Boeing and South Korea expected to make a deal on the F-15 Silent Eagle

The SE is supposed to have a head on cross section of the JSF (-20 dBs) but not to the sides or the rear. Equipped with an AESA set and more advanced avionics it could hurt JSF sales esp if the unit cost keep sgoing up.

If Boeing is able to secure an export license for the F-15SE "Silent Eagle" jet, the company plans to offer it to South Korea and other interested clients.

Boeing and South Korean officials have communicated about a possible deal over the past 12 months, but Boeing has had to wait until the F-15SE's low-observable jet stealth technology is evaluated.

The U.S. contractor believes its fighter jet is ideal because it's customizable and can support larger digital cockpit displays, AESA radar, newer radar absorbent coatings, and other features unavailable in older aircraft.

The expected price tag of the F-15SE is about $100 million, but can changed depending on the technology and hardware installed.


www.dailytech.com...

I find it very difficult to believe that the F-15SE can come close to the F-35's head-on RCS. Considering the testing, retesting and designing that went into making the F-35's RCS what it is.
The F-15SE is not a stealth aircraft., not even close.
What about the canopy, ejection seat and pilot's sitting position, all extremely un-stealthy, and all integral to the F-15's original design and not changing in the SE configuration.
What about the F-15's air intake inlets? redesigned? No. Those things show up on radar like two big headlamps on a freight train.

This is a load of BS (Boeing Sales department).

You cannot retrofit a standard airframe with radar absorbing paint and suddenly declare, "Hey everybody, we've got a new "stealth aircraft"!"
The Russians tried that for years, their final solution?
More RA paint?
No!
The Pak-FA.

Hmmmm...sounds like they are going down the route of what BAe did to the F3 Tornado during the Gulf War part 1....A bit of RAM here...bit of iron ball paint there and a load of rubber tiles stuck down the intakes for good measure...apparently gave the F3 a head on RCS of a hawk!...barn door from the sides mind you but hey...maybe thats all it needed to get within the kill range..!

So maybe in the years since then the retrofit of "steath" abilitys has moved on??? Or the Boeing sales department are giving a dodgy pitch...!!!!

Well, to be fair, they didnt JUST paint it with RAM, they added inner weapons bays and a new ECM system. Plus, it's not supposed to be very effective in evading ground based radars, only other enemy aircraft.

I still dont believe it comes anywhere close to the F-35, though.

Originally posted by intelgurl
I find it very difficult to believe that the F-15SE can come close to the F-35's head-on RCS. Considering the testing, retesting and designing that went into making the F-35's RCS what it is.
The F-15SE is not a stealth aircraft., not even close.
What about the canopy, ejection seat and pilot's sitting position, all extremely un-stealthy, and all integral to the F-15's original design and not changing in the SE configuration.
What about the F-15's air intake inlets? redesigned? No. Those things show up on radar like two big headlamps on a freight train.

This is a load of BS (Boeing Sales department).

You cannot retrofit a standard airframe with radar absorbing paint and suddenly declare, "Hey everybody, we've got a new "stealth aircraft"!"
The Russians tried that for years, their final solution?
More RA paint?
No!
The Pak-FA.

I think the 35 iz NOT that good either after reading this: www.ausairpower.net... and there r other articlez by the same guy I'll post up on how the only hope for U.S./Austrailia IZ the F-22 going up against Mighty Rus'z Su-35S's and NEWR SAMs

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by intelgurl
I find it very difficult to believe that the F-15SE can come close to the F-35's head-on RCS. Considering the testing, retesting and designing that went into making the F-35's RCS what it is.
The F-15SE is not a stealth aircraft., not even close.
What about the canopy, ejection seat and pilot's sitting position, all extremely un-stealthy, and all integral to the F-15's original design and not changing in the SE configuration.
What about the F-15's air intake inlets? redesigned? No. Those things show up on radar like two big headlamps on a freight train.

This is a load of BS (Boeing Sales department).

You cannot retrofit a standard airframe with radar absorbing paint and suddenly declare, "Hey everybody, we've got a new "stealth aircraft"!"
The Russians tried that for years, their final solution?
More RA paint?
No!
The Pak-FA.

I think the 35 iz NOT that good either after reading this: www.ausairpower.net... and there r other articlez by the same guy I'll post up on how the only hope for U.S./Austrailia IZ the F-22 going up against Mighty Rus'z Su-35S's and NEWR SAMs

Here'z more: www.ausairpower.net...

Actually there is a bit of a war of words going on about this at the moment. The Eurofighter consortium have been laying in to the F-35 along much the same lines as the article posted above.

www.flightglobal.com...

It will be interesting in a few years when both are operating and direct comparisons can be made.

If the F-35 is only properly stealthy from the front then maybe the F-15SE (if cheap enough) isn't such a bad idea for those that already have F-15 variants and cant get the F-22? Not everyone needs the best to counter their local threats and the F-35 gets dearer by the day.

Enough revisions can be made to the F-15 airframe to reduce RCS considerably. Sure, it will probably not quite compare to the F-35, but, unlike the F-35, the F-15SE would actually not suck at everything.

The biggest selling point that has been made about the F-35 recently has been its avionics package - which is nothing any modern U.S. aircraft will not be capable of matching. Though in most cases, it's completely unnecessary. It's nice, sure, but when you're going from an arsenal based around mechanically scanned arrays and virtually no multi-role radar capacity - you don't need 25-centimeter resolution radar mapping to see a substantial marked improvement.

You can't really build a "do everything" aircraft. The F-15SE is, pretty much, an interceptor/strike aircraft that you can mount a bunch of different weapons to. It's not going to have the same loiter times as the A-10 and Super Bug - but it is going to be able to do more while it is there than the F-35. Not to mention it's actually a proven airframe. F-15s haven't really required stealth to do their missions, yet - and the SE doesn't look like it compromises much for what measures that have been taken to reduce RCS.

And you have to consider a lot of these countries that have partnered for the F-35 are considerably smaller than the U.S. - when it's in-your-face fighting, stealth matters little by comparison to payload and raw kinetic performance. The SE wins there, in my honest opinion.

Korea would probably benefit more from the SE, really. Much of the country is built in valleys on on the side of a damned mountain. If you've been to the Ozarks, you have a pretty good idea of what that entire nation is like - only it's on the ocean (and with similar weather, interestingly enough). Radar invisibility is as simple as keeping with the valleys. Last I checked, North Korea didn't really have much in the way of AWACS. China does - but the F-35 would not be my choice for trying to take down a target of that value - A 22, 23, 15, or 14 would be of the better choices disregarding Russian models.

Originally posted by Aim64C

You can't really build a "do everything" aircraft.

We are definitely getting there - take a look at the number of specialist role aircraft in World War 2, take another look at the same thing in the 1960s and take a look at those in service today.

The number of aircraft types have drastically fallen over the years, and the capabilities of aircraft have increased just as drastically.

While in World War 2 we had a 15 crew heavy bomber to deliver a particular payload over a particular target, and we had dozens of aircraft in the same mission against a single target, today we have one aircraft with a single crew member hitting multiple targets with better accuracy.

In World War 2 we had day fighters, night fighters, bad weather fighters, photo recon fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, bombers ranging from not much more than a 2 crew aircraft up to the biggest of the big.

Today we have multi role combat aircraft capable of air superiority and ground attack in the same mission.

In 50 years time, you can bet that there will be a capable, first world air force with one single type of offensive aircraft - and probably it will be much sooner than that!

reply to post by intelgurl

That's why ISRAEL is buying them instead of the F-35?

According to the documents and articles I've read, the F-15SE is fairly stealthy against other aircrafts but not against ground based radars.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by intelgurl

 

That's why ISRAEL is buying them instead of the F-35?

According to the documents and articles I've read, the F-15SE is fairly stealthy against other aircrafts but not against ground based radars.

Since when is Israel getting the F-15SE?

In any case it would make sense for them to get it - they already own the F-15 - and they may not be able to procure the F-35.

[edit on 29/7/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Israel eyes Boeing's stealthy F-15E

The Israeli Defense Ministry is talking with the Pentagon about buying Boeing's F-15E1 because of delays in developing Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Israel's first choice for its next major fighter purchase, The Jerusalem Post reported Monday.

The Israelis are really thinking about it.

They prefer the F-15SE because of the cost, availability and they can install their own electronics and weapons system.

The F-35 will cost 150 million $ for each aircraft, Israelis want to pay a maximum of 100 million $. They want a new aircraft real soon, the F-35 will only be available in 2015 which is too late for them. And the Pentagon apparently opposes Israel demand of installing their own electronic and weapons systems inside the F-35, another problem they probably wouldn't face with the F-15SE.

And about the stealthiness of the F-15SE:

The new F-15 configuration reportedly includes a stealth capability but that's only effective in evading the radars carried by hostile aircraft but not by ground-based radar systems.

Other improvements include adapting the F-15's conformal fuel tanks to carry weapons inside the fuselage rather than externally, thus reducing the radar signature.

One of the functions tested during the F-15 Silent Eagle's weekend flight was opening and closing its left side conformal weapons bay that contained an AIM-120 air-to-air missile, which wasn't fired.

I think Canada should have bought F-15SE instead of F-35s.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by Aim64C

You can't really build a "do everything" aircraft.

We are definitely getting there - take a look at the number of specialist role aircraft in World War 2, take another look at the same thing in the 1960s and take a look at those in service today.

Irrelevant.

Physics dictates you cannot build a "do everything" aircraft.

You cannot, under any circumstances, make an aircraft with the payload, slow stall speed, and durability of an A-10, and make it an effective supersonic interceptor.

The only possible way to do that is to take the concept of variable geometry to the extremes - and then you're getting into an area where technology and cost start to become a real pain. A "do everything" aircraft may be possible, but not practical.

The number of aircraft types have drastically fallen over the years, and the capabilities of aircraft have increased just as drastically.

Not really. Fighters are still fighters. Tank busters are still tank busters. Interceptors are still interceptors, and bombers are still bombers.

Missiles allow us to blur some of the lines, but you can't turn a bomber into a fighter. You can't turn a tank buster into an interceptor. Not the way we do it today ("back in the day" - there was no such thing as an interceptor - it was a fighter, and fighters then were similar in aerodynamics and weapons to what we use today.)

While in World War 2 we had a 15 crew heavy bomber to deliver a particular payload over a particular target, and we had dozens of aircraft in the same mission against a single target, today we have one aircraft with a single crew member hitting multiple targets with better accuracy.

That doesn't mean you can take that B-1 and go beat-down a PAK-FA. Nor does it mean you can go blow up a base with an F-22. Sure - you can make some booms on the ground, but your per-sortie efficiency is through the floor.

In World War 2 we had day fighters, night fighters, bad weather fighters, photo recon fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, bombers ranging from not much more than a 2 crew aircraft up to the biggest of the big.

All we did was combine a lot of the very related roles into one. Cost-effective radars in aircraft made all fighters capable of being night-fighters. Nothing works in bad weather, really - so "bad weather fighter" is an oxy-moron. In either case - radar and infra-red technologies allowed most/all aircraft to take on that role. The aircraft didn't really have much difference in performance - it wasn't like technology suddenly gave single-engine fighters the payload of four-engine bombers.

Today we have multi role combat aircraft capable of air superiority and ground attack in the same mission.

It's not all it's cracked up to be. You can't be lugging a huge bomb around out on a pylon while you are trying to pull 8Gs to beat down a fighter. You can't do that while it's in a bay, either.

Sure, you can arm some aircraft with bombs, and some with missiles - but then why not build a BIG aircraft that can hold ten times the amount of ordnance, get three times the range, carry everything internally, and costs only five times the amount of the ten fighters you would need to match a single sortie?

Or, if you don't need that all in one platform, why not create a smaller bomber that can carry all that ordnance internally, get better range than the fighter-armed-with-bombs, and carry a larger payload (particularly important for heavier ordnance that other stuff might not have the hardpoints to handle).

And at an equivalent cost.

In 50 years time, you can bet that there will be a capable, first world air force with one single type of offensive aircraft - and probably it will be much sooner than that!

Then I would love to pick it apart with the PMC I plan to create later on in life. Because 'We' would build stuff right.