AUS - even as outright alternative to F-35 since RAAF already has Supers to replace F-111. i.e., RAAF imo doesn't need 3 types of tactical aircraft in operation in a structure less than 100 jets.

But regarding a couple specifics and comments made by others:

The initial radar depicted in the 'slide show' at least is in fact the (V)3, not -82. And the 'approx' 720nm 'internal loadout' A-A radius as stated, would equate to about 1,330 km (a minor point). Now factor in some company 'stretching' of the combat radius (e.g., LM and the original F-35 range estimates) and factor in some assumed range 'adjustment', via the upgraded engine option -- perhaps 625nm would still qualify as Good.

As for F119 that's an interesting suggestion and one I'd not discount either for any hypothetical future USAF F-15X, if for anything to streamline support in a joint-basing scenario w/F-22. Regarding F119's 'high' costs and 'assuming' it could be exported to AUS though, how much would a 'partner' say, be willing to pay instead towards actually completing PW-232 development and integrating it into an F-15? Could it be a 'wash' then to integrate the mature, existing F119 engine? Or maybe cheaper yet: integrate the GE-132 kit instead, which at least such similar engine logistics would be shared with USAF and who knows... perhaps the precise engine integrated under future USAF F-16 upgrades (i.e., jets remaining operational until 2030)? So there are some 'upgraded' options.

One further topic of possible interest: the two outboard wing-pylon stations being advertised as being activated. I'd ponder a low-profile, single rail config on those stations for possible integrated ASRAAM (as F-35 would likely have 2x IR missiles slung under wings as well). Where there is some discrepancy though, is the apparent current 'external' IRST and Sniper pod configuration being retained and no mention in the brochure about internal IRST. My own feeling therefore would be for customer to request a 3rd alternative CFT - the old 'FAST PACK' design, configured to neatly 'hug' 4x AAM semi-conformally and without all the excess 'spiky' pylons sticking out into the air stream. E.g, there are now finally appropriate sensors and demands for such sensors as being standard operation, so that would appear to be the optimal CFT, I'd say. For example, consider 2 forward looking multi-spectral IR MLD/MAWS apertures cleanly integrated into the leading curve of the CFT, along with 2 forward looking AAS-42 derived LW IRST aperture aerodynamically mounted and flush (one within each CFT) for low-profile, constant 180+ deg wide Search. By adding 4x low-profile FAST pack mounted AAMs you could probably still retain something north of 9,000lbs gas in the CFT in addition to the internal sensors! With this, you'll have superior detection range (via both radar and passive search) over the F-35, increased SA over the currently advertised -15SE, reduce your RCS compared to the baseline, increase speed, and increase your range -- probably getting closer to actual 750nm A-A radius, incl the upgraded power! Lastly, for EA requirement... consider integrating a centerline Thales AEA jamming pod? imho. :shock:
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests