F-15E + AN/APG-77

USAF wants competition for F-15E Strike Eagle radar upgrade

The F-15 just keeps getting better and better.


(edit to reduce size of long url)



[edit on 24-9-2005 by pantha]

thanks for the link but please remember to add more of your own thoughts and comments to your thread starter

APG-77 on F-15E? Wow, that would put F-15E at the same level as the Raptor. Execellent, the moolah is gonna be a lot though.

Originally posted by COWlan
APG-77 on F-15E? Wow, that would put F-15E at the same level as the Raptor. Execellent, the moolah is gonna be a lot though.

No it won't, but it will be a lot better.

Wow, just when we thought the F-15's record couldn't get any better! I don't see why the F-15's are getting the upgrade though. They're good and all, but I thought they were to be replaed by the F-35?

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Wow, just when we thought the F-15's record couldn't get any better! I don't see why the F-15's are getting the upgrade though. They're good and all, but I thought they were to be replaed by the F-35?

The F-15's are to be replaced by the F/A-22 Raptors, the F-35 will be replacing many different aircraft in a broader area.

What I don't understand, is how in the link it said "Lockheed Martin/Boeing F/A-22" if the F/A-22 is designed and built by the Lockheed Martin Skunworks division. Now, they can't use "Boeing" for certain parts that are supplied, because the Raptor has parts supplied by many different companies. The design and manufactuer however is Lockheed Martin, not a joint operation by Boeing and Lockheed. Hmm befuddling.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Wow, just when we thought the F-15's record couldn't get any better! I don't see why the F-15's are getting the upgrade though. They're good and all, but I thought they were to be replaed by the F-35?

The F-15's are to be replaced by the F/A-22 Raptors, the F-35 will be replacing many different aircraft in a broader area.

What I don't understand, is how in the link it said "Lockheed Martin/Boeing F/A-22" if the F/A-22 is designed and built by the Lockheed Martin Skunworks division. Now, they can't use "Boeing" for certain parts that are supplied, because the Raptor has parts supplied by many different companies. The design and manufactuer however is Lockheed Martin, not a joint operation by Boeing and Lockheed. Hmm befuddling.

Shattered OUT...

You are wrong. The F-22 is built by LM Marietta Georgia. Boeing is the other partner for the F-22. They build the wings plus other parts and the plane's software. Also they are in charge of all the training systems for it.

[edit on 24-9-2005 by carcharodon]

Originally posted by carcharodon
You are wrong. The F-22 is built by LM Marietta Georgia. Boeing is the other partner for the F-22. They build the wings plus other parts and the plane's sostware. Also they are in charge of all the training systems for it.

Wow, just like that, I'm wrong huh? "YOU ARE WRONG!" Like a little baby.

Alright, well how about you supply your sources, the Marietta Georgia, alright, yea I know it's manufactured by Marietta, but it's still LockHeed Martin nonethe less. But Boeing? Boeing was involved in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor?

I'm interested in that, have any sources to back it up?

Shattered OUT...

Yes I do. Sorry if you felt offended.

Here you go


www.boeing.com...

APG-77 on F-15E? Wow, that would put F-15E at the same level as the Raptor. Execellent and you wouldnt have to wait for JSF to come through.
As in Australia's case replace F-111's with the F-15E with APG-77 and replace Hornets with Raptors, Instead of 100 JSF.

Buy 40 F-15E's and 50 F-22's

Why would AUS replace there `varks with strike eagles? The eagle has much shorter legs than the `vark, and the AUS `varks do ALOT of long over water flights.


I can see this from another angle: Put better radar`s on the Eagles , big upgrade in capability , now we don`t need as many Raptors.

50 Raptors equal about 5 Billion at 100 Mil a pop, are you sure that Australia with a DoD budget of 17.5 Billion can afford that, even if the Raptor was offered to them?

I was watching a show on historys Top Ten fighters of all time and this one analyst said we shouldn't be building F/A-22 instead we should be upgrading the F-15 with better engines and avionics. My question is could we upgrade the F-15 to supercruise as well and give it thrust vectoring in addition to better avionics?

I don't know about the super-cruise but the F-15 Active had thrust vectoring, we could definitely give it better avionics. But what's the point? To save a few extra $$$? The F-15’s body frame would have to be replaced too, and it still wouldn't have stealth.
Might as well build the Raptor which has the total package.

Originally posted by danwild6
I was watching a show on historys Top Ten fighters of all time and this one analyst said we shouldn't be building F/A-22 instead we should be upgrading the F-15 with better engines and avionics. My question is could we upgrade the F-15 to supercruise as well and give it thrust vectoring in addition to better avionics?

That is what Russia do. Upgrade a design over and over again. The SU-37 is their latest attempt to improve the F-15 design that they copied in the MIG 25, MIG -31 and so on... But in the end, no matter how much you improve it is the same old plane...

The F-15 ACTIVE tested vector propulsion but is not an standard feature of the plane
see this photo

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

There you can see clearly the standard engines.... Vector on the F-15 were a test, however if the plane indeed would resist them in an operational basis is a whole other story.

Another point, is how much money would be needed to rebuild the aircraft. You will probably spend 3/4 of what you would spend on a raptor and you will still have the old plane underneath it...

The point you guys are missing is this. The AF wants the AESA equiped F-15's as a backstop to the Raptors in the cruise missile defence role. There already is a variant of the AMRAAM designed specificaly for this mission.

But for the life of me: Why task your premier tactical/strike/inderdiction a/c on that role when you could load a B-1 to the gills with AMRAAMS and given the platform size may be able to pack a huge AESA radar on the bugger?????

The B-1 still has problems though. Not major ones, but problems. It would probably take quite a bit of upgrade to mod it for an AESA radar and all the fire control systems, and to keep the systems currently on the plane active. One of the crew chiefs told me one time that there is no such thing as a fully mission ready B-1. They all have leaks, or minor problems with them. Not to mention the lack of electrical power. They only put three generators on it, to help save weight so it can go supersonic. This is the biggest problem with the B-1. During certain portions of the flight they have to choose between one system or another to have enough power from the generators.

At one point they WERE talking about putting A2A missiles on the B-1 but nothing ever came of it. As far as I know they eventually decided it wasn't feasable for some reason, but I'm not sure what exactly that reason was.

[edit on 9/26/2005 by Zaphod58]

Hmmm I was thinking of a SSGN like the Navy was doing to some of the Ohio's. Wonder if you could dedicate a few of them to this, you may not need supersonic dash rather long loiter. Or a BUFF could also be modified. Nothing as outlandish as Dale Browns fantasies mind you. Or team the B-1 minus the radar with a new E-10???? One is the gun, the other the sight??

That would probably be a better idea. Have it datalink from another plane.

Supposedly they're going to be coming out with the B-52J here in the next few years. Glad to see that old bird getting new life.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
50 Raptors equal about 5 Billion at 100 Mil a pop, are you sure that Australia with a DoD budget of 17.5 Billion can afford that, even if the Raptor was offered to them?

Because the aussies havent SHAFTED the yanks like "other so called allies"

Ever since WW II the AUS-US alliance has been solid.