F-15C's: FAST Packs Are Back In Style

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3260
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 23:07

wrightwing wrote:The weapons pods have far less drag, than the wanted pylons with ordnance cause. They also have a far less RCS penalty.

I'll grant you that. They are not LOW DRAG but they are lower than pylon mounted munitions.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 551
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 23:14

mixelflick wrote:I asked an F-15C pilot some time ago about why they don't fly with FAST packs, and his response was as logical as it was stark: "You can't punch them off, like you can with EFT's...".


In Sukhoi they tried to solve that problem:
http://i1.go2yd.com/image.php?url=0GUAjpF3Aw

even though I don't get why would Su-27 need CFT?!?
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1751
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 02:07

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The weapons pods have far less drag, than the wanted pylons with ordnance cause. They also have a far less RCS penalty.

I'll grant you that. They are not LOW DRAG but they are lower than pylon mounted munitions.


I'm pretty sure you can get negative drag with the correct amount of power. One thing my high school physics teacher taught me (decades ago) it's that not every solution is obvious. And if you're needing to do multiple jobs, say like cooling, you can kill multiple issues with fewer solutions.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 15:51

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I asked an F-15C pilot some time ago about why they don't fly with FAST packs, and his response was as logical as it was stark: "You can't punch them off, like you can with EFT's...".


In Sukhoi they tried to solve that problem:
http://i1.go2yd.com/image.php?url=0GUAjpF3Aw

even though I don't get why would Su-27 need CFT?!?

;
Wow! That sure is interesting, thank you..

And yeah, the SU-27 would be one of the last fighters to need an expendable CFT. Thing already carries so much gas. Speaking of which, I think there's a perception that any Flanker (including fully fueled and fully armed) can perform all sorts of cobra's, J-turns etc etc. That is fiction, yes?

At what point does it become supermaneuverable.. 50% internal fuel??
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3260
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 17:41

mixelflick wrote: I think there's a perception that any Flanker (including fully fueled and fully armed) can perform all sorts of cobra's, J-turns etc etc. That is fiction, yes?

At what point does it become supermaneuverable.. 50% internal fuel??

As I understand it there is a reduced AoA and G limit if there is fuel in the forward tank. Once that is empty then it has the unrestricted performance you see. IIRC the fuel load for unrestricted in ~60%.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Feb 2018, 00:18

So the concensus on this new FAST pack arrangement is... same drag as with 2 bags.

It'll be interesting to see how this little experiment goes, and whether or not it'll be adopted as the USAF standard across all Eagle squadrons. The 104th here in Westfield, MA is still flying 2 bags.

Saw them again this morning :)
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3260
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post16 Feb 2018, 00:38

If you are sticking to 4 AAMs under the wings then there is less drag than the two bags. A "Smooth" CFT set has a DI of ~5. A "Pyloned" CFT set ala F-15E has a DI ~20 (Roughly the same as two bags). If the CFT set only has four pylons instead of twelve then maybe the CFT DI is only 10?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Feb 2018, 17:28

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:If you are sticking to 4 AAMs under the wings then there is less drag than the two bags. A "Smooth" CFT set has a DI of ~5. A "Pyloned" CFT set ala F-15E has a DI ~20 (Roughly the same as two bags). If the CFT set only has four pylons instead of twelve then maybe the CFT DI is only 10?


Seems like a logical assumption. Would be curious to know for sure. One would think 4 AMRAAM's on 4 pylons would surely create less drag vs. 12 pylons carrying any type of bomb. Then again, one F-15C 2040 artist concept shows a 4 AMRAAM loadout per CFT. Whole lotta firepower, but of course along with it comes the drag..

It will be interesting to see where the USAF settles. Personally, I'd love to see an F-15 carrying 12 to 16 AMRAAM's! :)
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 04:39

Couldn't you do 4 on each wing (8) 2 on each fast pack (12) and 4 on the belly stations (16)? Bringing the fast packs back makes a lot of sense still, they hold 100 gallons less than 3 x 600 gallon tanks. Would seem like a far more efficient way to increase the range on the C eagles. Even if they lose manuverability they have the aim-9x to help make up for it, seeing as there future role is sensor and missile truck doesn't seem to be a huge issue. Wonder if they start running fast packs all the time If they will push for a 229 engine upgrade like the strikers have.
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 05:01

I think in the Eagle community they look at this differently.......The "E" looks at it from a weapons/fuel standpoint. They get range and then they get to put max ordnance load on a target or can loiter for precision strike, etc,etc.

The only charlie's that I know that fly with CFT's on a regular basis are the boys in Keflavik. They look at it strictly from a fuel/range perspective. They need to meet the threat at max distance for tactical/strategic differences. Not too sure the weapons load is a major factor for them as with the echo models. but it's always nice to have a few extra in the back pocket......lol
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3916
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 07:12

I heard it would cost at least $40 Million just to give the F-15C a structural upgrade to keep them flying past 2030. Which, doesn't even count a New AESA Radar, CFT's, IFR, or EPAWSS.....


Hardly, seems like a "cost effective" solution vs New Built F-35A's! :bang:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2617
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 07:18

Corsair1963 wrote:I heard it would cost at least $40 Million just to give the F-15C a structural upgrade to keep them flying past 2030. Which, doesn't even count a New AESA Radar, CFT's, IFR, or EPAWSS.....


Hardly, seems like a "cost effective" solution vs New Built F-35A's! :bang:

$40 million was if they did all of the modifications + zero hour SLEP.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3916
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 07:45

wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I heard it would cost at least $40 Million just to give the F-15C a structural upgrade to keep them flying past 2030. Which, doesn't even count a New AESA Radar, CFT's, IFR, or EPAWSS.....


Hardly, seems like a "cost effective" solution vs New Built F-35A's! :bang:

$40 million was if they did all of the modifications + zero hour SLEP.



QUOTE: General Mike Holmes, the head of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, told reporters that in order to stay viable, each F-15 needs a $40 million center fuselage overhaul.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... nt-rumors/

QUOTE: USAF chief Gen David Goldfein told reporters 12 April. The air force will keep the F-15C around until at least 2020 and the A-10 Warthog until 2021, Goldfein adds. To keep the Eagle flying past the 2020s would require a series of service life extension programs including a center fuselage overhaul estimated at $40 million per unit, according to the service’s head of Air Combat Command.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... en-436181/
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 19 Feb 2018, 08:31, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3916
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 07:49

Hardly, matters if it is $40 Million or $60 Million or whatever to upgrade the F-15C. As the $80-85 Million F-35A is worth "TWENTY" F-15C's upgraded or not.... :?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 15:50

Corsair1963 wrote:Hardly, matters if it is $40 Million or $60 Million or whatever to upgrade the F-15C. As the $80-85 Million F-35A is worth "TWENTY" F-15C's upgraded or not.... :?


You really think that's so? One F-35 is worth 20 updated F-15C's?? If they do decide to retire the Eagle and go with more F-35A's, they must be looking hard at the proposed 16 AMRAAM loadout. Would apparently be much stealthier even despite the external carriage, should have comparable range too. But wouldn't they be sacrificing some "reach" insofar as the APG-81 can't "see" as far as the Eagle's monster new AESA? '
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests