F-15SE in Flight Global

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

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post28 May 2012, 20:13

Good piece on the F-15SE:
http://www.flightglobal.com/cutaways/mi ... eing-f-15/

The cutaway is interesting as well.
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post28 May 2012, 20:38

FTA: The "stealth" is for the DCA mission only. Boeing also backed off the front sector X band equaling the F-35 claim.
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post28 May 2012, 20:50

Anyone know the cost? Be interesting to compare to an F-35A.

Also, at the risk of being burned alive for heresy, I wonder if these could be used to 'kick down the doors' against an air defense network, to reasonable degree of success? It's certainly got to be an improvement over standard 4th generation aircraft bristling with wing and fuselage hung armament.

Finally, I wonder how much range was lost to exchanging fuel tanks for weapons bays?
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post28 May 2012, 20:57

It seems like a gimmick to keep the line open.

The real improvement is the digital EW system.

An internal IRST would be nice.

The internal weapons carriage is more of an enabler of high speed than a way to lower RCS.

The RCS reduction should be compared to Typhoon rather than F-35.
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post28 May 2012, 21:07

It doesn't need to be incredibly stealthy. If you're dropping a JDAM, you can very likely release and egress before the enemy radar detects you. Think a step down from the JSF in RCS reduction, but quite possibly better A2A and performance in low-intensity conflicts. In these cases, its two crew members, greater endurance, and higher payload will most likely mean that Eagles and derivatives are superior to the F-35 in the CAS role.

(I'm assuming that the two aircrafts' avionics will be somewhat comparable.)
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post28 May 2012, 21:37

From Wiki: Both appear to cost around $100 million in current dollars.

F-15E General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 63.8 ft (19.43 m)
Wingspan: 42.8 ft (13.05 m)
Height: 18.5 ft (5.63 m)
Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A006.6 root, NACA 64A203 tip
Empty weight: 31,700 lb (14,300 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700 kg)

Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-229 afterburning turbofans, 29,000 lbf (129 kN) each

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,660+ km/h)
Combat radius: 790 mi (1,150 mi (max))
Ferry range: 2,400 mi (2,100 nmi, 3,900 km) with conformal fuel tank and three external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,200 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000+ ft/min (254+ m/s)
Thrust/weight: 0.93

Avionics

Radar:
Raytheon AN/APG-70
Targeting pods:
LANTIRN or Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods
Countermeasures:
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/ALQ-131 electronic countermeasures pod[106]
Hazeltine AN/APX-76 or Raytheon AN/APX-119 Identify Friend/Foe (IFF) interrogator[107]
Magnavox AN/ALQ-128 Electronic Warfare Warning Set (EWWS) – part of Tactical Electronic Warfare Systems (TEWS)[106]
Loral AN/ALR-56 Radar warning receivers (RWR) – part of TEWS[108]
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems ALQ-135 Internal Countermeasures System (ICS) – part of TEWS[106]
Marconi AN/ALE-45 Chaff/Flares dispenser system – part of TEWS[109]
[edit]

F-15SE General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 63.8 ft (19.43 m)
Wingspan: 42.8 ft (13.05 m)
Height: 18.5 ft (5.63 m)
Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A006.6 root, NACA 64A203 tip
Empty weight: 31,700 lb (14,300 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700 kg)

Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-229 afterburning turbofans, 29,000 lbf (129 kN) each

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,650+ km/h)
Combat radius: 800+ nm (720 nmi for stealth A/A mission)[34] (920 miles (1,480 kilometres))
Ferry range: 2,400 mi (2,100 nmi (3,900 km)) with conformal fuel tank and three external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,200 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000+ ft/min (254+ m/s)

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon with 510 rounds of ammunition
Four internal hardpoints in conformal weapons bays for low-observable capability, or
External load the same as Strike Eagle's with standard CFTs, including targeting pods and additional external fuel tanks.[35]

Avionics

APG-82 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
BAE Systems Digital Electronic warfare system (DEWS)
Digital “Fly-by-Wire” Flight Control System (DFCS)
Lockheed Martin Sniper advanced electro-optical targeting system and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system
Link-16 fighter data link
Last edited by stereospace on 28 May 2012, 21:52, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4762
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 May 2012, 21:41

F-35 =/= F-15SE in avionics.

The F-15SE is a hodgepodge of components that were not designed to work as one.

The F-35, OTOH, has avionics that communicate (ie integrate) with each on a level much deeper than merely merging track results. Add to that the stealthier radar, EODAS, EOTS, datalinks, and ESM of the F-35 and the F-15SE is not even close in terms of avionics.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2943
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post29 May 2012, 10:18

Regarding F-15SE 'cost', there's no way it can be estimated at this time, as for one thing the design offering itself is in question. Therefore, all previous initial estimates (eg those made from 2009) could in fairness, be thrown out the window.

Personally, it's my opinion that Boeing had the right intentions, but flopped in the proposed design upgrade and in the business model in executing the Program. I feel they fumbled a big opportunity and have wasted significant time in exploiting their original opportunity to offer a feasible, next-generation F-15E++ option.

I think Boeing could have potentially pounced on the chance to offer a counter-proposal to Japan for instance, when they had requested to pay development costs for an F-22 export version (the request being rejected).

Boeing could have also better identified and more assertively pursued other risk-sharing development partners/companies to ensure accelerated and timely development of at one of the new structural modifications.

Instead of the well-intended 'canted tails' proposal (my gut feeling from the start was it was just not the most feasible, or likely design choice), perhaps Boeing could have approached Northrop as a risk-sharing partner and sought consultation for twin, reduced size/weight all-moving vertical tails, given Northrop's recent experience in developing such all-moving structures for the YF-23. Perhaps that enhanced design would have been less complex, feasible and an overall acceptable compromise by potential customers.

Perhaps too, an a different approach could have been taken with respect to the reduced RCS/drag weapons carriage and CFT design. KAI, or another manufacturer such as Terma eg, could have perhaps been solicited to co-develop a reduced drag and lighter CFT with semi-recessed AMRAAM stations built-in as a Phase I (air-air) solution. Also built into the CFT could have been frontal arc looking MAWS/MLD apertures (eg PAWS-2). As a Phase II incremental design, perhaps under-wing weapons pods (for 1k lb class A2G + MRAAM munitions) could have been proposed and joint-developed. These rough examples (or something equivalent) could have been offered as revised design proposals for potentially greater chance of success in achieving development and showing better viability of the next-gen F-15 offering..
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2943
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post29 May 2012, 10:20

With regards to 'F-15SE' (and let's say F-15E+ derivatives) being a hodgepodge of components... perhaps it could be better and more fairly called a potpourri of evolved components :) not as pretty in originally designed fusion as compared to F-35, of course, but nonetheless seen as 'sufficient' and 'good enough' in it's innovation and integration.

And lastly, with respect to claims of F-15E+ (or eventual F-15SE) 'not being close' in avionics, that is the rightful opinion of those whom would of course favor the F-35 Program, but probably not be close in accuracy of it's claim.

eg, an APG-82 could have actual superior performance capabilities than F-35's APG-81, while also trading for some inferior characteristics. Moreover, the DEWS suite + passive receiving + said APG-82 could likely be compared as being 'close' in ESM and EW terms. When including an already-cleared escort ECM pod into the package, even superior ESM would be likely. Last, the large aperture IRST + next gen Sniper SE pod would yes enable at Least 'close' performance in terms of capabilities... and likely even superior in some parameters!

So again, not as neatly fused and capable in terms of computing power et al, when compared to the F-35 concept under development, but definitely an option in terms of 'sufficiency' and off-the-shelf availability
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1021
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post29 May 2012, 13:07

I'm surprised that with the F-15J already sporting an IRST that this isn't offered up for adaption to the base model. Seems like the manufacturer would like to recover their developmental costs and perhaps pull in some extra change.

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest