F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 22:58

vilters wrote:Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.

Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.

And please don't even try complaining about rewiring old airframes.
It was done before when they took "older" systems like F-16 and F-15 from analog to digital.
From F-16A/B to MLU is +/- the same step. => New sensors, new wiring, and let's go.


sure Vilters. Where do I stick the F-35's IPP? Where am I Placing the multiple sensors for 360 coverage?? How about Barracuda? what about all the power to drive everything? how about multiple sensor and antennae arrays? How about for the AV-8B Harriers? Or how about a Helicopter? where am I sticking all this additional gear and weight? just hang em on there right ol' boy?

Image

I'll just start cutting holes in these older airframes willy nilly right?

Image

And Wheres my EOTS? my DAS? This might come as a shock, but it was a helluva feat to pack as much stuff into the F-35 nose ahead of the Canopy Hinge as they did. Theres a lot going on there


If you're going to claim to have worn a uniform for your nations air force, it would be nice if you displayed more knowledge of aircraft and systems than an Xbox teenager.

These aren't legos and you should know better :roll: A coat hanger? really?
Choose Crews
Offline

firebase99

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 03 May 2017, 21:47

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 01:31

mixelflick wrote:My understanding was that despite their longstanding air to ground role, the F-15E is equally adept at the air to air function. I've seen some eye watering performances where F-15E's lose the CFT's, and look every bit as sprightly as the F-15C. It's BVR capabilities should be as robust too, probably more an issue of aircrew training.

It's not the best solution (more F-35's), but may become enticing - if for no other reason than USAF wouldn't be paying for new planes. Just converting older ones..


Agreed, and with all due respect, who cares? The F35 does it better, safer, and cheaper. Buying "Super" Eagles makes no sense at all. Who exactly are advocating for F-15's anyway? Why is this is even being discussed? Its just SOOOOOO STUPID!!!!!!!!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5384
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 03:35

vilters wrote:Some seem to forget that an airframe is just a coathanger where you hang your systems on.
The total operational value of your weapon system is the sum of the quality (or lack of it) of all its subsystems.

Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.


Sorry, they can't even do that with the F-22 Raptor. So, forget about any 4th Generation Fighter...... :shock:


Honestly, this has been discussed countless times over the years......... :roll:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5384
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 03:39

firebase99 wrote:
Agreed, and with all due respect, who cares? The F35 does it better, safer, and cheaper. Buying "Super" Eagles makes no sense at all. Who exactly are advocating for F-15's anyway? Why is this is even being discussed? Its just SOOOOOO STUPID!!!!!!!!



Which, is why so many are up-set at even the suggestion. :?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 14:22

Watchdog Group Sues Pentagon for Records Relating to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan's Ties to Boeing

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/watchdo ... d=61509218
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 15:16

Corsair1963 wrote:
firebase99 wrote:
Agreed, and with all due respect, who cares? The F35 does it better, safer, and cheaper. Buying "Super" Eagles makes no sense at all. Who exactly are advocating for F-15's anyway? Why is this is even being discussed? Its just SOOOOOO STUPID!!!!!!!!



Which, is why so many are up-set at even the suggestion. :?


Well, now that Turkey has insisted on the S-400... PRESTO!

The USAF now has plenty of them to replace F-15C's :D
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 279
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 16:45

vilters wrote:Take all F-35 sensors and fusion systems, and you can "hang" them on about any airframe and get EXACTLY the same operational value.

No you don't. In addition to all the stuff already mentioned, I must add another big factor:
Signature Management.

This means, that due to the:
1) highly-exponential nature of the Radar Equation: https://youtu.be/Qwh-1jRGuDc?t=447
2) and the fact that F-35 knows it's RCS in every direction with high precision ...

The F-35 can use its sensors with much higher confidence.

Remember, you need 16x more power to double a radar's range against a target and 256x the power to quadruple it.
So, even if the F-35 EW suite doesn't know the adversary radar's exact parameters (noise tolerance, etc), it can still calculate how close it can get before being detected with a very high confidence margin, by simply adding a small safety margin in distance.

You cannot do that on a 4th gen. aircraft, even the exact same EW system.

Why? A 4th gen. aircraft can never be sure about its RCS with that level of confidence. It might very well happen to have a huge RCS spike in that particular sector the enemy is coming from, therefore the RWR must be a lot more conservative.

The only way to get to that level of confidence, is to take RCS into account from the beginning of the design. You need to consider RCS when designing everything on the airframe (even the minutest details), you just can't do that retroactively.

People always rage about Signature Reduction barely mentioning Signature Management. IMO The latter is at least as essential as the first for a full-fledged 5th gen. airframe.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 15:35

Wow, great point about Signature Management.

I never looked at it like that. Would you say the F-117 knew exactly its signature from every angle too? I would think so, but would also think it depends on what type of radar is looking at it?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 16:08

mixelflick wrote:Wow, great point about Signature Management.

I never looked at it like that. Would you say the F-117 knew exactly its signature from every angle too? I would think so, but would also think it depends on what type of radar is looking at it?

No, from what MD has said, the F-117 was very "dumb." It did not even have a RWR. It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan. Plus the computing power for the F-117 to know what the F-35 knows simply wasn't there.
"Spurts"

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 17:11

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan.


The lack of which was a key factor (probably the biggest factor) in the one shoot down.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 18:46

sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan.


The lack of which was a key factor (probably the biggest factor) in the one shoot down.

That and some brilliant planning by Col Dani. Credit where credit is due.

The "Use the same route everyday" plan was working. Col Dani took advantage of that and "changed the plan". The lack of , well, anything in the cockpit of the F-117 meant Lt Col Zelko never had a clue that Col Dani had changed the plan.
"Spurts"

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 18:50

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: It relied 100% on good mission planning and had no ability to react to changes in the plan.


The lack of which was a key factor (probably the biggest factor) in the one shoot down.

That and some brilliant planning by Col Dani. Credit where credit is due.

The "Use the same route everyday" plan was working. Col Dani took advantage of that and "changed the plan". The lack of , well, anything in the cockpit of the F-117 meant Lt Col Zelko never had a clue that Col Dani had changed the plan.


But really, how much genius does it take to tackle 5 o'clock Charlie?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post13 Mar 2019, 14:39

Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

I LOVE the Eagle, but this was the wrong decision for the country. Along with continuing to purchase Super Duper Hornets, this seems to be more about keeping 2 companies capable of pumping out fighters than anything else..

I'm sure the Chinese/Russians celebrated when they read this news.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Mar 2019, 15:16

mixelflick wrote:Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

Source? Not that I doubt it, but I want to be able to confirm it.
"Spurts"

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post13 Mar 2019, 15:41

mixelflick wrote:Read today the F-15X will cost 80 million, and up to 125 million/copy when it's all said and done. And they want up to 144 of them..

I LOVE the Eagle, but this was the wrong decision for the country. Along with continuing to purchase Super Duper Hornets, this seems to be more about keeping 2 companies capable of pumping out fighters than anything else..

I'm sure the Chinese/Russians celebrated when they read this news.


They need to climb up the current SecDef's backside with a microscope. This is corruption at it's worst.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: polarbear and 10 guests