Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

[Josh_TN]

What about the NGJ precludes its use on other aircraft?

 

[marauder2048]

What about the NGJ precludes its use on other aircraft?

Aside from the silly two-pod configuration (why take up one station when you can take up two):

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-0780

And all of the SARs indicating that the pod had to be completely redesigned just to operate in the
Growler's very narrow envelope.

 

[trose213]

The USAF is looking at the F-15EX for jamming duties, now that the F-35 isn't getting the NGJ.

The mid-band pod design for NGJ practically precludes its use on any aircraft other than the Growler.

The low-band pod maybe but the fact that the Navy is pursuing MALD-N and AARGM-ER is evidence
that they don't think the Growler's jamming efficacy is sufficient.

All of these systems are supposed to work together... I really don't understand how the Growler being sufficient led the Navy to procuring missiles?

 

[marauder2048]

The USAF is looking at the F-15EX for jamming duties, now that the F-35 isn't getting the NGJ.

The mid-band pod design for NGJ practically precludes its use on any aircraft other than the Growler.

The low-band pod maybe but the fact that the Navy is pursuing MALD-N and AARGM-ER is evidence
that they don't think the Growler's jamming efficacy is sufficient.

All of these systems are supposed to work together... I really don't understand how the Growler being sufficient led the Navy to procuring missiles?

Even with NGJ, the Growler can't get close enough to use AARGM. And it can't get close enough to jam sidelobes and backlobes.
And it's narrow flight envelope with jammers operational (giant RAT doors open) means it's kinda meh at
keeping itself aligned with strike package and the mainlobes of the threat radars.

 

[yasotay]

I see it as perfectly normal too. Instead of spending money tightening loose nuts you pay for an upgraded airframe.
If the world had catch-up with USAF's stealth technology, things would have been different for sure.

It keeps the industrial base viable as well.

Just viable for the F-15. It's unclear that having a hot production line enables you to win future competitions:

Boeing is the only manufacturer of attack helicopters for the Army; they failed to even place in a program that will
replace half of the attack helicopters in Army service.

Note that "industrial base" is absent from any of the justifications used for "other than full and open competition."

You have to be able to prove these things above a GAO protest; the AF couldn't do this even with the non
industrial-base justification for the engines. It crumbled under a protest.

A fair point on winning competitions (when was the last time Boeing won a military aircraft competition by themselves), nor can I disagree about GAO, but the Congressional Delegations from any state with a facility do not seem to give a hoot. Lockheed Marietta continued chunking out C-130 for years even though the USAF did not want or budget for them. It looks like Chinook II is going to continue to get funded not because the Army wants to fund it. I think there is some consideration if St. Louis facility goes cold, along with all the second tier industry associated with it, the ready facilities able to build new combat aircraft will be reduced by 33%. I will admit that fighter production is not an area of expertise.

 

[TomS]

when was the last time Boeing won a military aircraft competition by themselves

T-X last year, probably.

 

[yasotay]

when was the last time Boeing won a military aircraft competition by themselves

T-X last year, probably.

I should have been more clear. Without help (Saab).

 

[TomS]

when was the last time Boeing won a military aircraft competition by themselves

T-X last year, probably.

I should have been more clear. Without help (Saab).

By that standard, no one wins by themselves anymore. There's always a team.

 

[marauder2048]

when was the last time Boeing won a military aircraft competition by themselves

T-X last year, probably.

I should have been more clear. Without help (Saab).

By that standard, no one wins by themselves anymore. There's always a team.

*cough* front-line, combat aircraft *cough*

 

[TomS]

when was the last time Boeing won a military aircraft competition by themselves

T-X last year, probably.

I should have been more clear. Without help (Saab).

By that standard, no one wins by themselves anymore. There's always a team.

*cough* front-line, combat aircraft *cough*

Well, pick a recent competition and point to a design that wasn't the output of an industrial team of some sort.

 

[marauder2048]

when was the last time Boeing won a military aircraft competition by themselves

T-X last year, probably.

I should have been more clear. Without help (Saab).

By that standard, no one wins by themselves anymore. There's always a team.

*cough* front-line, combat aircraft *cough*

Well, pick a recent competition and point to a design that wasn't the output of an industrial team of some sort.

B-21
MQ-25

The more primes you have on a competition the harder it is to control costs. These were all essentially LPTA.

 

[TomS]

MQ-25

The more primes you have on a competition the harder it is to control costs. These were all essentially LPTA.

Ahem

Industry Team

The MQ-25 Industry Team is all-in on delivering this vital aerial refueling capability to help the U.S. Navy extend the range of the carrier air wing. The industry team includes:

• Aitech Defense Systems
• BAE Systems
• Collins Aerospace
• Cox & Company
• Crane Aerospace & Electronics
• Cubic
• Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions
• GE
• Harris Corporation

• Héroux-Devtek
• Honeywell
• Innovative Power Solutions
• L3 Commercial Aviation
• Moog Aircraft Group
• Parker Hannifin
• Raytheon
• Rolls-Royce
• Triumph Group

 

[marauder2048]

MQ-25

The more primes you have on a competition the harder it is to control costs. These were all essentially LPTA.

Ahem

Industry Team

The MQ-25 Industry Team is all-in on delivering this vital aerial refueling capability to help the U.S. Navy extend the range of the carrier air wing. The industry team includes:

• Aitech Defense Systems
• BAE Systems
• Collins Aerospace
• Cox & Company
• Crane Aerospace & Electronics
• Cubic
• Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions
• GE
• Harris Corporation
• Héroux-Devtek
• Honeywell
• Innovative Power Solutions
• L3 Commercial Aviation
• Moog Aircraft Group
• Parker Hannifin
• Raytheon
• Rolls-Royce
• Triumph Group

How does that differ from the suppliers that are on any combat aircraft designed and built in the last 40 years?
Or the supplier list from commercial/bizjet aviation?

 

[TomS]

It doesn't. But neither does having Saab as a partner on T-X.

Northrop for the B-21 is a better counterexample. They have Spirit Aerostructures on their team, presumably building a chunk of the airframe, just as Saab is doing for Boeing. But no one is complaining that Northrop can't win without help.

 

[Josh_TN]

What about the NGJ precludes its use on other aircraft?

Aside from the silly two-pod configuration (why take up one station when you can take up two):

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-0780

And all of the SARs indicating that the pod had to be completely redesigned just to operate in the
Growler's very narrow envelope.

My understanding is that the ALQ-99 and NGJ pods are both mid band and can operate independently of each other. I had thought two are carried for reasons of trim and engaging more targets or engaging a target with more energy or wave forms. Are these pods reliant on each other in anyway? Are there actually two separate pod designs for either system?

As for the RAM limitations, I assume ALQ-99's windmills have their own issues at some speeds. In the case of the NGJ, I suspect the design they went with (internal trubine with doors vice external windmill) was driven by the need for much greater power generation and that compromises had to be accepted for the extra output.

 

[marauder2048]

It doesn't. But neither does having Saab as a partner on T-X.

Northrop for the B-21 is a better counterexample. They have Spirit Aerostructures on their team, presumably building a chunk of the airframe, just as Saab is doing for Boeing. But no one is complaining that Northrop can't win without help.

But there's no evidence of significant co-design *and* co-production for B-21. Or MQ-25.
T-X had a lot of both by all teams...except the one that bailed.

 

[Josh_TN]

The USAF is looking at the F-15EX for jamming duties, now that the F-35 isn't getting the NGJ.

The mid-band pod design for NGJ practically precludes its use on any aircraft other than the Growler.

The low-band pod maybe but the fact that the Navy is pursuing MALD-N and AARGM-ER is evidence
that they don't think the Growler's jamming efficacy is sufficient.

All of these systems are supposed to work together... I really don't understand how the Growler being sufficient led the Navy to procuring missiles?

Even with NGJ, the Growler can't get close enough to use AARGM. And it can't get close enough to jam sidelobes and backlobes.
And it's narrow flight envelope with jammers operational (giant RAT doors open) means it's kinda meh at
keeping itself aligned with strike package and the mainlobes of the threat radars.

The AARGM-ER on the other hand is going to be something like double the range of AGM-88E...I have a hard time picturing a GaN emitter being ineffective across that entire distance. Its also worth noting that the USN uses its aircraft very differently than the USAF - they are not exclusively SEAD aircraft; they also have a role to play in fleet defense, which would tend to be a more benign environment.

 

[TomS]

It doesn't. But neither does having Saab as a partner on T-X.

Northrop for the B-21 is a better counterexample. They have Spirit Aerostructures on their team, presumably building a chunk of the airframe, just as Saab is doing for Boeing. But no one is complaining that Northrop can't win without help.

But there's no evidence of significant co-design *and* co-production for B-21. Or MQ-25.
T-X had a lot of both by all teams...except the one that bailed.

All teams, but Boeing is the only one that gets ragged on for somehow not being able to win "without help."

It's just a lazy criticism of a company that is seen as an easy target. But all big defense companies have fucked up cultures and they all have massive program overruns or problems. It's just Boeing's turn in the barrel.

 

[marauder2048]

All teams, but Boeing is the only one that gets ragged on for somehow not being able to win "without help."

It's just a lazy criticism of a company that is seen as an easy target. But all big defense companies have fucked up cultures and they all have massive program overruns or problems. It's just Boeing's turn in the barrel.

I wasn't criticizing them for winning T-X; I'm criticizing their inability to win front-line, combat aircraft competitions.

 

[marauder2048]

The USAF is looking at the F-15EX for jamming duties, now that the F-35 isn't getting the NGJ.

The mid-band pod design for NGJ practically precludes its use on any aircraft other than the Growler.

The low-band pod maybe but the fact that the Navy is pursuing MALD-N and AARGM-ER is evidence
that they don't think the Growler's jamming efficacy is sufficient.

All of these systems are supposed to work together... I really don't understand how the Growler being sufficient led the Navy to procuring missiles?

Even with NGJ, the Growler can't get close enough to use AARGM. And it can't get close enough to jam sidelobes and backlobes.
And it's narrow flight envelope with jammers operational (giant RAT doors open) means it's kinda meh at
keeping itself aligned with strike package and the mainlobes of the threat radars.

The AARGM-ER on the other hand is going to be something like double the range of AGM-88E...I have a hard time picturing a GaN emitter being ineffective across that entire distance. Its also worth noting that the USN uses its aircraft very differently than the USAF - they are not exclusively SEAD aircraft; they also have a role to play in fleet defense, which would tend to be a more benign environment.

The additional buys for Growler were premised on the demands of the joint force.
Recall, the Growler is part, per LaPlante's remarks, of the "family of systems" for B-21.


NGJ is strictly a mainlobe jammer; there are a few well-known counters to that:

a. HOJ SAMs
b. burnthrough
c. STAP

NGJ is premised on being operated outside of the range of HOJ SAMs.
That requires a really good insight into SAM launcher positions and is premised on the notion that their ranges are
constrained by the less efficient trajectories associated with HOJ.

Burnthrough is radar timeline intensive so lets leave that aside.

STAP: at the ranges we are talking about and at the power levels required, a chunk of the jamming waveform will bounce
off the terrain in front of the radar and enter the radar antenna. With the known angle of that ground-bounce and the
known angle to the jammer and even basic altitude guesses (it's pretty fixed for Growler) you can solve for range.
That permits very efficient, max-range trajectories for your SAMs.

 

[marauder2048]

My understanding is that the ALQ-99 and NGJ pods are both mid band and can operate independently of each other. I had thought two are carried for reasons of trim and engaging more targets or engaging a target with more energy or wave forms. Are these pods reliant on each other in anyway? Are there actually two separate pod designs for either system?

As for the RAM limitations, I assume ALQ-99's windmills have their own issues at some speeds. In the case of the NGJ, I suspect the design they went with (internal trubine with doors vice external windmill) was driven by the need for much greater power generation and that compromises had to be accepted for the extra output.

The Navy had initially wanted a single pod system for mid-band. It was abandoned on the basis of cost, schedule, enabling-non-Navy-aircraft-to-carry-it etc.
And the Navy wanted the jammer to be independent of aircraft power (because the Growler ran out of power like a decade ago)
which results in a "compromised" design. Then there's the Growler typical altitude + mid-band which drives additional power requirements.

And the fact that the Navy strike packages it was going to escort were corner reflectors.

 

[Josh_TN]

So NGJ Mid Band is in fact two different pods operating over different frequencies? That is the first time I've heard that.

 

[marauder2048]

So NGJ Mid Band is in fact two different pods operating over different frequencies? That is the first time I've heard that.

How did you get that from what I said? NGJ Mid Band is two pods operating over the same frequency range but canted to cover 180 degrees each.
The Navy originally wanted a single pod to cover 360 degrees but that would have implied a greater than 2-face AESA (MESA?) or a gimbaled design.

 

[Volkodav]

The F-35 can't even make it to contested airspace before running out of gas

Never let facts interfere with your biased misinformation

 

[Volkodav]

The Air Force isn't buying the quad packs so it's what 8 missiles on the F-15EX vs. 6 on the F-35 Block 4 in combat trim?

It's up to 16 missiles without the amber racks.
12 missiles with underwing fuel tanks.

8 F-15Xs For USAF And 22 F-5s For Navy In 2020 Budget Request

The F-15X is officially real and the Navy and Marines are set to get a fresh influx of badly needed aggressor airframes.

www.thedrive.com

And when the Air Force ANG units actually fly regularly with that configuration let me know.

Do F-35s fly with 6 regularly? Need dictates load out. The distinction here is the F-35 couldn’t carry 12 even if it needed to.

Need dictates load out: the F-15EX needs to survive in a high-end threat environment. It can't. It's a big, high-contrast corner reflector. View attachment 638335

If you are talking about something other than the high-end threat environment say cruise missile defense or airbase defense
then it's an entirely different comparison and what the F-35 can carry externally would come into play.

Any comparison of these aircraft is apples and oranges, different use doctrines entirely. If you really want to go stat to stat, of course the 35 is more survivable in a high threat environment, but at the sacrifice of comparatively poor range and payload. These arguments are bull, the best plane is the one that fits the needs of the moment.

So at the mission briefing they hand the keys for the appropriate type for that mission to the pilot, sounds computer game cool! F-15 in the morning, F-117 strike in the afternoon, grab the F-14, or perhaps the Rafale from the hangar for the carrier mission that evening. Hey you could even give each sqn a couple of A-10s, Apaches and Blackhawks for CAS and CSAR. Wow i want to join that air force and fly everything!

 

[Volkodav]

The F-35 can't even make it to contested airspace before running out of gas

F15EX carries 23,000 lbs of fuel (including cft which have a higher drag profile as compared to bags which eat up hardpoints for A-g ordnance) and burns it through 2 engines.

F35 carries 19,000 lbs of fuel and burns it through a single more efficient engine.

I don't see how you made that comparison.

Have you looked up the combat range of a stealthily configured F-35 vs a normal F-15EX combat loadout? Hint: one is more than 50% longer than the other.

And whats the range of a stealthily configured F-15EX? If a LO mission profile is required the F-15 wont be going because it will fail.

 

[Josh_TN]

So NGJ Mid Band is in fact two different pods operating over different frequencies? That is the first time I've heard that.

How did you get that from what I said? NGJ Mid Band is two pods operating over the same frequency range but canted to cover 180 degrees each.
The Navy originally wanted a single pod to cover 360 degrees but that would have implied a greater than 2-face AESA (MESA?) or a gimbaled design.

The cutaway illustrations I've seen show two gimbaled flat AESA faces front and back. Perhaps this the older design you mentioned. Since the info I had was that the pods could gimbal (and electronically stear) across the frontal and rear arc, I assumed the system would only require two pods if they covered somewhat different bands.

 

[marauder2048]

So NGJ Mid Band is in fact two different pods operating over different frequencies? That is the first time I've heard that.

How did you get that from what I said? NGJ Mid Band is two pods operating over the same frequency range but canted to cover 180 degrees each.
The Navy originally wanted a single pod to cover 360 degrees but that would have implied a greater than 2-face AESA (MESA?) or a gimbaled design.

The cutaway illustrations I've seen show two gimbaled flat AESA faces front and back. Perhaps this the older design you mentioned. Since the info I had was that the pods could gimbal (and electronically stear) across the frontal and rear arc, I assumed the system would only require two pods if they covered somewhat different bands.

They aren't gimbaled. Those are fixed arrays. The Left pod covers one hemisphere; the Right pod covers the other hemisphere.

 

[Josh_TN]

My mistake, some of the images had angles that mislead me.

https://i2.wp.com/militaryleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/raytheon-ea-18g-growler-aircraft-equipped-with-alq-249-next-generation-jammer-mid-band-1.jpg?ssl=1

 

[marauder2048]

My mistake, some of the images had angles that mislead me.

https://i2.wp.com/militaryleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/raytheon-ea-18g-growler-aircraft-equipped-with-alq-249-next-generation-jammer-mid-band-1.jpg?ssl=1

 

[trose213]

F-15Es participating in this exercise. Guess the EX will be taking over that role in the future.

Stealth Is Put To The Test In Huge Exercise Teaming RQ-170s, F-35s, B-2s With Other Jets

This exercise is also the first confirmation that the Air Force's top-secret 44th Reconnaissance Squadron flies the reclusive RQ-170 Sentinel.

www.thedrive.com

 

[bobbymike]

Is F-15EX A Good Example Of USAF’s Digital Century Series? | Aviation Week Network

Ask the Editors: The F-15EX is a product of digital engineering, but it is not representative of the Digital Century Series initiative.

aviationweek.com

 

[sferrin]

F-15Es participating in this exercise. Guess the EX will be taking over that role in the future.

Stealth Is Put To The Test In Huge Exercise Teaming RQ-170s, F-35s, B-2s With Other Jets

This exercise is also the first confirmation that the Air Force's top-secret 44th Reconnaissance Squadron flies the reclusive RQ-170 Sentinel.

www.thedrive.com

The F-15 is like a batboy. Doesn't really participate in the game beyond handing the players some of their tools. (It's literally a bomb/ missile truck.)

 

[TomcatViP]

E[X]AGLE for India?

Boeing Bid To Sell F-15EX Eagles To India Faces Stiff Competition

Boeing has had some success exporting military aircraft to India, but has so far failed to sell its twin-engine FA-18 Super Hornet jet fighter. If Boeing can secure the necessary authorizations, the venerable F-15—famously undefeated in air-to-air combat—may confront a flock of more recent designs.

www.forbes.com

 

[rooster]

F-15Es participating in this exercise. Guess the EX will be taking over that role in the future.

Stealth Is Put To The Test In Huge Exercise Teaming RQ-170s, F-35s, B-2s With Other Jets

This exercise is also the first confirmation that the Air Force's top-secret 44th Reconnaissance Squadron flies the reclusive RQ-170 Sentinel.

www.thedrive.com

The F-15 is like a batboy. Doesn't really participate in the game beyond handing the players some of their tools. (It's literally a bomb/ missile truck.)

When you look at the very small amount of stealth fighters being built in the next 10 years and the fact that there are thousands of 4th gen fighters that will be around for decades, the more i think about it i would be happy with a sizable advanced eagle force to carry long range aams into battle being quarterbacked by 5th and 6th gen equipment. As long as they don't take away from procuring more 35s and more pca airframes.

I think a better analogy is that the X will be like a 40 year old veteran ball payer that you know you can throw into the lineup and he will get a base hit or bring in a run from 3rd base. Just don't expect him to steal 2nd base!

 

[sferrin]

F-15Es participating in this exercise. Guess the EX will be taking over that role in the future.

Stealth Is Put To The Test In Huge Exercise Teaming RQ-170s, F-35s, B-2s With Other Jets

This exercise is also the first confirmation that the Air Force's top-secret 44th Reconnaissance Squadron flies the reclusive RQ-170 Sentinel.

www.thedrive.com

The F-15 is like a batboy. Doesn't really participate in the game beyond handing the players some of their tools. (It's literally a bomb/ missile truck.)

When you look at the very small amount of stealth fighters being built in the next 10 years

There are already more F-35s than Rafales and Gripens put together.

 

[trose213]

F-15Es participating in this exercise. Guess the EX will be taking over that role in the future.

Stealth Is Put To The Test In Huge Exercise Teaming RQ-170s, F-35s, B-2s With Other Jets

This exercise is also the first confirmation that the Air Force's top-secret 44th Reconnaissance Squadron flies the reclusive RQ-170 Sentinel.

www.thedrive.com

The F-15 is like a batboy. Doesn't really participate in the game beyond handing the players some of their tools. (It's literally a bomb/ missile truck.)

When you look at the very small amount of stealth fighters being built in the next 10 years

There are already more F-35s than Rafales and Gripens put together.

The US has a virtual monopoly on stealth fighters outside of the countries that bought F-35s from it.

 

[Bhurki]

When you look at the very small amount of stealth fighters being built in the next 10 years

F35 will be procured atleast at 160/year through out the decade (180 for FRP).

Thats 2000 before 2030, not less than 1500 of which are for US services, 1000 for USAF included(250 already in, procurement at 70 jets/annum).

Not exactly a small number, and more than enough to replace all F-16, F-15c in active squadrons.

 

[TomcatViP]

Toward 2030, there is a full decade to sustain in air superiority. Not all fights will see large fleet of 5th Gen fighter contesting each others skies above the battle ground. There would be distant battle and simple mass effects to challenge. However with the oldest 4th Gen fleet still in service, the USAF has one hand tighten in its back in term of serviceability.

The E[X]AGLE is here to plug the leaks and sinks on that variable. You need fresh airframe in that fight.

 

[Archibald]

When you look at the very small amount of stealth fighters being built in the next 10 years

F35 will be procured atleast at 160/year through out the decade (180 for FRP).

Thats 2000 before 2030, not less than 1500 of which are for US services, 1000 for USAF included(250 already in, procurement at 70 jets/annum).

Not exactly a small number, and more than enough to replace all F-16, F-15c in active squadrons.

Final objective is 3100, a little less than 2500 for the USA tri-services by themselves. Hell of a number indeed.

I would say that the F-35 was quite a risky bet - trying to package VSTOL + supersonic + stealth + AMRAAM capabilities into an airframe common to USAF USN USMC.
It took 25 years from 1995 to get that thing into production, with some teething problems along the way - yet now the steamroller starts rolling...
Fact is that a fleet of 2500 F-35 will be an impressive force to be reckoned with.

Just asking in passing, were there some studies made - whether extremely large numbers of F-35 could aliviate the issue of only 180 F-22 Raptors ? Is the ratio too unbalanced ?