It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-15 next?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Due to the high price of the F-22 Raptor, there has been talk of some upgrades to the F-15 eagle to supplement the F-22 Raptor. This includes some LO modifications, a more powerful radar, the high off-boresight missle launching thingy and thrust vectoring engines.

What are your opinions on doing the same thing to the F-15 that Sukoi did with the Su-27 - Su-30MKI conversion? Do you think its worth it?




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
now this is a noteworthy idea since it stands to be the greatest fighter of all time.....for once a post that actually makes sense. I mean it's the only real logical idea, if any, for something to fill the gap b/w the F35 and F22 so far if it were to happen at all!

Nice thread idea Widow, peace Mondo



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
The problem is that every dollar spent upgrading F-15s isn't being spent buying Raptors. I think the Air Force would rather have brand new Raptors, than upgraded F-15s.

If they were gonna upgrade though, some things I'd like to see(purely hypothetical)

Structural mods/rewing- to counter any G limits that may have resulted in older aircraft
3D TVC
Canards
APG63v3 or APG77 if possible
32,000-35,000lb thrust engines
LO mods if practical
IRST



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Why waste that much money?

Equip the aircraft with the AESA radar. The off borsight Sidewinder and other missiles will be either ready to go as is or at least with minimal modification. The AESA would give it a huge standoff range and avoid having to tangle with 5th gen OPFOR a/c

Given the cost of designing and modifing the airframe which many already have sig. hours on the airframe, it may actually be cheaper to buy the Typhoon which could perform both the Air Sup. as well as the interdiction/strike role.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
As far as the F-15 goes the UASF plans to upgrade 178 F-15C fighters with the AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar (196 total Golden Eagles) as well as with new helmet mounted sights to take advantage of the AIM-9X. These improvements as well as new weapons that will be coming on line soon (AIM-120D) should make the F-15 a good support aircraft for the F-22.

The F-15E will also likely get upgrades, including new avionics (AN/APG-63(V)3/4) new weapons SDB, AIM-120D and perhaps new targeting pods. There is also the possible F-15E+ Super Eagle.

The upgraded F-15C will remain on active duty until at least 2025, and the F-15E even beyond that.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Have the USAF looked at using the F-15s as simple missile carriers for F-22s?


As in, an F-22 does the targeting/illumination etc to the missile [AIM-120D] via datalink, and merely uses the F-15 as a means to get the missile to a launch point?



It would extend combat persisence of the F-15s [they don't actually come into engagement range of the opposition] while the VLO tech of the F-22 keeps it out of trouble.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Have the USAF looked at using the F-15s as simple missile carriers for F-22s?


Sort of, recent exersized showed that the F-22 in its high overwatch position could be used ad a Mini Awacs and help direct fire. But not simply act as a carrier.

[edit on 2/10/07 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Any attempt to offer an 'improved' F-15E will have to acknowledge the primary S2A threat axis which it can no longer signture-avoid so much as defeat. Something particularly important when you realize that the only thing a plus-up Strike Eagle brings to the table right now that the Raptor Blk.20 can't match is the EO aperture as a principle A2G targeting modeal.

In this, it should be noted that the F-15 with CFTs (where you get the '19 smart weapons stations' nonsense) flies like a pig on skates. The 100-229 or later engines help with the power deficit of the early 220, especially at altitude, but do nothing for the inertial effects of all that gas nor the drag of the Type IV stubs and HRL. As such, the airframe in general is _not_ survivable, even against present day 'agile' airframes in the MiG-29/Su-27 class, close up.

OTOH, the JHMCS is already onboard a lot of F-15s, as is the AIM-9X. The CMWS and ALE-50 would be welcome but are also by and large soft-mods that could be done within the existing fleet if you wanted to gold plate tired airframes. A precision ELS is only useful if it comes with a useful ARM and right now the USAF doesn't have one 'acknowledged'.

HARM VI, while nice (finally updated past the STARM interface and the creaky old mechanical gyro autopilot) is so huge that when it is uploaded it sterilizes all the other weapons stations near it. This means you not only lose the wing 610s but also the shoulder rails for AMRAAM and 9X.

AIM-120D, -may- bring a powered-IAM function that is good enough for SHARK attacks on emitters that have been ELS plotted and SAR-patched. But if that capability is resident; it is also inherent to the F-22 with six internal missiles and the ALR-94 which is supposedly a veritable ELINT vacuum.

SDB is nice but it's already service released for the centerline and center long rail stations with the corner mounts and wing stations to follow. So is the Sniper pod which is already replacing AAQ-14 (LANTIRN Targeter) on some Beagles. So again, you're bragging about the obvious here.

A2A, I agree with what others have said, in that you no longer need half the crap they plan given modern BVR-centric tactics and what is present as baseline will not be sufficiently leveraged by 'dogfight addons' to be worth it.

The Eagle is a fixed limiter machine whose baseline aeros run out of sustained pitch rates somewhere around 26` units and it would take some /serious/ aerodynamic and structural improvement to support higher supermanning at an effective level. The option to integrate the requisite exotic control modes (PBBN for one) having long since past.

Nobody will want to pay to reclear a strengthened and upengined airframe and the close in mission is just not that important even if there was money to effectively run out the envelope on a new machine.

OTOH, the longrange requirement doesn't need /any/ serious improvements to performance so much as a new, big, missile which the F-15s native 500lb carriage capability can support.

Yet there are limits even here because modern turbine or ramjet propulsion options on AAM takes the shot beyond the threshold performance level which a sprint-to-shoot, highly supersonic, platform can match without impaling itself, again, on the S2A threat.

Of course the high end supersonics is a part of the envelope the F-15E typically can't get to from here because it can't drop the A2G crud it _should_ be employing. Nor the CFT gas to become drag vs. fuel effective. Indeed, the only way even the Albino community was ever able to compete was through a clean up/ramp up/sprint up process that stripped their 610s as they accelerated through the Mach and climbed INTO the primary S2A threat envelope.

That might have worked back in the 1980 and 90s against SA-2 thru 11 with a horde of EW support assets and not much ECCM smarts in the WARPAC/export Russian threat. It doesn't work now against the SA-teens and twentysomething derivatives that have integrated Western electronics as well as the new European missiles like Aster and BAMSE with all the goodies already onboard.

Not without integral vice strapon LO to bring the baseline detection threshold well below 20nm.

Something which will never happen the brutal lines of the F-15, even before you consider the external stores as the primary (biggger, bulkier) carriage mode efficiency gain over the F-22 and 35.

Put the same (X4 12-14ft, 500-600lb) missile capability into an uninhabited, subsonic, stealth penetrator and CUE it's smart-pylon launch from a remote radar platform which subsequently commands the missile midcourse directly and you can actually do more to preposition your shots to advantage within the threat baselanes (and a. of a strike package) than the F-15s can playing shotgun escort within the safety of the jamming corridors can ever match.

That this can be done on a primary A2G platform within a larger overall fleet inventory that suffers fewer sortie losses once Air Supremacy is established is equally critical.

ARGUMENT:
What you are seeing here is just the USAFs allowance of Boeing to muddy the waters with false promises of advanced systems development which is either already slated for the current models (the F-15K has the IRST) or which end users hope to jump onto after we pay the tab by retrofit (the APG-63V(3/4)).

And we shouldn't have to argue against our own case as an example of "Don't build the F-15E+, well then we'll just /have to/ build the F-35 I guess..." indulgence in the manipulative psychology of the USAF who will continue to throw bones at these adhoc solutions just to keep things in a muddle while the only /real/ money goes into the worthless F-35.

Speaking of which, clearly the problem is not the airframe but the manned system spec around which it is built.

Anything which has the F-word (fighter) attached should be immediately treated with suspicion in a netcentric age, IMO. If only because the next great Air Superiority platform is almost certainly going to be a 747.

And the gits in the USAF know it to the extent that, especially with todays percentage AAW encounters against total sorties flown, there is no excuse for their arrogance in assuming that we should pay for ANY new toy that doesn't do more than simply let them play Red Baron at the clubhouse.

CONCLUSION:
IMO, the F-15ABCD will pass the way of the F-14, being totally out of active service by no later than 2015 and possibly even as early as 2012. The E may take awhile longer but the HDLD utilization rates will knacker it rather quickly as well.
What will replace them will depend as much on how much residual yearly-rate expansion capbility is left in the now 'lean' (stripped bare) Marietta line on the Raptor as much as whatever rubbish they eventually get round to shoving out the door in Ft. Worth.
But if we're lucky, there will be politics as usual drastic cuts in all the force structures and the only remnant of 'fighter air' which is not expeditionary silver bullet oriented will be those poor dumb clucks in the Continental ADF mission which can more or less bore holes in local Guard unit F-16s until their wings fall off.
Of course, for INT and CAS, we'll still be stuck with useless platforms like the A-10, U-2, F-117 and pre.30 CCIP F-16s until someone strangles the AF Chief with his own guts but every little step towards UCAVs by default of cost and inept service performance is a good one.
I only hope Congress 'takes a page' from the USAF procurement handbook on this, joint-conference allocating less and less funds to the _UPT_ pipe and staticizing the pay grades for another decade until the existing fleets are unsustainable as much for manning as logistics while also doing as little as possible to 'enable' the 120 million dollar blunder that is F-35.
Grow up people. Put your damn white scarf mentality away along with the Big Wheels and Atari Consoles.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Have the USAF looked at using the F-15s as simple missile carriers for F-22s?


I think to some extent they are already doing that, in Northern Edge F-22's essentially sent F-15 pilots information on emery fighter long before their own radars could pick it up. They also told them (in a non direct way) where to fire so that you don't have multiple shooters on one target. With the AIM-120D the F-15 will able to remain even farther back and just shoot with the information Raptor pilots send them. Depending on how many missiles the APG-77 can guide what you're proposing is a good way to extent the Raptor's combat endurance and keep the Eagle from harms way.


[edit on 10-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
If that were the case, it wouldnt help much. It dosent matter if a raptor helps an eagle detect and track something from 150 miles away, it still cant fire until its within range of missiles, by which time it can use its own radar.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The AIM-120D should help in this category a bit. Sure it wont have the same kinematics as missiles fired from a Raptor but sufficient range can be achieved to ensure relative safety from an enemy which does not have the same type of sensors and VLO aircraft available.

It's also better for the Eagle not to use it's own radar because some radars can passively detect emission further than they can spot you via your RCS.


[edit on 11-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The AIM-120D doesn't need to help here..
Just because you cannot lockon to an a/c that you can see(here due to a datalink), doesn't mean you do not have an advantage!!
If that were the case then it would make a mockery of the role AWACS play and every a/c would need to have missile ranges either equal to or greater than that of the a/c radar!

Knowing where someone is before he does gives you a lot of options with positioning yourself in approach vectors..
Plus you can switch off all active radar systems and reduce your chances of early detection even further..



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Daedalus,

The E-3B is self mocking.

Between the aged TF33 engines which decrease useable service ceiling by 15,000ft and direct radar range by at least 100nm. And the slow scan update and generally poor lobe framing of even the APY-2, they are assets which do not give the kinds of 'global picture' they once did. Indeed, most Raptor pilots prefer to turn off the outside picture source because their own systems provide more data, more quickly, in a more cogent format.

With the E-10 now out of the way, we need a system which is both survivable and locally persistent to with an array that can put out significant _MW_ to cover sectored areas with mixed anti missile/aircraft coverage at low cost.

We need a fleet of RQ-4/MP-RTIP.

Furthermore, depending on what exactly the AIM-120D is (Gel, multiplateau solid or airbreather, all pics I've seen suggest it is not the last) it is still going to be a weapon which has to play the slow midcourse vs. terminal game relative to a dynamically (ground track altering) air target and particularly against low altitude missile threats, this may cripple its effective coverage area.

Indeed, if the weapon has an 80-100nm absolute capability (from an SSC Raptor) and a 40-60nm capability from an F-15, the notion that you will jeopardize Eagles to support the Raptors becomes somewhat ludicrous, at least from the Rodan Rider's perspective.

Double this effective range (only possible with a loft or turbine power, IMO) and the question becomes one of time of flight vs. one-pass hit-or-missile delay on a followup.

IMO, the more we emphasize the very long range battle, the more we will see things like MAWS and sophisticated towed array systems thrown right back at us.

Along with TRULY monster LRAAM like the Ks-172 and Meteor. Both of which offer the option to engage our support assets including tanking, targeting, EA and BMC2 in a way that has greater leverage for the bad guys than us.

Indeed, you need only look as the situation with the AS-3 Kangaroo and IM-99A/B BOMARC to understand where this could go. With a 15,000lb missile constant and a few changes to the propulsion cycle and autopilot electronics a Mach 2.8 missile went from 210nm to 440nm effective range.

Couple this kind of upgrade with a 'quiet vectoring' (aerosondes with throwaway civillian camcorder EO technology) and microwave burst transmit capability and you could easily end up with even /tactical/ 'silent but still RF visible' airframes taking massive attrition from _missiles not airplanes_. As a means to devalue the exchange ratio leveraging by pulling the bus vehicle from the scenario altogether and forcing the U.S. to engage the arrow not the archer, directly.

Even ignoring the transformational nature of DEWS, such a system could be deployed within 5 years from now if someone really wanted it.


KPl.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I my heart, the F-15 is the greatest jet of all time. It will soon be fased out by the F/A-22 Raptor and the F-35 JSF. The F-15 has served our country very well and it will not go down without a fight. The F-15 has recieved numorous upgrades with the past few years, but it can only recieve a certain number of upgrades. It's days were numbered when the Mig-29 and the SU-27 debuted. we have to face the truth, the F-15's life is comming to an end.



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
One thing I'm curious about that I've not been able to find any information on.

I was recently informed that the F-15C was having the VSD and MPCD displays upgraded to flat panel displays from the current CRTs in use now.

Does anyone here have more information on this?

tnx!

g.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by geneb]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by geneb
One thing I'm curious about that I've not been able to find any information on.

I was recently informed that the F-15C was having the VSD and MPCD displays upgraded to flat panel displays from the current CRTs in use now.

Does anyone here have more information on this?

tnx!

g.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by geneb]


I have been looking for that information, but I can't find anything on that.



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
The F-15E and variants are going to a flat panel display. I haven't been able to find anything about the C getting them though.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Just to upgrade avionics is deficient, you should improve the structure and aerodynamics layout to perform the software capability upgraded. Each F-15s are rubbish when they have to face Su-35.
USAF needs Raptor more and more, aft they retired Tomcat which is the only one can counter Su-27 in third generation fighter!



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Why would you think the F-14 would have a better chance against the Flanker than the F-15


The F-15 was both faster and more manouverable than its naval counterpart, so surely it would stand a better chance.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
The F-14 would have a better chance because of it's BVR missles. The F-15 would have a better chance at dog fighting.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join