F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

[marauder2048]

None of the MX basing schemes were continuously mobile; they required near strategic alert
(hours) to get moving.

Midgetman wasn't continuously mobile either; a few of the TELs would be "hunkered down" in the field
and then be repositioned after the Soviet satellites flew over.

But None of the Russian supersonic LACMs are are a threat to the deterrent which are too far inland.
The longer range, subsonic ones might be.

[aaam]

That is the Super Hornet implementation. Mudhens will carry it in the pylon for the TGP.

I know export Eagles,such as F-15K will have IRST such as Tiger Eye, but are US F-15Es actually scheduled to get IRST? -Cs and EXs will use the centerline pod (not sure if there's room to fit that stuff internally in the EX and it would be more costly at this point).

[aaam]

Thought the legion pod was already up and running. What's changed?

Nothing.

But the notion that the big and high contrast F-15 is going to out-IRST
threat fighters (aside from the Flanker series) is silly.

So the motivation is really counter cruise missile. Thus, the podded forms and their installation points make sense
both from a cost and utility perspective; they are only looking to buy 100 of them.

Not sure what you mean by the F-15 going to "out-IRST" other aircraft (although IRST21 is pretty potent). IRST is a long range passive sensor, not a defensive system. Part of the beauty of it is that the other guy doesn't know you've detected him or are even using it. The fact that you may or may not have a bigger IR signature than somebody else doesn't play into what it does for you. It would be sort of like saying the F-15 shouldn't have a radar because its RCS is bigger than that of a Gripen (and it is).

IMO.

[marauder2048]

Not sure what you mean by the F-15 going to "out-IRST" other aircraft (although IRST21 is pretty potent). IRST is a long range passive sensor, not a defensive system. Part of the beauty of it is that the other guy doesn't know you've detected him or are even using it. The fact that you may or may not have a bigger IR signature than somebody else doesn't play into what it does for you. It would be sort of like saying the F-15 shouldn't have a radar because its RCS is bigger than that of a Gripen (and it is).

IMO.

Because monostatic radar sensitivity is more or less cubic in aperture size i.e. bigger is so much better.
That's not true for IRST. And it's not the case that the F-15 is carrying larger optics/bigger FPA than
any other fighter.

Absent any signature reduction techniques, the strict battle of passives favors the smaller aircraft.

[aaam]

Not sure what you mean by the F-15 going to "out-IRST" other aircraft (although IRST21 is pretty potent). IRST is a long range passive sensor, not a defensive system. Part of the beauty of it is that the other guy doesn't know you've detected him or are even using it. The fact that you may or may not have a bigger IR signature than somebody else doesn't play into what it does for you. It would be sort of like saying the F-15 shouldn't have a radar because its RCS is bigger than that of a Gripen (and it is).

IMO.

Because monostatic radar sensitivity is more or less cubic in aperture size i.e. bigger is so much better.
That's not true for IRST. And it's not the case that the F-15 is carrying larger optics/bigger FPA than
any other fighter.

Absent any signature reduction techniques, the strict battle of passives favors the smaller aircraft.

Sorry, still not following you.


As understand, you're saying that given IRSTs of equal capabilities and processing (and I'm not sure you can count on that), the aircraft with the smaller IR return will "see" the one with the bigger first. Assuming they' both start looking where the other aircraft is at the same time, of course that's true. But that's a big assumption. Suppose the F-15 is passively searching where the Gripen is and detects it, while the Gripen, not knowing the F-15 is around isn't looking that way or even searching. The Eagle is going to "win" the detection contest even though its IR signature is larger.

Wouldn't you agree it's better to have N IRST option than not? I believe my radar analogy still applies.

[marauder2048]

Not sure what you mean by the F-15 going to "out-IRST" other aircraft (although IRST21 is pretty potent). IRST is a long range passive sensor, not a defensive system. Part of the beauty of it is that the other guy doesn't know you've detected him or are even using it. The fact that you may or may not have a bigger IR signature than somebody else doesn't play into what it does for you. It would be sort of like saying the F-15 shouldn't have a radar because its RCS is bigger than that of a Gripen (and it is).

IMO.

Because monostatic radar sensitivity is more or less cubic in aperture size i.e. bigger is so much better.
That's not true for IRST. And it's not the case that the F-15 is carrying larger optics/bigger FPA than
any other fighter.

Absent any signature reduction techniques, the strict battle of passives favors the smaller aircraft.

Sorry, still not following you.


As understand, you're saying that given IRSTs of equal capabilities and processing (and I'm not sure you can count on that), the aircraft with the smaller IR return will "see" the one with the bigger first. Assuming they' both start looking where the other aircraft is at the same time, of course that's true. But that's a big assumption. Suppose the F-15 is passively searching where the Gripen is and detects it, while the Gripen, not knowing the F-15 is around isn't looking that way or even searching. The Eagle is going to "win" the detection contest even though its IR signature is larger.

Wouldn't you agree it's better to have N IRST option than not? I believe my radar analogy still applies.

Sorry. I tend not rely on scenarios where the enemy is modeled as willfully stupid.
And nobody models aircraft survivability in this fashion either.

And of course the argument for a bigger radar is very clear for reasons other than detection:
more simultaneous air-to-air missiles in flight for example. So no. Your radar analogy is inapplicable.

[sferrin]

None of the MX basing schemes were continuously mobile; they required near strategic alert
(hours) to get moving.

Midgetman wasn't continuously mobile either; a few of the TELs would be "hunkered down" in the field
and then be repositioned after the Soviet satellites flew over.

But None of the Russian supersonic LACMs are are a threat to the deterrent which are too far inland.
The longer range, subsonic ones might be.

Not a threat to MMIII silos but they'd be tough to beat for a first strike. Imagine what an Oscar II loaded with a load of 48 nuclear-armed Oniks (Brahmos) could do to the East Coast around Washington in about 6 minutes.

[marauder2048]

Not a threat to MMIII silos but they'd be tough to beat for a first strike.

No argument there. So I don't see a good way to counter that threat (beyond more intensive ASW)
with an airborne layer unless you had a HALE drone with DEWs, AAMs and 360 WFOV IRST.

[marauder2048]

A few TALON HATE pods were acquired but the MADL/IFDL gateways on Loyal Wingmen look like the better option
moving forward.

Looks like only four pods and only 15 aircraft configured to carry them. And they expect to sunset the
program since the pods only have a design life of 1200 hours/4 years. And it's IFDL only.

[talkitron]

By by, Talon HATE pods! Thanks for the document find.

[sferrin]

Not a threat to MMIII silos but they'd be tough to beat for a first strike.

No argument there. So I don't see a good way to counter that threat (beyond more intensive ASW)
with an airborne layer unless you had a HALE drone with DEWs, AAMs and 360 WFOV IRST.

JLENS and PAC-3 MSE / SM-6 on land.

[marauder2048]

Not a threat to MMIII silos but they'd be tough to beat for a first strike.

No argument there. So I don't see a good way to counter that threat (beyond more intensive ASW)
with an airborne layer unless you had a HALE drone with DEWs, AAMs and 360 WFOV IRST.

JLENS and PAC-3 MSE / SM-6 on land.

An IRST on JLENS would be useful. There's just been a reluctance to cut loose with SAMs,
in a peacetime "bolt-from-the-blue" scenario if you can't positively ID the inbound targets.

But maybe the supersonic nature of the threat relaxes the need to ID.
If not, I come back to one of the low-cost interceptor solutions that had an IIR seeker
that could stream back images to a controller.

[mixelflick]

I have a dumb question..

If the Chinese can add "RCS reduction" measures to the J-10C, J-11D and the Russians to the SU-35 and Mig-35... why can't (or doesn't) the US do the same for the F-15EX? It's not just because it's "big" as fighters go... Can't be, given the J-11/other Flaker derivatives are even bigger. And it's not like Boeing didn't at least do some work in this area, when pitching the Silent Eagle. It for sure has with the SH/Super Duper Hornet Block III.

Is this just a matter of expense, or something else? Because I have to believe that a J-10C going up against and F-15EX is going to see the J-10C with all sorts of advantages: Longer ranged (PL-15) missiles and a lower RCS among them.

I realize people are talking about the EX being primarily for homeland security/cruise missile defense. But the fact is the squadron up here in the Northeast F-15C's (104th, responsible for HS air defense mission) have deployed plenty, and have mixed it up with Malaysian Flankers and other comparable aircraft. Given that dynamic, why wouldn't you apply "RCS reduction" measures to our new build 4th gens...?

[marauder2048]

If meaningful signature reduction for the F-15 was straightforward or cheap the South Koreans wouldn't
have balked at the time and cost for F-15SE development or Boeing would have just funded it internally.

The J-10 and the Super Hornet had some efforts at signature reductions as part of their design.
The Block III mainly looks to be tidying up some RCS hotspots and the big motivation is
that a 10% reduction in RCS permits a 10% reduction in jammer power which is a good thing.

And even the classic Flanker series had a lower RCS, by design, than the F-15.
That's what motivated ATF in the first place: the Flanker could out-radar the F-15 and had a lower own-ship RCS.

The Russians have subsequently spent a lot of time and money getting the Su-35 down to Super Hornet RCS but
that seems (To me at least) to be as much a hedge against their stealth fighter development
not progressing as anything else.

[wrightwing]

If meaningful signature reduction for the F-15 was straightforward or cheap the South Koreans wouldn't
have balked at the time and cost for F-15SE development or Boeing would have just funded it internally.

The J-10 and the Super Hornet had some efforts at signature reductions as part of their design.
The Block III mainly looks to be tidying up some RCS hotspots and the big motivation is
that a 10% reduction in RCS permits a 10% reduction in jammer power which is a good thing.

And even the classic Flanker series had a lower RCS, by design, than the F-15.
That's what motivated ATF in the first place: the Flanker could out-radar the F-15 and had a lower own-ship RCS.

The Russians have subsequently spent a lot of time and money getting the Su-35 down to Super Hornet RCS but
that seems (To me at least) to be as much a hedge against their stealth fighter development
not progressing as anything else.

The Su-27/30 doesn't have a lower RCS than an F-15 (~15 to 20m^2 vs <10m^2), nor do they out-radar it. The Su-35 isn't Super Hornet level RCS, either. (Super Hornets are ~ .1m^2. Su-35s are in the 3 to 5m^2 range.)