Boeing F-15EX / F-15QA and related variants

stealthflanker said:
I expected at least the canopy coating and inlet tunnel treatment. But of course what kind of tactical usefullness from the reduction is open to question.
Click to expand...
Okay, yes, I agree with the canopy coating, and frankly I can see a coated canopy being a general refit over time as the non-coated ones get scratched up. Simpler to make all the new ones with the coating.

I'm not sure how much work they can do on those inlets.
 
NMaude said:
What is Have Glass V?
Click to expand...

It's the new(ish) dark grey paint scheme applied to the F-16 that apparently involves some sort of RAM paint (seems like a modern version of iron ball).

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about
www.key.aero
 
TomS said:
It's the new(ish) dark grey paint scheme applied to the F-16 that apparently involves some sort of RAM paint (seems like a modern version of iron ball).

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about
www.key.aero
Click to expand...
Informative article - thanks! Mark
 
TomS said:
It's the new(ish) dark grey paint scheme applied to the F-16 that apparently involves some sort of RAM paint (seems like a modern version of iron ball).

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about
www.key.aero
Click to expand...
Okay, so what's that weird silvery paint if it's not Have Glass?
 
I can’t see a need for F-15s when F-35s are on order. The F-15 has more payload and range, but I don’t see how that’s useful for Poland or why they’d want to have an entirely new parts and training stream. The only thing I can think of is that they want to be able to deliver ordnance to Moscow…
 
Josh_TN said:
I can’t see a need for F-15s when F-35s are on order. The F-15 has more payload and range, but I don’t see how that’s useful for Poland or why they’d want to have an entirely new parts and training stream. The only thing I can think of is that they want to be able to deliver ordnance to Moscow…
Click to expand...
I'm thinking as AMRAAM trucks for the F-35s. The F-15EX can carry at least a dozen AMRAAMs, and let the F-35s spot targets for them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The F-15EX can carry at least a dozen AMRAAMs, and let the F-35s spot targets for them.
Click to expand...
It could probably carry more if it's equipped with those modified FAST packs modified as missile-pods being developed by the South Koreans under contract with Boeing.
 
NMaude said:
It could probably carry more if it's equipped with those modified FAST packs modified as missile-pods being developed by the South Koreans under contract with Boeing.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, that was only 2x AMRAAM per FAST pack, AMRAAMs on the Sidewinder "shoulder" pylons on the fuel tank pylons on the wings, and a twin pack of AMRAAMs on the outboard wing pylons.

If you don't need the drop tanks, that's another 4x AMRAAMs, plus however many more you can rack on the FAST packs. Probably a total of 4x AMRAAM per fast pack. Oh, and one more pair of AMRAAMs on the centerline pylon, total of 22x AMRAAMs(!)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Absolutely, that was only 2x AMRAAM per FAST pack, AMRAAMs on the Sidewinder "shoulder" pylons on the fuel tank pylons on the wings, and a twin pack of AMRAAMs on the outboard wing pylons.

If you don't need the drop tanks, that's another 4x AMRAAMs, plus however many more you can rack on the FAST packs. Probably a total of 4x AMRAAM per fast pack. Oh, and one more pair of AMRAAMs on the centerline pylon, total of 22x AMRAAMs(!)
Click to expand...

5608531.jpg

cheers,
Robin.
 
Josh_TN said:
Yes, but my point is that an entire additional fighter type would not be necessary if all that was desired was a dozen AAMs.
Click to expand...
There may also be some desire for heavy bunker busters or something else that is only cleared for the F-15.

But what I am expecting is them to normally carry close to two dozen ARMAAMs as the CAP of Doom(tm).
 
Archibald said:
Since when can a F-35 carry 14 or 16 AAMs ? never thought one could hang so many missiles below a F-35... ?!
Click to expand...
So, this 2011 slide from LM shows 12 AMRAAM -- eight external on four twin pylons plus 4 internal in the two bays. Upgrading the bays with the Sidekick triple rack makes for 14 AMRAAM. Plus a pair of AIM-9 or ASRAAM. And they've shown the same basic idea in 2017 as "Beast Mode."

Now, this is a hypothetical loadout -- it hasn't been cleared or tested and probably won't be. But mechanically, it's probably doable.

1694277024228.png


1694277323550.png
 
Scott Kenny said:
There may also be some desire for heavy bunker busters or something else that is only cleared for the F-15.

But what I am expecting is them to normally carry close to two dozen ARMAAMs as the CAP of Doom(tm).
Click to expand...

I think you are correct that some kind of oversized air to ground ordnance is driving the requirement. Perhaps 5000lb class GBUs Or possibly even HACM.

I severely question the use case of a dozen AIM-120s on either airframe.
 
Last edited:
and i feel showing the "AMRAAM truck" mode is not an ideal presentation. At least from RCS respect. It could be the first to get detected and if the enemy do have longer ranging missiles. The first to die.

Some form of new missile is required if one wish to take the advantage of being a flying arsenal.
 
stealthflanker said:
and i feel showing the "AMRAAM truck" mode is not an ideal presentation. At least from RCS respect. It could be the first to get detected and if the enemy do have longer ranging missiles. The first to die.

Some form of new missile is required if one wish to take the advantage of being a flying arsenal.
Click to expand...
kinda depends on just how stealthy the F-35 is. We're talking about a ~50nmi distance between EX and F-35.

And of course, AIM260s will be an interesting discussion. Don't they have 50-100% more range than ARMAAMs?
 
GTX said:
Still an unrealistic operational load out
Click to expand...
For the US? Agreed. The USAF needs lots of range/loiter time so the inner wing pylons and centerline pylon are likely to be occupied by fuel tanks (if the centerline isn't carrying the big Legion IRST pod), not the 2x AMRAAM racks.

Poland doesn't need anywhere near as much range/loiter time, their entire country is about the size of North+South Dakota. So they can get away with not loading the external tanks on the wings and swapping for AMRAAMs. And the centerline pylon will probably be carrying the Legion IRST pod instead of either a fuel tank or a pair of AMRAAMs, the big IRST being more useful than missiles.

Since I just remembered the Legion IRST pod, I expect that the standard F-15EX loadout to be 2x2 AMRAAMs on the outer wing pylons, AIM-9Xs on the inner wing pylon shoulders, 4x AMRAAMs per CFT, and the Legion IRST on the centerline. That's 12x AMRAAMs and 4x Sidewinders (or up to 16x AMRAAMs), without using the inner wing pylons.
 
GTX said:
For anywhere. And remember that Poland has not committed to purchase any F-15s yet.
Click to expand...
How long can an F-15 fly with CFTs and max internal fuel?

If your "air policing" orbit area is 10 minutes away from your air base, there's less demand for drop tanks.
 
Scott Kenny said:
How long can an F-15 fly with CFTs and max internal fuel?

If your "air policing" orbit area is 10 minutes away from your air base, there's less demand for drop tanks.
Click to expand...

There's basically no scenario where a dozen AIM-120s would be desirable; its a lot of eggs in one basket if you lose the fighter before it can engage anything and it is hard to imagine a single aircraft having a half dozen targets to double tap all at once. Certainly no one is loading that many AMRAAMs for air policing. Strapping AAMs onto an aircraft subjects then to vibrational wear and tear that has to be tracked and eventually mitigated. If you ever looked at F-14s during the Cold War in actual operations, you'd be hard pressed to find them ever carrying AIM-54s. It simply wasn't practical or needed. I suspect the number of times an F-14 carried a half dozen AIM-54s can be counted on fingers, though in the case of carrier aircraft obviously one of the problems is bring back weight. But most aircraft tended to carry 4-6 missiles at most, and I have never seen a documented operational flight of any USAF or USN aircraft carrying more than eight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
kinda depends on just how stealthy the F-35 is. We're talking about a ~50nmi distance between EX and F-35.

And of course, AIM260s will be an interesting discussion. Don't they have 50-100% more range than ARMAAMs?
Click to expand...
This being a fantasy aside:

The ultimate missile truck would be B-21s modified with massive internal rotary launchers. Enemy doesn’t even know they are there until a few hundred AIM-260 are headed their way.
 
Well the F-15's "22x AMRAAAM" unfortunately have caused some silly comparisons in social media realm. but guess that's that.

I would feel F-15EX's would be a damn fine cruise missile hunter. 20 KW class AESA and such Suitable for SCS crisis scenario where tons of cruise missiles are expected. With tanker can perhaps support 10 hours endurance, 10 hours being the limit of health of the crews. It's from test of Su-27PD with air refuelling.
 
I think the Poles already are buying AGM-158 for their F-16s. F-15EX could obviously carry more of them, but it does not really justify the purchase. For them to even be considering a buy of an extra fighter type, I’m guessing they want 5000 lb penetrators, HACM, or some other oversized piece of ordnance that F-16/35 cannot carry.
 
Of course the other possibility is that Boeing is completely overhyping this and nothing comes of it.
 
bobbymike said:
This being a fantasy aside:

The ultimate missile truck would be B-21s modified with massive internal rotary launchers. Enemy doesn’t even know they are there until a few hundred AIM-260 are headed their way.
Click to expand...
I don't know that the rotaries can carry more than 8x twin rails.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't know that the rotaries can carry more than 8x twin rails.
Click to expand...

I would not want my B-21s producing numerous, obvious IR events within BVR AAM range of opponent fighters any way. Perhaps a rotary armed with a very long ranged ordnance like an air launched SM-6 or Long Shot specifically for AEW/tanker targets would make some sense, but predominantly one assumes B-21s focus on air to ground.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom