New F-15 Silent Eagle

Lurch · by **Lurch** » 17 Mar 2009, 18:52

There is a new F-15 variant: LO F-15, called "the Silent Eagle"

http://bnn.ids.web.boeing.com/index.cfm ... 69246&bu=3

Lightndattic · by **Lightndattic** » 17 Mar 2009, 19:31

I just read the extensive write up on the Av Week Ares blog and it's impressive. Internal carriage of 4 AAM (or A-G weapons in the same bays), RAM treatments, Radar Blockers for the inlets, tilted vertical stabs, etc. Looks quite nice. Like they say on the blog, it looks like a legit competitor for JSF or the Super Hornet in certain markets.

MKopack · by **MKopack** » 17 Mar 2009, 20:49

Very interesting, and if the development and manufacturing costs aren't outrageous I could see a market out there for an aircraft like this. Especially given the growth of the Eagle in the past - it would seem that this would be the next logical step.

Who'd have thought back in the early 70's that the F-15 would have grown into what it has...

Mike

boff180 · by **boff180** » 17 Mar 2009, 21:04

Nice. I really do like that. I'd say the main customers would be Japan and 'maybe' us (UK) if we do decide to pull out of F-35 as the latest defence review is indicating.

But I have to ask, even with these new reductions; will it reduce the RCS of the F-15 down to anywhere near that of the Rafale/Typhoon class, let alone F-22/F-35 class?

Andy
Andy

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 17 Mar 2009, 21:17

Here's the Boeing announcement:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 7a_nr.html

PhillyGuy · by **PhillyGuy** » 17 Mar 2009, 22:03

At nearly the same price as the F-35 it will still offer no where near the same capability. As such, this might be fore those 2nd hand allies. Certainly not for costumers and Air Forces interested in keeping an edge for decades and not a few years.

Lurch · by **Lurch** » 18 Mar 2009, 16:40

Cost is no where near the foot print the F-35. You forgot training, support equipment, etc... that goes with a new acft. Those countries who already fly the F-15 already have the support equipment and trained personel. Cost of the JSF is continuing to climb. Outside of the new vertical tail, this is a proven platform. I bet it isn't as far off the JSF as most would guess. I bet a lot of countries will give the new F-15 a real close look. JMHO though

Kryptid · by **Kryptid** » 18 Mar 2009, 17:17

There's a topic about this in the F-22A Raptor forum as well. They should probably be merged.

Guysmiley · by **Guysmiley** » 18 Mar 2009, 17:38

Lurch wrote:Cost is no where near the foot print the F-35. You forgot training, support equipment, etc... that goes with a new acft. Those countries who already fly the F-15 already have the support equipment and trained personel. Cost of the JSF is continuing to climb. Outside of the new vertical tail, this is a proven platform. I bet it isn't as far off the JSF as most would guess. I bet a lot of countries will give the new F-15 a real close look. JMHO though

The question is "how much additional training/maintenance does the care and feeding of the stealth features take?" I doubt Boeing will put that in a press release, but I'd hope it'd be part of the sales talks with prospective buyers.

Kryptid · by **Kryptid** » 18 Mar 2009, 19:44

But I have to ask, even with these new reductions; will it reduce the RCS of the F-15 down to anywhere near that of the Rafale/Typhoon class, let alone F-22/F-35 class?

It's almost certainly nowhere close to that of the F-22 and F-35. If I remember correctly, the majority of the F-15's radar signal returns come from the exposed engine faces. By reducing the exposure with those "radar blockers" that Lightndattic spoke of, you could probably get the Eagle's large RCS down to more "normal" levels but not much lower. The Eagle's RCS is supposedly on the order of 15 square meters, which was also the rough RCS size of the Su-27. The J-11 is said to have modified intakes vs. the Su-27 and has an RCS below 3 square meters. I suspect a similar amount of reduction for the F-15SE; around 1-3 square meters.

psychmike · by **psychmike** » 21 Mar 2009, 19:18

I wonder what other mods have been performed or proposed for Silent Eagle. OK, they canted the tails. Perhaps they've installed a radar blocked in the intakes but that has got to interfere with airflow. Perhaps they have 2 different operating modes; maximum engine performance vs. minimum RCS. I wager they also had to substantially change some internal structures such as the bulkhead behind the radar. On the F-22, it is quite canted. Any word on what they're doing with the targeting / nav pods? Some of the links posted didn't work for me.

Mike

That_Engine_Guy · by **That_Engine_Guy** » 21 Mar 2009, 22:22

Kryptid wrote:If I remember correctly, the majority of the F-15's radar signal returns come from the exposed engine faces. By reducing the exposure with those "radar blockers" that Lightndattic spoke of, you could probably get the Eagle's large RCS down to more "normal" levels but not much lower

psychmike wrote:Perhaps they've installed a radar blocked in the intakes but that has got to interfere with airflow.

You are correct; whenever you change airflow to the engine's intake performance will change.

Take the Bone; The A could do MACH 2, the B is limited to 1.25 simply by removing the variable inlet system and replacing it with one designed to reduce RCS. Total RCS of the B-1B is 1/50th or so of the B-1A.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:

TEG

(Edit - finished my thought)

ptplauthor · by **ptplauthor** » 22 Mar 2009, 01:16

Nice. I really do like that. I'd say the main customers would be Japan and 'maybe' us (UK) if we do decide to pull out of F-35 as the latest defence review is indicating.

I don't think that's going to happen, isn't the UK order for the STOVL variant and the F-35 is going to be deployed by the RN. The UK MoD is going to have to either buy two planes and blow away more money, or just stick with the JSF. The F-35 is closer to being fielded, and to pull away at this stage of the game is ridiculous, sure the 15SE might have more space for stores, but it'll be simpler in the long run to get the one airframe.

That_Engine_Guy · by **That_Engine_Guy** » 22 Mar 2009, 03:30

Doesn't matter how many stores it has, or how fast it will fly. If an F-15SE flew into hostile airspace against true Gen-V aircraft with all-aspect stealth built into them, it will become litter in a matter of minutes.

I don't care how "un-stealthy" the nay-sayers think the F-35 is, it will be many times stealither than any moded-Eagle, or Super Bug that enters production.

When (and I do mean WHEN) someone on the "bad-guy" team develops stealth, the only way to counter it will be our own stealth.

Fighters get more expensive each time they are purchased. It is a simple fact of economy and technology. If we did things in the past, like many are talking now, we'd be flying F-86SX-2s or something of the like... :roll:

Eagles have never been "cheap" or "economical" to operate when compared to the Viper. Likewise the Lightening II's design is for cheap life-cycle and operating costs, something the massive, twin-engined F-15SE would never be able to match. :2c:

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:

TEG

TC · by TC » 22 Mar 2009, 04:30

That_Engine_Guy wrote:Eagles have never been "cheap" or "economical" to operate when compared to the Viper.

Agree TEG. In the 35 years that the Eagle has been operational, we are now only up to our 5th FMS customer. Many have wanted it over the years, but ended up with "sticker shock" when McAir showed them the price tag.

This is directly opposed to the laundry list of Viper customers. It certainly wasn't a reflection on the Eagle's performance and capabilities (104-0 anybody?).

It came down to a simple economical decision. Why buy a lower number of Eagles and/or Mudhens, when you could buy a larger number of Vipers, which have Multi-Role capability, not just the "Not a pound..." of the A-D models of the Eagle. Plus, the Viper has a better dogfighting capability than the Strike Eagle.

Also, with the exception of Israel and the ROK, there aren't too many countries out there that need the longer range strike capability of the Mudhen.

The same economics, and need for an aircraft of that size will be the same reasons countries will want the F-35 over the Silent Eagle that caused them to pick the Viper over the Eagle back in the 70s and 80s.