Was scanning through google for info on the F-22 and found a page which is pretty old but none the less very informative.
Lies based on a lack of information /knowingly/ promulgated without counterpoint remain just as treasonous.
I know we've been upgrading the F-15 with a new radar but this guy claims we could also upgrade its engine give the F-15 the same perfroman as the
The F-15's biggest problem is cost and age.
Depending on variant and usage, it costs between 10 and 14 THOUSAND dollars, per flight hour, to run the Eagle. MMH:FH is somewhere around 20 for
home station MC rates on the order of 80-85 percent. Take that into the field where your utilization rates go up and, even with a fully funded spares
locker, you end up with MMH:FH on the order of 60:1.
And why not? The jet is /old/. Contrary to popular fiction, the Services don't do PDM down to the 'zero flight hours' level. They do it to a
level where military utility is no longer hampered. The USAF in particular has a bad reputation for running aircraft around with cracks and partial
(drill out, strap over, patch the skin) 'fixes' which the USN does not permit. In any case, these jets have 'twice of everything' which, while it
means we have lost fewer than a hundred F-15s compared to the 380 LGPOS that have been lawn darted, also means that you have to have incredible
increases in your spares kits, often handed. We 'get by' doing this by exploiting depot remanufactured parts but in truth they so badly mishandled
the spares issue in both the early Reagan and Clintonian years that there are quite simply a lot of parts that we can no longer /get/ for the Eagle,
new or old.
The Eagle's second biggest difficulty is penetration against a determined S2A defense.
Air to Air is about interdicting the /lane/ (approaches to a target area. If you don't have the positive airspace control (effective ADGE/GCI) you
cannot choose the spacing and timing of your own fight. While 'defending' fixed targets is more a function of staking your boot to the ground and
daring someone to run over you.
SAMs defend fixed targets, and with the S300/400 class missiles you have systems capable of engaging even an ALQ-135M (with front sector radiators)
equipped Eagle at over 60km. Regardless of support jamming. And this situation will only get worse as the rest of the world develops the technology
base to go completely over to ARH (active radar homing) systems because provided you can get /even a glimmer/ on your long range surveillance systems,
you can throw a missile into the VOLUME of airspace where it's own autonomous seeker will lock up at very short ranges.
The other problem with penetration is quite simply what you do when you get there. The F-15 needs all three tanks /full/ to make anything like a
'clean up, ramp up, sprint up' intercept on _subsonic_ threats. And to carry this fuel means taking off with an empty centerline (nose gear
issues), hitting a tanker and then proceeding into indian country. With absolutely no residual weapon capabilities in terms of Suppression or Direct
Attack (air to ground) capability.
Does that mean super-cruise? Anyways here's the article.
Doubt it, wouldn't /want/ it if it did.
The F100 was a 220lb/sec engine. The IPE and EFE variants take this to above 250lb/sec (mass flow). The F119, though to some extent ameliorating
increased flow requirements within a generally similar intallational envelope (about 34" at the front, 46" overall) by virtue of a much smaller
bypass ratio (.2 vs. .32) is still going to need upwards of 270-290lb/sec worth of massflow. And that right there means retuning the entire inlet
ramp system with _no_ guarantees that the reserve is there.
Next, you have to consider whether you want to retain the F-22's 2D nozzles, fit AVEN/PBBN or go with conventional nozzles as is current. If you do
/anything/ to the back of the jet, you will have to rerig the structural load paths for pitch and possibly yaw variables as well as compensate for the
mass displacement of the heavy nozzles themselves.
All before you start looking at the friction drag effects on everything aeroacoustic effects to aluminum thermal cycles on the wing. The F-15 primary
airfoil being one of the most 'hostile' of any aircraft known because of the massive vortices that the conical camber spins up, leading to acoustic
loads in the hundreds of db.
And for WHAT?
Supercruise, as I define it: dry penetration, 50% of sortie _sustained_ Mach numbers of no less than 1.35.
It's almost a guarantee that it won't happen in an F-15 where parasitic and tunnel effects on half your fuel: (13,800lbs internal + 12,400lbs
external) are so extreme.
At which point, you have to ask what SSC (Sustained Super Cruise) /does/ that is valuable. And that comes down to three things:
1. It energizes the missile pole without delay/forced closure for acceleration lag.
2. It allows you to 'knock down the door' by quickly leaping /across/ the immediate fence-in air volume to the target area before the threat can
react to a main force following behind at subsonic rates.
3. It allows you to TRANSIT between base and enemy territory at twice the rate so that you waste less time getting there and coming back.
Energizing missile poles on an F-15 is like playing chicken with a porcupine. Because they have the bigger (S2A again) missile and your own closure
_extends_ their WEZ poles. AIM-120C5=12ft 7inches. 48N6E (principle S-300 missile)= 23ft. Without stealth, you're just hurting yourself.
Knocking down the door is increasingly less and less important because, for one, Stealth only achieves REAL improvements if it is sufficiently
capable, in all sectors, as to allow you to attack multiple targets without direct escort or established (predictable) raid corridors. If you still
have to mass like a conventional strike package, you end up hitting targets too slowly to make the cost of the airframes worthwhile. For another, the
VLO platforms themselves are able to standoff and use radar imaging to attack relatively small targets, often with IAMs that have a glide kit. This
means you don't have to come closer than about 12-15nm for JDAM and upwards of 25-30nm for SDB (50nm if no over penetration is required).
Rapid Transit to Radius (RTR) only helps if you can reduce the total number of aircraft in a raid so that you can nurse the shooters. Since the F-15C
is not an (A2G) shooter and indeed /must/ be accompanied by aircraft which are designed solely to protect it. The slowest marcher sets the pace. And
that tends to just guzzle gas at an /incredible/ rate (2-3 hits on the tanker per mission)
I won't address the majority of the articles outright lies except to state the following:
From Mach 1.93 and supposedly 60-70,000ft, an F-22 demonstrated a reverse immelman which greatly exceeded the G @ Q capability of any other aircraft
extant. Indeed, while -all- aircraft have Q problems (aerodynamic pressure exceeding the strictly accelerative 'G' problems on structures) the
difference between them and the F-22 is that it has the high-altitude 'tuned' airframe (840 square feet of area, engines that are probably still
putting out well over 27,000lbf above 30,000ft ASL) which can exploit the thinner air at height. Most jets have strict placard limits at low altitude
(as does the Raptor) but have no alternative to playing in the 'medium' arena (15-20,000ft) because they cannot summon the thrust nor the lift nor
the gas to do sustained supersonic (massive Ps 'excess' energies) to improve their fighting capabilities.
As to the idiocy of being detected with IRST, of course that problem exists but even if the 'promised' performance of Russian 2nd/3rd generation
systems match those of the EuroFIRST and OSF (say 60km, FQ) the fact of the matter is that a Raptor is going to be FIRING at those distances and then
handing off datalink guidance to an 'illuminator' who is as much as 100-150km further back.
You see, it doesn't /matter/ if they can see you. So long as they cannot shoot you. While you can do unto them.
In this, the F-22 will hopefully continue to enjoy the advantage of ACP assets so that it can be silent-vectored around as much as away from threats
which means that, even if the enemy can field long range missiles able to support some kind of IR-through-Radar (uplink steering) that outreach the
currently 50% pole (first impact) advantaged Raptor; they will still be challenged by the aircraft's ability to swing wide of their sensor cones and
continue the conversion to stern quarter or crossing conditioned WEZ.
As goes the intercept, so goes the fight.
Can the F-15 still be a dominant warrior? IMO, yes. But only as new build airframes with a host of new-development (better than Meteor) standoff
weapons. And even then they will NOT be 'air dominant' in terms of taking the fight to enemy air and winning. Because they will be saddled down
with conformal fuel to accomodate things-under-wings on the order of FRSW/JASSM and HSARM. In compensation for their inability to contribute more
directly to the 'battlespace dominance' (Air To Ground slanted bias) fight, while carrying upwards of six VLRAAM, (probably based upon turbojet as
much as ram or gel, high energy, propulsion) on the fuselage stations.
And with CFT, the Eagle flies like a bus. Not all the (F100-PW-232) 'reengining' or thrust vectoring (and new digital flybywire FLCS) in the world
is going to change that, even as the provisiion of LANTIRN or Sniper will likely still dramatically reduce supersonics performance.
In effect then, if you purchase 200 F-15F (single seat, derived 15K-orean/15S-ingapore technology inserts across the board as well as 'cheap'
APG-63V(3) AESA) instead of going ahead with the Golden Eagle program to essentially turn tired jets into weekend warriors and NORAD assets, you will
be making one of these-
Which is not /altogether/ a 'bad thing' because if you are a sniper rifle in a shopping cart rather than knights-acharging with lowered long spears,
you tend to be able to both stay out of trouble and mind more peoples business as a function of invisible sheep under a long crook.
The problem then becomes what happens when those fancy dual/hyperspectrum/hunting threats start 'seeing' your F-35s. Because with all of two
AIM-120 aboard and you 60-80nm behind them, there is a significant reason to believe that they will be short-sticked when it comes to beating off
truly A2A intended wolf paltforms (both for energy and for weapons as the JDAM bay is _not_ compatible with the AMRAAM.).
Dunno but that the final solution will still not be seen as 'okay, load half the JSF up with external weapons'. Because, again, they have much more
F-16 like budgetary numbers due to later technology and 'only one of everything'. They may also prove to be superior missileers given their more
convenient (and numerous) wing pylon arrangement.
Countries buying the F-15 today are looking to do area patrols with major requirements for a WSO driven need for target sureties and sanity check IMO.
Either that or they want something big enough to carry mini-cruise (SLAM-ER as much as JASSM) in sufficient numbers as to hostage 'certain parties