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

Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes as I said a fantasy.

But surely then any non-stealthy missile platform is dead. An F-15EX with 16 missiles hanging off its wings would light up radars long before a stealthy platform (with internal missiles) and be launching the same IR detectable missile.

How impactful would IR be from 100-150km rocket engine facing away from the opponent. So no hypersonic missiles from B-21s surely a much larger rocket engine (longer range sure but bigger signature)

Also wouldn’t F-35/22s risk IR detection then?

But then I don’t see B-21s tasked with an air to air mission anytime soon just speculation on what an optimized missile truck could be.
 
bobbymike said:
Yes as I said a fantasy.

But surely then any non-stealthy missile platform is dead. An F-15EX with 16 missiles hanging off its wings would light up radars long before a stealthy platform (with internal missiles) and be launching the same IR detectable missile.

How impactful would IR be from 100-150km rocket engine facing away from the opponent. So no hypersonic missiles from B-21s surely a much larger rocket engine (longer range sure but bigger signature)

Also wouldn’t F-35/22s risk IR detection then?

But then I don’t see B-21s tasked with an air to air mission anytime soon just speculation on what an optimized missile truck could be.
Click to expand...

There might be some situations where a 4th gen fighter can work with 5th gen fighters or UAVs father forward as spotters. I still don't see a use case for a dozen missiles unless your opponent is fielding a large volume of UAVs themselves. In that case, perhaps the F-15EX could carry older, more expendable AIM-120s in a larger load out for less challenging targets that still need to be engaged. Kind of a backfield defender role. Oversized long range weapons likely have a role to play as well, and F-15EX has been mentioned as a platform for such. F-15 is also the objective first platform for HACM, which I personally suspect will have a limited A2A capability against large multi engined aircraft.

I don't know how sensitive IR sensors are these days and weather conditions definitely play a role. But given how easy it is for space platforms to detect missile launches from orbit, I would think an AAM launch from most angles would light up like a road flare on an IRST relative to the signature of the aircraft itself at subsonic speed*. Some of the most modern aircraft also have coatings and exhaust nozzels that make their IR signature less obvious. If the launching aircraft is already at full afterburner, this probably matters a lot less.

I don't think the "missile truck" idea has much merit to begin with. Planes engaging static/slow moving ground targets have a huge energy advantage that allows even cheap unpowered ordnance to coast dozens of miles such that a large number of targets can be serviced by a single release event. Aircraft are innately spread out and fast moving, thus a lot less vulnerable to an aircraft spamming weapons at potentially suboptimal ranges and geometries. The weapons themselves are also a order of magnitude or two more expensive.


*ETA: I think this is the reason, more than magazine depth, that the USAF wants to use CCAs first as weapons carriers and then expand to other roles after accomplishing that. I think they want to offboard the launch event, because once you create a large IR signal, it is just a matter of focusing more sensors in that direction to find what fired it and start a target track. If nothing else, just applying more radar power to that small patch of sky would up detection levels.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
*ETA: I think this is the reason, more than magazine depth, that the USAF wants to use CCAs first as weapons carriers and then expand to other roles after accomplishing that. I think they want to offboard the launch event, because once you create a large IR signal, it is just a matter of focusing more sensors in that direction to find what fired it and start a target track. If nothing else, just applying more radar power to that small patch of sky would up detection levels.
Click to expand...
That is definitely a concern.
 
NMaude said:
The C-model is a single-seater.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your comment. I said the C-model production line is closed so it’s not possible to make single-seat Eagles. Where did I imply the C-model isn’t a single seater?
 
The EX is largely a F-15QA because that was the last customer. In the interest of saving time and money, USAF is taking the aircraft largely as is.
 
Every F-15EX/QA is 2-seater, but it is possible for a single pilot to operate it alone, especially in the air-to-air. However, the workload would be extremely high without a WSO especially in the air-to-ground role.

Even the vast majority of the older systems of F-15E are operable from the front seat alone. This was neatly shown in the RAZBAM F-15E module for DCS, but again, it's too much sensory overload for a single pilot to do everything, so WSO is practically required.

Air Force receives first F-15EX

The U.S. Air Force officially accepted the first F-15EX from the Boeing Co. March 10 at the company’s St. Louis facility.
www.af.mil
 

Attachments

  • 20231112_223817.jpg
    20231112_223817.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 72
  • 20231112_224317.jpg
    20231112_224317.jpg
    156.6 KB · Views: 73
Basically what they did with a -229 F-15E here years ago:


"I'm not even BS'ing you here. This was my jet in Alaska, F-15E 90-0250 with PW 229 engines and no pods or CFT's. It was one of two flight demonstrators for the Korean government. We did everything from ICT's, flight demos and even let them fly her. The planes that were chosen for the flight demo portion were rented by Boeing with their maintainers and test pilot. It was awesome. I guess the Koreans thought so too, because they now have the F-15K!"
 
wow that clean F-15QA is absolutely beautiful. I used to think Tomcats, Flankers and Rafales were the most beautiful 4th gen, but this Eagle is just as nice. especially with out those CFTs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that the USAF didn't want to pay for opening up the single seat production line.
Click to expand...

The only significance structural difference between the C and the E is the cockpit so would a seperate production line actually been needed?
 
Not my area of expertise but I understand the C is a lighter airframe than the E and derived variants thanks to being a dedicated A2A platform. So we already have a structure difference there which I am not sure can be simply measured in G's capable. The C also lacks the common engine rear fuselage that accomodates both P&W and GE engines as on the E and derivatives. So in short no, the structural difference goes deeper than the canopy.
 
I am guessing the F-15CX that Boeing offered was in fact based on the strengthen E model airframe. I can't envision them making all of the changes required to go back to the original specifications even though it would shave off some weight for air-to-air combat.

I do wonder about the nature of those structural changes since McDonnell Douglas had flown the F-15A/B with an impressive air-to-ground payload in a few test flights seemingly without issue. Perhaps it was to adapt the airframe to a greater percentage of time at low altitude?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I am guessing the F-15CX that Boeing offered was in fact based on the strengthen E model airframe.
Click to expand...
Of course. The CX would have been a single seat Advanced Eagle. The C/D Eagle has been out of production since the late 80s or so (except those built in Japan). Some C/Ds delivered in the early 90s to Saudi Arabia and I think Israel were in fact E airframes fitted with C/D avionics because the C/D was out of production by then.

The reason a single seat Advanced F-15 doesn't exist is simple: USAF didn't want to pay for the required airframe changes and testing. Advanced Eagles are FBW aircraft, any changes would require extensive flight testing. This is also the reason why all Advanced Eagles have the MAWS blisters, regardless of whether they are equipped with MAWS or not.
Easier just to leave the second seat empty.

sferrin said:
The E is a 9-G aircraft. I don't believe the C is.
Click to expand...

It is a 9G aircraft. Excluding possible measures to extend service life.
 
eagle said:
Of course. The CX would have been a single seat Advanced Eagle. The C/D Eagle has been out of production since the late 80s or so (except those built in Japan). Some C/Ds delivered in the early 90s to Saudi Arabia and I think Israel were in fact E airframes fitted with C/D avionics because the C/D was out of production by then.

The reason a single seat Advanced F-15 doesn't exist is simple: USAF didn't want to pay for the required airframe changes and testing. Advanced Eagles are FBW aircraft, any changes would require extensive flight testing. This is also the reason why all Advanced Eagles have the MAWS blisters, regardless of whether they are equipped with MAWS or not.
Easier just to leave the second seat empty.



It is a 9G aircraft. Excluding possible measures to extend service life.
Click to expand...
Nope:

1700018306940.png
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Note that that is without the Overload Warning System (OWS). With OWS, the F-15C is a 9g aircraft.
Click to expand...
I trust you know what "Overload" means? If it was a 9G aircraft it wouldn't need a system to tell the pilot they overloaded the aircraft when they got above 7.5g.

Same sheet from an F-15E. (Overload Warning System also inoperable.)

1700054329489.png
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
An F-15C pulled 12g during a dogfight Desert Storm.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about what an aircraft CAN do, once or twice, but what it's rated for as a regular use thing. I read an account of a Tomcat that lost control in an inverted dive, "pushed" a NEGATIVE 12g (the pilot broke the grip on the stick in the process) but recovered the aircraft. It doesn't make the Tomcat a -12 to +7.5 G aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Pretty impressive display of the new flight control system! They even did a tail slide. Roughly 13 seconds to complete a 360 turn?
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom