McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Projects

[Pioneer]

Did Boeing ever consider resuming production of new "light airframe" F-15s for the air-superiority role? With a pair of F100-PW-229 or 232 engines that would have an amazing T/W ratio.

Sorry, I've missed something somewhere....whats this about "light airframe" your speaking of??

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

F-15E was heavier, stressed for low altitude strike. All recently produced F-15s are F-15E based. I'm pretty sure Colonial-Marine is suggesting producing new F-15C airframes with modern engines. It's a non-starter because its been out of production since... forever.

 

[TomS]

F-15E was heavier, stressed for low altitude strike. All recently produced F-15s are F-15E based. I'm pretty sure Colonial-Marine is suggesting producing new F-15C airframes with modern engines. It's a non-starter because its been out of production since... forever.

Plus, one of the major airframe changes in the E was the common engine bay needed for those new engines. A new air superiority F-15 would end up being a weird hybrid airframe anyway. You'd need the E's aft fuselage for the engines and something like the SA's new wing for the restored outboard missile hardpoints (since a new air superiority F-15 would likely need to be able to serve as a missileer backing up stealthy planes like the F-22).

 

[Grey Havoc]

F-15G Wild Weasel A chinpod was tested in 1983

www.snafu-solomon.com

 

[robunos]

From one of the comments in #166 above :-





cheers,
Robin.

 

[litzj]

F-15G Wild Weasel A chinpod was tested in 1983

www.snafu-solomon.com

Possible F-15G could load lots of HARMs !

 

[TomS]

F-15G Wild Weasel A chinpod was tested in 1983

www.snafu-solomon.com

Possible F-15G could load lots of HARMs !

Just one in that picture (two assuming the other side is loaded symmetrically). The shoulder stations have Sparrow, not HARM. Being a foot longer and two inches wider than Sparrow, HARM is probably too big to mount on the shoulder stations.

 

[aonestudio]

Footage from inside cockpit of Qatar Emiri Air Forces F-15QA during first flight.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1271064754174509057

 

[Mark Nankivil]

F-15G Wild Weasel A chinpod was tested in 1983

www.snafu-solomon.com

Possible F-15G could load lots of HARMs !

The chin pod played hell with the directional stability of the aircraft - a friend was heavily involved with the testing and commented on that. In the end, the F-4G carried on and the F-16C/D Block 30 and later CJ/DJ picked up where the F-4G left off.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Source

 

[Grey Havoc]

US Air Force delays timeline for testing a laser on a fighter jet

What's caused the test, originally scheduled for 2021, to be pushed to 2023?

www.defensenews.com

SHiELD is comprised of three elements: the laser itself, which is being developed by Lockheed Martin; the beam control system made by Northrop Grumman; and the pod that encases the weapons system, from Boeing. Heggemeier said the pod is under construction, with integration of the laser and beam control system planned to start next year.

“A lot of the challenge is trying to get all of this stuff into this small pod. If you look at other lasers that are fairly mature, we have other laser systems that some other contractors have built that are ready to be deployed. But these are ground-based systems, and they are much, much more mature,” he said.

In April 2019, the Air Force Research Lab conducted a ground test with a surrogate laser system — the Demonstrator Laser Weapon System, or DLWS, now in use by the Army. The demonstration involved the successful downing of several air-to-air missiles.

“It turns out the DLWS system, when you take everything into account, is a really good surrogate for the laser power on SHiELD,” Heggemeier said.

Because both SHiELD and DLWS generate similar amounts of energy on target — in SHiELD’s case, Heggemeier would only say that it amounts to “tens of kilowatts” — the surrogate test gave the lab a good idea how the laser physically affects a target.

In 2019, the team conducted a flight test of a pod with the same outer mold line as the one under development by Boeing. The pod was mounted to an aircraft — Heggemeier declined to specify the model — and flown around Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, to help measure how vibrations, the force of gravity and other environmental factors might influence the performance of the weapon.

Air Force Magazine reported in 2019 that aerial demonstrations of SHiELD would occur onboard an F-15 fighter jet.

 

[TomcatViP]

Finally GE get to put their engines in the first batch of F-15EX without a bidding process...

F-15EX Fighters To Get General Electric Engines Under Urgent Purchase By Air Force

The service still plans to hold an open competition to formally decide on what engine will power the bulk of the jets.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Mark Nankivil]

US Air Force delays timeline for testing a laser on a fighter jet

What's caused the test, originally scheduled for 2021, to be pushed to 2023?

www.defensenews.com

SHiELD is comprised of three elements: the laser itself, which is being developed by Lockheed Martin; the beam control system made by Northrop Grumman; and the pod that encases the weapons system, from Boeing. Heggemeier said the pod is under construction, with integration of the laser and beam control system planned to start next year.

“A lot of the challenge is trying to get all of this stuff into this small pod. If you look at other lasers that are fairly mature, we have other laser systems that some other contractors have built that are ready to be deployed. But these are ground-based systems, and they are much, much more mature,” he said.

In April 2019, the Air Force Research Lab conducted a ground test with a surrogate laser system — the Demonstrator Laser Weapon System, or DLWS, now in use by the Army. The demonstration involved the successful downing of several air-to-air missiles.

“It turns out the DLWS system, when you take everything into account, is a really good surrogate for the laser power on SHiELD,” Heggemeier said.

Because both SHiELD and DLWS generate similar amounts of energy on target — in SHiELD’s case, Heggemeier would only say that it amounts to “tens of kilowatts” — the surrogate test gave the lab a good idea how the laser physically affects a target.

In 2019, the team conducted a flight test of a pod with the same outer mold line as the one under development by Boeing. The pod was mounted to an aircraft — Heggemeier declined to specify the model — and flown around Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, to help measure how vibrations, the force of gravity and other environmental factors might influence the performance of the weapon.

Air Force Magazine reported in 2019 that aerial demonstrations of SHiELD would occur onboard an F-15 fighter jet.

Footage from inside cockpit of Qatar Emiri Air Forces F-15QA during first flight.

First F-15QA fighter flown for Qatar

Boeing has conducted a 90min first flight with Qatar's lead F-15QA fighter, describing the model as "the most advanced version" of the twin-engined type ever manufactured.

www.flightglobal.com

Here's a couple of pics of QA#2 (17-0002) I took last week as it was shooting approaches at Lambert Field.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via an article at Jalopnik/Foxtrot Alpha on the A-16 & the GPU-5 gunpod:

 

[sferrin]

Via an article at Jalopnik/Foxtrot Alpha on the A-16 & the GPU-5 gunpod:
View attachment 637552

I saw a picture back then of it carrying THREE of those pods. Haven't been able to find the picture though.

 

[Grey Havoc]

"There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'."

Also possibly relevant:
"Close air support covereth a multitude of sins."

 

[sferrin]

Did you say "overkill"?

 

[yasotay]

Did you say "overkill"?

View attachment 637553

God that would have been a spectacular sight on a night gunnery range! The sound alone would have been worth the price of admission.

 

[sferrin]

Did you say "overkill"?

View attachment 637553

God that would have been a spectacular sight on a night gunnery range! The sound alone would have been worth the price of admission.

For that Phantom on the left that's five Vulcan cannons and 6000 rounds.

 

[elmayerle]

View attachment 635313
View attachment 635314
View attachment 635315
Source

The first two editions of ther Aerofax book on the F-15 give plenty of details on this Peek Eagle pod. From the description, it would appear that it could be modelled using two F-14 TARPS pods as a starting point.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

From one of the comments in #166 above :-



View attachment 631307

cheers,
Robin.

What USAF Aircraft Should Be the Wild Weasel of the 1990's?: An Assessment of the F-4G, the F-15WW, and F-16WW.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA164727.pdf

 

[RavenOne]

And in lieu of the F-15EX ....here is Boeimgs official product page

F-15EX

The world's most dominant modern combat fighter.

www.boeing.com

cheers

 

[Deleted member 18851]

Are those bumps on either side of the cockpit IRST, or something else? I’ve never noticed them before.

 

[fightingirish]

IMHO this passive/ active (missile) warning and survivability system was first implemented on the F-15SG for Singapore, a version of the F-15E Strike Eagle.
The IRST-sensor will be installed in the LEGION pod, which is shown on the station 5 under the main fuselage in that picture.

 

[GTX]

IMHO this passive/ active (missile) warning and survivability system was first implemented on the F-15SG for Singapore, a version of the F-15E Strike Eagle.
The IRST-sensor will be installed in the LEGION pod, which is shown on the station 5 under the main fuselage in that picture.

Indeed. You can also see them on Saudi ones.

 

[sferrin]

Yep. The SA and QA has them as well. And now, so does the J-10

 

[aonestudio]

Boeing, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Partner on State of the Art Upgrades to Japan’s F-15J fleet

TOKYO, July 28, 2020 - Boeing and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) recently signed a Direct Commercial Sale agreement to support upgrades to Japan’s F-15J fleet.

boeing.mediaroom.com

 

[TomcatViP]

To put things into context:

Japan's air force faces a 'relentless' burden, imposed by China

Japanese fighter pilot Lt. Col. Takamichi Shirota says his country is under increasing pressure from the air. Analysts say it's a pressure faced by few other nations.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Colonial-Marine]

These new Eagles have the outer wing pylons but all of marketing artwork shows two AIM-9Xs being carried on the inner pylons adjacent to the CFTs. Wouldn't it make more sense to move them to the outboard pylons to give the IR seeker a better field of view?

 

[Springtime]

I think that's just how the USAF prefer to Carry the Aim-9x and probably other IR Missiles on the F-15C/E

 

[TomcatViP]

IMOHO it's all about rotational inertia.
They did the same thing with the Viper.

 

[Trident]

These new Eagles have the outer wing pylons but all of marketing artwork shows two AIM-9Xs being carried on the inner pylons adjacent to the CFTs. Wouldn't it make more sense to move them to the outboard pylons to give the IR seeker a better field of view?

One would think so, yes. OTOH the AMRAAMs would be rail launched from those pylons, i.e. the rocket motor ignites with the missile still attached to the aircraft. Perhaps the smaller Sidewinder motor is simply kinder to the fuselage/CFT in close proximity?

Yep. The SA and QA has them as well. And now, so does the J-10

On the J-10 those are RF apertures though, not EO. So if Chengdu copied anybody it would be the Rafale or Su-24M.

 

[kaiserd]

These new Eagles have the outer wing pylons but all of marketing artwork shows two AIM-9Xs being carried on the inner pylons adjacent to the CFTs. Wouldn't it make more sense to move them to the outboard pylons to give the IR seeker a better field of view?

One would think so, yes. OTOH the AMRAAMs would be rail launched from those pylons, i.e. the rocket motor ignites with the missile still attached to the aircraft. Perhaps the smaller Sidewinder motor is simply kinder to the fuselage/CFT in close proximity?

Yep. The SA and QA has them as well. And now, so does the J-10

On the J-10 those are RF apertures though, not EO. So if Chengdu copied anybody it would be the Rafale or Su-24M.

Quite possibly the explanation.
Another possible explanation is re: potential engine ingestion by the F-15 inlets of the AIM-120s more powerful rocket engine efflux and exhaust gasses (versus the equivalent from a Sidewinder fires from the same rails/ stations).

 

[ltroach89]

Those thrust-vectoring F-15 designs look pretty cool. Why were they cancelled exactly?

KJ Lesnick
BTW: I take it the 25 mm caseless GAU-7 ammo was cancelled due to problems with the ammunition?

If you are talking about the STOL versions, USAF official policy has always been that no runway is every going to be taken out, so there is no need to develop anything for that situation.. Therefore, they were never going to develop anything like that, because that might call into question the fundamental way it operates. As far as air-to-air TV, in the early days the technology wasn't there to have the flight control systems that would really be able to use that technology. By the time the necessary technologies materued enough to truly make it practical, missiles with Helmet Mounted Sights were being deployed and they are much more effective (and cheaper) than TV, so it just wasn't worth the money. Also, doing TV on an F-15 might emerge as a threat to funding for the F-22 and this could not be allowed.

The GAU-7 did die because of problems with the caseless ammunition. Since using guns in fighter combat has been a poor way of knocking down other fighters (although I guess it beats ramming) since the early '60s (and yes, the Vietnam experience confirmed this), it wasn't worth the money and time to fix it. The M61 was good enough.

Well, I'd say those were some of the least charitable interpretations possible. Got much animosity towards USAF there, bud?

To reply in much the same spirit, and with a similar level of honesty, the USN dumped the Tomcat, and Intruder, and Viking, etc., and went with the pathetically short-ranged and kluged Super Hornet (those angled pylons.......brilliant!) because USN is run by a bunch of black shoe surface fleet admirals who are far more concerned about preserving their archaic fleet of worthless "frigates" and $10 billion destroyers (firing million dollar artillery rounds! - or not) than actually protecting and defending the United States and its interests. Tactical aviation is obviously a frustrating distraction to most naval leadership, they managed to badly botch the Ford class design in numerous areas, and the entire TACAIR fleet is being run down to levels where one may seriously ask whether its worth the cost (I mean, really.........should the Navy have about as many warships as it does fighters?). USAF should start charging the Navy $100,000 per pound of JP4 transferred via their tanker fleet, since the USN can hardly operate beyond the littoral without it.

At its present rate the Navy will be out of the carrier based fixed wing aviation business by 2060 or 70. And I may be being too generous.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to see all three existing QAs flying and returning to Lambert. I'll call them the "triplets" - you have to look very closely to see their subdued serial stencils on the vertical fins. 17-001, 17-002 and 17-003.

 

[Jeb]

"There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'."

Also possibly relevant:
"Close air support covereth a multitude of sins."

Or maybe "reverse thrust"...

 

[taildragger]

Those thrust-vectoring F-15 designs look pretty cool. Why were they cancelled exactly?

KJ Lesnick
BTW: I take it the 25 mm caseless GAU-7 ammo was cancelled due to problems with the ammunition?

If you are talking about the STOL versions, USAF official policy has always been that no runway is every going to be taken out, so there is no need to develop anything for that situation.. Therefore, they were never going to develop anything like that, because that might call into question the fundamental way it operates. As far as air-to-air TV, in the early days the technology wasn't there to have the flight control systems that would really be able to use that technology. By the time the necessary technologies materued enough to truly make it practical, missiles with Helmet Mounted Sights were being deployed and they are much more effective (and cheaper) than TV, so it just wasn't worth the money. Also, doing TV on an F-15 might emerge as a threat to funding for the F-22 and this could not be allowed.

The GAU-7 did die because of problems with the caseless ammunition. Since using guns in fighter combat has been a poor way of knocking down other fighters (although I guess it beats ramming) since the early '60s (and yes, the Vietnam experience confirmed this), it wasn't worth the money and time to fix it. The M61 was good enough.

Well, I'd say those were some of the least charitable interpretations possible. Got much animosity towards USAF there, bud?

To reply in much the same spirit, and with a similar level of honesty, the USN dumped the Tomcat, and Intruder, and Viking, etc., and went with the pathetically short-ranged and kluged Super Hornet (those angled pylons.......brilliant!) because USN is run by a bunch of black shoe surface fleet admirals who are far more concerned about preserving their archaic fleet of worthless "frigates" and $10 billion destroyers (firing million dollar artillery rounds! - or not) than actually protecting and defending the United States and its interests. Tactical aviation is obviously a frustrating distraction to most naval leadership, they managed to badly botch the Ford class design in numerous areas, and the entire TACAIR fleet is being run down to levels where one may seriously ask whether its worth the cost (I mean, really.........should the Navy have about as many warships as it does fighters?). USAF should start charging the Navy $100,000 per pound of JP4 transferred via their tanker fleet, since the USN can hardly operate beyond the littoral without it.

At its present rate the Navy will be out of the carrier based fixed wing aviation business by 2060 or 70. And I may be being too generous.

Gosh Itroach89, I'd feel so much safer if you were running the Navy.

 

[isayyo2]

F-15A dropping GBU-10's during testing: January 1975

 

[F-2]

Did Boeing ever consider resuming production of new "light airframe" F-15s for the air-superiority role? With a pair of F100-PW-229 or 232 engines that would have an amazing T/W ratio.

The PW-229 was originally tested on a F-15A in the late 80s.

https://m.facebook.com/EdwardsAirForceBase/photos/a.140333572684247.37126.139549732762631/1121087237942204/?type=3

The F-15 Active which was originally a preproduction F-15b had pw-229s

the JASDF considered installing the F110-ihi-129 on their F-15Js in the late 90s nothing ever seems to have come of this. The Eagle unlike the strike eagle does not have a common bay and this would require re-engineering.

Japan looks at Eagle engine swap

The Japan Air Self-Defence Force (JASDF) is considering an industry proposal to re-engine its Boeing/Mitsubishi F-15J/DJ Eagles with the General Electric F110-129 turbofan powerplant, as part of a planned forthcoming upgrade of the fighter. Mitusbishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has been conducting...

www.flightglobal.com

beyond that before they were cleared to get the F-15E Saudi Arabia was offered and going to a single seat Strike Eagle called the F-15F. It likely would have been heavier then the standard eagle but would have had the less draggy canopy of the F-15A/C. This fell through when they were cleared for a moderately downgraded mud hen.

And surprisingly that’s all I’ve found on the subject so far.