backtop


Print 127 comment(s) - last by HotFoot.. on Apr 15 at 3:28 PM

Another thorn in the F-22 and F-35 side

Boeing recently released information on a new variant of the F-15 family, the F-15SE "Silent Eagle", which features stealth technologies and upgraded avionics. It would compete directly with F-22 and F-35 for international sales.

"The F-15 Silent Eagle is designed to meet our international customers' anticipated need for cost-effective stealth technologies, as well as for large and diverse weapons payloads," said Mark Bass, F-15 Program vice president for Boeing. "The innovative Silent Eagle is a balanced, affordable approach designed to meet future survivability needs."

Besides South Korea, target customers for the F-15SE program include Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Israel, he added.

Similar to full stealth fighters, the F-15SE will have different roles and configurations in the opening phase of an air campaign and in the sustainment phase, after air superiority is achieved. Flying with full 'RCS Reduction Package' the F-15SE will be able to carry Air-to-Air (AIM-9 and AIM-120) missiles and air-to-ground munitions to include JDAM and SDB. The aircraft could be configured to F-15SE Multirole Capable aircraft in approximately two hours, providing long range weapon capability, employing missiles such as the SLAM-ER and Harpoon Block II missiles or any other type of weapon qualified for the Strike eagle. In this configuration the aircraft will retain a total fuel capacity of 34,700 lbs at a maximum takeoff gross weight of 81,000 lbs (carrying 29,500 lbs of payload).

According to Boeing estimates, utilizing the twin F110-GE-129 engines the Silent Eagle will be able to reach an approximate mission radius of 800 nautical miles (nm) on air/ground missions and 720 nm on combat air patrols (CAP), employing the RCS reduction kit. Baseline CFT equipped F-15SE can reach 1000 nm on ground attack and 900 nm on CAP. 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, external weapons load used on current versions of the F-15 is available with the traditional CFTs installed.

Survivability improvements include a BAES Digital Electronic Warfare System (DEWS) working in concert with the Raytheon Advanced Electronic Scanning Array (AESA) radar. The aircraft will be fitted with a network-enabled integrated sensor system, comprising a targeting pod, infrared search track (IRST) system, navigation pod, the AESA radar and threat warning ECM. Voice over data communications, employing datalink connectivity will enable the Silent Eagle to rely not only on on-board data, but share and receive sensor data and target location from external sources, assisting in the creation of full and updated situational awareness even in 'silent' modes of operation.

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. The design, development, and test of this internal carriage system are available as a collaborative project with an international aerospace partner.  Notionally, Boeing estimates the F-15SE’s cost, including airframe, spares and training, at $100 million each.

According to the Korea Times, the Silent Eagle will be 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.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$100 million
By dubldwn on 4/10/2009 3:35:50 PM , Rating: 1
Why not just buy an F-35?




RE: $100 million
By stromgald30 on 4/10/2009 3:55:32 PM , Rating: 5
Um, because F-35s and F-15s perform completely different roles?

F-15s provide air superiority for air-to-air combat and the capability for long (relatively) distance strikes on guarded enemy targets. They are being replaced by F-22s.

F-35s are designed to replace F-16s and F/A-18(A-D) fighters, which are smaller, shorter-range interceptors. Their primary role is to protect assets such as aircraft carriers or patrol borders. The F-35 is also designed to replace A-10 in close air support (CAS) of troops, and some of the A-6 attack/bomber capability, but this does not put it in the same league as the F-15 or F-22 in terms of strike range or lethality in air-to-air combat.


RE: $100 million
By Amiga500 on 4/10/2009 4:02:36 PM , Rating: 1
An F-35 will be a more potent A2A weapon than any upgraded F-15 ever will be.

Boeing are spreading FUD. Its not the first time *points in the direction of the F/A-18 E/F*.


RE: $100 million
By stromgald30 on 4/10/2009 4:22:03 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. A F-35 should be able to beat a F-15 in air-to-air combat. But an F-35 probably can't match the F-15 in speed or ordnance load. Then again, with the new internal weapons bays, the ordnance loads are probably significantly reduced.

With just internal fuel tanks, the F-15 also has a larger combat radius. I also doubt the F-35 has conformal fuel tanks like the F-16 (yet), which helps it match the range of F-15s.

The F/A-18 E/F is crap because the F/A-18A is pretty bad to begin with. There's a reason that the Air Force selected the YF-16 over the YF-17 (which became the F/A-18A). The Navy just wanted a fighter with two engines (among other reasons), so they jumped off the first effort at a joint service fighter and got the F/A-18, which was the less advanced of the two.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/10/2009 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 3
They can also still add the external weapons pylons to the F-15SE and that right there give it a hell of a lot more firepower than an F-35. Plus with an upgraded avionics package it would come down to who locks on to who first.

The Navy did not want the F-16, because it was a single engine AC and the airframe landing gear did not lend well to carrier landings. While the YF-17 looks very similar to the F-18, the resultant airframe and dimensions are completely different. The YF-16 & YF-17 were competing on completely different requirements from what the navy wanted. However the technology was used for there own program as a cost cutting measure. There was no point in spending money to start from scratch when you can use what was learned from the AF program. No need to reinvent the wheel. In the end the navy got what they wanted. The only similarity between the AF and Navy programs was that the F-16 & F-18 were purposed with augmenting there more expensive counter parts the F-15 and F-14.


RE: $100 million
By Amiga500 on 4/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/10/2009 8:58:22 PM , Rating: 5
really?

The F-4 was an awesome plane. Those planes could take some serious damage. During Vietnam they would land, patch them up with oil/beer cans, stop the bleeding on the fuel bladders and send them back up. Bled energy? WTF? could you not fly thru the golden hoops on your video game or something?

If you actually read my post. The F-18 augmented the F-14 in the same manner the f-16 augments the F-15. It was never designed to be an equal, it served a different purpose.

Honestly the only reason I'm replying to your absurd rant is my pizza is taking longer than 30 minutes to get here.


RE: $100 million
By Globemaster on 4/10/2009 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 5
Just to clarify on Amiga 500's behalf, when he said "bled energy", he meant that it dissipated its kinetic energy at an excessive rate while maneuvering - not that it was leaking JP-4/5.

I have no idea if that's true or not, but that's what he meant.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/10/2009 11:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, the F-4 was originally designed to go fast in a relatively straight line (think muscle cars,drag racing) launch missiles and get the hell out. When we discovered that dog fighting was still very relevant (damn MiG's) we had to adapt our tactics accordingly. F-4's weren't meant for that hence they expended a huge amount of fuel doing a turn n burn. The plane did things it was not meant to do out of operational necessity. Even still it was a remarkable aircraft. By his logic an F-16 would fall into his category of crap. Those things have a glide path of a lawn dart(so do puddle jumpers err commuter jets, hate those damn things).

I'm curious tho, how in the hell did you get that from it's crap, it's crap, it's crap?


RE: $100 million
By Amiga500 on 4/11/2009 6:45:47 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry what?!?! An F-16 crap? Why do you think I would say that?

The YF-16 was designed with Boyd's energy maneuverability as top of the agenda. The F-16 is anything but crap.

The YF-17 should have been similar, but was a bad, bad design from the get go. There was a whole series of problems with the basic wing concept, problems which still are evident in the F/A-18 E/F Superhornets of today.

For all those that rated me down - the truth may hurt, but that doesn't stop it being the truth!


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/12/2009 3:08:23 AM , Rating: 3
The YF-17 and the F/A-18 in all of it's variations are two different aircraft. The F-18 shares only it's basic shape with the YF-17. A lot of the problems with the wings were a trade off for it's high angle of attack capability and extreme maneuverability. The majority of these problems were fixed or mitigated. One of the major problems was the vortices coming off of the wings and from the bleed off of the engines were beating the hell out of the vertical stabilizers and thus they had to be reinforced and the leading edge was modified to mitigate this. This particular problem was also discovered on the F-15's. Part of the fuel problems, and thus short range was due to the fact that we continued to upgrade the avionics packages adding more and more weight to the aircraft forcing us to use external tanks.

Multiple electronic redundancy, thrust vectoring, multi function displays, the leading edge extensions, were all firsts on an operational aircraft. Ease of maintenance and reliability were well above the other aircraft in the Navy's fleet. Every platform has trade offs. Doesn't make it a horrible aircraft. The F/A-18 certainly wasn't. It was designed for a specific purpose and it does it very well.

As far as the F-16 goes, why do I think you would say that? Well, you say the F-18 is a piece of crap like the F-4 and then your very next sentence you deride the F-18 for not being as fast as an F-4. You're holding this plane up to an impossible standard, I don't see how any aircraft could be to your liking.


RE: $100 million
By Dark Legion on 4/11/2009 7:06:04 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Honestly the only reason I'm replying to your absurd rant is my pizza is taking longer than 30 minutes to get here.


Well how is he supposed to deliver your pizza when he's busy ranting on DT.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/11/2009 11:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
I didnt think about that. It was about 20mins late.


RE: $100 million
By Amiga500 on 4/11/2009 9:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-18 augmented the F-14 in the same manner the f-16 augments the F-15. It was never designed to be an equal, it served a different purpose.


I somehow missed this.

There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that the legacy -18s could do that the -14Ds couldn't do better.

The F-14s main problem was availability rates. The entire F/A-18, legacy and E/F variants are kinematically far, far inferior to the competing Su-33s or Rafales.


RE: $100 million
By yomamafor1 on 4/13/2009 12:14:00 PM , Rating: 3
Again, not true. F/A-18 C/D have a much better thrust to weight ratio than F-14D. This means faster rate of climb. This all not to mention that F/A-18 is a better attack aircraft than F-14D. However as an air superiority fighter, F-14D is more capable due to its longer range and faster speed.

F/A-18 E/F on the other hand, has more armament, better thrust to weight ratio, and a better multi-role aircraft than F-14D. But again, F-14D was designed for pure air superiority in mind.


RE: $100 million
By MrPoletski on 4/14/2009 7:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They can also still add the external weapons pylons to the F-15SE and that right there give it a hell of a lot more firepower than an F-35. Plus with an upgraded avionics package it would come down to who locks on to who first.


First of all, adding external weapons pylons defeats the purpose of the F-15SE which is stealth. Second of all who locks on to who first is greatly affected by whether each craft can actually see each other.

This is moot anyway, the F35 does not replace the main role of the F15 (which is also a strike bomber when it needs to be) which is air superiority, that's the f22's job. The F35 is a catch all multi role craft. better to have these because your military can flex to any demand, rather than having to keep pulling in its specialised units.


RE: $100 million
By yomamafor1 on 4/13/2009 12:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
False.

There's no way a F-35 will perform on par with F-15 in an air-superiority role. The only advantages for F-35 is its stealth capability, and super cruise. F-15 on the other hand, dominated F-35 in terms of climb, speed, agility, and amount of weapon. That is why F-22 exists to perform that role, while F-35 performs multi-roles.

IMO, we should just purchase F-22 as opposed to F-15. Although F-22s are almost 50% more expensive, its much more capable than F-15 in the long run.


RE: $100 million
By eldakka on 4/13/2009 10:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
F-35 does not have supercruise.


RE: $100 million
By Chernobyl68 on 4/10/2009 5:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-35 is also designed to replace A-10 in close air support (CAS) of troops, and some of the A-6 attack/bomber capability, but this does not put it in the same league as the F-15 or F-22 in terms of strike range or lethality in air-to-air combat.


...or in the same league as the A-10's ground support ability or A-6's combat radius.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/10/2009 6:01:37 PM , Rating: 3
They wanted to use F-16's in this role a while back and decided to keep the A-10 around a while longer. I think we need a newer A-10. Neither the F-16 or the F-35 have a survivability rate comparable to an A-10.


RE: $100 million
By lagomorpha on 4/10/2009 6:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why fix what isn't broken? The A10 may date from the 70s but the only areas for improvement I can think of are intercept speed and sexiness. The former would likely only be gained at the expense of loiter time and the later shouldn't be a major concern for a military (not that it isn't...).

Though I suppose the A10 may eventually be replaced by UAVs.


RE: $100 million
By Anonymous Freak on 4/10/2009 7:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably right. UAVs are already taking on the A-10's mission, so they will probably do it full-force when they retire the A-10.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/10/2009 9:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
UAV's are great and all but they can't provide close air support like an A-10 can. An A-10 has triple redundancy built in to it. It's also the only plane in the USAF that's not fly by wire. UAV's have there uses but it'll be a while before they will be used for something like that. I'd be a little nervous about one of those making a strafing run.


RE: $100 million
By Redfoot on 4/11/2009 3:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
"fly by wire"

See also the U2, which, like the A-10, hase shown to have an excellent service record and keeps being retrofitted for increased utilization on the battlefield.

Why fix what's not broken? Well, when the lathes and manufacturing expertise that was priginally created to serve these airframes is no longer available, we are forced to move on to next gen aircraft.

I for one like like to see a similar upgrade made to the A-10 that the F-15 is getting.


RE: $100 million
By static1117 on 4/12/2009 3:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the F-15 isn't fly by wire either. It still uses cables to control flight controls.

And the A-10 was designed differently. They started with a gun, then said "OK, here is its weapon, build a plane around it."

Its a different approach than the new stuff.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/12/2009 3:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
I thought they were upgraded to a fly by wire system. I know the block A's were cable actuated but I thought later blocks were FBW. I dont think we have any A's left in the inventory.


RE: $100 million
By Chernobyl68 on 4/11/2009 11:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
it would take a lot of UAV's to carry the ordanance of 1 A-10, and none of them will have a 30mm GAU 8/A Avenger.


RE: $100 million
By FrankyZ on 4/12/2009 2:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
Amen on the GAU-8!


RE: $100 million
By Reclaimer77 on 4/11/2009 1:04:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Though I suppose the A10 may eventually be replaced by UAVs.


Yeah because lots of UAV's can fire a 5 ton gattling cannon with more recoil than the actual thrust of their own engines. And UAV's are REALLY good at getting half their tail sections blown off and still making it back to base...

*rolls eyes*


RE: $100 million
By RagingDragon on 4/13/2009 12:09:56 AM , Rating: 2
No current UAV's are designed around the 30mm gatling cannon, but there's no reason one couldn't be designed around it. And the whole point of UAV's is that destruction of the vechicle doesn't endanger the remote pilot; therefore, UAV's are more disposable than piloted aircraft; therefore, combat survivability doesn't matter as much.


RE: $100 million
By Fritzr on 4/13/2009 4:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
Install the UAV control system in an A10 and you have a UAV that can outmaneuver a manned A10 since the unpiloted version does not have to pamper it's pilot.

This idea dates back to the 60's when the original "UAV" had a pilot on board to handle takeoff and landing. The pilot was a backup system the rest of the time with a ground based computer flying the plane. Of course that was a computer doing the flying, not the ground based pilot used today ... The ground based pilot can handle take off and landing, so onboard wetware is no longer needed :)

The aircraft exist, it's just a matter of installing the fly-by-radio control system and cameras.


RE: $100 million
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2009 12:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Install the UAV control system in an A10 and you have a UAV that can outmaneuver a manned A10 since the unpiloted version does not have to pamper it's pilot.


The A-10 has roughly the same flight envelope as a WWII piston engined fighter. Pamper it's pilots ?


RE: $100 million
By Chillin1248 on 4/14/2009 6:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it goes back to World War 2.

They took Lancaster bombers and put in a few video cameras watching the avionics and radio controlled flight controls. It had a chase plane with the reciever and control equipment. It also had several thousand pounds of explosives on-board.

A pilot would take off and then bail out. Actually this is how one of the Kennedy family died, his plane exploded in mid-air before he bailed.

-------
Chillin


RE: $100 million
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2009 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the whole point of UAV's is that destruction of the vechicle doesn't endanger the remote pilot; therefore, UAV's are more disposable than piloted aircraft; therefore, combat survivability doesn't matter as much.


Survivability most certainly matters if you are talking about close air/ground support, which is the A-10's primary role. If it can't be effective in that, then I'm not sure what the point of it would be. Sure they are cheaper and unmanned, but if it gets the point that you have to commit 5 times as many UAV's to achieve what one manned attack craft can do, then I'm not seeing how that's an effective use of resources.

UAV's aren't made to be disposable. They are made to fill a role that sometimes can't be done by anything else as effectively.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/11/2009 1:15:35 AM , Rating: 3
Intercept speed is not a priority for those platforms.

sexiness?


RE: $100 million
By tdawg on 4/11/2009 1:45:01 AM , Rating: 4
The A-10 is easily one of my favorite aircraft, and personally, I think it's damn sexy. It'll be a sad day when they are phased out of active duty; I think it's safe to say that it'll be a sad day for ground troops as well.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/11/2009 1:50:55 AM , Rating: 3
I think they're an awesome platform. it's just how he used "sexiness" in his comment I thought was hillarious.

It'll suck for ground troops as well as pilots. It'll be a sad day indeed. Fortunately not too long ago a block upgrade was approved for them.


RE: $100 million
By lagomorpha on 4/11/2009 7:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose all UAVs are inherently fly by wire unless someone built some absurdly complicated mechanical computer into it... or we figure out how to build some kind of computer out of neurons. Yeah. Still there is a big difference between saying UAVs cannot provide close air support like an A10 and saying UAVs cannot provide close air support like an A10 YET. You're absolutely right about intercept speed being a low priority but I was trying to point out why speed/loiter time is a big reason to keep the A10 over using F16s. One has speed, the other is designed for its task.

As far as sexiness have you been looking at the 5th gen fighters? There's probably a reason supersport motorcycles are copying some of their styling. Its almost like at some point in the design process the contractor thinks that they can make a hawt aircraft, the airforce will get hawt for it, pushing congress who will get letters from military hardware nerds that are hawt for the thing. Don't tell me the F22 and YF23 don't make your pulse quicken a bit.


RE: $100 million
By Manch on 4/11/2009 11:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
When I say fly by wire, I was talking about the fact that the A-10's flight controls are cable actuated vs all the other F/A platforms being electronic.


RE: $100 million
By lagomorpha on 4/11/2009 7:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
I know, what I was referring to is that there's no way to make a UAV not fly by wire at some point along the line at some point - even if you had cables actuate the flight controls directly, indirectly you still need an electronic motor somewhere along the line.


RE: $100 million
By Solandri on 4/11/2009 8:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
UAVs are fly by wireless.


RE: $100 million
By jonmcc33 on 4/11/2009 10:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
No UAV carries the tank killing ability of the A-10. That's the A-10's fundamental purpose. It was built around the gun and that gun was designed to eat up tanks.


RE: $100 million
By Jedi2155 on 4/12/2009 12:41:17 AM , Rating: 3
Am I the only person who finds the rugged look of the A-10 extremely sexy? It has been my favorite aircraft since I built a model of it when I was 7. Well...top favorites, Ospreys, Raptors are still darn mighty sexy.


RE: $100 million
By tdawg on 4/12/2009 12:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, you're not the only one. I love the A-10. Once saw two of them do a low pass over Mt. Hood when I was riding the chairlift up. Best part of the day! Watching an A-10 making a strafing run in movies and such just kicks ass; I would love to see them do their job in person.


RE: $100 million
By jimboj on 4/13/2009 5:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 and the F-15 don't have "completely different roles." The fact of the matter is that the F-35 is a multirole fighter, a jack of all trades but master of none.

The F-35 is capable of air superiority roles, just as the F-15 is. The F-35 is capable of long range interdiction, just as the F-15E is. The only difference between the F-15 and the F-35 is that the F-15(A-D) was designed from the ground up as an air superiority fighter.

Also, the F-35 isn't going to replace the A-10. We proved that a multirole fighter doesn't have what is takes to replace a dedicated attack plane when we attempted to do so with the F-16. Also, the A-6 Intruder isn't even in service anymore.

From my perspective, it would make sense for a smaller country to purchase these multirole fighters like the F-35, rather than purchase highly specialized planes like the F-15.


RE: $100 million
By Chernobyl68 on 4/10/2009 5:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
as a twin-engine aircraft the F-15 is little more reliable I'd say.


RE: $100 million
By stromgald30 on 4/10/2009 6:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
A little more reliable, but a hell of a lot more costly to maintain. ;-)


RE: $100 million
By FaaR on 4/11/2009 6:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps more costly to maintain, but a twin-engine aircraft can land again after losing one engine. A single-engine aircraft will crash, and what's overall cheaper: maintaining a twin-engine aircraft, or buying an entirely brand new single-engine aircraft? :P


RE: $100 million
By Belard on 4/11/2009 1:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
But how many twin engine aircrafts have failed vs single?

Compare the F16 to that of F15 and F22. We even had that Su27 that had engine failure.

But agreed, two engines should be better than one.


RE: $100 million
By stevty2889 on 4/11/2009 2:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
Twin engines don't make a differance when they are still too weak to get the jet off of the flight deck if the catapult malfunctions. I saw more than 1 F/A-18 take a dive in the ocean for that reason.


RE: $100 million
By soydios on 4/11/2009 7:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
The number of engines is irrelevant in that case. Either the catapult provides enough force, or it doesn't. Most of the time it does; other times either it's calculated wrong, or there's a mechanical failure. I don't think that rockets are even practical to get a jet airborne in 100 yards.


RE: $100 million
By RagingDragon on 4/13/2009 12:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
No doubt it'd be possible to design rockets that'd get carrier aircraft airborne. Unfortunately they'd also incinerate the flight deck crew. And the large quantity of rocket packs required for long term carrier operations would probably be both far more expensive and require more shipboard space (for storage) than the steam catapults.


RE: $100 million
By Chernobyl68 on 4/11/2009 11:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
that has yet to be seen, as the F-35 is not in active service yet.


RE: $100 million
By 91TTZ on 4/10/2009 6:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why not just buy an F-35?


These are two completely different types of fighters. The F-15 is a much larger, heavier, more versatile fighter than the JSF. It can also take a lot more battle damage. When you consider that a good portion of the fuselage of a fighter is taken up by the engine(s), you can see that a hit is probably going to ruin the engine. If you have one engine a hit will probably result in the loss of the aircraft. If you have two, you have a chance to return to base and get repaired.

The F-15 can carry a much larger bombload than the JSF. As for making the F-15 stealthy, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that. It won't compete with the JSF in stealthiness.


RE: $100 million
By Belard on 4/10/2009 6:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
Well if 2 engines are better than 1.... why not 4 engines? And make the wings form an X-wing configuration.

It could be called the X-Wing Fighter.


RE: $100 million
By Googer on 4/11/2009 2:04:34 AM , Rating: 3
Why not an F-22, which can be bought for 137 million and has the ability to replace about 5 F-15? Also ording more F-22s would drastically cut the unit cost down around $100 million and some have argued that if production were high enough, the F-22 could get down to just above the F-35's price tag. But the problem is congress has been on and off over the last 15 years trying to kill the F-22 program or reduce the number of jets purchased.


RE: $100 million
By canislupy on 4/11/2009 9:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
The F22 is not available for export even to our closest allies. The F-15SE is. Also, even if congress did lift the ban, the export cost would likely be closer to $200M per plane. There is a market for the F-15SE, even at $100M per.


RE: $100 million
By ninjaquick on 4/14/2009 8:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
because the f35 is as much a replacement of the f15 as the f-22 is to the a-10


Pics plz
By spread on 4/10/2009 3:37:32 PM , Rating: 4
Some pictures help. Here ya go:
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/f-15se...

Compare this to a regular F-15. Easy to spot are the covered missile bays on the side of the air intakes.




RE: Pics plz
By marvdmartian on 4/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Pics plz
By stromgald30 on 4/10/2009 4:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you look closely, they canted the tail fins outward, so there wouldn't be as much of a right angle. They probably also added a lot of stealth coatings. If you look at how 'stealth' has evolved from the F-117 to F-22/F-35 to Su-37, you can see how the focus has shifted from angles to stealth coatings.

Hiding the munitions is critical because the weapons can't be easily made stealth, or it just might not be worth it to put expensive coatings on something that will be blown up anyways.


RE: Pics plz
By 91TTZ on 4/10/2009 6:09:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you look at how 'stealth' has evolved from the F-117 to F-22/F-35 to Su-37, you can see how the focus has shifted from angles to stealth coatings.


Actually that's not the case.

On the contrary, they've shifted from coatings to angles. The F-22 and JSF are shaped more intricately than the F-117. The reason the F-117 is so angular is because it was designed in the 1970's when computers weren't nearly as powerful. The F-22 and JSF don't depend on RAM nearly as much as the F-117 did, they depend more on their shape.


RE: Pics plz
By rudy on 4/12/2009 9:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
I was under the impression that the real break through came with the manufacturing process which previously could not do the precise curves the B2 had compared to the F-117


RE: Pics plz
By KGBird on 4/13/2009 9:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the compressor blades. Those reflect a lot of radar energy. And you can't put fancy coating or angles on them. The F-35, F-22, B-1 and B-2 all have curved ducts to hide the compressor blades from radar. The F-15 doesn't and can't accommodate those ducts.


RE: Pics plz
By HotFoot on 4/15/2009 3:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo. This plane will probably be a hell of a lot stealthier from all angles but the front +/- 10 degrees or so. That should be good enough for CAP, but definitely this plane will suck at SEAD in comparision to the F-22.


RE: Pics plz
By Trippytiger on 4/10/2009 8:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Funny how they think that covering up the munitions will make it more stealthy.


Yeah, what do those dumb engineers at Boeing know? It's not like they're some of the experts in their field. You tell 'em!


RE: Pics plz
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2009 9:32:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, what do those dumb engineers at Boeing know? It's not like they're some of the experts in their field. You tell 'em!


An F-15 can no more be made stealth than an A-10 could be made to break Mach 2. Simply covering up the missiles and giving it smooth fuel tanks will NOT make the F-15 stealth.

Even the engine intakes are all wrong for stealth properties. Radar will get a positive return from the compressor blades of the engine itself from inside those cavernous angled intakes. The canopy is another problem. Positive returns will be made from the ejection seat and probably the pilot himself. Notice how the stealth fighter does NOT have a high sitting bubble canopy ? There's a reason for that.

Some of the comments on this article seem to state that all it takes to make any aircraft stealth is slapping a radar absorbing paint job on it and covering up some missiles with smooth fuel tanks. This is totally false.


RE: Pics plz
By Manch on 4/10/2009 5:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Some of our F-15's look similar to the SE. They're not internal weapons bays, they're actually external fuel pods molded to the sides of the intakes to reduce drag and they don't take up space that would otherwise be occupied by missiles/bombs


RE: Pics plz
By Chernobyl68 on 4/10/2009 5:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
those are heavily modified FAST packs (Fuel and Sensor Tactical). Basically a bolt-on fuel tank that conforms to the shape of the plane.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:McDonnell_D...


RE: Pics plz
By Reclaimer77 on 4/11/2009 1:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
Based on those pics alone, this statement...

quote:
"The F-15 Silent Eagle is designed to meet our international customers' anticipated need for cost-effective stealth technologies, as well as for large and diverse weapons payloads," said Mark Bass, F-15 Program vice president for Boeing. "The innovative Silent Eagle is a balanced, affordable approach designed to meet future survivability needs."


is FUD. And before the down rating commences, let's be clear about something. You cannot take an existing aircraft like the F-15, and make it "stealth". Stealth aircraft are built from the ground up to be stealth because it takes an enormous effort from design to prototype to successfully absorb AND prevent radar returns by actually designing the plane to fragment radar energy to the point that the radar receiver gets no positive return.

Having said that, the F-15 Strike Eagle is an amazing aircraft and I fully support any update in it's design. But don't try to fool anyone into thinking this will be a stealth aircraft. It most certainly will NOT be.

(side note: It's worth mentioning that no F-15 in service, in any country, has ever been shot down in combat. While I believe it has racked up 40 something victories. I think that's pretty kick ass. )


RE: Pics plz
By Belard on 4/11/2009 1:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
In Red Dawn, an F15 was shotdown.

But as stated, cost-effective... its a poor-mans stealth-like fighter. It maybe more stealth than the F15/F16, but not an F22/F35.

And whats in the pictures isn't even a production model. Perhaps the mod-FAST modules will be extended futher out to the wings as well as other slight body mods.


RE: Pics plz
By Major HooHaa on 4/11/2009 9:08:01 AM , Rating: 3
How about calling it something like the F-15 Silent Owl ?


RE: Pics plz
By MadMan007 on 4/11/2009 11:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
NO WAI!


What really is needed....
By jabber on 4/10/2009 5:24:06 PM , Rating: 3
...is something that really helps fighting sandle wearing guys hiding in caves armed with old RPGs and rusty AK47's.

A lot of this stuff really looks at odds with todays battleground.




RE: What really is needed....
By kyp275 on 4/11/2009 8:34:54 AM , Rating: 4
What people need to realize is that there's a difference between short-term and long-term needs. Just because you have a current need for more counter-insurgency capabilities doesn't mean you should sacrifice your long term conventional capabilities.

Almost 30 years ago when the ATF program started, nobody could have predicted the drastic change in the type of adversary we face today, I don't know what makes some people think that they can predict we won't need the F22s in 10 or 20 years.


RE: What really is needed....
By cmdrdredd on 4/12/2009 2:09:10 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
...is something that really helps fighting sandle wearing guys hiding in caves armed with old RPGs and rusty AK47's. A lot of this stuff really looks at odds with todays battleground.


Typical liberal thinking of today. You think countries like iran & North Korea won't like to have technology? China and Russia are selling to whoever is buying, these countries ARE buying what they can afford and get. That includes aircraft designs and the like. So you don't think an F22 is necessary? What about when the new MIGs from Russia are flying over your house dropping bombs on your kid's school because the government decided we didn't need sophisticated aircraft.

You and I do not know what may happen in the future, but I'll tell you this. The further we are ahead of everyone else technologically the better we are.


RE: What really is needed....
By BikeDude on 4/12/2009 4:00:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What about when the new MIGs from Russia are flying over your house dropping bombs on your kid's school because the government decided we didn't need sophisticated aircraft.


On one hand, history shows that you are correct. Europe believed WWI would not repeat, so Germany was able to give everybody a big ass-whooping in WWII.

Fine.

OTOH, the "we need to be better than everybody else" brought us the cold war and a nuclear (pronounced "nucular" among you anti-liberals) arsenal that was obviously a huge (and dangerous) game of penis envy.

Your assertion that F-22 will beat the next generation MiGs is an interesting one. I would not bet on it.

However, the 'attack first' doctrine is well known. Brought to you by the same guys who brought you the Vietnam police action and the Iraqi liberation.

Yeees... the threats of MiGs roaring over the houses of american families is very likely... You should all rebuild your bomb shelters and start rehersing the 'duck and cover' thingy again.

How much effort does it take to even get a MiG to even reach the borders of US territory? (not to mention drop some payload)


RE: What really is needed....
By Reclaimer77 on 4/12/2009 6:20:09 PM , Rating: 3
So wait, because WWIII didn't break out, the Cold War was a failure and a game of "penis envy" ?

quote:
OTOH, the "we need to be better than everybody else" brought us the cold war and a nuclear (pronounced "nucular" among you anti-liberals) arsenal that was obviously a huge (and dangerous) game of penis envy.


Based on what ? Hindsight and nothing more. Russia DID massively build up their nuclear arsenal. As well as their conventional forces and marching army. Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't have done the same ? The phrase 'hope for the best, but plan for the worst' mean anything to you ?

I'm sorry but you really need to stop using hindsight and actually look at what we were up against at the time.

quote:
How much effort does it take to even get a MiG to even reach the borders of US territory? (not to mention drop some payload)


If staged from Cuba ? Not much. But that's purely a devils advocate argument and I'm in no way saying this is something that I believe will happen.

I don't think the guy was literally saying Migs are going to start roaring over our nation. However the other extreme opposing argument which basically states that we don't need an advanced millitary is equally as wrong.


RE: What really is needed....
By Nfarce on 4/12/2009 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
OTOH, the "we need to be better than everybody else" brought us the cold war and a nuclear (pronounced "nucular" among you anti-liberals) arsenal that was obviously a huge (and dangerous) game of penis envy.


When are you liberals going to grow up? War games and having the best military hardware have ZERO to do with female envy of a man's member. Why do you people hate showing strength?

quote:
Your assertion that F-22 will beat the next generation MiGs is an interesting one. I would not bet on it.


I would. If not the flight dynamics (which I would bet on too), DEFINITELY the electronics and avionics on board. But I can see you are of the typical left wing ilk that likes equality and if one has more than another, then the fight is just not fair. Well, that's just tuff tiddie.

quote:
Brought to you by the same guys who brought you the Vietnam police action and the Iraqi liberation.


France first got involved in Vietnam. We took over as advisers, and then later esclated things because Washington was running that war, not the military commanders. And another two little details you left out: LBJ (Democrat) brought you that war and its escalation, and Nixon (Republican) stopped it. Democrats voted for authority to go to war in Iraq, and Obama just signed a bill for new funds in Iraq. Other than that however, what was your point again?

quote:
Yeees... the threats of MiGs roaring over the houses of american families is very likely... You should all rebuild your bomb shelters and start rehersing the 'duck and cover' thingy again.


Your malfeasance and nonchalant attitude is well known among head in the sand liberalism and peaceniks. The fact that we were this >.< close to all out nuclear war under Kennedy means very little to you. I'm just glad for the most part that people running this nation, especially the current crop of Democrats doing it, aren't on your thinking level.


RE: What really is needed....
By boogle on 4/12/2009 8:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China and Russia are selling to whoever is buying, these countries ARE buying what they can afford and get. That includes aircraft designs and the like. So you don't think an F22 is necessary? What about when the new MIGs from Russia are flying over your house dropping bombs on your kid's school because the government decided we didn't need sophisticated aircraft.


That's not gonna happen for the simple reason that the US would retaliate by launching nuclear weapons. Ultimately any country that can pretty much guarantee an (unstoppable) nuclear response to invasion - will not be invaded. As long as the US has nuclear subs that can't all be easily tracked - it is safe from invasion by a sovereign nation. If you really want to protect against invasion - ensure you have the best submarines in the world and make it clear how good they are.

That's not to say a rogue state might not suddenly do something stupid - but chances are high they don't have sufficient force projection to do anything beyond smuggling in a dirty bomb - and no number of fighter jets will protect against that.

That's not to say other parts of the military aren't important. Force projection (which incidentally will use F-35s instead of F-22s) is important if you want to have control over the rest of the world. If resources get tight, the country with the ability to project its force, will end up better off than the country that is purely defensive. But of course, this just shows the irony of names like 'Department of Defense '.


RE: What really is needed....
By Zoomer on 4/12/2009 11:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
Please see comments about complete nuclear disarmament by the current president.

The whole point of having vastly superior arms is the ability to not have to use them to get concessions from whoever said concessions needs to be extracted from. And oh, to deter potential attackers.


RE: What really is needed....
By RagingDragon on 4/13/2009 12:22:36 AM , Rating: 4
Peace through superior firepower.

If you have sufficient military strength no foe will dare to attack you, but if/when that strength wanes, everyone with a grudge against you will come seeking vengenance. And everyone looking to prove their own strength will try to do so at your expense.


RE: What really is needed....
By Jim28 on 4/13/2009 12:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
You forget a simple fact. Once Nuclear weapons are released MAD becomes reality, and not many governments (including ours) are willing to commit such as massive suicide pact unless facing complete mass annihilation, not defeat which is a different thing altogether. You can recover from conventional arms defeat, however nuclear war is a much more difficult thing in which to survive as a nation. Win or lose, if there is such a thing in nuclear war, the nation ceases to exist. This country would accept conventional defeat (I am fairly sure) as long as the populace is not threatened with annihilation, in the hope of an evential revolution to regain the country or to regroup and destroy the invaders. How would we do that if we were all dead in a nuclear exchange?


RE: What really is needed....
By TxJeepers on 4/13/2009 10:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
Right you are. So often the subs are forgotten. Much funner to talk about pawns you can see flying over head. Anyone remember not so long ago the pictures of the new China sub making headlines? Staged.
Sure power in the air is important, but I sleep well at night knowing there are many subs out there prepared to protect our interests if the time were to come. Not to mention, the ability to effectively shut down any port in the world.


RE: What really is needed....
By RagingDragon on 4/13/2009 12:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...is something that really helps fighting sandle wearing guys hiding in caves armed with old RPGs and rusty AK47's.


Like a huge number of a small cheap remote controlled vehicles with a machine gun and a large fragmentation bomb? Drive it into the cave, shoot everyone you see, then blow it up.


RE: What really is needed....
By yacoub on 4/13/2009 8:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. If we only ever focused on present threats, we'd not have any of the amazing technology and hardware that has kept us ahead of the competition every generation since the 1940s when we really learned just how important it is to do so.
You'd think people who care so much about body count would understand how important better tech is in keeping the body count low and restricted as much as possible to the bad guys.


Thorn?
By CrazyBernie on 4/10/2009 3:40:31 PM , Rating: 5
"The opportunity for export is currently non-existent because the export sale of the F-22 is barred by American federal law." - F22's wikipedia page.

I fail to see how this "international" plane is a thorn in the side of the F22/F35 programs.




RE: Thorn?
By stromgald30 on 4/10/2009 4:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
It could be considered a thorn because it's probably a lot cheaper than F-22s. The US government might consider getting some of these instead of F-22s. They won't be as good, obviously, but considering the cuts the military is making, it's not out of the question.

In addition, since the plane is being exported to other countries, production will probably be higher, so its cost per plane will be lower.


RE: Thorn?
By Chillin1248 on 4/10/2009 4:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well for the moment it is strictly an international venture, however there may be reprecussions to the F-22 program from the F-15SE as Boeing said that they can upgrade any F-15E to the F-15SE standard.

Also many countries might cut purchases of the JSF for a proven Air-Superiority fighter in the Air Defense role.

-------
Chillin


RE: Thorn?
By FITCamaro on 4/10/2009 6:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think the issue with upgrading F15s is the fact that the airframe is still worn. Upgrading won't mean a damn thing if the airframe falls apart due to stress.

And I'm fine with the rest of the world buying upgraded F15s. Just means we have the superior fighter still.


RE: Thorn?
By Belard on 4/10/2009 6:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike both the F35 and F22... the F15 has a proven airframe and that its still in-production. Yes, ALL air-frames get worn out.

Compared to the $140million F22 (which is a great plane), the F15 can be bought for $50~$100million each (Depending on configuration). The SE "Stealth" abilties is helped by having the weapons on the inside and using radar abosorbing materials on the skin... It maybe possible to get a bit more stealh out of the air-frame by changing the shape of its wings, especially the vertical stabilizers and changing the angle.

Also for short-range, the basic F15 is still cheaper than the $80+million dollar F35.

There is still a lot of life left in the F15 F16 fighters. Fighter jet designs last a long time compared to the OLD days like the 50s and 60s when Jet were new.


RE: Thorn?
By Belard on 4/10/2009 6:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ah... Someone posted a link for the larger photos.

The vertical stabilizers are angled like stealth fighters.

And again, because of its proven design, the F15SE can be mass-produced before the F35.

With all said and done, the F15 is no F35 or F22.


RE: Thorn?
By Zoomer on 4/12/2009 11:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
From the data you presented, it seems like buying the newer airframes as replacements are a better deal. It's not that much more, and how much better than the F15 airframe be improved?

It's way better to spend that than to spend a little less, have an inferior force and then run the risk of having to replace perfectly good airframes in a decade or so because they are obsolete.


Do the Math
By FPP on 4/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Do the Math
By Amiga500 on 4/10/2009 6:46:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Any nation needing a gen 4.5 fighter would be crazy not to buy this.


Apart from the Saab Gripen being a far better option for the cost-conscious military buyer.

In fact, its debatable whether a re-engined Gripen NG isn't a better option than the F-35 considering you'd get a purchase ratio of 2:1, or maybe even 3:1 for the same money!


RE: Do the Math
By FPP on 4/11/2009 12:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
By applying that logic, a P-51 would be even better. The Gripen is really no more capable than the latest F-16, and ALL the logisitics are already in place for that. That being the case, we need it like an extra sphincter.

We call that kind of thinking peacetime war planning. All of these paradigms fall on their face in the first pitched battle against a credible foe, which is the only kind you really need to plan for.

After three decades of US airforce planning, they have a virtually invincible force, unchallenged anywhere. They have, in essence, won without a shot. They did this by building the hi-lo mix. The F22 is the only solution to the equation now, not the F35, or the F15SE, or sure as hell not the F16 wannabee Gripen, a plane that was obsolete the day it rolled out.

At an eight to one advantage, 330 F22's, along with 600 F35's would cover every conceivable scenario, anywhere in the world. Add to that the reduction of bases, personell, etc., that it would produce and the savings, over it's life, would be a huge success.

Every nation buying F35's would also tap into US Air Force logisitcs, training, etc., and have all of the benefits, which they could NEVER match buying the Gripen.


RE: Do the Math
By BikeDude on 4/12/2009 3:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gripen is really no more capable than the latest F-16


Reference?

And what advantages does stealth bring to the table if your primary objective is defense? The F-35 looks like a very capable bomber to me -- fly stealthy deep into Iran, take out a few SAMs and scramble out of there before they are able to hit back. But how does stealthy bombing capabilities help you defend your own territory?

Many countries are only interested in defense. Why would e.g. the Dutch want to buy the F-35? Who do they need to bomb? What does the F-35 bring to the table that is not already present in the current F-16? Stealth capabilities are very expensive toys for many nations.


RE: Do the Math
By Nfarce on 4/12/2009 8:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
You don't like American military might very much, do you?

Gripen:

* Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,130 km/h, 1,320 mph)
* Combat radius: 800 km (500 mi, 432 nmi)
* Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi) with drop tanks
* Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
* Wing loading: 336 kg/m (68.8 lb/ft)
* Thrust/weight: 0.97

F-16:

* Mach 2+ (1,500 mph, 2,414 km/h)
* Combat radius: 440 mi
* Ferry range: 2,280 NM (with drop tanks)
* Service ceiling: 60,000+ ft (18,000+ m)
* Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
* Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.095

For the life of me I just CAN'T understand why the Gripen is no MORE capable than the F-16, a plane 10 years older in rollout.


RE: Do the Math
By corduroygt on 4/12/2009 10:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well it does have lower wing loading...I think the reason is that it's designed to be a low cost fighter, and F-16 is still the best lightweight fighter out there until the F-35A rolls out.


RE: Do the Math
By stromgald30 on 4/13/2009 2:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Um . . . stealth doesn't just work on SAMs. In fact, they're even more effective against enemy fighters since there isn't as much information to process like in a large radar network. There are counter-stealth technologies that combine radars from multiple sites.

Stealth is good for defense because it's easiest to take out an incoming bomber/fighters when you can see them before they can see you. The F-35, generally speaking, doesn't have the range or ordnance to be a very effective bomber. They're short range interceptors for protecting airspace.


RE: Do the Math
By corduroygt on 4/12/2009 10:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why would they consider this over the newer Eurofighter 2000? Currently, since the F-22 is not available, I'd think the EF2000 is the best long-range fighter someone could order today. Of course everyone knows that the F-35 is unsurpassed as a light weight/short range fighter, and that's why everyone's in the action to order them.


RE: Do the Math
By RagingDragon on 4/13/2009 12:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
And don't forget the latest Russian fighters.


RE: Do the Math
By FPP on 4/13/2009 2:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Russian Fighters...run and ask the Indian Air Foorce how THAT mess has worked out. Low sortie rates, endless maintenence and QC issues.

No, in the world we are living in, stealth is the only feature that will allow aircraft survivability against future threats for the future. I'd even like to think gen 4.5 planes would work, but in the end, the gen 5 SAM threats, gen 4.5 planes that will be flying, none of these threats can be master with anything but a stealth aircraft. These peacetime procurement wags need to wake up.


Money Well Spent
By Plazmid19 on 4/10/2009 3:43:53 PM , Rating: 1
This is an expected, and nice to see, shift in weapons platform development. Now that the new US administration is pulling the plug on many new weapon systems, it is a logical step for companies in this field to start looking at ways of revamping existing, proven platforms. We still need R&D into novel systems, but I think well spent money upgrading and improving existing systems is money well spent.




RE: Money Well Spent
By jabber on 4/10/2009 5:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
This is the case.

Remember that the Taliban and Al-Q are not really known for their fine airforce and dog-fighting prowess.

Its a totally different battlefield now to when a lot of these systems were first thought of or requested say 10-15 years ago. Obviously an eye needs to be kept on the old competition (Russia/China) but they can be handled in more diplomatic terms in most cases.

Needs change.


RE: Money Well Spent
By 91TTZ on 4/10/2009 5:50:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Now that the new US administration is pulling the plug on many new weapon systems, it is a logical step for companies in this field to start looking at ways of revamping existing, proven platforms.


We're not really pulling the plug on many new weapons system. Many of the articles you've read on Dailytech are complete garbage. For instance, the article about the F-22 on here last week made it sound like they're pulling the plug on that program. But if you've followed the program you'd know that they did NOT pull the plug on the program. The Bush administration planned to buy 183 F-22's, while the Obama administration decided to buy 4 more than Bush wanted, for a total of 187. You may ask why the program is ending then. The simple answer is that they've already built 130+ of the fighters and the rest will be finished soon. Production will be complete.


Boeing spreading marketing FUD.
By Amiga500 on 4/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Boeing spreading marketing FUD.
By stromgald30 on 4/10/2009 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. Where did you find that?

I don't think anybody expects it to have as small of a RCS as the JSF or F-22, but from that statement, it looks like they're admitting it's not 'silent' at all.

Admittedly there's lots of research in 'anti-stealth' technology out there to help detect stealth aircraft, but if it can't handle normal ground-based systems, this is total FUD.


By Amiga500 on 4/10/2009 4:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
The quote is from Flightglobal.

It also mentioned that the F-15SE has no thermal treatments, so its leading edge surfaces will be beacons on IRSTs.

The F-22 does have leading edge treatments - using the fuel as coolant releasing the energy through a heat exchanger far back along its upper back.

Neither have any thermal treatments on their engine nozzles.


By MadMan007 on 4/10/2009 5:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Lovely post just because of all the acronyms.


Another error ridden article.
By 91TTZ on 4/10/2009 5:56:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It would compete directly with F-22 and F-35 for international sales.


Oh, Dailytech.

How will this compete with the F-22 for international sales when the F-22 is prohibited by law from being exported?




By Chillin1248 on 4/10/2009 8:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
My bad, should have read:

"It perhaps would compete directly with the F-22 in domestic sales and the F-35 in international sales."

-------
Chillin


RE: Another error ridden article.
By Lord 666 on 4/10/09, Rating: -1
Good job, Ariel
By mechBgon on 4/11/2009 12:08:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The aircraft will be fitted with a network-enabled integrated sensor system, comprising a targeting pod, infrared search track (IRST) system, navigation pod, the AESA radar and threat warning ECM.


Someone at DT used the word "comprising" correctly?! :)

*gold star*




By chucky2 on 4/10/2009 4:36:00 PM , Rating: 4
F-15 Strike Eagle IV: Silent Eagle Edition

Put me down for 3 please...




"It's new and improved!"
By Noya on 4/10/2009 5:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
"It's new and improved!"...despite the airframe being designed in the 1960's!




RE: "It's new and improved!"
By cmdrdredd on 4/12/2009 2:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would compete directly with F-22 and F-35 for international sales.


Thr F22 is not available for international sale. USAF ONLY


the most important point is
By MadMan007 on 4/10/2009 5:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
The most appealing thing about this project imo is that it can be applied to existing F-15Es if I understand correctly. I didn't see any refit cost numbers but I'm sure there are allies who would like to do the upgrade, not to mention the USAF.




RE: the most important point is
By Chernobyl68 on 4/10/2009 5:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
perhaps - I'd say it depends on what is required to support the new outward-canted vertical stabilizers. Existing F-15's hae theirs at true vertical.

Either way, the F-15 is still a kickass plane.


FoStealth?
By toyotabedzrock on 4/10/2009 10:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you internalize the missiles and use a radar absorbent coating doesn't make it stealth. Especially when it's a 1970's aircraft




RE: FoStealth?
By Atheist Icon on 4/11/2009 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you meant faux stealth. Although the radar signature wouldn't be the size of the F-22, anything to cause the other side to second guess what is there is better than being able to distinctly tell what it is.

And just because it is a 70's plane, does not mean it's worthless. The F-15 is one of the greatest planes ever built and will continue to be looked at that way.


either way its not a good deal...
By Guttersnipe on 4/12/2009 2:44:20 AM , Rating: 2
you can always use the cheaper fighter en mass as your strategy in war. costs a lot of pilots lives though.

you cannot predict future wars, assuming everything is going to be afganistan is a mistake.

we need a few more f22's, not this retread. you know very well the chinese and russians are going to start selling their fighters to awful countries sooner or later.




By Nfarce on 4/12/2009 8:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you cannot predict future wars, assuming everything is going to be afganistan is a mistake...we need a few more f22's, not this retread


Yeah but some on this blog don't see it that way. They know all. They see all. They are.

Because of Vietnam and Iraq, America is hated and there are no real threats now or in the future that warrant the F-22 and/or its technological breakthroughs.

And those people who think like ^^that^^ call global warming deniers backward thinking. Incredible. But not unsurprising.


So how does this compare
By corduroygt on 4/12/2009 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
With the EF2k? Which one would be a better buy?




RE: So how does this compare
By RagingDragon on 4/13/2009 1:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
And how do both this and the Eurofighter compare to the various modern Russian fighter jets?


umm..
By coolkev99 on 4/13/2009 7:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
Silent but deadly?




geez
By yacoub on 4/13/2009 8:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
Stealth-y != stealth. And this is still a 30+ year-old airframe that has been matched/surpassed in performance by aircraft flown by other nations. No matter how much 4.5 gen fighter make-up you put on a 4th gen airframe, it'll never make up for having a 5th gen state-of-the-art airframe in its place.

It's a desperate attempt by Boeing to try to put a thumbtack in the F-22's new coffin, but it fails to add any real insult to the injury the government inflicted.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes










botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki