Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

But you still need F-22's and F-15's, and futher more F-15's that had to be modified and yet you still end up with a force that is conventional and not in any way 'asymmetrical'

(I'm really not getting your comment regarding the French and British either.)

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The SE wouldn't be inexpensive far from it and adding F119s would increase its cost significantly too.

The F-18E on another hand IS inexpensive. That's why I think Boeing should concentrate its limited ressources on the SH because honestly who will want to pay 100 million for a fighter that's not stealthy and that can carry only 4 missiles? Especially when the F-35 is available...

Instead they should invest all their money in the SH which already has the low RCS and competitive price.

One thing I was thinking that they could do on the SH is to remove the gun in order to save space so that the front section could accommodate the APG-82. The APG-82 will have the full a/g modes and Boeing already has a lot of experience with APG-63s.

That cutaway shows that the gun barrel is right behind the radar:
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/me ... utaway.jpg

Removing the gun would enable to increase the diameter of the radar significantly, all the more that AESA radars are shorter:
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0308 ... pg63v3.htm

The SH would have about 30-40% better detection range and that extra range could be exploited with meteors or JDRADMs.

They could even use the F-15 radome. The front section would be a sort of hybrid between the F-18 and the F-15 so possibly it wouldn't take that much development.

CFTs could also be a good idea as they would free 2 big pylons which would give it a range/payload similar to an F-15E. So basically the result would be 90% of the performance of the SE at about 60% of the cost.

This one could be a low part of a mix..

But, but, no GUN??? Shocked

Can't you just give it a bit more nose instead?

VATW,

Some interesting ideas there -- once again you are taking the innovation up a notch Smile

And in this case - re: possibly modifying the SH with uber systems (maybe even Mica-IR, eh?) - perhaps it could double as an acceptable definition for a 'Tactical Asymmetrical' capability too. i.e., Something whereby one can maximize the few resources they have and leverage a potent technology to offset other weaknesses/disadvantages one might otherwise have (e.g., fewer quantity of airframes, weaker super-maneuverability, range, T/W, or super-cruise, etc).

Anyway, moving on I've too contemplated removing that darn gun placement allowing for other sensors and possibly evem changing the gun - perhaps a LO gun pod could be adequate solution too (if it seems to be fine for USN/USMC), or maybe a single bk-27 in one of the LEX's? Not sure if that would fit but anyway... you've made an excellent argument in support of the Boeing proposed 'International' variant, imho. Whether it could take the larger, strategic apg82 (and components and cooling, etc) of course would be interesting to study, possibly even requiring a whole new nose job and would support the study.

Back to the Silent Eagle, no doubt it would be expensive, but it's deterrence value could arguably considered strategic enough by most (or a basis for even further growth upgrades) to still justify it's development imo. And if it comes in cheaper than say an LRIP block III F-35, then it could justify itself and I think would warrant investment. (for disclosure: I'd support it as a USAF stopgap acquisition plan, on a small scale buy to supplement nominal F-16 50/52++ buys)

Quote:

StolichnayaStrafer
But, but, no GUN???

Can't you just give it a bit more nose instead?

LOL!

And I agree wholeheartedly! And Geogen brings up an excellent point as well with the F-35 cost continuing to rise the F-15SE will look better and better. I'm still hopeful that the F-35 will live up to expectations but having options in the mix (other than putting the future of the air force entirely on U.A.V.'s please) seems like a good idea to me. I would love to see the Stealth Eagle pursued.

skyhigh wrote:

Best [Link pending approval] made Gen [Link pending approval] fighter out there.

Since its avionics and RCS reduction features approach that of a Gen 5 fighter, maybe the Silent Eagle should be classified a Gen [Link pending approval] fighter.

i think u r [Link pending approval] d thing is i dat plane is jst a waste of money.
Nobody shud buy dat plane,wen dey kan get a PAK FA T-50 for d same price.

Yeah if you don't mind waiting 10 years for the T-50 to be produced and anyway how do you know how much a T-50 will cost? No one knows that yet, not even Russia, despite Putins claims it'll cost $50 or whatever completely unrealistic price it was. Expect it to cost as much as an F-22 if not more due to much smaller production run (they're hoping to order between 50 and 60)

Had they ordered 650 like the 'plan' back when the YF-22 actually won the ATF contract; the price per airframe would have most likely been far less than $100 than over. (The 'fly-away cost settled at $138M/aircraft at the 187 total production)

If Mother Russia and the Indians only produce 50-60 of the T-50's I would guess the price will be too high and development/production will cease.

You don't spend that many Billions of $$ for a few aircraft......

Unless your the US and you write a personal check for $44.75 BILLION to purchase just 21 B-2 Bombers... Doh

TEG

Which, again, if they had purchased 200 instead of 20, they would have been cheaper than an aircraft carrier.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Which, again, if they had purchased 200 instead of 20, they would have been cheaper than an aircraft carrier.

200 B-2 would have been way too expensive, especially over the LCC. 40 would have arguably been the right strategic balance and properly decided.

And while I understand TEG's well made point, 80 or so additional block 35 F-22 orders would have arguably been the proper, affordable and strategic balance. That would have given USAF about 160x block 35 built F-22s - the actual variant to perform the credible, next-gen, strategic air superiority role for the next 20+ yrs.

F-15SE variant could therefore absolutely end up stopgapping the prematurely ended F-22 (ATF requirement). You never kill a contingency plan B unless you are up to gambling your job in humiliation as a top Brass decider.

But why purchase $85M-$100M F-15SEs when you could have purchased F-22s for $85M each; IF you would have purchased them ALL. (Unit costs were still dropping until the cancellation orders were given)

I don't see how congress can say, F-22s are too expensive at $85M so we're going to cut the order down to 187 so they'll be $135M and the parts for the ones we did buy will cost more since nobody will make them without special orders and payment up front!?!

Now someone wants us to buy 'stop gap' Silent Eagles (old mud-hen, new lip-stick) for around $100M because of the shortfall caused by cancelling F-22 production at 187? Why not just keep the line open; order 100 more?

Oh yeah, because the current administration would have to admit that capping production (and loosing all those good aerospace jobs during a recession) was wrong and DIDN'T actually save the GOV, DOD or USAF a dime in the long run?

Paying to close the F-22 line. Flying F-15/F-16s (and their motors) WAY beyond their intended lives have driven up sustainment costs so much we're dropping them from inventory just to afford keeping the rest flying? (No savings there either) We have a 'fighter gap' between the planned retirement of 'legacy' airframes prior to the load being assumed by the F-35? (If we even get what is planned today?)

How could any politician explain this process to Joe Public and NOT expect to get slapped for stupidity?

Shrug

TEG

Lobbyists drive decision making. Why would Boeing want LM to keep building fighters and let their hand in the business go idle? They're trying to force the F/A-18 line open to curtail F-35 production, too. This is why Boeing needs to be broken up, its too big for the politicians to say 'No'.

Unfortunately, it appears there will be a painful and agonizing learning curve until 'they' get this reformed acquisition process down. But I brace myself too, for accelerated flops in the mid-term decision making as everything on which they are at least publicly basing their budget/acquisition planning on is seemingly only on this so-called 'reduced buying power'.

I would hope they are privately looking at projected Defense Budgets being substantially reduced over at least the next 10 yrs. Then they can make smarter, re-calibrated, strategic-centered procurement plans based on those numbers. If completely caught of guard and in denial of this imminent budget reality though, look out below I'm afraid... as simply shrinking incrementally what is currently the stay the course plan will be devestating, strategically and will be unsustainable in maintaining any functional, credible force structure. imho. God speed for honest, calculating and bold decision making going on behind the scenes..

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

How could any politician explain this process to Joe Public and NOT expect to get slapped for stupidity?

Shrug

TEG

TEG,
I'm working on fixing this, early voting in Texas started this Monday, I was 2nd in line.
Smile

fisk

Scorpion82 wrote:

jbrobbo wrote:

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.

As mentioned by someone else 720 nm works out as 1330 km. And you can't have everything at once, you either have less drag and better performance, but lower range or more range but a performance penalty. The Su-35's internal fuel load is 11.5 t and that's about twice that of the F-15's load (~6 t). If we factor in CFT/CWB fuel as internal then it would be wrong, but I still consider this as external fuel, as the CFTs/CWBs are optional external devices. And btw the 3600 km max range claim for the Su-35 is quite modest. Take into account that the equally sized and heavy Su-27 already achieved 3680 - 3900 km on internal fuel (9.4 t). I don't think it's to far stretched to assume that the Su-35 with 2.1 t more fuel (>20%) will achieve an even greater range and the Su-35 can carry 2 x 2000 l drop tanks as well, if required.

Quote:

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.

That's ok, but opinions should be marked as such, even if the assumptions are reasonable. And as someone else said Boeing lists the AN/APG-63(V3) as the radar for the F-15SE, not the AN/APG-82(V1). It might be that the latter will be offered on the export market at some latter stage, but this remains yet to be seen.
Btw the Su-35 uses HMS like any other Flanker since the 80s, though it's a simple device without a display unit. The Russians reportedly work on HMDs and there were articles indicating that such a HMD is planned for the Su-35, but there are no recent information on that and I subsequently attribute the HMS to the Su-35, as long as newer information tell us something else.

Quote:

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.

M 2.5 was the original requirement for the F-15 and was demonstrated at some point, but afaik it puts heavy stress on airframe and engines which isn't acceptable. M 2.3 is more likely to be the top speed. Now add the drag and weigh of the CWB/CFT and the aircraft will not even reach that speed and not in any reasonable timeframe either. And for what speeds are weapons cleared anyway? The F-15SE may still hold an edge on maximum speed, but will it achieve it in combat conditions in any reasonable timeframe? What are the acceleration figures, which are more important than the max. speed? As of now Boeing offers the F-15SE with F110-GE-129 and F100-PW-229, so I don't care about what if questions. What if the Russians fit stronger engines on the Su-35, such as the AL-41F1 for example? Who cares if it's not intended to be done!? It's easier and more fair to stick with what is definitely offered.

Quote:

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.

I don't think that the F-15SE's frontal RCS will be much better than that of a clean Su-35, in combat configuration it is likely to be smaller by a certain margin, whether this is enough to gain a real edge is questionable however.

Lets break it down

Quote:

*combat cruise speed and max. speed - F-15SE

Cruise speed not specified and subsequently difficult to verify, max speed likey, but in such conditions with lower range.

Quote:

*Avionics/Cockpit - equal, if not F-15SE

Again difficult to verify without specific information. The US has traditionally a lead here, so we may assume better avionics for the F-15SE, but there are question marks left.

Quote:

*Wing Loading - F-15SE

What configuration? Data?

Quote:

* Thrust:Weight ratio - F-15SE

Again what configuration & data? Clean with max. internal fuel and without CFT/CWB the F-15 has definitely an edge, but the Su-35 carries ~twice the fuel in such conditions.

Quote:

* Payload capacity - F-15SE

Yes, but at the expense of performance and RCS.

Quote:

* RCS - F-15SE

Yes but at the expense of payload and range.

Quote:

* 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)

agreed.

Quote:

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.

The problem I see here is that the F-15SE doesn't offer all advantages at once, but offers advantages at the expense of disadvantages. An F-15SE with CWBs loaded with 4 AAMs will offer advantages in RCS and aerodynamic cleanness, but will trade payload capacity and range performance at the same time. To Benefit from greater range and payload it has to trade RCS and performance. The Su-35 provides a somewhat better average here. The question here is the balancing.

Everytime i refer to to the F-15SE, i refer to it in a counter-air intercept configuration with 4 x AIM-120D AMRAAM carried internally, and likewise i refer to an SU-35BM carrying an equal loadout albeit externally.

* All F-15E derivatives never fly without conformal weapons bays, so the range figures of 1,330km for an air-air mission still stands. The 1,330km range figure from Boeing also includes the weight penalty of carrying 4 x AIM-120's and also time on station, which the SU-35BM's figure of 3,600km total range does not take into account so that figure of 1,800km combat radius would be further reduced for not including increased weight, increased drag and time on station.

*All figures of the F-15E's wing loading, thrust to weight ratio etc. already take into account the fact that the CWB's are an integral part and the primary feature distinguishing an F-15 Eagle from an F-15E Strike Eagle. However, the standard figures are based on the F-15E which weighs 300kg more, has straight vertical tails and has less powerful F100-PW-229 engines......... with canted tails, reduced weight and more powerful engines, the advantages the F-15SE already has in thrust-to-weight, and wing loading only increase. Furthermore, assuming in an air-air engagement the SU-35BM is carrying 4 x R-77 (AA-12) which weigh 175kg each, the AIM-120D weighs 25kg less each so theres an additional weight saving of 100kg, not including the SU-35BMs drag penalty.

* The F-15SE media brief where everybody seems to be getting their information was produced in 2008, when the APG-63(V)3 was the best available AESA solution.
"The AN/APG-82 combines the processor of the APG-79 used on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with the antenna of the APG-63(V)3 AESA being fitted on the F-15C.[3] The new radar also includes a new cooling system and Radio Frequency Tunable Filters (RFTF). RFTF is designed to enable the F-15E radar and the electronic warfare hardware (jamming) to operate simultaneously without degrading each other.[4] [b]The new radar is to be used in the F-15E Radar Modernization Program [/b](RMP).[5] In 2009, the proposed APG-63(V)4 radar was designated APG-82" as i said previously there is no reason they would deny it for export as all the technology used already has been

*Your guilty of what you preach against, as you said, opinions, although yours are good, can still nevertheless be held as such, so if Boeing claims a very low radar cross signature of well below 1m2 from a frontal aspect, then im going to believe them. As i said, Israel, whom are worried about the F-35's cost blowouts and delivery date as well as the various critics of its kinematic performance, are reportadly very interested in the F-15SE as they are already current operators of 25 x F-15I 'Thunder' strike eagle variants. When in meetings with Boeing officials they came out very pleased with the level of frontal aspect radar cross signature reduction possible so i would assume it must be impressive. What confuses me is why the F-35's radar absorbent materials are effective against ground radars, when the F-15SE's are not, although they both claim to provide stealth against X-band radars?

*Maximum speed at full afterburner in clean configuration is faster than an SU-35BM at full afterburner, as will be cruise speed when carrying internal weapons. An SU-35BM with 4 external missiles simply cannot match this due to the drag penalty.

*the AL-41F1A or Saturn 117S engine had its first flight in an SU-35BM in 2008?,they are dimension-wise identical to the AL-31F but they have less thrust than an F100-PW-232 anyway at 31,900lbf vs 32,500lbf. Furthermore, these engines have already been used in the statistics of the SU-35BM, yet it is still inferior to an orginal F-15E with F100-PW-229's in thrust-to-weight and wing loading, and again this margin would increase quite dramatically if the F-15SE was given an additional 7,000lbf of total thrust, by means of a pair of F100-PW-232's.

In a mock head-on beyond visual range air-air engagement between an SU-35BM armed with 4 x AA-12 Adders and a stealth configured F-15SE with 4 x internal AIM-120D AMRAAM, the F-15SE would get first look, first shot, first kill and in the rare instance all 4 missiles miss the target, the pilot can then retreat, initally at full afterburner to get out of range of the SU-35BM's AA-12 missiles, and then at a higher cruise speed than what the SU-35BM carrying external weapons could possibly chase, whom would also be reaching bingo fuel at a much faster rate than the retreating F-15SE, particularly if using afterburner which he would be forced to do just to keep up. The time window when the F-15SE gets 'first look and first shot' would probably be small as you said, but regardless by the time the SU-35BM pilot has acquired the target on his radar, he will already have 4 x AIM-120D's approaching at mach 4, and will more than likely be focusing his attention on surviving rather than engaging the F-15SE, and even if he was to launch missiles, the retreating F-15SE flying at well over mach 2 would have enough time to fly out of range of the incoming missile/s and once out of range could comfortably return to a high cruise speed.

Yes it doesnt offer all its advantages at once, but essentially its 2 aircraft for the price of 1. It could be a stealthy world class air superiority fighter or 3 hours later a long range f-111 class bomb truck or cruise missile platform providing an air force with its furthest reaching strike capability. I know that in an area operating an S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) i would rather be in an non stealth configured F-15SE launching 2 x JASSM-ER cruise missiles at the system from outside the SAM's engagement envelope, than taking the risk of flying a stealth F-35 within JDAM range, albeit if the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (cruise missile able to be carried by the F-35 internally) gets developed quickly, that could provide the best of both worlds.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Stealth Eagle?