Boeing Unveils New Stealthy F-15

[Vivendi]

Boeing unveils a new stealthy F-15:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/Silent031709.xml&headline=Boeing%20Unveils%20New%20Stealthy%20F-15

To a non-expert like me, this looks like an interesting concept -- not as a competitor to F-35, but perhaps as an interesting alternative to those countries that for some reason or another cannot or will not purchase the F-35, but still would like a "stealth jet" in the inventory.

Would the Eurocanards be able to do something similar? I believe CFTs have been studied for the Eurofighter, but the drawings I've seen indicated CFTs on top of the wings... probably not where you would like to put your missiles!

So what do the experts think of this idea from Boeing? Is this just a desperate attempt to prolong the life of the F-15, or is this a good idea?

V

[Scorpion82]

Boeing unveils a new stealthy F-15:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/Silent031709.xml&headline=Boeing%20Unveils%20New%20Stealthy%20F-15

To a non-expert like me, this looks like an interesting concept -- not as a competitor to F-35, but perhaps as an interesting alternative to those countries that for some reason or another cannot or will not purchase the F-35, but still would like a "stealth jet" in the inventory.

Would the Eurocanards be able to do something similar? I believe CFTs have been studied for the Eurofighter, but the drawings I've seen indicated CFTs on top of the wings... probably not where you would like to put your missiles!

So what do the experts think of this idea from Boeing? Is this just a desperate attempt to prolong the life of the F-15, or is this a good idea?

V

Well the concept is interesting, the CFTs with integrated weapon bays in particular. Yet the weapon bays alone won't make it a stealth aircraft. There are more RCS reduction measures on this design such as structural stealth, RAM, radar blockers in the intakes and V-tails. Such measures, except for the V-tails and weapon bays are already integrated into any of the ECDs to a more or less strong degree.

[Ananda]

Woooww...nice design..I think Boing taking cue from Sukhoi's on continuating and improving existing decades old design..since the market is there...
Aggree it will not be a substitute for F-22, but with this modification..the exixting F-15 fleet seems can continue as supplementary for F-22..

Could it be this a cue that the production line of F-22 will be limited on current 200'ish plan..and no more..??
With cuurent economic conditions in US and continue defence cuts plan..while in the same time maintaning the number of existing fleet does seems esentials...modifying or producing modified F-15 is a smart way..

Afterall if PAK-FA do come out..it will also be in very limited numbers..and this F-15 still can do well against SU 27/30/35 MKM, Eurofighter, and Rafale..righhtt ??

[ROCK45]

It's interesting but I think the stealth or low RSC with be frontal only. Still very useful in combat don't get wrong might get a little closer to get that good ARRAMS shot in. The Eagle is still a deadly fighter and doesn't automatically lose to Su-30 Flankers, people forget there was a range cap on US missiles in Cope of India.

I don't think it has much to do with the F-22 production lines and more to do with Boeing trying to grab or hold onto as much of the small fighter market as it can. It's F/A-18 Super Hornet isn't breaking sales records and the F-22 still isn't clear for export yet. Japan's market I think is the goal here I maybe wrong but I think that's the focus or hope.

[Ananda]

I don't think it has much to do with the F-22 production lines and more to do with Boeing trying to grab or hold onto as much of the small fighter market as it can.

Just want to clarify, the small fighter market in here means to get the market of small fighter or the small size of fighter market ?
Sorry, just I thought the F-15 (especiallly this modified version) can't be clasified as small fighther right ? Afterall even with F-22 in hand, it's still a very capable full size fighter.
I believe even with this modified versions, the potential market will be very limited to the current F-15 users. Still since potential market of this modified F-15 will also the potential market of F-35, it can be attractive option for getting F-35. The F-35 may best it on RCS but on range and avionics + radar, with what Boing have in mind, can provide more or less similar capability package, and best F-35 in range and payload.

So it definetely will not be F-22 contender, but can be alternative for F-35.
Agree though that F-15 still can hold well against Su 30, at them same time Su 30 can hold well with F-15.

[OPSSG]

ROCK45, I agree with your analysis that Boeing trying to grab or hold onto as much of the fighter market and the F-15 fighter upgrade market, keeping in mind that the Saudi air force placed 2 orders (in Sept 2008 & Oct 2007) that exceeds $750 million (http://www.geaviation.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20080909b.html) to re-engine their F-15S, just to give an indicative idea of how valuable the F-15 upgrade market can be.

Woooww...nice design...

:D Woooww too. :D I'm school boy excited about the the new "Silent Eagle" version which include internal bays within the existing conformal fuel tanks. There is also another write up and video by Flight Global on the 'Silent Eagle' here (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/boeing-unveils-the-stealthy-f-.html).

Conforma fuel tanks can be typically removed within an hour or two, so the idea of internal bays within conformal fuel tanks is a great idea for radar signature reduction. However, the current proposed design seems to provide for 4 missiles or alternate bomb carriage. This is a very small 'silent' combat load. In fact, I think they should consider sacrificing more fuel carriage to see if they can put in more.

A relatively cheap upgrade, plus a low risk, low developmental cost idea, for a big potential market segment.

IMHO, the decision not to incorporate more advanced technology into the F-15 platform earlier had always been driven by political and other considerations (not allowing it to take away from F-35 sales). Boeing always had the ability to further upgrade the F-15 platform. However, there was just no funding for it, as USAF development monies were allocated to the F-22 and F-35 programs.

Basically, RCS reduction measures in aircraft will force an upgrade in air defence radars worldwide and push air forces without AWACS towards acquiring them sooner.

Agree it will not be a substitute for F-22, but with this modification..the existing F-15 fleet seems can continue as supplementary for F-22..

Could it be this a cue that the production line of F-22 will be limited on current 200'ish plan..and no more..??

I think Boeing is making a very smart move, as it would help the company generate more sales for an existing platform (to bring jobs almost immediately) as opposed to future jobs to be provided for the F-35 program (which happens to be LM, it's competitor).

In the case of Singapore, if we acquire more F-15SGs beyond the current 24, it would mean that the 'Silent Eagle' may compete against F-35 sales to Singapore. Let me explain. We intend to replace our two current F-5 squadrons. IMHO, one of the F-5 squadrons will be replaced by the F-35. The question, that RSAF will need to ask itself is whether we are going to buy more F-15s OR F-35s for the other F-5 squadron.

For non-US, western orientated operators, the F-15 fleet will supplement the F-35. Keep in mind that many F-15 operators are flying a variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle, which often plays a strike role.

With current economic conditions in US and continue defence cuts plan..while in the same time maintaining the number of existing fleet does seems essentials...modifying or producing modified F-15 is a smart way...

Currently, the USAF plans to operate the F-15 up to 2035 and I certain that other operators intend to keep theirs in service for a even longer time frame. So there is money to be made to sell upgrades to non-US F-15 operators, who also happen to be countries with deep pockets.

Afterall if PAK-FA do come out..it will also be in very limited numbers..and this F-15 still can do well against SU 27/30/35 MKM, Eurofighter, and Rafale..righht ??

Keep in mind, for the F-15 to be in service beyond 2035, it must be able to continue to do well against other fighters. In this respect, the engines available (and being developed) for the F-15 platform must have more power and cost less to maintain. Currently the F-15SGs are powered by the F110-GE-129C, which is also the same model as the Saudi re-engine choice.

[Feanor]

Looks like an excellent option for those that need an advanced air superiority bird, but can't afford 5th gen. Definetly competitive in terms of the world market. When can we expect to see it offered for export?

[OPSSG]

Looks like an excellent option for those that need an advanced air superiority bird, but can't afford 5th gen. Definitely competitive in terms of the world market. When can we expect to see it offered for export?

Please see Boeing's 'Silent Eagle Int'l (http://www.slideshare.net/TheDEWLine/silent-eagle-media-briefdoc?type=powerpoint)' presentation for the media.

I tend to see this media release as relating to Boeing lobbying the US Government to allow them to incorporate more frontal LO features to enhance their current F-15 sales prospects and to keep their US production line open. The new carriage option can also benefit all USAF F-15Es and provides an avionics and DEW upgrade path for the F-15 platform.

Israel has gone further than any non-consortium member toward acquisition, with plans to buy an initial 25 F-35A's in fiscal 2012 for delivery starting in 2014 and an option for 50 more. U.S. instructor pilots would join Israeli pilots to train at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on four of the aircraft built for Israel. By early 2015, the U.S. instructors would transition to Israel to continue training pilots there.

Singapore is at least 2 years behind Israel on our F-35 buy plans (ie. 2016 or later first deliveries). If the 'Silent Eagle' development plan is approved, it is a Lockheed Martin vs Boeing dogfight for international fighter sales.

Unlike S. Korean and Japan F-15 sales, all Singapore orders of F-15s will be made in the US, keeping the US F-15 production line open and keeping US jobs. The question is how much LO technology the US will release for Singapore's F-15s. It's got to be meaningful for Singapore to consider more F-15s, which would immediately keep or even grow Boeing jobs in this production line. This will be in contrast to S. Korean and Japan F-15 sales.

I note that the 'Silent Eagle' is a Boeing company proposal. This means it is not an external to the company. IMHO, Boeing will have the commercial motivation to make it happen by 2010, otherwise, the potential sales will be eaten up by the F-35 coming on stream later.

[OPSSG]

[Mod edit] Oh no it hasn't! Threads merged.[/Mod edit]
Edit: swerve thanks for the merge. I must be blind last nite. :)

The previous thread on this topic seem to be gone. I've re-posted some of the links but can't be bothered to rewrite my previous posts on the topic.

March 17, 2009 (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090317a_nr.html) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today in St. Louis unveiled the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE), a new F-15 configuration designed to meet the future needs of international customers...

Improvements in stealth include coatings and treatments on the aircraft. With the added advantage of redesigned conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) that allow for internal weapons carriage, the Silent Eagle becomes a very attractive fighter for Boeing's international customers.

Depending on the specific mission, the customer can use the CFTs that are designed for internal carriage or change back to the traditional CFTs for optimum fuel capacity and external weapons carriage. The Silent Eagle will be able to internally carry air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-9 and AIM-120 and air-to-ground weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). The standard weapons load used on current versions of the F-15 is available with the traditional CFTs installed.

The aircraft's canted vertical tails improve aerodynamic efficiency, provide lift, and reduce airframe weight. Another aerodynamic improvement is the Digital Flight Control System, which improves the aircraft's reliability and reduces airframe weight.

Survivability improvements include a BAES Digital Electronic Warfare System (DEWS) working in concert with the Raytheon Advanced Electronic Scanning Array (AESA) radar.

Boeing has completed a conceptual prototype of the CFT internal-carriage concept, and plans to flight-test a prototype by the first quarter of 2010, including a live missile launch.

There is also a Boeing presentation for media here (http://www.slideshare.net/TheDEWLine/silent-eagle-media-briefdoc?type=powerpoint) .

The F-15SE will be able to carry 4 missiles in the CFT to improve frontal aspect LO. BTW, LO for the F-15 was explored a decade ago. It is the internal carriage in the CFT that is a new idea.

This concept is a good idea that potentially can extend the F-15 line beyond the current backlog for South Korea and Singapore.

Boeing lost the Joint Strike Fighter contest to Lockheed Martin, therefore continued F-15 sales, as well as additional orders for F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs, are the only work in the foreseeable future for the plant. For more details also read this (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/Silent031709.xml&headline=Boeing%20Unveils%20New%20Stealthy%20F-15).

[ROCK45]

Seems interesting still plenty of life the mighty F-15 and if the frontal RCS can reduced and could improve first shot/launch potential, not a bad thing.

Boeing trying to hold onto what's left of the worlds small fighter market, can't blame them. Depending on the engine there are a few choices mixed with longer range ARRAAM soon to be out and in testing in New Mexico & AESA radar still deadly. Still the best weapons selection money can buy.

The $100 million price tag doesn't send me into sticker shock any good modern fighter will be in that range if not more in 2009/2010 with goodies included*.

I do feel Japan is the main target market since the F-22 isn't cleared for export yet.

[Feanor]

In my opinion it is competitive even against the F-35. For one it would be less expensive. Unified with existing F-15s in terms of maintenance. Many of it's upgrades can be retrofitted to the existing fleet. So a country that either can not secure F-35 orders, or can't afford them, might consider this an alternative.

[ROCK45]

Ananda
Just want to clarify, the small fighter market in here means to get the market of small fighter or the small size of fighter market ?

I meant the worlds small fighter market the F-15 could never be considered a small fighter.

Hi OPSSG
OPSSG
Saudi air force orders (in Sept 2008 & Oct 2007) that exceeds $750 million to re-engine their F-15S, just to give an indicative idea of how valuable the F-15 upgrade market can be.
I assume this order was filled already? Would have been interesting if this F-15SE was on the table three or four years ago? Can't remember remember off the top of my head when they sign the Typhoon deal.

Doesn't the E/F Super Hornet cost a little more per? Unless a user already uses Eagles I think the Super Hornet may have a longer future, comparing the two.

It is exciting news it's one of my all time favorite aircraft I've seen them fly a few times at air shows, I saw all four of the teen series even F-14s too.

[Ananda]

In my opinion it is competitive even against the F-35. For one it would be less expensive. Unified with existing F-15s in terms of maintenance. Many of it's upgrades can be retrofitted to the existing fleet. So a country that either can not secure F-35 orders, or can't afford them, might consider this an alternative.

I aggree that it can be an atractive alternative to F-35, however with the price tag of USD 100 mio, it will cost same or maybe even higher than F-35 right ? So Affordability will not be an issue here (since it will cost in similar range with F-35).

Also I believe the US will only give this aircraft to the same countries that eligible for F-35 (alias US so called first circle allies), thus the others have to content with F-16 Blok 50/60 or non US Gen 4.5 like Rafale, EF, SU 27/30/35 MKM. Boeing seems hoping to get to the market that now using EF or Flankers, but with US restrictions, I believe the market is there but will be very limited...well the price will also make it very limited though :)

[OPSSG]

The Japan and Korea order potential is much larger in scale than most countries I can think of and they are already existing F-15 users. Potentially, Singapore (who is officially not a special relationship country or an official ally :) ) could be buying Korean sourced parts for the F-15SG after 2035.

Unless a user already uses Eagles I think the Super Hornet may have a longer future, comparing the two.

It is exciting news it's one of my all time favorite aircraft I've seen them fly a few times at air shows, I saw all four of the teen series even F-14s too.

I'm not sure at the moment which platform has a longer future (because of the Koreans, who have spanking new F-15Ks), but if the Super Hornet scores a win in India, it would ensure the platform's longevity even after the USN starts phasing them out. Korea, Japan and Singapore should also keep F-15s flying way beyond 2035.

IIRC, in relation to the Super Hornet, the Australians also have a really good long term plan, including building some of theirs with Growler wiring harnesses for future conversion.

As I previously admitted in another thread, my weakness is for the F-14 (absolutely love it).

I assume this [Saudi F-15 re-engine] order was filled already? Would have been interesting if this F-15SE was on the table three or four years ago? Can't remember remember off the top of my head when they sign the Typhoon deal.

I believe the engines in 2nd Saudi order is still being built or in the process of being installed in the Saudi F-15s.

Further, I don't think that the Saudi case is a good example of a F-15 vs Typhoon choice due to US concerns for Israel's security (http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Indexes/Vol%2015_2/Wiser.pdf), which resulted in the Saudi F-15S having some limitations on their capabilities. I quote Greg Goebel, who said:
Saudi Arabia (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf15_2.html#m4) has received a good number of F-15s under the "Peace Sun" series of export programs. The first deliveries provided 46 F-15Cs and 16 F-15Ds, for a total of 62 aircraft; the US Congress had specified that the Saudis should have no more than 60 Eagles...

The Saudis received 72 F-15S Eagles from 1995 into 2000... The F-15S features a slightly simplified "AN/APG-70S" radar that deletes terrain-mapping mode and has a downgraded self-defense suite. The Saudis did obtain 48 sets of a simplified version of the LANTIRN pod system, featuring the AN/AAQ-19 Sharpshooter targeting pod and the AN/AAQ-20 Pathfinder navigation pod. Some sources claim these aircraft were initially delivered with Dash-1-style CFTs, meaning that offensive stores had to be carried on the centerline and wing pylons, usually with multiple-ejector racks -- but the Saudis later received the full Dash-4 CFTs with their stores attachments. There was some fuss in the Congress over the sale of the F-15S to Saudi Arabia, which helped lead to the later sale of the F-15I to Israel as a counterbalance.

[funtz]

I aggree that it can be an atractive alternative to F-35, however with the price tag of USD 100 mio, it will cost same or maybe even higher than F-35 right ? So Affordability will not be an issue here (since it will cost in similar range with F-35).

Also I believe the US will only give this aircraft to the same countries that eligible for F-35 (alias US so called first circle allies), thus the others have to content with F-16 Blok 50/60 or non US Gen 4.5 like Rafale, EF, SU 27/30/35 MKM. Boeing seems hoping to get to the market that now using EF or Flankers, but with US restrictions, I believe the market is there but will be very limited...well the price will also make it very limited though :)
I Agree, might as wait till 2020-2025 and buy a F-35 when the costs become stable instead of going for this expensive plane, which with AESA radar and all the ram coatings etc. will become more expensive.

First, Boeing says the F-15SE can match the frontal-aspect stealth performance of the export version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

:confused:
Just like that, this F-35 is supposed to have utilized the knowledge of trillion dollar US VLO R&D over the past programs.

[Haavarla]

funtz;170073]I Agree, might as wait till 2020-2025 and buy a F-35 when the costs become stable instead of going for this expensive plane, which with AESA radar and all the ram coatings etc. will become more expensive.


Umm.. do we know what the final prize tag on the F-35 will be?




:confused:
Just like that, this F-35 is supposed to have utilized the knowledge of trillion dollar US VLO R&D over the past programs.


Get the point, but keep in mind that the F-35 is a completly new design and US R&D are as always the world champ in sky high cost in these development programs.

[funtz]

Umm.. do we know what the final prize tag on the F-35 will be?

Not quite the final costs but news reports have stated different prices for different times (2015-20) and they are decreasing steadily to somewhere below the 100 million mark.

Get the point, but keep in mind that the F-35 is a completely new design and US R&D are as always the world champ in sky high cost in these development programs.

Still i mean, thats like saying F-35 level stealth (in terms of the RCS) is not all that difficult to achieve.

The F-35 still has a lot of cutting edge electronics installed inside it, and its new so more ready for future upgrades instead of the older F-15

[OPSSG]

Umm.. do we know what the final prize tag on the F-35 will be?

Aviation week has a Feb 2009 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/F35-022709.xml&headline=EW%20Not%20Only%20Roadblock%20To%20Israel i%20JSF%20Plans&channel=defense) article which provides the following estimates:

F-35A (1st lot LRIP - for the x2 F-35) = US$200m
F-35A (2nd lot LRIP- for the x6 F-35) = US$160m
F-35A after LRIP = US$70-75m (in 2014 dollars)
F-35B after LRIP = US$80-85m (in 2014 dollars)

Nailing down the price of an F-35 is a complicated task. One problem is that the earlier you buy them, the more they cost and production isn’t scheduled to end until 2035.

Boeing has completed a conceptual prototype of the CFT internal-carriage concept, and plans to flight-test a prototype by the first quarter of 2010. This means that the F-15SE is ready for orders in 2010 for 2012 delivery much earlier than you can place orders for the F-35 if you are not one of the 8 partner nations or the 2 current Security Cooperative Participants (SCP) countries (Israel* & Singapore).

Basically, other potential F-35 buyers (not currently signed on as a partner or SCP) will get to place their orders much later than the two SCP countries, who paid US$50 million each to be a SCP.

*Note: Israel, as a special relationship country with the US has been assisted by the US, with the US giving up their F-35 production slots to enable Israel to buy the F-35 earlier. The giving up of early production slots by the US or partner nations may not occur with later buyers and they may just have to wait their turn (which may mean a 5 to 15 year wait from F-15SE availability).

In March 2009, UK signed a deal to purchase 3x F35B (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/OTE031809.xml&headline=UK%20Signs%20For%20F-35%20Test%20Aircraft) for the operational test and evaluation phase of the program (to be delivered in 2011 to 2012). For UK, the only Tier 1 partner nation, a decision on the procurement number, and F-35 variant, will not be taken until around 2013. The F-35 aircraft is due to enter service in 2017.

A hat tip to weasel1962 for posting the F-35 price estimates in another forum first.

[F-15 Eagle]

So is there any chance that the USAF will get some of these to replace its older F-15s as that they might not get all of the F-22s needed?

And how many air to air missiles does this F-15 SE carry is it 4 internal missiles like the F-35?

Looks like a cool design by the way and I hope the USAF does get at least 100 of these.

[F-15 Eagle]

However, the current proposed design seems to provide for 4 missiles or alternate bomb carriage. This is a very small 'silent' combat load. In fact, I think they should consider sacrificing more fuel carriage to see if they can put in more.

Currently, the USAF plans to operate the F-15 up to 2035 and I certain that other operators intend to keep theirs in service for a even longer time frame. So there is money to be made to sell upgrades to non-US F-15 operators, who also happen to be countries with deep pockets.

Keep in mind, for the F-15 to be in service beyond 2035, it must be able to continue to do well against other fighters. In this respect, the engines available (and being developed) for the F-15 platform must have more power and cost less to maintain. Currently the F-15SGs are powered by the F110-GE-129C, which is also the same model as the Saudi re-engine choice.

Well right now the F-35 only caries 4 internal missiles but it can be upgraded to 6 which is most likely so I don't see this as being an issue with the F-15 SE.

And since the USAF plans to operation the F-15 for so long they should buy some of these F-15SEs to replace its older F-15 A-D models.

[ROCK45]

I would love to see the USAF pick up 2 or 3 squadrons of these SE Eagles but think the chances are really slim. The USAF fighting in two wars have more needs then putting up basically another fighter, AG platforms are needed more.

With the future tankers program, future bomber program, C-17 and other transport issues, current F-22, future F-22, future F-35, and a host of other projects I'm leaving out, I don't see the USAF buying any.

[wtsimpson7]

Boeing's new "Silent Eagle" seems to me to be aimed specifically towards the export market and not for the USAF. What a cool bird though.

[gf0012-aust]

Aviation week has a Feb 2009 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/F35-022709.xml&headline=EW%20Not%20Only%20Roadblock%20To%20Israel i%20JSF%20Plans&channel=defense) article which provides the following estimates:

F-35A (1st lot LRIP - for the x2 F-35) = US$200m
F-35A (2nd lot LRIP- for the x6 F-35) = US$160m
F-35A after LRIP = US$70-75m (in 2014 dollars)
F-35B after LRIP = US$80-85m (in 2014 dollars)

I'd expect to see them do a reprint as they were at the Avalon briefing and the numbers were lower. But, as you say its complex due to other variables such as time, total volume per year, volume per buyer per year etc... as the total year volume per year over points in time impacts upon any years pricing.

thats because the price is being amortised based on total volume per lot per year ... if customers change their per lot per year allocation it impacts upon everyone

[Jezza]

The precise level stealth allowed to be exported to foreign countries is still to be determined by the US authorities who govern technology transfer rules. Will international F-35 customers be disappointed if they find out a fourth-generation fighter can match their fight-generation fighter's head-on performance?

Will we be disappointed??????
All for alternatives.

[ROCK45]

Jezza
Will international F-35 customers be disappointed if they find out a fourth-generation fighter can match their fight-generation fighter's head-on performance?

Much more would be needed to be changed on the F-15 to be close to that of F-35. Not even in the same ballpark it's not a true stealth aircraft design it's basically for lowing frontal RCS. Might be helpful for getting a little bit closers for a missile shot, shoot and scoot, using the Eagles good speed to get out of your enemies missile range. Or getting a little close to a SAM or radar to take it out and having a higher percentage chance of hitting the target because of the shorter distance, cutting down on the targets reaction time.

Not a replacement for a 5th generation platform a F-15 must be close to a forty year old design and might even be classified as 3rd + generation fighter with 4th generation systems in it.

[OPSSG]

Not a replacement for a 5th generation platform a F-15 must be close to a forty year old design and might even be classified as 3rd + generation fighter with 4th generation systems in it.

I agree that the F-15SE ('Silent Eagle') proposed is intended to give the F-15 platform a better AIM-120 launch window, in contrast to a Su-30 or J-10 type of aggressor. It is not intended to provide a golf ball sized RCS like the F-35.

As Deng Xiaoping famously said: "I don't care if it is a white cat or a black cat, as long as it can catch mice". Likewise, I don't really care what 'generation' the F-15SE is classed, as long as it remains tactically relevant. :)

Much more would be needed to be changed on the F-15 to be close to that of F-35. Not even in the same ballpark it's not a true stealth aircraft design it's basically for lowing frontal RCS. Might be helpful for getting a little bit closers for a missile shot, shoot and scoot, using the Eagles good speed to get out of your enemies missile range. Or getting a little close to a SAM or radar to take it out and having a higher percentage chance of hitting the target because of the shorter distance, cutting down on the targets reaction time.

If I may, I would like to expand on your point. The latest RCS reduction measures for F-15SE will aid international sales for Boeing. Therefore, there is a tendency to compare the 'Silent Eagle' to the Dassault Rafale or the Euro-fighter Typhoon. In many ways, the European competition are really medium multi-role aircraft and not a heavy like the F-15E strike fighter.

IMHO, the Strike Eagle (or Slam Eagle for the F-15K) is also well suited for maritime strike, relevant to Singapore, Japan and Korea, even if the LO tech offered is from only a frontal aspect. This is because most navy frigates / destroyers /cruisers are really mobile sea based SAM batteries often capable of working together. Given the current range of AAW missiles, naval strike missions are going to be very dangerous for small groups of aircraft due to the advanced targeting capabilities of the various naval radars and missiles.

If you want to get close to these AAW ships acting as pickets, various measures, including the use of MALDs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/mald.htm) (currently under development), as attack decoys may have to be considered. In that environment, I would think that a F-15SE may be tactically relevant.

Tactically, the F-15SG with or without 'stealth' is relevant to Singapore's needs. Keep in mind, the F-15's top speed is always relevant to a A2A fight.

[Aussie Digger]

Boeing's new "Silent Eagle" seems to me to be aimed specifically towards the export market and not for the USAF. What a cool bird though.

It seems aimed at continuing interest in the F-15 platform, I agree.

It also seems HEAVILY aimed at upgrades for existing F-15 users, to me...

[ROCK45]

Hi OPSSG
I reread my posts and wanted to clear something up all F-15s are tactically sound platforms, the modern types even more so. Fighters are the most effective with they stay in there strengths and Eagles have a lot of them.
There is billions of dollars of R&D and time between these F-15s and either the F-22, or F-35, didn't want people to thing a few changes can transform an Eagle into a 5th generation platform. Tactically I can see parts of the Eagle profile improve and it's capabilities expand overall.

You mention using Eagles in the maritime strike role for Singapore, Japan and South Korean I find that very interesting. Are Singapore's Eagles setup for anti-shipping missions? It would seem a perfect way to use a new F-15SE Eagle. The concept is strange to me I'm used to F-15C's mainly and thinking about a Eagle loaded up with anti-ship missiles is very different. Eagles have good range and payload why couldn't they be effective ship killers?

Thanks

[OPSSG]

It seems aimed at continuing interest in the F-15 platform, I agree.

It also seems HEAVILY aimed at upgrades for existing F-15 users, to me...

1. Certainly looks that way doesn't it? :)

You mention using Eagles in the maritime strike role for Singapore, Japan and South Korean I find that very interesting. Are Singapore's Eagles setup for anti-shipping missions? It would seem a perfect way to use a new F-15SE Eagle. The concept is strange to me I'm used to F-15C's mainly and thinking about a Eagle loaded up with anti-ship missiles is very different. Eagles have good range and payload why couldn't they be effective ship killers?

2. It has been specifically mentioned in releases that the armament options of the F-15K includes the AGM-84 Harpoon Block II missile (http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/F-15K-Slam-Eagle_a000535006.aspx). I expect that the F-15SG would also be Harpoon capable. To perform maritime strike effectively, the F-15E needs 2 things: One, a good look down synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode; and two, a good anti-ship missile like the Harpoon.

3. I set out the details of the two below:

(i) IMHO the F-15SG's AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA (http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg63_v3/) radar is well suited for maritime strike as it incorporates a high-resolution SAR mode, which Raytheon claims to be the first to offer true simultaneous, air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, utilizing highly agile beam interleaving in near-real time, providing the pilot and the WSO with unprecedented situational awareness and tactical flexibility.

(ii) The Harpoon Block II is designed to attack targets in congested littoral environments by incorporating the low cost integrated Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) from the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) program. The improved littoral capabilities will enable Harpoon Block II to impact a designated GPS target point. For the anti-ship mission, the GPS/INS provides improved missile guidance to the target area. The accurate navigation solution allows target ship discrimination from a nearby land mass using shoreline data provided by the launch platform. Further, in 2008, Boeing was awarded a $73.7 million U.S. Navy contract (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/global_strike/news/2008/q1/080131a_nr.html) to design and develop the Harpoon Block III missile.

4. In fact, Singapore also operates 2 other types of Harpoon capable aircraft:
(i) specially modified Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (with SAR radar); and

(ii) the F-16 (the AGM-84 Harpoon was officially cleared on the F-16 on August 11th, 1994).
5. Likewise the Korean F-16s are also cleared for the Harpoon and we are one of the 28 countries (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/harpoon/docs/HarpoonBlockIIBackgrounder.pdf) who are Harpoon customers.

[OPSSG]

I'll list 2 additional points brought forth in the latest news reports on the 'Silent Eagle'.

1. According to the Korean Times (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/03/113_41569.html), the 'Silent Eagle' is Boeing's bid for South Korea's third phase F-X fighter jet acquisition program to begin by 2012:
...Earlier, Seoul officials said the third phase program would focus on obtaining the so-called fifth-generation stealth fighters. The F-X aims to procure 120 high-end warplanes by 2020, and Boeing already won the previous two deals with its F-15K fighters.

Boeing officials said the forthcoming F-15 'Silent Eagle (SE)' could provide Korea's Air Force with ``cost-effective stealth'' technologies as well as the F-15 Eagle's traditional long-range, large-payload capabilities...

Other improvements include the digital flight control system, which improves the aircraft's reliability and reduces airframe weight, and a digital electronic warfare system working in concert with an advanced electronic scanning array radar, Boeing said in a news release.

The aircraft's canted vertical tails improve aerodynamic efficiency, provide lift, and reduce airframe weight, it said.

2. While the Silent Eagle is expected to be 'open' for customer enhancements and modifications (an obstacle for JSF customers), it is important to note that the F-15SE will lack engine intake blockers (present in the Super Hornet), as noted by the 20 March 2009 report (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw032309p1.xml&headline=Stealthy%20F-15%20Could%20Breathe%20Life%20into%20St.%20Louis%2 0Facility) from Aviation Week, parts of which are quoted below:
...The idea behind the Silent Eagle is to capture orders from existing F-15 countries by adding what Boeing officials say are inexpensive modifications to the aircraft. But they say they're not targeting the market already served by the F-35 and F-22...

...Each CFT was designed to carry 1,500 gal. of fuel. The redesign of each tank incorporates two separate weapon bays. The top bay includes a rail launcher suitable for an AIM-9, AIM-120, a single 500-lb. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) or two Small-Diameter Bombs. The bottom bay could dispatch these or a 1,000-lb. JDAM. Though this loadout is significantly less than the F-15E's traditional configuration, the internal carriage required for reduced radar cross section (RCS) is a limiting factor; the Silent Eagle loadout is similar to that of the F-22...

...Stealthy coatings can be applied on straight edges around the aircraft to reduce the RCS. However, their location and application must be approved by the U.S. government, and those negotiations haven't yet taken place. The F-15E1 does not currently have the coatings. Jones says the F-15 Silent Eagle can be made as stealthy from the front aspect as an F-35 using RCS-reducing techniques incorporated into the design.

Silent Eagle will lack stealthy propulsion system features, including engine intake blockers, which are part of the F/A-18E/F design. It will also lack infrared signature suppressors on the back end of the aircraft to temper exhaust from the engines and radar blockers, says Jones. These decisions were made largely to curtail costs...

...Jones says the cost of a new-build F-15 Silent Eagle is about $100 million, including spares and support for the RCS-reducing material. Though Boeing hasn't released the price of the F-15SGs sold to Singapore, officials say the cost is similar to that of the Silent Eagle...

[OPSSG]

According to The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/sneak-peek-next-weeks-flight-c.html#more), the F-15SE's stealth improvements do not help against ground-based radar systems, which are critical for waging offensive strikes against opponents armed with surface-to-air missile systems, parts of which are quoted below:
...Adding radar absorbent materials to leading edges can soften the F-15SE's head-on radar signature enough to be competitive against the frontal aspect radar signature of the export version of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Jones claims. "We know we can get to the US government release level for international customers," he adds.

Canting both vertical stabilisers by 15° is intended to reduce radar returns to the side, but also reduces drag slightly on the aft section. Finally, embedding missiles and bombs inside a heavily modified conformal fuel tank also reduces radar signature in all directions, and allows the F-15SE to perform its warfighting mission even with "clean" wings.

Boeing acknowledges that the F-15SE's stealth improvements do not help against ground-based radar systems, which are critical for waging offensive strikes against opponents armed with surface-to-air missile systems. Lowering the F-15SE's thermal signature - a critical stealthy feature for the Lockheed F-22 Raptor - is also not part of Boeing plans.

But Boeing says the Silent Eagle is aimed at international customers more likely to use the it for defensive, counter-air missions, rather than offensive strikes in defended airspace where all-aspect stealth is necessary for survival.

Despite the stealth improvements, Boeing says the F-15SE will not trade off sensor or aerodynamic performance. Its Raytheon APG-63(V)3 radar would remain canted slightly forward rather than tilted back, preserving coverage and range at the expense of head-on radar cross section.

Moreover, Boeing has designed the F-15SE to also function as a non-stealthy, multirole aircraft with the F-15E's full weapons payload of 13,200kg (29,000lb). A conformal fuel tank with an internal weapons bay could be quickly removed after landing, allowing the aircraft to take off again with a full payload within 2h, it says....

[F-15 Eagle]

Boeing's new "Silent Eagle" seems to me to be aimed specifically towards the export market and not for the USAF. What a cool bird though.

It would be a sad shame if the USAF does not get any after the U.S. is the one who maid this cool looking jet. Since at the most the USAF will 243 if Obama continues production and not the full 381 I think maybe 140 F-15SE's for the USAF will do.

[rjmaz1]

I think maybe 140 F-15SE's for the USAF will do.
Why would the USAF buy the F-15SE when the F-35: flies further, cruises faster, turns quicker, is stealthier, has better avionics, is cheaper to maintain and cheaper to buy? :confused:

Being "cool" is not a reason to buy an aircraft.

Your suggestion in the other thread that the defence budget should simply be increased to buy things because they are "cool" is absolutely crazy.

We may as well bring back the Commanche, build more B-2's and add a couple extra aircraft carriers to the fleet.. That would be cool ;)

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Guys,

As interesting as this concept is, it is no where near being competitive to 5th gen platforms on capability terms (i.e. the F-35), and i don't think it is intended to be. The level of RCS reduction will probably still be inferior to a clean F/A-18F, due to fundamental design limitations (no S curved intakes ect). The F-35 will have a level of RCS reduction at least an order of magnitude greater than than any F-15 variant (thats the difference between RCS reduction and LO), be more capable in aggregate terms (better avionics, better information distribution, better sensors, better HUI, and probably better aerodynamic performance) and SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in non LRIP batches.

No no, this platform is intended to fill that 4.5th gen market that is still extremely strong. This F-15E will be tough for the Eurocanards, because they are already loosing ground to the F/A-18F and F-15E, a MORE capable F-15E for a comparable price will widen the gap. F-15E BII already offers capability a Typhoon tranche 2, one with comprehensive RCS reduction and limited internal weapons carriage is something Eurofighter will not ever match.

This platform is certainly more than a match for an advanced Flanker.

[Falstaff]

Guys,

No no, this platform is intended to fill that 4.5th gen market that is still extremely strong. This F-15E will be tough for the Eurocanards, because they are already loosing ground to the F/A-18F and F-15E, a MORE capable F-15E for a comparable price will widen the gap. F-15E BII already offers capability a Typhoon tranche 2, one with comprehensive RCS reduction and limited internal weapons carriage is something Eurofighter will not ever match.



It hurts but I have to admit that you're probably right, with the EF partner nations not even being able to decide what the T3 aircraft will have on board. The EF partners don't seem to be too keen on export, otherwise there would've been something like a Silent EF ("SEF") or Silent Typhoon ("STIFF" ?) or some kind of technology demonstrator.
For those nations willing to go for gen 4.5 an enhanced Eagle will definitely be worth taking a second look.


This platform is certainly more than a match for an advanced Flanker.

Definitely.

[swerve]

... Silent Typhoon ("STIFF" ?) or some kind of technology demonstrator....
The original Typhoon was nicknamed the Tiffie, so a "Silent Typhoon" wouldn't be a "STIFF", it'd be a . . .

I'll get my coat. :D

[Red]

In the case of Singapore, if we acquire more F-15SGs beyond the current 24, it would mean that the 'Silent Eagle' may compete against F-35 sales to Singapore.

OPSG, the 45-50 odd F5 S/Ts will be retired around 2014. I think it would be dangerous to fly them beyond 2014.

I seriously doubt that we will be able to get any F35s before 2014-2013. And not to mention training and IOC dates. As such, I believe another 24 F15SGs is almost certain and to me; a definite purchase. I doubt RSAF will allow a capability gap to develop as a result of the retirement of the F5 S/Ts. RSAF is looking at around 100 F35s to be purchased in 3 large batches. Additional F15SG purchases may result in lesser F35s purchased. But it depends on the threat scenario then as well.

[OPSSG]

OPSSG, the 45-50 odd F5 S/Ts will be retired around 2014. I think it would be dangerous to fly them beyond 2014.

...As such, I believe another 24 F-15SGs is almost certain and to me; a definite purchase...

Given the timing issue mentioned, I expect a second F-15 squadron. I'm just wondering if this second F-15 squadron would be more F-15SGs or a variant of the Silent Eagle. :D

What do you think?

[Red]

The 2013-2014 timeframe came from a previous RSAF COA in an interview with Janes. The next purchase has to be more F15SG.

I read the news about the F15SE with great interest. However, the F15SG was conceived and purchased to defeat the recent new SUs flying around in South East Asia. They are more than a match for the latter SU-27s/Su-30s. From that point of view, it may be a redundant upgrade. The current F15SG is already packed with state-of-the-art elecronics requiring 25% more air-conditioning.

If it costs the same, I think that there is no harm to opt for the F15SE. But I also think we should upgrade the original batch of 24 F15SGs as well.

I loath the 4 AAMs carried. There seems to be space for 2 more. I think Boeing should seriously consider adding space for 2 more AAMs without sacrificing too much fuel. I reckon it is very possible seeing as such Israeli F15I flies further than the F15E.

I would love to see Boeing re-arrange the hard-points on the F15SE so that changing the conformal fuel tanks becomes un-necessary. Is that possible?

[OPSSG]

^^^ Red, thanks for the above response.

You mention using Eagles in the maritime strike role for Singapore, Japan and South Korean I find that very interesting. Are Singapore's Eagles setup for anti-shipping missions? It would seem a perfect way to use a new F-15SE Eagle. The concept is strange to me I'm used to F-15C's mainly and thinking about a Eagle loaded up with anti-ship missiles is very different. Eagles have good range and payload why couldn't they be effective ship killers?

Evidently, martime strike tactics for the Germans is even more complex than what we mentioned in the earlier posts. I'm copying whole sections from a post by Sven Ortmannt (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/03/arm-in-anti-ship-combat.html) so that you can be on the same page:

The German navy operated a wing of Tornado IDS multi-role combat aircraft until 2005. The wing had a dedicated maritime mission (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/03/arm-in-anti-ship-combat.html); maritime reconnaissance, anti-ship combat and attacks on harbours...

...This resulted in an interview of the last wing commander in a civilian journal... This interview was different. In order to make his point (the need for dedicated maritime raining of aircraft crews) he described the anti-ship attack tactic, and that was interesting for a change. It's thus now OK to write about this publicly.

The tactic included three munitions;
1) the Kormoran2 anti-ship missile (quite comparable to Exocet, Sea Eagle, Harpoon and most other Western anti-ship missiles).
2) The AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile
3) bombs

He claimed that it takes all three to sink a ship and that a very challenging synchronized attack with the subsonic anti-ship missile and the smaller supersonic anti-radiation was necessary to overwhelm the defence for a firepower kill. The bombs were just meant to deliver the killing blow...

Reading the above blog post certainly raised an eyebrow for me. :D

[OPSSG]

Stephen Trimble of Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/18/324014/usaf-prepares-upgrade-strategy-for-f-15e-fleet.html) has provided further information on the DEWS in the F-15SE. As expected, DEWS is also being pitched as an upgrade option for the USAF F-15Es. To be clear, the F-15 SE is not pitched at the USAF but for international sales.

USAF prepares upgrade strategy for F-15E fleet (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/18/324014/usaf-prepares-upgrade-strategy-for-f-15e-fleet.html)

Boeing confirms that its single-largest customer for the F-15E, the US Air Force, is finalising a new, long-term upgrade "roadmap" for the multirole fighter...

The USAF has meanwhile been briefed about the F-15 "Silent Eagle", Boeing's newly unveiled F-15E development featuring a reduced head-on radar cross section, BAE Systems digital electronic warfare suite (DEWS) and vertical stabilisers canted by 15°....

Boeing has also presented additional details about BAE's DEWS equipment to the USAF, Bass says, with the design - which includes an integrated radar jammer and radar warning receiver (RWR) - is among the F-15E upgrades under review by the service.

BAE confirms that the DEWS package is derived from the EW suite designed for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, using a modular software architecture system called Barracuda. A key feature of the system is an interleaving mode that allows the pilot to continue jamming while simultaneously operating the radar and RWR.

The USAF plans to continue operating at least 200 F-15Es until 2035. But upgrade proposals, including digital avionics and towed decoys, have faced budget pressure from the USAF's strategy to buy a full complement of fifth-generation fighters...

[Ananda]

Stephen Trimble of Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/18/324014/usaf-prepares-upgrade-strategy-for-f-15e-fleet.html) has provided further information on the DEWS in the F-15SE. As expected, DEWS is also being pitched as an upgrade option for the USAF F-15Es. To be clear, the F-15 SE is not pitched at the USAF but for international sales.

With the secretary gates capping of F 22 production, and with overwhelm democrat now in congress compared to F 22 stouch allies (republican)..the future of continuety F 22 is getting dimmer and dimmer (now matter what the F 22 fan boys and supporters desprate arguments say)..

F 35 is potentially excellent fighters...but with the current F 22 fate..perhaps there's still possibility of F 15 SE..
Afterall with potential of 1700 F 16 and F 15, the replacement will be 180 F 22, 200 F 15 E, and supposedly 1400 F 35 CTOL. In paper it should be enough, if there will be 1400 F 35.
But many sources still doubted that will happen. The ball park figures only be between 900 - 1100. Unless the USAF wants continue downsizing their forces, than the balance will be on F 15 SE.
Unless off course they want to fill the gap with F 16 Block 60..:)

[OPSSG]

F 35 is potentially excellent fighters...but with the current F 22 fate..perhaps there's still possibility of F 15 SE...

I'm not too sure about the other parts of your post, but I'm pretty sure that the USAF does not want more F-15SEs. Let us set out the time line:

(i) The F-15Es (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/) made their first flight in 1986 and IIRC, the USAF made its last order of 10x F-15Es in April 2001, with Boeing completing delivery in 2005.

(ii) The F-22 was authorised to enter LRIP in Aug 2001 (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/) and since then, there have been no further F-15E orders.

I still think that it is the F-35 that will catch the orders from the USAF. The other members I'm sure will chime in on what they think. :)

BTW, I'm sure a crazy nut that has just registered will be posting here soon. I suspect he is a bitter ignorant man pretending to be something he is not or at least someone with mental health problems.

[Ananda]

I'm not too sure about the other parts of your post, but I'm pretty sure that the USAF does not want more F-15SEs. Let us set out the time line:


I still think that it is the F-35 that will catch the orders from the USAF. The other members I'm sure will chime in on what they think. :)

Well I'm just playing with numbers. Secretary Gates submit eventual numbers will be more than 2000 F 35 (base on the context I have to assumed that's outside export orders). However the numbers seems for a life time F 35 cycle, which from other sources put 1400 F 35 at any given time. That with number of F 15 E and F 22 gates proposed seems will be close enough to replace 1700 current F 16 and F 15 C (i believe the number with current F 15 E is 1900). But that's if 1400 F 35 (at any given time) will be available.
If not and the USAF still want to maintain it's number level (which off course continue declining for the last decade), than something has to fill the gap that supposedly fill by F 35. For economics logic, it should be with F 35, I'm just toying with possible cut on proposed F 35 numbers.

BTW, I'm sure a crazy nut that has just registered will be posting here soon. I suspect he is a bitter ignorant man pretending to be something he is not or at least someone with mental health problems.

:D:D:D:D

[OPSSG]

(i believe the number with current F 15 E is 1900).

If you click on the first link provided earlier, it says:

"In April 2001, Boeing received a contract for a further ten F-15E aircraft for the USAF, bringing the total to 227. Deliveries began in June 2002 and are scheduled to complete in 2005."

So, I don't think the 1900 figure for F-15E is correct. :D

Someone else posted the revised F-16/F-15 numbers before (Sorry just, can't remember the thread right now).

:D:D:D:D

Well, the Mods are sure fast in banning that crazy guy and even deleting his posts. So we must really say thanks to our super efficient Mods.

[Ananda]

So, I don't think the 1900 figure for F-15E is correct. :D

The 1,900 number is for 200 F 15 E, 250 F 15 C & 1,450 F 16..I remember read it from other thread in key publishing forum, and if I'm not mistaken also from Air Combat review (for USAF review). The number is rounded, but the ball park is around that.

As i'm not mistaken the 1,700 is for F 16 and F 15 C that will be replaced by F 22 and F 35. That's why I put if 1,400 F 35 planned number (from total production for overall F 35 lifecycle which projected above 2,000) can be meet, than there will be no problem in future USAF fighters gap.
However if the F 35 projected numbers being cut, than if USAF still want to maintain existing numbers, the gap has to filled by others fighters (than F 35).

With F 22 being stoped produced, and F 35 can't meet projected numbers, than the F 15 SE scenario's can come into hand.
Off course gain this only if the F 35 numbers are much bellow the current projection.:)

[HK_Thoughtful]

Speaking of F-15E upgrades, does anyone have reliable information on the current status of AESA radar upgrades? I'm pretty sure that the entire E fleet will be retrofitted with the radars, but what about the other legacy Eagles. Last I heard, a long time ago, the Air Force was keen on keeping about 173 or so F-15C until 2020 and was retrofitting these with the AESA also.

Concerning the f-15se, I don't think that the USAF will consider buying the SE. With current support levels for the f-35 and much of Congress still pushing for the f-22, the f-15se seems to be shut out. Even if the f-35 program were to be cut, this cut would hypothetically come towards the latter stages of the program, the 2020/30 timeframe onwards. By then, a potential acquisition of f-15se would face a whole other set of problems.

[Feanor]

The F-35 also replaces the F-18 and Harriers for the USN and USMC. You have to add those numbers to your planned production run.

[Ananda]

The F-35 also replaces the F-18 and Harriers for the USN and USMC. You have to add those numbers to your planned production run.

Siigh...I forgot about that...well that's seems wil explain the 2000 more numbers the secretary gates told the congress...USAF got 1400 than the rest go to USMC & USN..

[rjmaz1]

Also the A-10 will be replaced by the F-35 towards the end of its production run.

We have to relalise that cheap unmanned platforms will end up performing many of the roles that we currently use fighter jets for. So we will not have to replace the current fighter fleet one for one with F-35's.

Replacing 2,000 USAF fighters with as little as 1,000 F-35A's and buying 500 unmanned aircraft will still be excellent. 1,400 F-35A's is bloody sensational. Remember you have 200 F-22's and the future medium bomber in the pipeline.

Very impressive.

[Salty Dog]

The F-35 also replaces the F-18 and Harriers for the USN and USMC. You have to add those numbers to your planned production run.

Just a bit of clarification on this. The F-35B will replace the USMC Harriers. The F-35C will replace the legacy Hornets (F/A-18C/D). The Rhinos or Super Hornets will be around for many more years.

Also:

F-15E Strike Eagles are mainly bomb trucks in the USAF. While they retain the same AAW capability as their F-15C/D brothers, they are not used in ATA combat roles. The F-15E paint scheme is a darker shade of grey to further emphasize their difference.

[swerve]

Siigh...I forgot about that...well that's seems wil explain the 2000 more numbers the secretary gates told the congress...USAF got 1400 than the rest go to USMC & USN..
Gates said 2443, didn't he? That hasn't changed for a while. 1763 for the USAF (though I wouldn't be surprised if it's cut) & 680 for the USN & USMC.

[Ananda]

Gates said 2443, didn't he? That hasn't changed for a while. 1763 for the USAF (though I wouldn't be surprised if it's cut) & 680 for the USN & USMC.

Better not be another cut if the US still want to maintain current level of force..however with F 22 being capped, F 15 E will be maintain (but with no replacement in sight)..than US will hedge everthing (on fighters) on F 35..

Gosshh..don't expect come a day when US will hedge their fighters on one type..can expect that from frenchie and swedes..but then european did it with only Typhoon, The Ruskie eventually with only PakFa...still not expect the day that the only production fighters in US will only be F 35...:(

Could it be that 20 years to come only China and India that will have multiple fighters production..???
well the world certaintly has change...

[freethinker]

Better not be another cut if the US still want to maintain current level of force..however with F 22 being capped, F 15 E will be maintain (but with no replacement in sight)..than US will hedge everthing (on fighters) on F 35..

Gosshh..don't expect come a day when US will hedge their fighters on one type..can expect that from frenchie and swedes..but then european did it with only Typhoon, The Ruskie eventually with only PakFa...still not expect the day that the only production fighters in US will only be F 35...:(

Could it be that 20 years to come only China and India that will have multiple fighters production..???
well the world certaintly has change...

You already have the F-22 :) And im sure you can produce more should the need arise. Already ahead of the game.

[Feanor]

Actually in terms of Russia, there are pervasive rumors about a 'light' version of the PAK-FA developed mainly by MiG.

Though the reason many people limit the number of aircraft in development at any given time is to lower costs and unify production/training/maintenance.

[moahunter]

This may be too conspiratorial, but I have seen it suggested that the Obama administration is not that fond of Lockheed (with its ties to Texas) relative to Boeing (in the liberal west). I realize the F35 is moving ahead for Lockheed, but perhaps Boeing and the F15SE or another project could do better under this administration?

[Salty Dog]

This may be too conspiratorial, but I have seen it suggested that the Obama administration is not that fond of Lockheed (with its ties to Texas) relative to Boeing (in the liberal west). I realize the F35 is moving ahead for Lockheed, but perhaps Boeing and the F15SE or another project could do better under this administration?

Interestingly Boeing is a prime supplier to the F-22 program (Avionics Management Systems - Avionics system integration ; Wings ; Aft fuselage), a program where the Obama administration want to stop acquisitions. Boeing has a much smaller part in the F-35 programs (JDAM).

[moahunter]

hmmm - so much for that conspiracy then. :p: Anyway - I like the look of this plane, it will be interesting to see how many orders Boeing win in the markets they are targetting, it looks a good solution for countries needing something with a longer range than the F35 (which I am presuming this will have, despite the reduced range from a regular F15).

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You already have the F-22 :) And im sure you can produce more should the need arise. Already ahead of the game.

Additionally there are going to be a few "Golden Eagles" hanging around for the next 15 years. F-15C's with 3rd gen AESA's and 5th gen EW systems will be extremely capable in 2020, although no longer world leading. I hardly think this means the end to US dominance any time soon.

[OPSSG]

New Boeing marketing video (June 2009) showing the capabilities of the F-15SE Silent Eagle:
Boeing Silent Eagle video

According to Graham Warwick:

Jun 11, 2009 - Boeing Studies Stealth Eagle Options (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/STEALTH06119.xml&headline=Boeing%20Studies%20Stealth%20Eagle%20Opti ons&channel=defense)

...Boeing is working to complete the RCS studies as soon as possible so it can start the licensing process, he says, adding that the first request for proposals from a potential customer is expected between mid-2010 and 2011 from South Korea. The company is hoping the U.S. government will agree to release a frontal RCS level equivalent to that offered by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “Internationally we are looking for a level playing field,” Jones says.

Meanwhile, trade studies are also under way for design of the F-15SE weapons bays, including whether electric, hydraulic or pneumatic power, or some combination, should be used to actuate the doors and deploy the weapons quickly.These studies could involve potential international partners, and may take longer, Jones says. Some potential customers are interested in using the internal bays to house other payloads, including side-looking radar and broadband electronic-warfare jammers...

...Digital fly-by-wire allows removal of the mechanical flight controls and saves weight and volume, while the canted tails generate lift at the back of the aircraft and allow 400-500 pounds of ballast to be removed from the nose.

Jones says Boeing still plans to fly a Silent Eagle demonstrator in early to mid-2010 to show capability ahead of any international customer issuing a request for proposals. “International customers want low risk, and to see us test this before an RFP,” he says.

We should take note of the bold text - which indicates non-US customer interest in side-looking radar and broadband electronic-warfare jammers.

[h/t to theworacle and weasel1962, respectively]

[Haavarla]

This may be too conspiratorial, but I have seen it suggested that the Obama administration is not that fond of Lockheed (with its ties to Texas) relative to Boeing (in the liberal west). I realize the F35 is moving ahead for Lockheed, but perhaps Boeing and the F15SE or another project could do better under this administration?

That would be streching it..:)

But i'm courious about the increase of fuel in the F-15(SE) with the conformal fuel tanks.

And for that matter the F-35 with its big internal fuel capasity.

Seems to me somebody have taken elements from the Su-27 consept.
The fact that the Su-27 carreing a lot of fuel internaly are somehow beeing adopted in the west over the recent years.

More internal fuel storage = Bigger airframe = More RCS

Now feel free to bash this post:rolleyes:



Thanks

[Scott]

F-15 has undergone decades of testing in various configurations. The NASA F-15B model below in photo from 1996 employs canards and thrust vectoring.

Larger & more photos can be found in USAF F-15 gallery
NASA F-15B ACTIVE - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36301)
NASA F-15 ACTIVE Test Aircraft - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36307)
NASA F-15B ACTIVE and F/A-18 - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36319)
NASA F-15B ACTIVE Test Aircraft - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36384)

[Haavarla]

F-15 has undergone decades of testing in various configurations. The NASA F-15B model below in photo from 1996 employs canards and thrust vectoring.

Larger & more photos can be found in USAF F-15 gallery
NASA F-15B ACTIVE - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36301)
NASA F-15 ACTIVE Test Aircraft - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36307)
NASA F-15B ACTIVE and F/A-18 - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36319)
NASA F-15B ACTIVE Test Aircraft - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/36384)


Nice pics Scott:)

Those carnards vings seems a bit out of place here, maybe it is the size compaire to the euro-carnards and possible largere than the Su30MKI carnards wings too.

But nevertheless innteresting pics.

Does this prototype/test aircraft fly today?




Thanks

[Scott]

Nice pics Scott:)
Does this prototype/test aircraft fly today?


According to a NASA source, it's final test flight was January 30, 2009. Takeoff photo below taken that day, side view from 2002.

Who knows what testing has been done that hasn't been released to the public.

[Scott]

Should also note that NASA has another F-15B that is still undergoing testing.
NASA F-15 Eagle Research Aircraft with Nose Boom - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/22132/ppuser/13473/sortby/d/sorttime/9999/way/desc)
NASA F-15 Eagle Research Aircraft with Nose Boom - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/22131/ppuser/13473/sortby/d/sorttime/9999/way/desc)

Both F-15B models are/were testbed platforms, not prototypes. As alluded to earlier, who knows what additional testing & development efforts USAF, Boeing and possibly other countries with inventory, such as Japan or Israel, may be doing on F-15.

[Scott]

A few more details on the NASA F-15 test bed with canards and thrust vectoring, that flew it's final mission in January.

Built in 1973 by McDonnell Douglas as the first two-seat TF-15, the canard-equipped aircraft has been flown in several significant research and test programs for the U.S. Air Force, McDonnell Douglas and NASA over its almost 36–year lifetime, the last 14 years with NASA, flying 251 test missions.

[OPSSG]

^^^With regards to the above posts, in the past, thrust vectoring engines (TVC) concept was tested and considered for the F-15s but not pursued. This was because of the development of better A2A missiles and HMDs for off-bore sight missile shots, the weight penalty for the F-15 TVC engines was deemed not worthwhile.

As alluded to earlier, who knows what additional testing & development efforts USAF, Boeing and possibly other countries with inventory, such as Japan or Israel, may be doing on F-15.

Scott, more news on the F-15 development efforts by Boeing and possibly other countries... including news of the Raytheon supplied AESA radar upgrade for the F-15E of the USAF (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photo-by-stephen-trimblefive-r.html). This is actually a very clever marketing maneuver. It's a repackaged front-end from an APG-79 and a back-end derived from the APG-63(V)3. But the US Air Force-supplied designation means Raytheon can boast a "newer" radar than the Northrop Grumman APG-82 flying on the Lockheed Martin F-35.

...Boeing quietly announced (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa3f3c4e2-a100-4bf4-b805-e04d1bdef774&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest) at Paris last week that it is dedicating more funds to the development of the F-15SE Silent Eagle, with a goal of flying a demonstrator in the third quarter of next year. At the same time the company is saying that it has received strong encouragement from potential customers - led by Saudi Arabia and Korea - to continue working on the F-15SE, which features optional internal weapon bays...

Chadwick is confident that both the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-15 will still be in production in 2020 - despite Pentagon plans to close out the Super Hornet line. "It will always be less expensive than the F-35," he says, "and it will have the best capability of any multirole fighter out there, for at least another decade."

Chadwick's statements are based in part on Boeing assessments of how much the JSF will eventually cost, and when it will deliver its full planned capability - which as always will trail initial operational capability by some years. "I'm not an expert on the F-35, but when we look at where we are in terms of flight test and at the history of aircraft development ... we know we find things out in flight test." In terms of costs, he notes that "there's an extended period before the economies of scale kick in."

More news of Boeing desperately drumming up sales for the F-15SE....

Boeing is slipping the first flight-test (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/F15SE-062409.xml&headline=F-15%20Silent%20Eagle%20Flight-test%20Dates%20Slip&channel=defense) for the F-15 Silent Eagle prototype about six months to allow time to add inputs over features desired by interested international customers...

“We’ve identified some interest from some potential international co-development partners. These are opportunities we wanted to allow proper time to consider, and where appropriate integrate into the program,” Boeing officials said June 23 when asked to clarify the earlier statement.

The company embarked on the effort as an internal research and development project, but Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick said before the air show that he intended to explore potential cooperative development funding options in Paris with other countries.

Israel, which already operates F-15s, has expressed interest. Others likely to be interested include Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Saudi Arabia...

Boeing’s discussions with potential overseas customers seem to have prompted some changes to the program’s focus and to the design of the Silent Eagle’s components. At a press briefing before the show, Brad Jones, F-15 future fighters program manager, said Boeing was conducting trade studies on the conformal bays, including how to actuate the doors and launch the weapons. “We’re looking at electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and a combination,” he said. “It’s a question of how fast you get the missiles out.” Prior to unveiling the project, Boeing’s design focused on using all-electrical actuators.

Potential international customers also have expressed interest in what other payloads — a side-looking radar or broadband electronic jammer, for example — could be suitable for carriage in the conformal fuel tank bay.

Jones said in March that Boeing was open to co-production of the conformal fuel tanks, which would carry weapons internally, with customer nations. Israel, for example, already produces conformal fuel tanks in its 10 configuration. A U.S. 3 tank configuration, made by Boeing and developed specifically for the F-15C/D models, is eyed for the flight-tests of the Silent Eagle.

Cheers :D

[OPSSG]

Sept 17 (http://www.defencetalk.com/f-15e-radar-modernization-program-receives-new-designation-21992/)- The Boeing F-15E Radar Modernization Program (RMP) recently received the designation of AN/APG-82(v)1 from the U.S. Air Force. The addition of the Raytheon-built APG-82 radar will incorporate Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) technology into the F-15E strike fighter, increasing radar reliability by almost 20 times as it also improves maintainability, sustainability and performance, and reduces support costs...

Other RMP modifications include the addition of Raytheon's new Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Electronically Scanned Array antenna, which was developed for the F-15C APG-63(v)3 radar system, as well as new Radio Frequency Tunable Filters (RFTF) and an improved Environmental Cooling System (ECS).

The RFTF will enable the radar and the aircraft's Electronic Warfare System to function at the same time, minimizing degradation to either system. The ECS will provide up to an additional 250 percent liquid cooling capacity, which is required for incorporation of the APG-82 radar...

IMO, the US vs rest of the world gap in AESA technology development grows, as more details are released. Beyond the F-15E upgrades, I presume that potential F-15SE customers will be interested in the capabilities of the AN/APG-82(v)1.

[Haavarla]

IMO, the US vs rest of the world gap in AESA technology development grows, as more details are released. Beyond the F-15E upgrades, I presume that potential F-15SE customers will be interested in the capabilities of the AN/APG-82(v)1.

How will this new AN/APG-82(v)1 fare with the US ToT or High tec export restrictions?



Thanks

[OPSSG]

How will this new AN/APG-82(v)1 fare with the US ToT or High tec export restrictions?

Maybe our US members can better answer this question. I would think that Boeing will lobby hard for it. Each Silent Eagle sale is worth about US$100m in revenue and countries don't just buy 1 more plane, they buy more squadrons.

[Haavarla]

Maybe our US members can better answer this question. I would think that Boeing will lobby hard for it. Each Silent Eagle sale is worth about US$100m in revenue and countries don't just buy 1 more plane, they buy more squadrons.


Yeah well, if it don't work out i guess they throw in a couple of letters .
Change the Radar designation to an export model and remove some of the components or software modes etc etc..



Thanks

[swerve]

How will this new AN/APG-82(v)1 fare with the US ToT or High tec export restrictions?

Thanks
Previously known as the APG-63(v)4. It's basically the back end of the APG-79 & the front end of the APG-63(v)3.

[OPSSG]

Previously known as the APG-63(v)4. It's basically the back end of the APG-79 & the front end of the APG-63(v)3.

@swerve, thanks, for the comments (at least we are keeping this not very active thread limping along).

Singapore's F-16s have a secondary maritime strike role and I'm pretty sure the F-15SG will have the same secondary role too. That being the case, IMO, the RSAF will be keen, at some point, to upgrade to the AN/APG-82(v)1.

The serious upgrade in cooling capacity may be indicative of some changes under-the-hood beyond just the switching of model numbers as a marketing exercise alone.

@Haavarla, your comment is very funny and cynical at the same time. :)

[Haavarla]

A side question.
Some people downplay the CFT on the SE.
But lately i've notice an increase of F-22A with droptanks stuck under the wing pylons in pics and vids out there.

Aren't there some wing pylons conecting these droptanks?
Why are the F-22 doing exercises with droptanks, if they not gonna use them in combat?

Is it strictly to increase loiter time and decrease air-refueling cost in exercises?
I don't see why they should drop the fueltanks on training mission.. but then again, the RCS goes up..


Thanks

[gf0012-aust]

A side question.
Some people downplay the CFT on the SE.
But lately i've notice an increase of F-22A with droptanks stuck under the wing pylons in pics and vids out there.

Aren't there some wing pylons conecting these droptanks?
Why are the F-22 doing exercises with droptanks, if they not gonna use them in combat?

Is it strictly to increase loiter time and decrease air-refueling cost in exercises?
I don't see why they should drop the fueltanks on training mission.. but then again, the RCS goes up..


Thanks

LO, in real terms is D0-D+3 (very theoretical to get the analogy across)

After that, the need for LO reduces because they don't need to maintain LO

after D+3 the rest of the systems in theatre would have neutralised, decapitated, destroyed or denuded the red forces sensor capability and blue air would be dominationg the battlespace.

LO doesn't need to be maintained after D+3

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah well, if it don't work out i guess they throw in a couple of letters .
Change the Radar designation to an export model and remove some of the components or software modes etc etc..



Thanks

???? The US has AESA systems in place developed by multiple companies. Within those companies they've developed iterations as well.

AESA by rote is a spiral development. Those that have had software changes and improvements haven't been released as "new: versions. (It's why the US has "Block" designations)

They don't release delimited systems and change their designation as a marketing gimmick.


Bottom line is that no other country has a competitive history and family of AESA. That will upset some, but its life.

[Scott]

Got up close look at NASA F-15B Active last week. That's a big canard

[Crusader2000]

A side question.
Some people downplay the CFT on the SE.
But lately i've notice an increase of F-22A with droptanks stuck under the wing pylons in pics and vids out there.

Aren't there some wing pylons conecting these droptanks?
Why are the F-22 doing exercises with droptanks, if they not gonna use them in combat?
Is it strictly to increase loiter time and decrease air-refueling cost in exercises?
I don't see why they should drop the fueltanks on training mission.. but then again, the RCS goes up..


Thanks

The F-22's are likely carrying drop tanks. So, some don't get a true picture of there RCS......;)

[LS1 Miata]

More internal fuel storage = Bigger airframe = More RCS

Airframe size is not dependent on it's RCS.

[zeven]

Airframe size is not dependent on it's RCS.

Sorry if i misunderstood your question. but do you imply that size does not matter, because it does.

[Crusader2000]

Sorry if i misunderstood your question. but do you imply that size does not matter, because it does.



So, are you saying that the F-35 and F-117. Have a smaller RCS that the vastly bigger B-2 Bomber????;)

[LS1 Miata]

Sorry if i misunderstood your question. but do you imply that size does not matter, because it does.

No, size does not matter at all.

If you were to take a model of the F-117 and scale it up to the size of an aircraft carrier, then compare it to that of a normal sized F-117, the two aircraft would have a similar RCS. There would be small differences, but not large enough to really affect anything.

[LS1 Miata]

"He [Kelly Johnson] told me later that he was surprised to learn that with flat surfaces the amount of radar energy returning to the sender is independent to the target's size. A small airplane, a bomber, an aircraft carrier, all with the same shape, will have identical radar cross sections."

"Skunk Works", page 33, Ben R. Rich




As I said before, size is NOT dependent on it's RCS. Ben Rich, Kelly Johnson, and Denys Overholser would agree with me.

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry if i misunderstood your question. but do you imply that size does not matter, because it does.

It certainly does. A B1 has a lower RCS than a rafale and a gripen.

its not about size, its about signal management. the same issues actually apply to submarines (fluid mechanics and aerodynamics are kissing cousins)

some much larger nukes actually have a lower sig profile than smaller conventionals.

that's the common misconception that people have - ie that larger assets means larger footprint at an RCS level.

[PhysicsMan]

"He [Kelly Johnson] told me later that he was surprised to learn that with flat surfaces the amount of radar energy returning to the sender is independent to the target's size. A small airplane, a bomber, an aircraft carrier, all with the same shape, will have identical radar cross sections."

"Skunk Works", page 33, Ben R. Rich




As I said before, size is NOT dependent on it's RCS. Ben Rich, Kelly Johnson, and Denys Overholser would agree with me.

You don't really understand what you're stating here. What you said is only somewhat true for exactly flat surfaces, so it would apply to F-117 to a large degree, but for all other aircraft currently out there (not with flat surfaces) it does not apply. Would you say a bigger sphere has the same RCS as a smaller one? It doesn't, and neither do aircraft.

[PhysicsMan]

So, are you saying that the F-35 and F-117. Have a smaller RCS that the vastly bigger B-2 Bomber????;)

Actually, F-117 probably does have a smaller RCS...

[Bonza]

You don't really understand what you're stating here. What you said is only somewhat true for exactly flat surfaces, so it would apply to F-117 to a large degree, but for all other aircraft currently out there (not with flat surfaces) it does not apply. Would you say a bigger sphere has the same RCS as a smaller one? It doesn't, and neither do aircraft.

Why then does GF state that a B-1 has a lower RCS than something like Rafale/Gripen? They're not exactly "flat" aircraft.

He's shown himself to be an extremely reliable source in the past so I'm curious as to your response.

Edit: Your response followed a moment after my post, disregard. :)

[PhysicsMan]

It certainly does. A B1 has a lower RCS than a rafale and a gripen.

its not about size, its about signal management. the same issues actually apply to submarines (fluid mechanics and aerodynamics are kissing cousins)

some much larger nukes actually have a lower sig profile than smaller conventionals.

that's the common misconception that people have - ie that larger assets means larger footprint at an RCS level.

you're right, but when you say it's not about size it can be misleading as well, since the size does matter, it's just not the only variable, or not even the most important variable, as your example shows. scaling B-1 to a larger size will increase its RCS.
and about the nukes... what is it that is done differently with their construction to get a smaller profile?

[PhysicsMan]

Why then does GF state that a B-1 has a lower RCS than something like Rafale/Gripen? They're not exactly "flat" aircraft.

He's shown himself to be an extremely reliable source in the past so I'm curious as to your response.

Ok, I'll clarify. If you take the same airframe and blow it up to a larger size it will in general have a larger RCS. This does not in any way logically imply that any larger thing has a larger RCS than any smaller thing.

[LS1 Miata]

You don't really understand what you're stating here. What you said is only somewhat true for exactly flat surfaces, so it would apply to F-117 to a large degree, but for all other aircraft currently out there (not with flat surfaces) it does not apply. Would you say a bigger sphere has the same RCS as a smaller one? It doesn't, and neither do aircraft.

The F-117 and F-22 operate off of the same principle - deflecting radar energy away from the radar receiver. The only reason why the B-2, F-22, and F-35 have curves instead of flat surfaces is because computer technology allowed them develop aircraft from a 3 dimensional aspect. The F-117 was designed from a 2 dimensional aspect because the computer technology back then (mid-late 1970's) wasn't as sophisticated. These curves allow for a better flight profile, which is especially a must on the F-22 and F-35. That being said, a large model of an F-22 compared to a small model of an F-22 will largely be the same, because they operate off of the same principle compared to the F-117. There will be small differences, but not enough to really change anything.

[PhysicsMan]

The F-117 and F-22 operate off of the same principle - deflecting radar energy away from the radar receiver. The only reason why the B-2, F-22, and F-35 have curves instead of flat surfaces is because computer technology allowed them develop aircraft from a 3 dimensional aspect. The F-117 was designed from a 2 dimensional aspect because the computer technology back then (mid-late 1970's) wasn't as sophisticated. These curves allow for a better flight profile, which is especially a must on the F-22 and F-35. That being said, a large model of an F-22 compared to a small model of an F-22 will largely be the same, because they operate off of the same principle compared to the F-117. There will be small differences, but not enough to really change anything.

F-22 body does not minimize radar energy as efficiently as F-117 does, if you discount everything other than the frame shape (and probably overall as well), despite the computer aid. Its design is a compromise between stealth and high maneuverability, unlike that of F-117's. And as long as there are continuous curved surfaces on a plane the signature due to shape will increase with size more or less proportionately. You may have a point in the sense that the shape of F-22 is just one of many contributors to its RCS, with other factors being less or not sensitive to its overall size, so the size is not AS important, but saying that the RCS will be "largely the same" in a bigger frame is just not true.

[Marc 1]

I supose it won't truly be revealed for another 50 years, but it would surprise me that a much later design even if it were from curved rather than flat panels would have a larger RCS that something designed 15 years earlier.

[PhysicsMan]

I supose it won't truly be revealed for another 50 years, but it would surprise me that a much later design even if it were from curved rather than flat panels would have a larger RCS that something designed 15 years earlier.

well, maybe in 50 years they will be able to get away with an awkward but stealthy shape design like F-117's and still achieve the dynamic requirements, but right now there's just no magic trick to make the shape very stealthy and the aircraft very capable in air. There's just too much F-22 has to be able to do performance-wise to have a very stealthy frame.

[gf0012-aust]

Ok, I'll clarify. If you take the same airframe and blow it up to a larger size it will in general have a larger RCS. This does not in any way logically imply that any larger thing has a larger RCS than any smaller thing.

Thats not related to the fact that larger aircraft can have a lower RCS than smaller aircraft.

classic examples are the B1 and B2, - the latter has a "superior" (as in lower) RCS value than the F-117.

similarly the F-22 is a larger aircraft than the F-117 and has a superior signature.

extrapolating RCS transmission re size to signature by upscaling the model does not work.

again, exponential scale is not relevant

[gf0012-aust]

what is it that is done differently with their construction to get a smaller profile?

I've got no intention of discussing signature management in detail on an open forum.

I have been involved with sig management for UDT

[gf0012-aust]

F-22 body does not minimize radar energy as efficiently as F-117 does

Nope. patently not true. the former has a far superior signature than the latter. USAF has indicated that to some of its allies, and its apparent to those who have cross decked and trained against both types.

A RAF pilot has exchanged on both and been pretty clear on his briefings that the F-22 is the far more discrete platform.

[PhysicsMan]

Thats not related to the fact that larger aircraft can have a lower RCS than smaller aircraft.

classic examples are the B1 and B2, - the latter has a "superior" (as in lower) RCS value than the F-117.

similarly the F-22 is a larger aircraft than the F-117 and has a superior signature.

extrapolating RCS transmission re size to signature by upscaling the model does not work.

again, exponential scale is not relevant

Is there any information about how various stealth designs compare in RCS? One source that I've seen puts F-117 RCS lower than F-22's. It's from a paper by Pogosyan, Sukhoi's chief - obviously to a degree a speculative comparison but still...

[Bonza]

well, maybe in 50 years they will be able to get away with an awkward but stealthy shape design like F-117's and still achieve the dynamic requirements, but right now there's just no magic trick to make the shape very stealthy and the aircraft very capable in air. There's just too much F-22 has to be able to do performance-wise to have a very stealthy frame.

Bear in mind that the F-22 is the product of more advanced technology and evolved design methods than the F-117 (in addition to the requirements of said design being different), so expecting there to be a necessary "trade-off" between performance and LO for the F-22 on the basis of characteristics inherent to the F-117 could be misleading.

[SpudmanWP]

hehe.. that graphic has the F-35 lower than the F-22.

[PhysicsMan]

Nope. patently not true. the former has a far superior signature than the latter. USAF has indicated that to some of its allies, and its apparent to those who have cross decked and trained against both types.

A RAF pilot has exchanged on both and been pretty clear on his briefings that the F-22 is the far more discrete platform.

Well, I was talking about the frame shape's RCS impact only - I'm sure it's true that most other aspects of the two designs will favor F-22 in this regard... But in any case, that's interesting info, thanks!