Israel Pays for Additional F-35s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 18:07

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:Sure, but that's an F-15C with both aircraft in air-to-air configuration. How's it match up using an F-15E, with it's CFTs, and a pair of 5,000lb bombs on each aircraft?

Are you purposefully ignoring LtCol Mau's statement? "the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E"

Also, do not think that because the F-15E carries 50% more gas than the F-15C that it has 50% more range. It doesn't. It chugs gas like there is no tomorrow once loaded. The F-15E has a lot of weight on a little wing. It is not an unstable design either. It carries a not insignificant induced/trim drag penalty. Look up the optimum cruise information for both.


Lt Col Mau stated, "In fact, the legs on the F-35 are longer than the legs in an F-15 based on my experience, so...": beginning at time 0:04:



Spurts, if you have reference to Lt Col Mau specifically referring to the family model Mudhen... I'm all ears.

And while I acknowledge the F-15E is going to drink fuel faster than an F-35, 31000lbs of go juice with a GBU-28 on STA 5 may do what the Israeli's need, and they use their F-35s for other things (like keeping the Eagles "safe". :devil: )
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 18:27

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:Sure, but that's an F-15C with both aircraft in air-to-air configuration. How's it match up using an F-15E, with it's CFTs, and a pair of 5,000lb bombs on each aircraft?

Are you purposefully ignoring LtCol Mau's statement? "the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E"

Also, do not think that because the F-15E carries 50% more gas than the F-15C that it has 50% more range. It doesn't. It chugs gas like there is no tomorrow once loaded. The F-15E has a lot of weight on a little wing. It is not an unstable design either. It carries a not insignificant induced/trim drag penalty. Look up the optimum cruise information for both.

I don't know if it's ignoring LtCol Mau's statement so much as it is questioning the configurations her statement applies to.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3611
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 19:30

IIRC LtCol Mau's background is 2k hrs F-15E, so I have no issue believing that if she says F-15 in a comparison she means the one she knows. You're thoughts may differ. That's fine I suppose.

Here's what I can say on the topic of the F-15E vs the F-15C. When identically loaded in terms of what is on the pylons and F-15E weighs 20,000lb more due to increased structural weight, CFT weight, and CFT fuel weight.

Looking at the F-15E-1...

With full CFTs, two wing bags, four AAMs, targeting pods, and a GBU-28 is going to weigh 77,000lbs of take-off with a drag index of 88, Drag area of approximately 17.1 ft^2, wing loading of 126.5, lift loading of 77.1, fuel fraction of 0.38. (assuming 1550lb fuel burned before climb)

Opt cruise is a mere 0.05nm/lbf burned at around 31,000ft. It will take 2,750lb to reach that altitude and 75nm. If we assume 50% of total fuel used to reach the target (after which time there is allowance for AB use etc) then the end of this optimum "I have no threats to react to or avoid" ingress has the F-15E burning ~0.06 (I'm rounding up in the Mudhens favor) at 34,000ft. It cannot efficiently fly higher because it weighs too much. So, with 10,980lb of fuel in cruise burning an average of 0.055 nm/lb this gives a cruise leg of 604nm. Add the Climb section of 75nm for a total optimum range with this load of 679nm.

How would an F-35 do? We don't know and I don't even have an estimated model yet. What we have been told is in the F-35A "If the pilot took off with full fuel 2 amraams and 2 2000lbs bombs flew 590nm and came back with a 10 min weapon deployment time they would land with around 7,000-8,000lbs still in the tank. " So, the F-35 can reach 679nm with two one-ton bombs inside and still have fuel to spare. What if two one-tonners isn't the same as one two-point-five-tonner due to the nature of the target? With a minor increase in weight and a currently unkown increase in drag Stubby could theoretically carry a single GBU-28. How much of that spare gas will it eat? I don't know. It is plausible it could do it. Depends on asymmetry limits.

All we can do at this point is make educated guesses.
"Spurts"

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

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4747
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 20:53

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:Sure, but that's an F-15C with both aircraft in air-to-air configuration. How's it match up using an F-15E, with it's CFTs, and a pair of 5,000lb bombs on each aircraft?

Are you purposefully ignoring LtCol Mau's statement? "the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E"


Did not hear her's. :shrug:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3611
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 21:05

sferrin wrote:Did not hear her's. :shrug:

I apologize if I came off as confrontational. About three posts or so up from yours was one with her statement so I assumed you read it.
"Spurts"

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21550
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 21:24

I hear "F-15E" in this quote .MP4 attached from Smithsonian 'Views from the Cockpit' video referenced earlier. YMMV alas.
Attachments

MAU F-15E & F-35 Range Quote Views from the Cockpit.mp4 [ 3.04 MiB | Viewed 3476 times ]

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 21:42

spazsinbad wrote:I hear "F-15E" in this quote .MP4 attached from Smithsonian 'Views from the Cockpit' video referenced earlier. YMMV alas.


This 17-second video clip is a portion from the longer video clip that Spaz posted eltswhere, and to which I linked above. Before I posted, I listened several times to Col Mau's sentence beginning at 0:04 of the video to which I linked above, and which Spaz highlights here. I swear I did NOT hear "F-15E" so I posted. However, after listening again several times, I concede this point... it sure does sound like "E" rolls off the good Colonel's tongue right after "EphFifteen."
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3611
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 23:42

No worries. We all make mistakes sometimes. The important part is the willingness to take in new data and adjust positions accordingly instead of digging in heels.
"Spurts"

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

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 02:15

steve2267 wrote: ... But in the context of why Israel may be interested in more F-15s... it may be to lug GBU-28's around Iran...


From the link Spaz just posted in the thread, "Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35":

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says

By: Valerie Insinna

12th Sept 2018

“I don’t see a role for an F-15X,” Grant said, adding that the service needs the stealth and advanced battle management capabilities of an F-22 or F-35.

While the Air Force used fourth-generation fighters to suppress enemy air defense capabilities during Desert Storm, adversaries have made advances to their own integrated air defenses that will make it difficult for a plane like the F-15X to penetrate, even after stealth platforms have kicked down the door, Deptula said.

A smart adversary is going to be operating those double-digit surface-to-air missile systems throughout the breadth and depth of the theater, and you’re not going to be able to take them all down in the first 24 hours of a conflict,” he said.


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/

Iran's a long way to go to get shot at by an S300 or lesser with few options at that radius. Burn your fuel dealing with SAMs and you're probably done. If you deliver GBU-28 with F-35A you have very good options.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 04:24

element1loop wrote:
Iran's a long way to go to get shot at by an S300 or lesser with few options at that radius. Burn your fuel dealing with SAMs and you're probably done. If you deliver GBU-28 with F-35A you have very good options.


If the "stories" that Israel is interested in additional F-15s, possibly even more so than additional F-35s, are accurate, I have to wonder why, given that it seems the F-35 beats the F-15 at pretty much everything. So I am merely trying to come up with some reasons why Israel may want F-15s rather than F-35s. The only thing I have come up with thus far is to carry GBU-28s.

Using F-35's for SEAD / DEAD / air-to-air escort of F-15E's (or the Israeli equivalent) so that the F-15's can destroy deeply buried targets using GBU-28s make some sense. While I like the idea of a pair of GBU-28's on a Lightning, I (we) don't know if that has sufficient range for the targets Israel has in mind. In addition, after dropping GBU-28's... unless an F-35 punches off the ejector racks, if that is even possible, the Lightning will be in a decidedly unstealthy configuration after bomb jettison.

IMO, more F-35's for Israel makes the most sense, especially the Killer Bee. But if Israel really does want more F-15's, a GBU-28 bomb truck makes the most sense that I can deduce.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4656
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 07:22

steve2267 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Iran's a long way to go to get shot at by an S300 or lesser with few options at that radius. Burn your fuel dealing with SAMs and you're probably done. If you deliver GBU-28 with F-35A you have very good options.


If the "stories" that Israel is interested in additional F-15s, possibly even more so than additional F-35s, are accurate, I have to wonder why, given that it seems the F-35 beats the F-15 at pretty much everything. So I am merely trying to come up with some reasons why Israel may want F-15s rather than F-35s. The only thing I have come up with thus far is to carry GBU-28s.

Using F-35's for SEAD / DEAD / air-to-air escort of F-15E's (or the Israeli equivalent) so that the F-15's can destroy deeply buried targets using GBU-28s make some sense. While I like the idea of a pair of GBU-28's on a Lightning, I (we) don't know if that has sufficient range for the targets Israel has in mind. In addition, after dropping GBU-28's... unless an F-35 punches off the ejector racks, if that is even possible, the Lightning will be in a decidedly unstealthy configuration after bomb jettison.

IMO, more F-35's for Israel makes the most sense, especially the Killer Bee. But if Israel really does want more F-15's, a GBU-28 bomb truck makes the most sense that I can deduce.



Israel is no more interested in the F-15 than the USAF....

Air Force Association

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 07:56

steve2267 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Iran's a long way to go to get shot at by an S300 or lesser with few options at that radius. Burn your fuel dealing with SAMs and you're probably done. If you deliver GBU-28 with F-35A you have very good options.


If the "stories" that Israel is interested in additional F-15s, possibly even more so than additional F-35s, are accurate, I have to wonder why, given that it seems the F-35 beats the F-15 at pretty much everything. So I am merely trying to come up with some reasons why Israel may want F-15s rather than F-35s. The only thing I have come up with thus far is to carry GBU-28s.

Using F-35's for SEAD / DEAD / air-to-air escort of F-15E's (or the Israeli equivalent) so that the F-15's can destroy deeply buried targets using GBU-28s make some sense. While I like the idea of a pair of GBU-28's on a Lightning, I (we) don't know if that has sufficient range for the targets Israel has in mind. In addition, after dropping GBU-28's... unless an F-35 punches off the ejector racks, if that is even possible, the Lightning will be in a decidedly unstealthy configuration after bomb jettison.

IMO, more F-35's for Israel makes the most sense, especially the Killer Bee. But if Israel really does want more F-15's, a GBU-28 bomb truck makes the most sense that I can deduce.



The story was taken out of context. Israel accepted used F-15s and converted them. They were part of an aid package under Obama in 2015. This was before they even had the F-35 on their soil. The F-15s were free so of course they took them. The police department was happy to "buy" our OH-58Cs for 1 cent each when the army retired them, either as spare aircraft or for spare parts.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 10:09

kimjongnumbaun wrote:The story was taken out of context. Israel accepted used F-15s and converted them. They were part of an aid package under Obama in 2015. This was before they even had the F-35 on their soil. The F-15s were free so of course they took them. The police department was happy to "buy" our OH-58Cs for 1 cent each when the army retired them, either as spare aircraft or for spare parts.


Yeah, that makes more sense, thanks. Just an article repeating the meme.

(no problems Steve)
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 392
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post19 Oct 2018, 17:24

Russians say S-300 given to SAA will be PMU-2 version.
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url

According to this source Russian technical staff will have finished their work by the end of October and according to previous publications train/advice mission will be over after 3 months. If the plans are followed through with according to the timeline, then open season for Gargoyls starts... 2nd of January.
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 392
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 20:15

Israeli satellite geodata firm ISI tweets what it believes to be first SAA S-300 installations being set up:

https://twitter.com/imagesatint/status/ ... 9952106496
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests