F-15 Silent Eagle

[Triton]

"Will Silent Eagle Pass Silently into the Waste Bin?"
Posted by Amy Butler 3:50 PM on September 24, 2013

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:bd751ee0-8397-4219-b8e6-b0db6c5cd817

The future of Boeing's self-funded F-15 Silent Eagle upgrade/new build program. The company launched the program in 2009, officials said it was targeting the Middle Eastern and Pacific markets. Specifically, Israel and South Korea. Israel is spoken for -- having chosen to buy F-35s and unlikely to buy the full-up Silent Eagle package after such an investment.

And, South Korea appears now -- like Japan -- to be willing to pay a premium to introduce the F-35 into its fleet. The strategy was to offer potential F-35 customers a lower priced alternative that lacked the advanced stealthy characteristics of the F-15 but allowed for superior weapons loadout and fuel carriage.

Boeing was reportedly the only bidder who followed all of the rules of Seoul's competition and offered a package under the $8.3 trillion won ($7.4 billion) budget. But, it appears that following the rules was not a top priority for South Korea. And, Boeing's strategy to offer a compromise was not enough to entice Seoul into a buy. The longer the country delays its buys, the lower the F-35's cost could go, even if marginally.

U.S. policy prevents a foreign partner from getting a better deal on U.S. hardware than the Pentagon. For the South Korean offering, Lockheed Martin was limited to offering LRIP 5 pricing. A one-year slip for a new competition would allow the company to offer slightly lower prices from LRIPs 6 and 7. Notably, however, this would put the aircraft price just under $100 million, not including engines from Pratt & Whitney.

At Boeing's Silent Eagle unveiling, officials were vague on pricing. But, Brad Jones, who then led the F-15 effort, said they were shooting for a unit cost under $100 million. If this goal held, this could put the F-35 and F-15 Silent Eagle on closer footing price wise, though not equal.

Boeing's Saudi Arabia orders will carry the F-15 line through until 2018, but the blow from South Korea will prompt the company to review its strategy for the continuation of the product line, according to an industry source. Though Seoul's rebuffing of the Silent Eagle could put the last nail in its coffin, the individual upgrades could still be of interest to some customers. They include the fly-by-wire and digital electronic warfare systems; these can be purchased as upgrades without committing to the stealthy items.

South Korea says it could take up to a year to hold a second competition.

 

[JFC Fuller]

At this rate; Boeing will not be making any fighters by 2020.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

At this rate; Boeing will not be making any fighters by 2020.

correct.

 

[bring_it_on]

They could win the T-X competition and be making fighter-trainers..especially if they could be exported as attack aircraft...The FA_XX should push along and the AOA concluded by that time..So we could see them begin work on a formal design RFP solution for the FA_XX.

 

[DrRansom]

Or, Lockheed's strategy will pay off:

Come a F/A-XX competition, the only US company with relevant 5th gen fighter experience will be Lockheed. That will give Lockheed a massive advantage heading into any next-gen fighter competition.

(just you wait, the F-35 supporters will use that plane's history to argue for Lockheed winning the next contract.)

(For some reason, the USAF seems to be perfectly willing to let one company gain a monopoly over fighter production.)

 

[sferrin]

(For some reason, the USAF seems to be perfectly willing to let one company gain a monopoly over fighter production.)

Better that than to equip your force with a sub-standard aircraft.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Come a F/A-XX competition, the only US company with relevant 5th gen fighter experience will be Lockheed. That will give Lockheed a massive advantage heading into any next-gen fighter competition.

I think that LM's experience in CNRP (Carbon Nanotube Reinforced Plastic) will be of greater importance. The only reason why CNRP is not in widespread use in the F-35 is that re-certification (for weight-bearing purposes) would take too long.. F/A-XX could be designed with CNRP from the start.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-reveals-f-35-to-feature-nanocomposite-structures-357223/

Non weight-bearing (no recert needed) parts are being made for the F-35 and a much reduced cost vs traditional CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic).

Lockheed, however, has invented a process that dramatically reduces the cost to build carbon nanotube composites for aircraft structures, Earles said. The new wingtip fairing is being made for one-tenth of the cost of the equivalent CFRP component, he said.​

In a thousand words, this is what CNRP is does for you:

 

[GTX]

One might find a situation whereby US aerospace development falls into a couple of main groupings:


Combat aircraft such as fighters - team led by LM
Airliners - team led by Boeing
Other...

 

[F-14D]

(For some reason, the USAF seems to be perfectly willing to let one company gain a monopoly over fighter production.)

Better that than to equip your force with a sub-standard aircraft.

But then you're at the mercy of whatever that company does or doesn't do.



The danger is that if a company is not designing and building something, its design teams and workforce disperses, and the expertise to do so fades away.

This is a concern for the upcoming years. Given that the range/payload of the F-15 is better than that of the F-35, depending on what the costs turn out to be for both it's not inconceivable, unlikely but not impossible, that USAF could order some more F-15s both to keep numbers up and to preserve the industrial base. This wold depend on there being a "warm" production line until that time, which means some other export sales.

To draw a parallel, the main reason Clinton allowed the construction of the third SSN-21 submarine, given his disdain for Defense, was because it was very apparent that unless there was something to bridge the gap between the rundown of 688 class production and the start of the 774 boats, we would lose a great deal of our ability and infrastructure to build SSNs at all.

 

[F-14D]

Or that could be a concern some years in the future when the Russians have managed to build more than a handful T-50s.

But the future is where we're all heading. Despite what I imagined in my earlier post, assuming no radical developments they're going to have more than a handful not too long from now.

 

[F-14D]

They could win the T-X competition and be making fighter-trainers..especially if they could be exported as attack aircraft...

What? You haven't heard of the TF-35? ;D

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Or, Lockheed's strategy will pay off:

Come a F/A-XX competition, the only US company with relevant 5th gen fighter experience will be Lockheed. That will give Lockheed a massive advantage heading into any next-gen fighter competition.

I'm not inherently "married" to LM even though I heavily favor the F-35. So I hope when I say this it doesn't come off like an "LM fanboy" but post cold war, the defense industry has shrunk and we have seen several major mergers and acquisitions the last 20 years. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we would eventually end up with a handful of companies, specializing in a handful of aircraft.

The question becomes how much money do you want to spend to "keep the lines warm" and keep "competition" going. The whole purpose of the JSF for example was singularity. one type, one manufacturer, one supply base etc.

It may be time to start accepting the fact that spending billions of dollars with multiple manufacturers to produce high end combat aircraft might be a tad of a niche industry in the future. Is that a concern? yes. But its a tougher sell these days to have multiple specialized types from a myriad of manufacturers than it was 35 years ago.

(just you wait, the F-35 supporters will use that plane's history to argue for Lockheed winning the next contract.)

Of course they will, they did with the F-117, and F-22 as well. Thats just common sense. Just like how Northrop is reminding the USAF who built their only Stealth Bomber as LSR-B looms. Just like how Boeing likes to remind people they build successful airliners or how successful Super Hornets have been with the US Navy. Of course they are going to up play their history.

(For some reason, the USAF seems to be perfectly willing to let one company gain a monopoly over fighter production.)

Better that than to equip your force with a sub-standard aircraft.

But then you're at the mercy of whatever that company does or doesn't do.



The danger is that if a company is not designing and building something, its design teams and workforce disperses, and the expertise to do so fades away.

This is a concern for the upcoming years. Given that the range/payload of the F-15 is better than that of the F-35, depending on what the costs turn out to be for both it's not inconceivable, unlikely but not impossible, that USAF could order some more F-15s both to keep numbers up and to preserve the industrial base. This wold depend on there being a "warm" production line until that time, which means some other export sales.

To draw a parallel, the main reason Clinton allowed the construction of the third SSN-21 submarine, given his disdain for Defense, was because it was very apparent that unless there was something to bridge the gap between the rundown of 688 class production and the start of the 774 boats, we would lose a great deal of our ability and infrastructure to build SSNs at all.

No one seems to mind that 70 percent of the USN's ships all come from the same company...

There is also a fine line between keeping the line warm and skilled people in place and shouts of "Corporate welfare/MIC" I don't disagree with you, I'm just pointing it out. :-X

 

[DrRansom]

TaiidanTomcat - I agree that the number of fighter manufacturers is not a straightforward decision. Two points though:

1) Fighter Manufacturers are inherent recipients of corporate welfare. If we go down to one fighter manufacturer, than that fighter manufacturer will be subsidized to the same degree as Electric Boat. From a political-economic perspective, it makes sense at that point to just nationalize the firm, but I digress. Lockheed knows that it is a half decade pause in fighter manufacturing away from being subsidized by the US government for eternity.

(Note, we aren't even defending an outstanding company with an impressive record, Lockheed's performance with the F-35 has established the new record for programs in difficulty. With the F-22 / F-35, the US found itself subsidizing the creation of fighter expertise in a future monopolist...)

2) The F-35 is not likely to be the optimal design for the Pacific. It has too short of a range for Pacific combat and it falls into the unhappy medium of: too little payload or too low kinematics. As a F-16 replacement, it is ideal, but as a tactical aircraft for the Pacific theater, not so much. The USAF will need a F-22 replacement, one with substantial range. And the USAF will need to boost its theater ranged, if not strategic ranged, bombing capability. That means more LRS-B or more of the next generation of bombers, which will need to be quite fast.

The question becomes then: if you anticipate running a least one more fighter acquisition program in the next 10 - 15 years, it may make sense to diversify the fighter market, because you can

 

[sferrin]

But then you're at the mercy of whatever that company does or doesn't do.

Not seeing how buying an aircraft you already know is inferior is a better idea.

The danger is that if a company is not designing and building something, its design teams and workforce disperses, and the expertise to do so fades away.

This is a concern for the upcoming years. Given that the range/payload of the F-15 is better than that of the F-35, depending on what the costs turn out to be for both it's not inconceivable, unlikely but not impossible, that USAF could order some more F-15s both to keep numbers up and to preserve the industrial base. This wold depend on there being a "warm" production line until that time, which means some other export sales.

Turning the crank on the F-15 production line doesn't do anything to maintain design capability. [/quote]

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

1) Fighter Manufacturers are inherent recipients of corporate welfare. If we go down to one fighter manufacturer, than that fighter manufacturer will be subsidized to the same degree as Electric Boat. From a political-economic perspective, it makes sense at that point to just nationalize the firm, but I digress. Lockheed knows that it is a half decade pause in fighter manufacturing away from being subsidized by the US government for eternity.

Which as you say is inherent anyway, so its just a matter of how many fighter manufacturers we are subsidizing right?

I'm sorry I'm just not connecting how keeping Boeing's line McDonnell Douglas designed teen fighters going for another 2 decades suddenly makes them competitive when the next fighter is to be procured. If it works out and they keep getting export orders thats great, but the US shouldn't be buying them just to buy them because it will pay off in 20 years for one airplane competition. and if Boeing wins, are we then buying LM products for the next 20 years for the next competition?

(Note, we aren't even defending an outstanding company with an impressive record, Lockheed's performance with the F-35 has established the new record for programs in difficulty. With the F-22 / F-35, the US found itself subsidizing the creation of fighter expertise in a future monopolist...)

I don't know if you have looked around but LM does not have the marker cornered on programs in difficulty, not by a long shot. as for the last theory on the F-35 I won't respond to it as the thread is O/T enough

 

[Triton]

Boeing could have decided to develop and market the X-32 as an alternative to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

The Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program doesn't count as a fifth-generation system? The competitors include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Atomics.

There was also the aborted merger of Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman in 1998 for $8.3 billion when the Justice Department objected. I believe that it is likely we will see further consolidation in the defense industry.

I believe that the Department of Defense realized when embarking on the Joint Strike Fighter program that the contest would eliminate defense contractors. Members of this forum also forget that mergers, acquisitions, and industry consolidation are the way of capitalism.

 

[Sundog]

Not seeing how buying an aircraft you already know is inferior is a better idea.

That works both ways. In many ways the F-35 is quite inferior to an F-15. For the Majority of missions the U.S. would need in the future, the F-15 would be the better choice, especially in the Pacific region. The Air Force would be much better off buying fewer F-35s and just using them like they did the F-117s and as a sort of stealthy AWACS like they use the F-22s now, and buying aircraft that carry more use-able payloads and possess higher performance. Also, twin engines are going to be much better for operations over the Pacific. When it comes to air combat solutions, the F-35 is the worst of all worlds. It's the jack of all trades and master of none. The U.S. military is severely hamstringing itself with the F-35.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Boeing could have decided to develop and market the X-32 as an alternative to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

They could have but it would have been paid for out of pocket, which is why:

But then you're at the mercy of whatever that company does or doesn't do.

Not really as the government is subsidizing the industry in the first place. LM won't tell the government no, because the government is who they work for and the government signs the checks. So if LM wants to do "whatever" and invest money in something that doesn't interest the government they are welcome to waste their money, but if they want to sell and market, they may want to market to the government.

 

[Magoodotcom]

Boeing could have decided to develop and market the X-32 as an alternative to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Probably not - the design and development was paid for by the USG which owns the IP for the X-32. It could not have been developed and marketed without USG permission and likely being an FMS case.

 

[sferrin]

Not seeing how buying an aircraft you already know is inferior is a better idea.

That works both ways. In many ways the F-35 is quite inferior to an F-15. For the Majority of missions the U.S. would need in the future, the F-15 would be the better choice, especially in the Pacific region. The Air Force would be much better off buying fewer F-35s and just using them like they did the F-117s and as a sort of stealthy AWACS like they use the F-22s now, and buying aircraft that carry more use-able payloads and possess higher performance. Also, twin engines are going to be much better for operations over the Pacific. When it comes to air combat solutions, the F-35 is the worst of all worlds. It's the jack of all trades and master of none. The U.S. military is severely hamstringing itself with the F-35.

The USAF, USN and USMC seem to disagree with you.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Not seeing how buying an aircraft you already know is inferior is a better idea.

That works both ways. In many ways the F-35 is quite inferior to an F-15. For the Majority of missions the U.S. would need in the future, the F-15 would be the better choice, especially in the Pacific region. The Air Force would be much better off buying fewer F-35s and just using them like they did the F-117s and as a sort of stealthy AWACS like they use the F-22s now, and buying aircraft that carry more use-able payloads and possess higher performance. Also, twin engines are going to be much better for operations over the Pacific. When it comes to air combat solutions, the F-35 is the worst of all worlds. It's the jack of all trades and master of none. The U.S. military is severely hamstringing itself with the F-35.

The USAF, USN and USMC seem to disagree with you.

If the best argument you have is "because two engines" thats not enough. Have you seen how many F-16s PACAF has? or how many F-16s or single engine fighters are used in the pacific by other nations? It seems to be a non issue.

Nextly the F-15 costs more to operate, and cutting out the F-35 would force the Air Force out of the "lo" in the Hi/lo equation. Forcing the USAF to rely on a small and expensive F-35 fleet (as F-117s?) and a large and more expensive to operate F-15 force. There is a reason the F-16 exists. " It's the jack of all trades and master of none" as are all multi-role fighters, that's the point. Would the Marines and Navy cash in their multi-role fighters for F-15s too? Or would they just buy the shorter legged, jack of all trades master of none Super Hornets?

 

[SOC]

Would the Marines and Navy cash in their multi-role fighters for F-15s too?

While it'd obviously fail at carrier compatibility, USMC Strike Eagles doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea.

 

[sferrin]

Would the Marines and Navy cash in their multi-role fighters for F-15s too?

While it'd obviously fail at carrier compatibility, USMC Strike Eagles doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea.

Until you try to land it on a gator. Whoops.

 

[DrRansom]

TaiidanTomcat - The issue is with the F-35 and the Pacific is this: if you were to design a fighter plane to fight in the Pacific theater, it would 'probably' not look like the F-35. One would make something with longer range and payload, a la F-111 (and LRS-B), or one would make something with supercruise to get around, note the F-XX concepts seem to follow YF-23 model. Hence there is an understanding that a new fighter is needed for the USAF. As for the USN, the F-35C won't be a fleet interceptor. (Its incredible long time to go supersonic compared makes it unlikely for that role.) If the USN wants to fulfill fleet air defense, it'll need a new fighter of its own.

Back to Boeing's fighter division. If the Air Force / USN want to have a fighter competition for the F/A-XX, then they need to throw a bone to Boeing / Northrup fighter divisions. Those companies, like Lockheed, are public companies. If they don't see a reason to have a division, they will cut that division. (Economics 101.)

And don't say "uh, they could have developed a stealth fighter on their own money." Given the US government approved pressure for the F-35, and what happened to the F-20, why would anybody risk any money developing their own fighter? There is no competitive market for fighters, it is too tightly wound up with government pressure, etc.

For example, if tomorrow Northrup revealed a F-15/F-15E replacement, all ready, fully tested, etc. nobody would buy it. The USAF is too tied up with the F-35 and Congress is unlikely to allow transfer of sufficient stealth technology overseas.

That being said, it could make sense to go to one American fighter company. However, I would wish that the USAF / USN would make that decision explicitly, not let it happen by default and complain afterward.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

TaiidanTomcat - The issue is with the F-35 and the Pacific is this: if you were to design a fighter plane to fight in the Pacific theater, it would 'probably' not look like the F-35. One would make something with longer range and payload, a la F-111 (and LRS-B), or one would make something with supercruise to get around, note the F-XX concepts seem to follow YF-23 model. Hence there is an understanding that a new fighter is needed for the USAF. As for the USN, the F-35C won't be a fleet interceptor. (Its incredible long time to go supersonic compared makes it unlikely for that role.) If the USN wants to fulfill fleet air defense, it'll need a new fighter of its own.

You are welcome to continue your lecture here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,537.0.html


You can re fight WWII with Jets all you want in there. I would also note that the USN retired its last fleet interceptor nearly 10 years ago, after halving the fleet in 1990s and then finally turning it into a bomber for its last 10 years. The US Navy has been lacking a "fleet defender" all this time, and now suddenly the F-35C is insufficient for a job the Navy no longer uses specialized fighters for anyway? I don't know if you noticed but everything on the deck of a CVN starts with the designation F/A, the navy seems to care much more about multi-role aircraft than Fleet interceptors. But suddenly they need one I guess and the F-35 isn't it. I would also point out that although an F-35C is the slowest F-35 variant trans-sonically, it still goes Super Sonic much faster than a simliarily armed F-18E/F with fuel tanks hanging from toed out pylons.

The Range Red Herring is a good one, considering that an F-35 outranges all the aircraft its replacing, and yet suddenly is insufficient, even though it out ranges the F-22. also, super cruise does not mean "super efficient" and generally speaking range was one of the compromises of the F-22.

I'll admit, the F-35 will never be an LRS-B, then again neither is an F-15 or any other fighter class aircraft.

I like that you used hypothetical models/art (looks like a YF-23?) to prove your point though, Is there any other hypothetical art projects that may never resemble the company digital paintings you would like to reference? and I would like to point out that F/A-XX (note the A for attack in that) is still decades away from service, so it sure is scary to think that the US is vulnerable in the pacific for the next 20 years because range/super cruise/not a fleet interceptor. Or is the F-15 all those things and I missed it?

Lastly, The F-35 is the Lo in the Hi/Lo. If the US could not afford even 200 F-22s, and now suddenly a next generation, super cruising, longer ranged fleet defending YF-23 is plausible in the numbers required by the US? In a perfect world it would be nothing but F-15s and F-22s but things cost money.

 

[Triton]

With South Korea and Japan deciding to pass over the F-15 Silent Eagle in favor of the F-35 Lightning II, we now have Israel and Saudi Arabia left as potential customers for the F-15 Silent Eagle. Will Israel buy the F-15 Silent Eagle while it is waiting for its F-35 Lightning IIs? Will Saudi Arabia be offered the F-35 or will the F-15 Silent Eagle be the most advanced fighter aircraft it will be offered?

 

[GTX]

I doubt it since by the time the Silent Eagle is fully developed and produced, the F-35s will have already been in service for a number of years...

 

[Triton]

"Will Silent Eagle Get Kicked out of the Nest?"
Posted by Amy Butler 11:41 PM on Feb 19, 2014

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:7be0b993-f208-47ef-8f3e-0f3eaaf3cdd7

With Boeing adjusting from its blistering loss to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 for the sale of 60 fighters to Seoul, the company has yet to officially sentence the so-called Silent Eagle moniker to death.



But, maybe it is time?

“The pieces are there … whether we will continue to call it that moniker,” Chris Raymond, vice president of business development and strategy for Boeing Defense, Space and Security, told Aviation Week. “That [name] was unique to that offering.”

The Silent Eagle was unveiled to the press in 2009, when an F-15E demonstrator was mocked up with nonfunctioning stealthy, canted tails and outfitted with a conformal weapons bay, which was showcased for the media during a ground-based demonstration. These upgrades were designed to reduce the frontal radar cross section brought on by the Strike Eagle, thus making it more “silent” to enemy air defenses. The Silent Eagle, and a similar upgrade package for the F/A-18E/F, is being offered to customers as potential alternatives to Lockheed Martin’s stealthy F-35.

In 2009 the F-35 was in a much more precarious position than it is today. It was nearing a $4.6 billion restructuring, which was done in 2010. Now, however, the Pentagon is pledging its seemingly endless support for the single-engine F-35; the remaining question for the program is one of cost and how many fighters the Pentagon and foreign customers can ultimately afford.

Boeing was careful to never publicly position itself as pitching the Silent Eagle for the U.S. Air Force, which has staunchly pursued a policy for years of purchasing only so called fifth-generation F-22s and F-35s, both produced by Lockheed Martin. This moniker, coined by Lockheed Martin marketers and later adopted by the Pentagon, refers to the combination of stealthy shape and coatings, integrated avionics and mission processing.

At the rollout, Brad Jones, who then led the Silent Eagle effort, said the aircraft was intended for foreign customers, namely Israel and South Korea. However, both of these loyal F-15 buyers passed on it. And, their support for the F-35 was so strong, they compromised in order to be able to buy it. In the case of Tel Aviv, officials opted for fewer F-35s upfront than originally planned. Likewise, Seoul has compromised on initial numbers owing to cost and selected the F-35 even though Boeing’s bid was the only once that was compliant with its competition plan.

The Silent Eagle package is more than just external features optimized for a reduced radar cross section. Also included are options for an active, electronically scanned array radar, digital electronic warfare system and enhanced weapons loadout with the use of wing stations 1 and 9. These developments are being paid for by Saudi Arabia, which is buying the most advanced version of the F-15 for its military. The Saudi order will carry the line through 2018; a buy from South Korea would have extended production by another three years, according to Steve Winkler, who heads F-15 business development, last year.

Also available for the F-15 is the addition of fly-by-wire flight controls and an updated core processor and larger, multifunction cockpit displays.

Boeing launched an AIM 120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam) from the Silent Eagle conformal fuel tank carried by the F-15 demonstrator in 2010, Winkler said. At the time, the demonstrator did not have the canted tails.

Boeing officials are mum today on whether design teams are continuing work on the Silent Eagle enhancements, especially those associated with the stealth features intended to take on the F-35. “We don’t comment on activities of our workforce,” said Karen Fincutter, a Boeing spokeswoman. “The demonstrator is still available and Boeing is working with the Air Force to determine its future use to the program.”

What may never be fully known is just why the Silent Eagle didn’t take flight. Perhaps it was timing; if it had come on the scene earlier, while F-35 was far less mature, could it have gotten a few orders? Perhaps.

Or, perhaps, it was ultimately a function of cost. Company officials never cited a clear flyway figure. However, Jones cited a ballpark under $100 million at the unveiling, but the official bid to South Korea was not made public. Low-rate initial production lot 5 F-35As, which are on the final assembly line at Lockheed Martin now, are being produced with an intended target cost of $105 million. The total including an engine is estimated to be up to $124 million. It could be that allies are just willing to pay more and wait a little longer to buy into the JSF club.

During last year’s briefing on the Silent Eagle, Winkler hinted that the company had a growth path for the Strike Eagle beyond the Silent Eagle package, though he declined to outline its specifics.

 

[sferrin]

F-15 MANX > F-15 "Silent Eagle"

 

[Triton]

F-15 MANX > F-15 "Silent Eagle"

Are you saying that you would much rather see the F-15 MANX enter production than the F-15 "Silent Eagle"?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I liked the wing on the "F-15U" concept myself. Combine that with the canted tails originally planned for the F-15SE and if nothing else you'll have created a much sexier fighter.

Did Boeing plan to fix the "turkey feathers" for the F100 powered F-15SE or use a new nozzle entirely? I understand that maintenance was a real pain with those on and I think there were a few occasions where some were lost in flight, but it seems odd that neither McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, or Pratt & Whitney ever got around to correcting that. I'm guessing that RCS reduction might make it a bit more of a concern.

Off-topic but I can't help imagine there must be some giant crate in a warehouse somewhere filled with all of those F100 "turkey feathers".

 

[donnage99]

The Range Red Herring is a good one, considering that an F-35 outranges all the aircraft its replacing, and yet suddenly is insufficient, even though it out ranges the F-22. also, super cruise does not mean "super efficient" and generally speaking range was one of the compromises of the F-22.

The f-35's range increase isn't that impressive. In fact, it's rather disappointing if one gets past lockmart posters and actually analyzed the data.


http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%253a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253a193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6a&plc

 

[sferrin]

F-15 MANX > F-15 "Silent Eagle"

Are you saying that you would much rather see the F-15 MANX enter production than the F-15 "Silent Eagle"?

Yeah. (Not that I think it would have a chance of entering production at this point. If they'd funded it internally back in the day though I think we'd have seen some interest.)

 

[Triton]

Published on Mar 6, 2012

Greg Waldron takes a look at the next chapter in the F-15 story, the Silent Eagle.

https://youtu.be/UldoGIMRsSY

 

[tacitblue]

At this rate; Boeing will not be making any fighters by 2020.

Ummmmmmmm..... What fighter's under the Boeing umbrella today were actually awarded to Boeing? Certainly not the 15, 18, or anything at all. Oh wait they built something in WWII and they did the BUFF in the late 40s. They could not even get their collective s*it together in the 90s for the JSF.

 

[Triton]

At this rate; Boeing will not be making any fighters by 2020.

Ummmmmmmm..... What fighter's under the Boeing umbrella today were actually awarded to Boeing? Certainly not the 15, 18, or anything at all. Oh wait they built something in WWII and they did the BUFF in the late 40s. They could not even get their collective s*it together in the 90s for the JSF.

The Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle prototype came off the production line at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Boeing Defense, Space & Security is headquartered in Berkeley, Mo, a suburb of St. Louis. The same city as the headquarters of McDonnell Douglas. I believe that Boeing is entitled to the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, later McDonnell Douglas, fighter legacy.

Boeing Military Airplane Company has decades of experience as a military contractor, including developing fighter concepts. Plus Boeing owns the legacy assets of Douglas Aircraft Company and North American Aviation.

 

[marauder2048]

Israel requests extra squadron of F-15s

An additional squadron of advanced Boeing F-15s has been revealed as one of the elements of a so-called "compensation package" requested by Israel in exchange for the US government backing a lifting of sanctions against Iran.

Israeli sources confirm that details of the request were agreed during a recent meeting between the defence ministers of the USA and Israel in Washington DC. This included the Israeli air force expressing its operational need for another squadron of F-15s, to ensure that the type can remain the "backbone" of its capabilities.

While details of the F-15 request have not been released, the sources say that it involves the latest Silent Eagle-standard aircraft, which would also be equipped with Israeli-developed systems. Enhancements introduced with the advanced strike asset include the ability to carry an increased number of air-launched weapons and the addition of conformal fuel tanks for extended-range performance.

Flightglobal's Fleets Analyzer database records the Israeli air force as operating 25 F-15Is – the youngest of which are 16 years old – and a combined 58 older F-15A/Cs.

Israel's "compensation package" has taken shape since an international agreement was reached in Vienna on 14 July, which will remove sanctions in exchange for Iran halting its nuclear activities. The Israeli government opposes the agreement, claiming that it will not stop Tehran from achieving its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Other systems being requested by Israel in order to maintain its operational edge include Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotors, Boeing KC-46A tankers, additional Lockheed Martin F-35s and bunker-busting bombs that have until now not been exported by the USA.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-requests-extra-squadron-of-f-15s-418487/

Emphasis mine.

 

[SpudmanWP]

1. There is no F-15SE "Standard" as what it entails seems to change with each proposal that is given.

2. With all the development time that would still need to be done, they could get an extra F-35 squadron before they could get the F-15SE

3. The F-35 would be cheaper, especially with the development thrown in.

 

[sferrin]

1. There is no F-15SE "Standard" as what it entails seems to change with each proposal that is given.

2. With all the development time that would still need to be done, they could get an extra F-35 squadron before they could get the F-15SE

3. The F-35 would be cheaper, especially with the development thrown in.

I like how not only are we giving the green light to a nuclear-armed Iran it's also costing us the development of the so-called "Silent" Eagle and a squadron of delivered aircraft. You can't make this crap up.

 

[marauder2048]

1. There is no F-15SE "Standard" as what it entails seems to change with each proposal that is given.

2. With all the development time that would still need to be done, they could get an extra F-35 squadron before they could get the F-15SE

3. The F-35 would be cheaper, especially with the development thrown in.

Sorry. I inadvertently omitted the final line from the Flight article; it's been updated to reflect the fact that the F-15SE package supplements the additional F-35s.