Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

@ muir - I would fully concur with the justification and objective to accelerate a strategic F-15E MLU. As you suggest, they will most justifiably need it. It cannot be stressed enough, that for one, part of this accelerated mid-term upgrade should no question include an accelerated 'heavier AAM' interim capability. If we as enthusiasts, tax-payers and observers alike and hopefully for 'DoD/USAF/Congress' as well, are to contemplate the F15E as being a credible air system for the next 25+ yrs, one should right off assess that this platform will be mismatched right out the gate within 5 +/- yrs as a credible multi-role deterrence with regards to AAM and medium-range air-superiority capacities...

They will in the very near-term, if not already, be out-ranged and out-gunned in the very BVR category they are supposed to 'maintain'. Can F-15E of tomorrow wait for a risky and uncertain JDRADM alone? Wait and see?? Or might there be some alternative fast-tracked plan B credibility-gap development put into motion in the interim to better ensure the F-15E can maintain deterrence and not an illusion of up-to-date deterrence within 5-8 yrs? That would be my push anyway, that and at least the off-the-shelf IRST integration... before any possible CWB element of a F-15SE-retrofit, which IIRC is not even intended or plausible anyway for older legacy F-15 and F-15E? First phase upgrade should be to focus on keeping the F-15E credible in air combat and be able match 'rest of world' capabilities on at least a 1:1 deterrence. Then go from there: e.g., other increasing add-on layers of SA and force-multiplying integration, such as Recon pods (giving superior SA) and possibly integrating currently available (or in development next-gen) AEA/SoJ pods (also enabling superior 360deg long-range SA).

But imho, with all respect to anyone discounting this near-term requirement, one is either not informed, or too distracted ideologically with their own pet projects to notice such rapidly changing current day events and strategic imperatives..

@ Disco - thanks for the discussion always, very well thought out, regardless of our differences.

I'd fully concur that, at least, the F-15E force structure needs an accelerated, official-level feasibility study on how to both realistically and cost-effectively force-multiply this existing platform. Not sure what level this study is currently being considered so I won't pass judgement on it, other than to say that I fully support and advocate an accelerated capabilities and feasibility study and followed up with a creative, innovative, sustainable implementation plan, accordingly.

Other than that, it could be noted that both the current F-15C and existing F-15E are not in fact assessed as being F-15SE-retrofit capable? Apparently, only new-build F-15+ type platforms are even being contemplated as being an F-15SE retrofit capable platform, IIRC. Re: F-15C/D: while I'd like to think this class could receive proper funding and are airworthy in the first place to receive a modernized upgrade, I'm not necessarily convinced, or privy into what is possible funding-wise or airframe-potential-wise with respect to this model, staying the course on the current Procurement plan. I'd like to think it's possible, but I truly feel that w/ staying the course going forward, there will be no funds for such a major F-15C/D upgrade. The 'plan' would first have to be fundamentally restructured and reset. imho.

@ Spud -

Basically, no, no and no, with one yes at the end... lol.

And I'm also sorry that we're so out of sync on this topic... But:

1) No, I'm not assuming that an upgraded (starting with current off-the-shelf Incremental 1.0) F-15E++ new build would be automatically 'better' in all regards than a future block III-mature F-35A.
2) No, the APG-82 (V)1 probably does not have the equivalent LPI mode as does the APG-81. But even so, it's a more powerful, longer-reaching AESA radar with absolute growth potential and apparently does in fact have good enough, highly modern, 'close-coordination/see-through' capabiliy with DEWS, to incorporate such things as a heavy AEA/SoJ jam pod. (something a 2017/18 block III F-35A is not planned for.)
3) No, EOTS is reportedly a 3rd generation derivative of Sniper ATP, albeit with seemingly very practical 'automated' mode upgrade and possible other enhancements of the current Sniper - but also developed prior to the next-gen Sniper ATP-SE requirements and configurations. Possibly look for some Sniper SE capabilities to migrate into a future EOTS upgrade?
4) No, PAWS-2+ is very unlikely to be better than EODAS, especially when EODAS is eventually integrated into the future F-35 HMD. This is a clear superior future systems capability for the F-35 by all considerations. The point which I confess should have been clarified was that PAWS-2+ could be a very capable and 'good enough' modern system in itself, especially if further evolved and enhanced over time.
5) No, do not assume that there not be a potential rogue VLO threat (be it cm or UCAV) introduced into stream within 8 yrs. Remember, these things are black budget stuff and are not being advertised and updated on, in public chat forums. Anticipate being surprised and in hurry up mode in the future - as officials have apparently been surprised re: a couple recent developments - if this is the true assessment being made. Better to over-estimate (and prepare) in this case.

In agreement here - I too have proposed and advocated for a large aperture LW/QWIP IRST to be developed and incorporated into a VLO pod, possibly to be installed on the F-35 centerline station. This would be a very valid and legit concept to accelerate on. imho.

F-16.net Sponsor

2) If -82 had the LPI modes of the -81 then Raytheon would be yelling it from the rooftops, especially in areas where it is pitted against the F-35 (hello SK). Btw, only the -81 has the EWS "pulse for pulse" coordination (I can show you my source on the -81 if you can show me yours on the -82). Smile

Having a more powerful AESA does not help you if The F-35 can detect it (due to non-LPI) before the -82 can detect the F-35.

3) I think the easiest and most cost effective EOTS upgrade would be to swap out the Mid-wave sensor for a QWIP with a higher pixel count. You would get higher resolution and multi-band sensor input with only a board change and software update.

5) The only potentially serious VLO threat to our forces could face within the next 8 years would be a UCAV. Considering that, the F-35 can safely blast away with it's -81 all day long without fear of the UCAV doing anything about it. The F-35's Barracuda EWS will also likely pick up on the UCAV's control datalink.

Last, but not least... At "least" we agree on something Smile

Btw, the centerline station is wired just like the rest of the A2G stations (2gb/s I believe) so integrating a VLO IRST pod would be a no-brainer and not require more bandwidth than what is already provided (ie not fall into the trap that F-22 did with all-new backbone with Blk35).

Quote:

Other than that, it could be noted that both the current F-15C and existing F-15E are not in fact assessed as being F-15SE-retrofit capable? Apparently, only new-build F-15+ type platforms are even being contemplated as being an F-15SE retrofit capable platform, IIRC. Re: F-15C/D: while I'd like to think this class could receive proper funding and are airworthy in the first place to receive a modernized upgrade, I'm not necessarily convinced, or privy into what is possible funding-wise or airframe-potential-wise with respect to this model, staying the course on the current Procurement plan. I'd like to think it's possible, but I truly feel that w/ staying the course going forward, there will be no funds for such a major F-15C/D upgrade. The 'plan' would first have to be fundamentally restructured and reset. imho.

Can you point me to some reading material that supports this claim? I honestly don't buy it. That's based on my experience of going from working on A model Apaches to working on AH-64Ds. It's basically a whole other aircraft. Eventually these former A models will be Block III Apaches, which is an even more drastic change. You really can upgrade the hell out of an aircraft, even structurally. Further more, based on the video I just watched, it looks like the CWB has been test flown successfully on a standard F-15E based on the tail number (correct me if I'm wrong, though).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CRF53SNzHA

@ Spud -

To my knowledge, it's currently designated the APG-82 (V)1. To me at least, that would naturally imply a follow-on (V)2, as requirements and development decisions warrant it (perhaps by 2017-2018?). The capability in question per se could justifiably be considered as part of any follow on (V) increment upgrade though... perhaps on par with with a requirement to develop and upgrade EOTS and possibly integrate a future add-on IRST system?? With respect to full APG-82 capabilities being advertised in public and offered to X,Y,Z as you propose, I'm not sure if the radar would currently even be offered for export? The (V)3 would seem to be a reasonable high-end export set today?

For argument sake though , note that I'm not claiming the APG-82 (V)1 would detect a clean F-35 before the APG-81 would detect an F-15E+. Granted, such a stand-alone proposition would probably not be the most efficient, nor wise method of any hypothetical head-on 4v4 (or 5v5, 6v6, etc) Red Flag duel, imho.

Yet, just to repeat the focus on this point and conjecture... the APG-82 (as part of a next-gen package) should have the potential to detect a VLO target or small objects, etc (as well as offer other potential tactical flexibility) farther out, beyond that of either the APG-77 or -81. 'As part of the package...' the point could be made.

re: a future EOTS upgrade, avionics will naturally be upgraded as they always have, so all the more power to a future EOTS upgrade. (however, given a hypothetical Red Flag 2018, a stock block III is the model being compared - with the budget and capabilities being advertised - vs a F-15E+ model employing off-the-shelf systems, with the sole exception of an accelerated, heavier kinematic class AAM development, which would be part of a sensible and plausible alternative, 'or stopgap', Plan B). I.e., If we're modifying the block III now, to better compete with a souped up next-gen F-15E+, then the goal posts are moved and we can further bump up the F-15E+ enhancements and systems development budgets too. Smile

The argument being, take the baseline block III and offer a competing F-15E+ alternative (or supplemental stopgap equivalent) to offset the disadvantages.

With respect to Barracuda EWS and a 2018 updated DEWS (the digital realm is fairly new, increasingly competitive and surely on a prioritized list for incremental modernization being seen as essential in the AESA age), I wouldn't even speculate at this point regarding any would be monumental differences - not that detailed specs would released in public anyway. But again, it comes down to 'good enough'. If one system can get a good enough geolocation sufficient to cue another system(s), which might themselves get a good enough data input, then there will be more mutual-offsetting than assumed, etc. An APG-82 w/ RFTF equipped F-15E+, configured w/ DEWS or another one possibly(?) Elisra, could very easily integrate an 'over-sized', dedicated AEA/SoJ pod which are on the market or under development too. With a very long-range 360deg full-band spectrum and enabling various modern/next-gen tactical capabilities, this system would seem to be part of a viable, asymmetrical F-15E+ strategic stopgap plan. Again, I'm going to hold some of my Red Flag 2017 contingency cards tight here and not reveal too much to the Blue force Wink

Disco -

Just going from memory, I could be wrong but I think one of the original F-15SE press releases was indicating something about new-build F-15K/SG class F-15s (as opposed to legacy F-15C/D for certain) could later be retrofitted to some form of the SE variant. I guess there would be more commonality with this current level of 'guts' which could incorporate the EW suite and other systems, without major modification.

Also, not sure if the SE plan includes the canted Tail(?) or if the F-15 is even going to stay open in the near-term for that matter, but I think they were implying that 'transitional' new build F-15E+ could at least be further retrofitted (and be a better baseline candidate) for various RCS reducing measures too? For one thing though, legacy USAF F-15Es look pretty banged up from the looks of them, but sure, you're probably correct that any aircraft depending on the level of investment allocated could receive comprehensive re-wiring, new fcs, displays and computer, etc.

And you'd probably be correct that a standard F-15E would seem to be capable of receiving the raw CWB (yes the test platform in question is an F-15E test bed). I'm just arguing that there would be more important USAF related upgrades conceived for an hypothetical F-15E+ MLU, than putting priority on the CWB.. imho.

With respect to your earlier question, 'how could USAF afford new build F-15E if they can barely afford current upgrades'... excellent question and very relevant to the bigger issue. IMHO, staying the course is not the optimal plan, especially now with unpredictable future budgets in what looks to be imminent austere budget environments which the services will be facing. That is, the current stay the course plan would likely not be sustainable (more so for Partners or FMS) under any considerable cuts... so it's possible the USAF/DoD would fundamentally restructure various acquisition plans, rather than give haircuts or crew cuts, across the board.

So two possibly different contingencies as I see it at least. 1) is stay the course, albeit accepting major haircuts to the JSF Program probably resulting in unit costs further bumping up more than expected. In this scenario, even less funding might be available for maintenance of the entire legacy force structure currently proposed to undergo SLEP and various MLU for 15-20+ years. That could conceivably equate to fewer birds than currently expected receiving SLEP/MLU and the type of MLU would possibly be less exotic, etc.

Contingency # 2) imho, could include a comprehensive restructuring of the recapitalization plan. As part of this, I'd propose different funding alternatives to potentially help make the rest of LRIP more affordable and sustainable. This could include some sort of LEASE term, or even a mid-term/long-term financing scheme, or possibly a mix of both? (Objective: to maximize annual procurement units, yep, even under concurrency - at the risk to USAF, readiness, Gov and to LM). Yet in addition, I'd also ponder some sort of interim 'F-35 Bond' (critical to national security, technological base and near-term employment), which LM and possibly DoD and even govt could float as a means to help absorb immediate term losses to LM in case of said Lease/financing scheme, but which could be paid off down-stream by actual higher volume sales, via more sustainable and successful Program. imho.

In this scenario, I'd also be in the camp of thought advocating immediate-term, 4.5 gen stopgap procurement alternatives to 'supplement' said restructured and probably far lighter than expected F-35 delivery in the back-end. You are probably correct that the USAF could not afford both F-15E+, F-16+ and F-35 in this environment, however, given a strategic restructuring to possibly include some forms of creative funding, I would absolutely support such an alternative plan which could also afford even nominal procurement of supplemental stopgap units (4.5 gen F-16+ and a few annual F-15+) in the interim (perhaps even the F-15E+ themselves being 'long-term' financed at low-interest rates too?).

There is always going to be follow-on development. What is not guaranteed is when and to what degree. What I can say for certainty is that it will not happen before ~2025. I base this on the fact that they will still be installing -82(V1) sets in 2018 (24 sets budgeted in FY2016). Throw in a few years of use before dev on (V)2 begins & new units are available and you get to 2025.

Geo,

From what I know, the same people who built the F-22 are building the F-35. My hope is that after production ramps up to full capacity LMT will learn they have greatly reduced costs on the assembly line (this happens a lot as experience is built and innovation flows - Moore's Law). Continuing on this idea, Lockheed figures out how to translate this cost reduction to produce more Raptors at a considerable reduction in price. A miracle happens and F-22Cs start flowing off of the production line, because at that point they are more affordable, have more systems commonality with the F-35, there is a new administration in the White House and most of the current top brass in the military has retired. I know this is hypothetical, but it would represent my (ideal) alternative to buying interim F-15SEs for the USAF/ANG. I think we should wait and be patient because a lot of things are going to change in the next couple of years. I'd rather see all the Golden Eagles retire or be sold off and replaced with F-22s, honestly. Good things come to those who wait, right? I feel a bit optimistic about the future.

Same old story.

Making an F-15 more like an F-35 will make them cost at least as much as an F-35 individually, require separate and substantial development and testing, and have a higher cost over the long term because of reduced commonality throughout the fleet.

The stopgap idea wasn't that great to begin with, and is getting worse as the F-35 gets closer to IOC.

@ Spud,, Are you positive the basic APG-82(V)1 hardware could not later be updated to some form of (V)2 increment capabilities and are you sure that development of certain popular advanced updates to the this radar would only begin after the final V1 set is installed? I'm not quite sold on that timeline...

@ Prinz, In the interim, no, Not as expensive as the F-35. And it's mature - hence a definite Alternative stopgap option. Even in small numbers to offset the F-35's operational delay... One might consider a financed procurement contingency too, in tight spots where annual budgets and buying power will be less than expected..

The advanced F-15E+ is actually off-the-shelf as is, or nearly ready with respect to certain systems - so there's not so much 'new cost' to be piled onto what is basically available if one wanted a highly capable (and yes, more affordable as implied by Boeing) next-gen stopgap today.

No, today's F-15E+ is not a stealth jet and that's not the point. What has to be respected is that already existing F-15E+ capabilities available for near-term delivery, coupled w/ soon to be available add-ons just as Sniper SE pod among others, no matter how you cut it, gives the F-15E+ as part of a modern mix even more superior Long-range Situational Awareness than both the F-22 and F-35. Add a Recon pod into the equation and integrate an over-sized AEA/escort pod in conjunction w/ the APG-82 + other ew measures and I'm sorry, it's absolutely a GAME-CHANGING, operational, Alternative platform with superior range requiring less dependency on exorbitantly expensive in flight Tankers as a bonus Mr. Green

What I said was that updates will happen, just not likely before 2025 due to them still installing (V)1.

btw, the F-15E+ is not "off the shelf" as is (at least not what you are suggesting). No LPI in the -82, no large IRST, no PAWS2+, no DEWS & -82 integration, no stealthy features (ala SE), no updated Sniper XR, etc.

If you really really wanted, any pod you'd put on an F-15, you could put on an F-35.

F-35 will win any EW fight because A) Realistically, there's not a system that will be both ready before, and competitive with, that on the F-35 and B) It has a lower RCS and will always be easier to hide (requires much less radiated power). A radar putting out enough power to find an F-35 at considerable range is going to be detected.

Your main mistake is assuming that integration is easy, and that you can throw all these different things together and make them work. Well... no.

What is the gap we're stopping with these things anyway? Is Taiwan going to declare independence in 3 years?

Last edited by geogen on Oct 17, 2011 - 08:56 AM; edited 1 time in total

Wasn't discussing full -SE concept design being off the shelf or mature today on this one. The thread subject is about the 'transition' to SE. It's an evolutionary process as is say, F-35 Block II to the block III to the block IV, etc.

Spud- Hypothetical Red Flag 2017 scenario is actually sticking with (V)1 as I'm concerned, so no reason to fear. But c'mon 2025 can't even be speculated as falling into any realistic historical expectation. The turnover from 63(V)1 to (V)2, to (V)3, to (V)4/81V1 is not separated from 15 yr segments. There's no reason, not to expect an update with different mode enhancements, if required by say an actual -SE Program being Procured in some distant reality, e.g. There should be no technical problem to do this of course, as Raytheon mastered the capability and has built into the (V)2,3,4 radar the architecture for 'seamless transition'. But let's stick with V1 for now for the F-15E+, sure.

As far as the 'Off The Shelf' term is concerned, fair enough, good to see some fresh critics on this site lol. The point being, that per FY13, and at latest, FY14, there should be a DEWS capability as it is supposed to be available for any follow-on F-15E order, .e.g -SA or K+ (which is taking delivery by 2016).

That's off the shelf enough for this convo - we're not talking NGJ being off the shelf or ready for integration, etc. Although, if for any technical reason DEWS is NOT mature for an FY13 or FY14 order, then again, there are good enough alternative, modern, off-the-shelf digital suites which could sub and integrate an off-the-shelf, 360deg AEA/support jamm pod in conjunction with the noted APG82(V)1 - for the US case at least.

Re: no large IRST, it could be plausible, if not by LM perhaps someone else by 2017, we'll have to see. But a current derivative of the current LW IRST is good enough, available and of course, Off the shelf.

Re: Paws-2 with SAPIR not being off the shelf(??), or currently available (especially for an FY13 build), the SAPIR can reportedly function on a display screen - kinda like what F-35 is going to get with DAS for the time being too. That should suffice for a near-term 'Off the shelf' phase 1 qualification and go from there...

Re: Sniper SE pod, true... currently in development but should be Off the Shelf by Red Flag 2017 either as a new build or a planned, seamless retrofit to the current Sniper ATP as it's designed to be. Either option to work under is good to go, but if one must truly have 1k resolution FLIR today, then no sweat one could start with an available Litening G4 and switch to Sniper later if desired. And likewise... off the shelf, 12-13" aperture, very high-res Recon pod SA capability can be integrated with no issue there.

Ready to work, ready to integrate, ready to be thrown together into the mix per requirements for an FY13 onward procurement plan. LOL, almost sounds like a script for a video advert... sorry bout that, but just honestly trying to clarify this criticism which I feel is either totally incorrect or being taken out of context.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a closing response for Prinz - it's one of a perfectly credible and mature, stopgap option to hedge against rapidly growing 'hollow-force' risk and uncertainty with the unknown reliability issues, delays, reductions and plausible unexpected legacy early-retirements in the mid-term recapitalization, given austere budget environments to come.

One example: imho, retire the 170 +/- expensive to maintain, dubious to adequately SLEP/MLU, potentially long-term-structurally-restricted F-15C/D fleet before the end of decade and phase in with around 70-80x new-build F-15E+ of the -15SG/SA equivalent standard, plus the upgraded radar intended for existing F-15E's MRP - which perhaps could receive the (V)3 instead? Just my views...

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

If you really really wanted, any pod you'd put on an F-15, you could put on an F-35.

Yes, yes you could but where would that leave the "Anything but JSF" camp? Afterall hanging a pod on an F-35 is still using an F-35 and as we all know its far better to use a 40 year old unstealthy airframe that has been souped up with more modern systems than it is to use the less expensive and state of the art 5th generation stealth fighter.

Sure, and if you really wanted, any A2G system and external clearance you'd put on an F-35, you could put on an F-22... ? Wink

Seriously though... missing the reasoning behind this option. F-35's plate is full and block III completion as is, might stretch out to 2018 alone. The issue is simply about there being currently mature, game-changing packages available today, to SUPPLEMENT the ongoing unexpectedly delayed LRIP Program development and reduced, risky concurrency procurement in the interim.

Not really. The F-35 can handle 2k internal, has an IRST/FLIR, is wired for any high-bandwidth pod you want to hang on it, etc. Wink

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-15SE transition: Now or never?