Boeing Unveils New Stealthy F-15

[Scorpion82]

The F-15SE is just another attempt by Boeing to keep in the fighter business. Boeing might be successful on existing markets, but I somehow doubt the aircraft will be an overly great success. Most nations don't have a requirement for such a large and expensive aircraft and being successful in the past doesn't win you trophies in the future. The USAF has clearly said that it don't want to introduce additional teen fighters. So no new F-15s or F-16s. It could be that some of the technologies might be retrofitted to in service aircraft, but they'll surely not buy new built aircraft. It remains yet to be seen whether Boeing can score in South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia. There is definitely some potential, but is it wise to introduce such an aircraft these days?

 

[fretburner]

^Well, ever company should do whatever they can. They shouldn't stop trying right? Or else they will forever lose the know-how to build fighter aircraft.

Not sure if the Super Hornet can be configured for the same CWB. If Japan thinks they can do away with that, then they should be better off developing the Super Super Hornet.

But for non-JSF countries and current F-15 operators, this is quite attractive -- APG-81, DEWS, fly by wire, link 16, glass cockpit, JHMCS. not sure if the 100M price tag is that much expensive than the rafale and EF, and if it is, those two others won't be as stealthy. Not sure how much weight countries put on the fact that the F-15 is a proven fighter.

 

[OPSSG]

^Well, ever company should do whatever they can. They shouldn't stop trying right? Or else they will forever lose the know-how to build fighter aircraft.

I'm glad Boeing is still trying to keep both their teen series production line going by offering relevant more features that might interest existing Eagle users.

Not sure if the Super Hornet can be configured for the same CWB. If Japan thinks they can do away with that, then they should be better off developing the Super Super Hornet.

Three points to note:

One, at the moment, there is no conformal weapons bay developed for the Super Hornet, nor is there any plans to do so (that I know of). Having said that any Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) buy of new aircraft would be significant.

Two, I hope you are aware that the JASDF is the biggest foreign user of the F-15s in the world (according to Flight International, JASDF operates 154 F-15Js and 45 F-15DJs). Mitsubishi built the F-15Js in Japan, with the engines manufactured by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries under license from Pratt & Whitney.

Three, the Japan Defense Agency's (JDA) last development effort to further develop the F-16 into the Mitsubishi F-2 (its wing had 25% greater area, it had a tailplane assembly that was about 20% larger, wings that was of all-composite construction, with leading edges incorporating RAM, and AESA radar) for the JASDF proved to be horrendously expensive. The F-2 program turned into a classic Japanese defense-aerospace program, with development problems, long delays, and cost escalation. I'm not sure that they would continue in the same strategy for the sake of developing the capabilities of their industrial base. However, I'm sure they would like to maintain their industrial base. IMO, the Japanese would like to manufacture in Japan the fighter they choose to buy to replace their large legacy Phantom fleet. However, having said that, Japan may be be dragging their feet and waiting for the F-35 to become available.

But for non-JSF countries and current F-15 operators, this is quite attractive -- APG-81, DEWS, fly by wire, link 16, glass cockpit, JHMCS.

Yes, the proposed F-15SE's got quite a few features.

not sure if the 100M price tag is that much expensive than the rafale and EF, and if it is,

Let's not talk about pricing in such a vague manner - it can lead to unnecessary disagreement with members of our forum. Usually, you'll need to qualify the idea of price with 'flyaway price' or other such additional terms. Further the idea of price also needs to be tied to a reference year. Nothing is simple in pricing and the Silent Eagle is not a cheap plane to buy or maintain. Users need deep pockets and existing users have already invested in certain sunk costs, that's why, most of us feel that the Silent Eagle is targeted at existing Eagle users.

...those two others won't be as stealthy.

That's a point of contention that will not be resolved as NO targeted RCS figure (or customer requirement) has been released for the Silent Eagle by Boeing.

...Not sure how much weight countries put on the fact that the F-15 is a proven fighter.

A perfect combat record sound nice but let us not use a past record to predict future buying behaviour of countries. The issue is the platform's continued relevance to a country's threat matrix. We need to understand the intended role in a platform acquisition before we can discuss the merits of a particular platform for a specific role.

 

[Scorpion82]

^Well, ever company should do whatever they can. They shouldn't stop trying right? Or else they will forever lose the know-how to build fighter aircraft.

But for non-JSF countries and current F-15 operators, this is quite attractive -- APG-81, DEWS, fly by wire, link 16, glass cockpit, JHMCS. not sure if the 100M price tag is that much expensive than the rafale and EF, and if it is, those two others won't be as stealthy. Not sure how much weight countries put on the fact that the F-15 is a proven fighter.

Well I agree that it is actually not bad to keep the Eagle developed, it is quite possible that some of the technology flows into existing variants in form of upgrades.
The Rafale and Typhoon are still cheaper, but it ever depends on the exchange ratio. Even more important is the fact that the two European fighters are significantly smaller and likely to be less maintenance intensive and costly to operate, I doubt that the barn door RCS of the basic F-15 can be reduced to such a level as you suggest.

 

[fretburner]

Three points to note:

One, at the moment, there is no conformal weapons bay developed for the Super Hornet, nor is there any plans to do so (that I know of). Having said that any Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) buy of new aircraft would be significant.

Two, I hope you are aware that the JASDF is the biggest foreign user of the F-15s in the world (according to Flight International, JASDF operates 154 F-15Js and 45 F-15DJs). Mitsubishi built the F-15Js in Japan, with the engines manufactured by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries under license from Pratt & Whitney.

I didn't know they are the biggest F-15 operator outside the USA. I thought the Saudis were. Thanks for the info.

Three, the Japan Defense Agency's (JDA) last development effort to further develop the F-16 into the Mitsubishi F-2 (its wing had 25% greater area, it had a tailplane assembly that was about 20% larger, wings that was of all-composite construction, with leading edges incorporating RAM, and AESA radar) for the JASDF proved to be horrendously expensive. The F-2 program turned into a classic Japanese defense-aerospace program, with development problems, long delays, and cost escalation. I'm not sure that they would continue in the same strategy for the sake of developing the capabilities of their industrial base. However, I'm sure they would like to maintain their industrial base. IMO, the Japanese would like to manufacture in Japan the fighter they choose to buy to replace their large legacy Phantom fleet. However, having said that, Japan may be be dragging their feet and waiting for the F-35 to become available.

I didn't know this as well. I always thought the F-2 was just a bigger F-16. I had no idea it had AESA and RAM coatings. Was AESA part of the design? Or was this an update?

Let's not talk about pricing in such a vague manner - it can lead to unnecessary disagreement with members of our forum. Usually, you'll need to qualify the idea of price with 'flyaway price' or other such additional terms. Further the idea of price also needs to be tied to a reference year. Nothing is simple in pricing and the Silent Eagle is not a cheap plane to buy or maintain. Users need deep pockets and existing users have already invested in certain sunk costs, that's why, most of us feel that the Silent Eagle is targeted at existing Eagle users.

I tried to read that wiki link in one of the other threads (maybe the F-35 thread) which explains fly-away costs, then-year vs current year blah blah, but still quite confused, haha! Very complicated stuff. I bet current F-15 operators would find some good savings on training though, whatever those costs may be.

That's a point of contention that will not be resolved as NO targeted RCS figure (or customer requirement) has been released for the Silent Eagle by Boeing.

That is true. But based on what I've read on the WWW so far, Boeing would claim the Super Hornet is stealthier in the frontal RCS than the EF and Rafale. Now, if you carry your weapons internally and add some RAM coatings in there, then surely you will be stealthier than the SH right? Or is this yet one of my many flawed/inaccurate statements once again.

A perfect combat record sound nice but let us not use a past record to predict future buying behaviour of countries. The issue is the platform's continued relevance to a country's threat matrix. We need to understand the intended role in a platform acquisition before we can discuss the merits of a particular platform for a specific role.

True. But for countries like Japan and South Korea, the threat would most definitely be North Korea which I believe don't have the most advanced fighters and SAMs? Although, if they think China is a threat, then maybe they have a strong case to push for a fighter like the F-35. And if they can't get a fighter like the F-35, then right now, it seems the F-15SE would be their best bet. Unless of course, it's just going to be a LOT more expensive to acquire and operate than the EF and Rafale.

 

[fretburner]

Well I agree that it is actually not bad to keep the Eagle developed, it is quite possible that some of the technology flows into existing variants in form of upgrades.
The Rafale and Typhoon are still cheaper, but it ever depends on the exchange ratio. Even more important is the fact that the two European fighters are significantly smaller and likely to be less maintenance intensive and costly to operate, I doubt that the barn door RCS of the basic F-15 can be reduced to such a level as you suggest.

I guess you're pointing at RCS against sophisticated ground radar?

Come to think think of it, maybe the reduction in RCS might end up not being significant against AWACS or AESA-equipped fighters.

 

[OPSSG]

I didn't know they are the biggest F-15 operator outside the USA. I thought the Saudis were. Thanks for the info.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is the second largest foreign F-15 operator. Once you look at the numbers, our Singaporean F-15SG buys are peanuts in comparison to Japanese buying power and at a systems level, the Japanese have some pretty Gucci kit.

I didn't know this as well. I always thought the F-2 was just a bigger F-16. I had no idea it had AESA and RAM coatings. Was AESA part of the design? Or was this an update?

This is not an update. The Japanese are the first in Asia with AESA radar on their fighter planes. They want and do pay to specify an edge that no one else in Asia has. Basically, it's in their original specs (after some twists and turns). They are so far ahead, the other fanboys in Asia often refuse to look at what the Japanese have closely. If they do, they will know how far behind the rest of Asia are.

I tried to read that wiki link in one of the other threads (maybe the F-35 thread) which explains fly-away costs, then-year vs current year blah blah, but still quite confused, haha! Very complicated stuff. I bet current F-15 operators would find some good savings on training though, whatever those costs may be.

Agreed. I try my best not to talk about it.

That is true. But based on what I've read on the WWW so far, Boeing would claim the Super Hornet is stealthier in the frontal RCS than the EF and Rafale. Now, if you carry your weapons internally and add some RAM coatings in there, then surely you will be stealthier than the SH right? Or is this yet one of my many flawed/inaccurate statements once again.

What I'm saying is that I don't know for sure because the manufacturers have not released such information to enable effective comparison. Many in this forum can provide more details but once you take a broader view, you'll see that some of the arguments and information presented will be subjective.

True. But for countries like Japan and South Korea, the threat would most definitely be North Korea which I believe don't have the most advanced fighters and SAMs?

We need to understand the Japanese and S. Korean threat matrix and the geo-politics of North East Asia - it's the rather dysfunctional regional dynamics that drives arms purchases (rather than just N. Korea alone). N. Korea is not the only issue because at some level the N. Koreans are a limited threat to Japan due to their limited technical capabilities. The ability to project naval power along their SLOCs is very important to both Japan and S. Korea (notwithstanding the fact that S. Korea has a large conscript army to deal with the threat of the N. Korean army). Both their force structures reflect this concern in differing degrees.

Remember that air power can only attack and destroy but has little ability to physically occupy ground, therefore S. Korea will still need boots on the ground (infantry and tanks) to hold physical terrain. The relationship between boots on the ground and force multipliers (like artillery and air power) is akin to the blades of a pair of scissors: both are necessary if the scissors are to cut. And IMO, air power needs to demonstrate relevance to the overall campaign goals, that's why some platform selections may seem surprising - as the platform selection is related to the threat matrix. Fyi, the Korean F-15K has the Tactical Electronic Warfare System (TEWS) suit. In fact, the ALQ-135 system on the F-15K got significantly improved and received a new designation as ALQ-135M (manufactured by Northrop Grumman). The new system uses a PowerPC based architecture instead of multiple processors, thus utilizing significant speed and memory enhancements. The new ALQ-135M also features sophisticated microwave power module transmitter technology to reduce weight and increase jamming effectiveness. Band 1.5 and Band 3 are available with the new tool. This focus on counter measures should enable the F-15K to take care of itself in SAM heavy environment. The ALQ-135 is fully integrated within the F-15K's TEWS and with other onboard avionics including the fire control radar and the ALR-56C radar warning receiver.

IMHO, the issue for the rest of Asia is not the rise of China or the China threat. Rather the issue is how to manage China's rise - so as to collectively push and pull China in a direction that is favourable. Fundamentally, the US is the preferred security partner for many in Asia, as they are a status quo power. The issue for many Asians is how to get China to become a status quo power too.

 

[Nonsensical86]

of cos the number of F-15SGs that singapore buying are peanuts as compared to other countries. because manpower is an issue. can't possibly purchase 100 F15SGs and keep it and RSAF manpower cannot be compared to japan and saudi air force therefore the number of F15SGs we get are justified.

All along in Asia Japan is one of the leading military powers so no doubt in regards to their spending power on military.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Interesting news about Obama's rejection of Israel request for F-15SEs.

Obama rejected Netanyahu request for F-15E in 'tough' session

Don't think the part about Obama ordering the close of the F-15 production line is accurate. Otherwise it would contradict the export license to Korea.

But it does indicate DoD is now playing hardball to keep F-35 numbers up.

 

[SGMilitary]

of cos the number of F-15SGs that singapore buying are peanuts as compared to other countries. because manpower is an issue. can't possibly purchase 100 F15SGs and keep it and RSAF manpower cannot be compared to japan and saudi air force therefore the number of F15SGs we get are justified.

All along in Asia Japan is one of the leading military powers so no doubt in regards to their spending power on military.

I beg to differ when you mentioned that the no of aircraft that RSAF procured are peanuts.
If you look at the current F-15SG inventory, yes it does meant peanuts. However if you were to review RSAF procurement methodology, then you'll see the bigger picture. The F-15SG are procured as a replacement for the RSAF fleet of A4SU Skyhawks. The RSAF procurement has been in multiple procurement level. Let's review the F-16 procurement.
The RSAF had procured a fleet of 8 F-16A/B in the late 1980's but are you aware what is the total F-16 inventory that RSAF operate now?It's 72. There will be likely a follow on order for 24 + 12 F-15SG in stages.

 

[Nonsensical86]

I beg to differ when you mentioned that the no of aircraft that RSAF procured are peanuts.
If you look at the current F-15SG inventory, yes it does meant peanuts. However if you were to review RSAF procurement methodology, then you'll see the bigger picture. The F-15SG are procured as a replacement for the RSAF fleet of A4SU Skyhawks. The RSAF procurement has been in multiple procurement level. Let's review the F-16 procurement.
The RSAF had procured a fleet of 8 F-16A/B in the late 1980's but are you aware what is the total F-16 inventory that RSAF operate now?It's 72. There will be likely a follow on order for 24 + 12 F-15SG in stages.

Don't get me wrong. I am just referring to the post that OPSSG made. That's y i mentioned that the F15SGs we current owned are justified in terms of numbers.

 

[whatsup]

Don't get me wrong. I am just referring to the post that OPSSG made. That's y i mentioned that the F15SGs we current owned are justified in terms of numbers.

Hi guys, thanks for the very informative and enriching discussion, i agree with latest comment, but i have a question, S'pore initially wanted to replace the decommissoned skyhawks, but then the new F15SG was handed over to the Shirkas sqn which was an F5E sqn!, and until the last informed follow on order of the 24, we heard nothing, i was surprised that no announcement was made by our Defence Minister Visit to US recently and now our PM to Mountain Airbase on the follow on orders. IMHO the F15SE is nothing to gain compare to the current F15SG except for the RAM coating and except for "barnhouse weapons bay" as discussed, the canted fin will not be a significant reduction in RCS compare to SH. It does not justify to have an Escan radar and digital FCS for a new frame, while it would be cost effective to upgrade for the current users.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

There's still 141/144 F-5 sqn which makes another 1-2 sqn replacements likely. Add the 3 sqns of F-16 to be replaced in the longer term makes a total next gen fighter requirement at 100-120 jets assuming 20-24 PAA / 6 sqn force.

At 30 year service each fighter = 5 year replacements per sqn. The last decision was in 2005 (with the top up in 2007).

For a 6 sqn force, RSAF'd probably need to train 5 pilots (+ 5 WSOs if F-15s) a year. I think there's much more than that going through the pipeline currently.

The way I see it, its either 1 sqn F-15 soon followed by another F-35 sqn later (option A) or 2 x F-35 sqn later (Option B - presumably a 2011-13 timeframe decision) followed by a 10-15 year pause before the F-16 replacements are considered.

As to pilot numbers, I understand SIA has >600 local pilots in its pool with a significant number of ex-fighter jocks..... pilot numbers are the least of the concern.

 

[adi]

The possible list of buyers might include Israel, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

I don't see how F-15SE can expand its market.

- Saudi has Euro typhoon which has more modern airframe design than F-15SE, on top of recent rumor israel lobby pressure not to sell Saudi F-15E due to supposedly secret agreement about sustaining israel superiority against all arab countries.

- Japan. Why would they buy an old airframe with new price and not much improvement? Japan has their own avionic and they manufacture their own F-15J with license with several modifications. So what's left would be minor electronic mod and "skin job", something that Japan did with F-2/F-16. Japan has far more advance composite airframe manufacturing capability than Boeing, might as well create true 5th gen plane. For the same money why not finish the shin-shin with addition of boeing co development contract? (engine integration mainly) Tho' I got the feeling Japan want to keep that mitsubishi plane closed to themselves since it is designed to face J-11B and PAK-FA.

- Korea. They need indigenous plane free from US dependency in the event of conflict with japan and china. This is mainly a question of economic, ability to sell fighters as geopolitical tool, on top of need to be able to freely manufacture as many fighters as they need in short time without needing permission from US. So, F-15SE purchase will be purely political or transfer of technology. (not many since F-15SE is overkill against north Korea, yet offer negligable advantage against J-11B or japan's F-15.


So that left smaller countries with no manufacturing base. Singapore. They will gladly buy a full complement.

Israel? If they can manage how Saudi and Russia/Syria/Iran will react. On top of how much money congress is willing to give for israel to purchase these planes. (Syria receiving another 3 dozens of SU-27 will pretty much nullify $2-3B worth of F-15SE. Larger than that will create massive middle east power imbalance. plus bigger budget deficit.)

 

[fretburner]

^ I think the link posted a page back signifies Israel's intentions for the F-15SE. Israel also is starting to question the need for a true 5th gen fighter and that "stealthy" fighters with a few stealth UAVs might be what they really need. The USA is just playing hardball with them on the F-35 right now, like the other guy mentioned.

I'm not sure if F-15SE advantages over the other variants is "marginal". I think it's pretty significant. And with all things equal, an F-15SE with a (supposedly) better frontal RCS and APG-82 will likely get the first shot against Eurofighter with no AESA. Not sure about dogfights with the AIM-9X and JHMCS.

But as OPSSG mentioned, it really depends on what the country needs and the threat matrix. In my opinion, the F-15SE - on paper - could be the best fighter outside the true stealth fighters like the F-22 and F-35. It would be quite foolish to just dismiss this fighter just because the other fighters are of newer design.

 

[Bonza]

I'm not sure if F-15SE advantages over the other variants is "marginal". I think it's pretty significant. And with all things equal, an F-15SE with a (supposedly) better frontal RCS and APG-82 will likely get the first shot against Eurofighter with no AESA. Not sure about dogfights with the AIM-9X and JHMCS.

The telling factor in a long range engagement between any of the modern non-LO combat aircraft would likely come down to the situation and the supporting systems, I think. AEW & C, jamming, missile fit, etc etc.

Dogfight-wise, I get the impression that any of the modern combat aircraft are both very dangerous and very vulnerable. With high off-boresight missiles and helmet cueing systems, it's an extremely lethal environment, for all parties. When missiles are capable of pulling 60Gs and being targeted 90 degrees off boresight, I imagine it'd be a case of first in, best dressed. Not pretty for anyone...

 

[Scorpion82]

@Fretburner,
the F-15SE is offered with the AN/APG-63(v3). The AN/APG-82(v1) is slated for upgraded USAF F-15E only. I also doubt that the F-15 RCS can be reduced to such a level that it gains serious advantages over other non VLO platforms. Aircraft like the F/A-18E/F, Typhoon or Rafale has been designed with LO features in mind, the F-15 hasn't and its basic shape is still the same. I'm pretty certain the F-15SE can still be detected and tracked well beyond missile range (assuming current gen missiles), a first shot is subsequently not guaranteed.

 

[Juramentado]

I don't see how F-15SE can expand its market.

- Saudi has Euro typhoon which has more modern airframe design than F-15SE, on top of recent rumor israel lobby pressure not to sell Saudi F-15E due to supposedly secret agreement about sustaining israel superiority against all arab countries.

...

Israel? If they can manage how Saudi and Russia/Syria/Iran will react. On top of how much money congress is willing to give for israel to purchase these planes. (Syria receiving another 3 dozens of SU-27 will pretty much nullify $2-3B worth of F-15SE. Larger than that will create massive middle east power imbalance. plus bigger budget deficit.)

It's important to remember that the Silent Eagle's success or failure is predicated upon the US Government's willingness to allow sales to certain allies. All other things being equal, I don't know that selling additional Silent Eagles to SA would really be blocked by Israel. Or that SA would object to Israel getting the bird either. The benefits of Israel being the sole receiver of such an upgrade is obvious in the regional politics. But to be fair, SA has operated essentially the same version airframe as the Israelis have (F-15S was sold in the mid 90s and the F-15I around the same time), and SA has 3x the number of airframes that the Israelis have. It's likely the -I version is a heck of a lot more lethal than factory default since in good old IAF innovation practice, they put in their own avionics which broke dependence on foreign manufacturers and preserved the secrecy regarding tweaks to the radar system, ECM, etc. Now if the Israelis get their hands on good AESA, who knows how nasty that bird can be then?

Numerical advantages aside, all I can say is Six-Day War, War of Attrition, Yom Kippur War and Beqaa Valley. SAMs accounted for more Israeli aircrew killed than pure air-to-air combat. You can't defeat the IAF in pure A2A. The real way to defeat them is very basic, but also very hard. You build up a world-class IADS and a semi-competent air-force. The former is a little easier than the latter. They have a very small community of pilots, limited airframes and muntions. If you can force them to fly more sorties, fatiguing pilots and planes and expend more rounds quickly without giving them air supremacy, then you can wear them down. Logistics matters. That doesn't take 3 dozen Sukhois. But trying to do it via A2A - well, there are cheaper ways to become a Mig/Sukhoi parts distributor...(old Bob Hope USO joke )

 

[fretburner]

@Fretburner,
the F-15SE is offered with the AN/APG-63(v3). The AN/APG-82(v1) is slated for upgraded USAF F-15E only. I also doubt that the F-15 RCS can be reduced to such a level that it gains serious advantages over other non VLO platforms. Aircraft like the F/A-18E/F, Typhoon or Rafale has been designed with LO features in mind, the F-15 hasn't and its basic shape is still the same. I'm pretty certain the F-15SE can still be detected and tracked well beyond missile range (assuming current gen missiles), a first shot is subsequently not guaranteed.

I'm sure nothing is guaranteed, but with LO features + RAM coatings + Internal Weapons carriage, the F-15SE would probably have the better odds to get the first shot... of course, assuming everything else (e.g. AWACS, etc.) is the same for both sides.

This link says APG-82: F-15SE Radar

"...Boeing is in talks with Raytheon about the option of integrating a new active electronically scanned array radar designated the APG-82. That would provide export customers of the F-15SE with the same radar system selected for the US Air Force's F-15E radar modernisation programme..."

 

[Scorpion82]

Well the earlier Boeing presentations mentioned the APG-63(V3). But it might be that things are moving. The first shot relies on many factors and if both sides are using AWACS and other force multipliers the lowered RCS and possibly longer radar range is of limited value. To be able to launch the missile, taking into account the effect of counter measures and being the first to achieve desirable firing conditions (speed, height etc.) are the deciding factors in such a situation.