Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

bobbymike said:
From AFA:

Seymour Johnson Strike Eagles Get New Radars

12/15/2016

​An F-15E Strike Eagle from the 336th Fighter Squadron sits in a hanger while members of the Radar Modernization Program Eagle team begin removing panels, Oct. 3, 2016, at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. Air Force photo by Airman Shawna L. Keyes.

​The Strike Eagles of the 4th Fighter Wing are about to get better eyes and ears. Airmen at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., and Boeing employees earlier this fall began work on the first F-15E at the base to receive the new APG-82 active electronically scanned array radar, an upgrade from its old APG-70 mechanically scanned radar. The work, stemming from a June 2016 contract worth about $27.5 million, is expected to take seven to nine years, with all 92 jets at the base receiving the upgrade. “This radar update is going to drastically improve the aircraft’s air-to-air and air-to-ground radar making it significantly more capable,” Boeing’s F-15E site lead Jonathan Pierce said in a Seymour Johnson news release. The new radar provides “near simultaneous interleaving of air-to-air and air-to-ground functions,” along with better combat identification, longer air-to-air target detection and tracking, higher resolution air-to-ground radar mapping, and it improves ground moving target track capability. The new radars are in other aircraft such as F-22s and F-35s, and the Air National Guard is working to outfit some of its F-16s with them.

Upgrading only 10 jets a year for 9 years with a new radar isn't laughable. It's sad. It should be 5-6/month. It's not as if Boeing is still churning out hundreds of 15s a year. They should have more than enough floor space and idle engineers/technicians.
 
There are also funding limitations. You only install as many as you can afford to fund for a given year. As of the FY17 budget request, as long as the BCA remains the USAF intends on a peak rate of 32 a year FY18 through FY-21. If the budget caps are lifted, perhaps they can accelerate it.
 

Attachments

  • APG-82 RMP.PNG
    APG-82 RMP.PNG
    163.4 KB · Views: 544
  • APG-82 RMP2.PNG
    APG-82 RMP2.PNG
    130.8 KB · Views: 518
  • APG-82 Instalation Schedule.PNG
    APG-82 Instalation Schedule.PNG
    16.1 KB · Views: 512
Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
From AFA:

Seymour Johnson Strike Eagles Get New Radars

12/15/2016

​An F-15E Strike Eagle from the 336th Fighter Squadron sits in a hanger while members of the Radar Modernization Program Eagle team begin removing panels, Oct. 3, 2016, at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. Air Force photo by Airman Shawna L. Keyes.

​The Strike Eagles of the 4th Fighter Wing are about to get better eyes and ears. Airmen at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., and Boeing employees earlier this fall began work on the first F-15E at the base to receive the new APG-82 active electronically scanned array radar, an upgrade from its old APG-70 mechanically scanned radar. The work, stemming from a June 2016 contract worth about $27.5 million, is expected to take seven to nine years, with all 92 jets at the base receiving the upgrade. “This radar update is going to drastically improve the aircraft’s air-to-air and air-to-ground radar making it significantly more capable,” Boeing’s F-15E site lead Jonathan Pierce said in a Seymour Johnson news release. The new radar provides “near simultaneous interleaving of air-to-air and air-to-ground functions,” along with better combat identification, longer air-to-air target detection and tracking, higher resolution air-to-ground radar mapping, and it improves ground moving target track capability. The new radars are in other aircraft such as F-22s and F-35s, and the Air National Guard is working to outfit some of its F-16s with them.

Upgrading only 10 jets a year for 9 years with a new radar isn't laughable. It's sad. It should be 5-6/month. It's not as if Boeing is still churning out hundreds of 15s a year. They should have more than enough floor space and idle engineers/technicians.
10 a year would be enough.................if 60 F-22s were rolling of the line every year :'(
 
bobbymike said:
Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
From AFA:

Seymour Johnson Strike Eagles Get New Radars

12/15/2016

​An F-15E Strike Eagle from the 336th Fighter Squadron sits in a hanger while members of the Radar Modernization Program Eagle team begin removing panels, Oct. 3, 2016, at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. Air Force photo by Airman Shawna L. Keyes.

​The Strike Eagles of the 4th Fighter Wing are about to get better eyes and ears. Airmen at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., and Boeing employees earlier this fall began work on the first F-15E at the base to receive the new APG-82 active electronically scanned array radar, an upgrade from its old APG-70 mechanically scanned radar. The work, stemming from a June 2016 contract worth about $27.5 million, is expected to take seven to nine years, with all 92 jets at the base receiving the upgrade. “This radar update is going to drastically improve the aircraft’s air-to-air and air-to-ground radar making it significantly more capable,” Boeing’s F-15E site lead Jonathan Pierce said in a Seymour Johnson news release. The new radar provides “near simultaneous interleaving of air-to-air and air-to-ground functions,” along with better combat identification, longer air-to-air target detection and tracking, higher resolution air-to-ground radar mapping, and it improves ground moving target track capability. The new radars are in other aircraft such as F-22s and F-35s, and the Air National Guard is working to outfit some of its F-16s with them.

Upgrading only 10 jets a year for 9 years with a new radar isn't laughable. It's sad. It should be 5-6/month. It's not as if Boeing is still churning out hundreds of 15s a year. They should have more than enough floor space and idle engineers/technicians.
10 a year would be enough.................if 60 F-22s were rolling of the line every year :'(

I would love to see the 22 come back at 60 a year, much in the same way Regan brought back the Bone as an interim >ahem< bomber until the B-2 was ready. 60 Raptors would be enough to replace 90 Eagles given the survivability of the Raptor over the Eagle.
 
Airplane said:
Upgrading only 10 jets a year for 9 years with a new radar isn't laughable. It's sad. It should be 5-6/month. It's not as if Boeing is still churning out hundreds of 15s a year. They should have more than enough floor space and idle engineers/technicians.

I suspect it's more of a capacity issue at Raytheon; the AN/APG-82 draws from the same supply/foundry base
as the AN/APG-79 and the AN/APG-63v(3).
 
Is there anybody who can shed some light on the mods connected to the Talon Hate pod. There is a large bulb which is positioned on top of the F-15 near the Vulcan gun drum? See picture from Nellis.
What is the use of that and the equipment on the side of the bulb? transmitting to space? Connection to the pods use?

Second question is about the small ball shape just aft of the radome on top and one at the same positon but then on the underside of the F-15. What is the purpose of that?
 

Attachments

  • 27129449482_7af314d0f1_b.jpg
    27129449482_7af314d0f1_b.jpg
    121.8 KB · Views: 308
Aren't the three key capabilities the sat link, MIDS, and a air-ground link?
 
Isn't there more in the bulge than a satellite up link? It is huge and has equipment on the corners of the bulge on top? In what way is the bulge on top connected to the Talon HATE pod?
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/israel-looking-at-advanced-f15-with.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25656/eagle-2040c-next-generation-f-15/
 
GJ33 said:
Isn't there more in the bulge than a satellite up link? It is huge and has equipment on the corners of the bulge on top? In what way is the bulge on top connected to the Talon HATE pod?
The corner items might be upper-hemisphere IFDL apertures, or maybe (but less likely) missile approach warning sensors.
 
​USAF calls plans to retire F-15s "pre-decisional"

The US Air Force says it’s too soon to say whether the service will swap out retired Boeing F-15C and F-15Ds for updated Lockheed Martin F-16.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/
 
Flyaway said:
​USAF calls plans to retire F-15s "pre-decisional"

The US Air Force says it’s too soon to say whether the service will swap out retired Boeing F-15C and F-15Ds for updated Lockheed Martin F-16.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/

The whole notion gives new meaning to the term, "face palm".
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
​USAF calls plans to retire F-15s "pre-decisional"

The US Air Force says it’s too soon to say whether the service will swap out retired Boeing F-15C and F-15Ds for updated Lockheed Martin F-16.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/

The whole notion gives new meaning to the term, "face palm".

If we can't build more Raptors because of politics and 'Oh woe is me, it's too hard to restart the line', then we should at least buy ~250 new build Eagles as an interim to PCA, and equip with a US built meteor.
 
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
​USAF calls plans to retire F-15s "pre-decisional"

The US Air Force says it’s too soon to say whether the service will swap out retired Boeing F-15C and F-15Ds for updated Lockheed Martin F-16.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/

The whole notion gives new meaning to the term, "face palm".

If we can't build more Raptors because of politics and 'Oh woe is me, it's too hard to restart the line', then we should at least buy ~250 new build Eagles as an interim to PCA, and equip with a US built meteor.

Preaching to the choir.
 
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
​USAF calls plans to retire F-15s "pre-decisional"

The US Air Force says it’s too soon to say whether the service will swap out retired Boeing F-15C and F-15Ds for updated Lockheed Martin F-16.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/

The whole notion gives new meaning to the term, "face palm".

If we can't build more Raptors because of politics and 'Oh woe is me, it's too hard to restart the line', then we should at least buy ~250 new build Eagles as an interim to PCA, and equip with a US built meteor.

And pay for it with what? Short of cutting existing acquisition programs such as the F-35A, B-21, JSTARS-recap, nuclear programs etc you are not going to find money in the budget to pay for 250 heavy Eagles/Strike Eagles. There is probably more flexibility on the R&D side to begin increasing investments in the PCA and hope to find room to begin acquiring it in the post 2030 time-frame where you can then look at closing down the F-35A acquisition program a few years ahead of schedule to pay for the PCA.
 
bring_it_on said:
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
​USAF calls plans to retire F-15s "pre-decisional"

The US Air Force says it’s too soon to say whether the service will swap out retired Boeing F-15C and F-15Ds for updated Lockheed Martin F-16.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/

The whole notion gives new meaning to the term, "face palm".

If we can't build more Raptors because of politics and 'Oh woe is me, it's too hard to restart the line', then we should at least buy ~250 new build Eagles as an interim to PCA, and equip with a US built meteor.

And pay for it with what? Short of cutting existing acquisition programs such as the F-35A, B-21, JSTARS-recap, nuclear programs etc you are not going to find money in the budget to pay for 250 heavy Eagles/Strike Eagles. There is probably more flexibility on the R&D side to begin increasing investments in the PCA and hope to find room to begin acquiring it in the post 2030 time-frame where you can then look at closing down the F-35A acquisition program a few years ahead of schedule to pay for the PCA.

Pay for them with the decreased money going into government that Trump is cutting from the budget. The US *needs* to rebuild and it's going to cost money; rebuild is not going to happen without increasing the defense budget. Reagan did it. He did it, cut taxes, and got us out a recession. The 15 line is still warm and the US needs more than 183 Raptors to tow the line. Or maybe it's possible to build 200+ F-35s a year, and the excess over the 160 planned can be a 1:1 F-15C/D replacement. It's a hell of a lot better than souped up 20 year old Vipers.
 
"Is the Air Force Getting Ready to Dump the F-15?"
by Kyle Mizokami
Mar 23, 2017

Source:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25799/air-force-dump-the-f-15/

...The first F-15 flew in 1972, and full production began in 1973. The F-15 has an amazing 104-0 kill record in battle. An ongoing program to update the F-15, Golden Eagle, tests all the planes for wear and tear. The 178 planes in the best physical condition receive new APG-63V3 active electronically scanned array radars and the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System, allowing rapid target acquisition with infrared guided missiles. Golden Eagle fighters are paired with F-22 Raptors for fighter combat.

If the F-15s were replaced it would be with updated F-16s likely brought up to the newest F-16V standard. The -V update includes the APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR), an advanced radar system that uses hardware and software from the radars that equip the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. SABR can identify and engage targets with AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided missiles at longer ranges than previous radars. The F-16V also gains the SNIPER advanced targeting pod, which is useful in identifying and targeting both air and ground targets with an infrared sensor.

What's driving this change? Cost. In 2013, the F-15 Eagle cost $41,921 an hour to fly, while the F-16C cost just $22,514 an hour. The replacement for the F-15, the newer F-22 Raptor, costs $68,362 an hour to fly, while the replacement for the F-16, the F-35, costs $42,200 an hour to fly. As more F-35s join the Air Force, their operating costs will make a dent in the Air Force's budget, and perhaps the cheaper F-16 could help.[/quote]
 
Airplane said:
bring_it_on said:
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
​USAF calls plans to retire F-15s "pre-decisional"

The US Air Force says it’s too soon to say whether the service will swap out retired Boeing F-15C and F-15Ds for updated Lockheed Martin F-16.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/

The whole notion gives new meaning to the term, "face palm".

If we can't build more Raptors because of politics and 'Oh woe is me, it's too hard to restart the line', then we should at least buy ~250 new build Eagles as an interim to PCA, and equip with a US built meteor.

And pay for it with what? Short of cutting existing acquisition programs such as the F-35A, B-21, JSTARS-recap, nuclear programs etc you are not going to find money in the budget to pay for 250 heavy Eagles/Strike Eagles. There is probably more flexibility on the R&D side to begin increasing investments in the PCA and hope to find room to begin acquiring it in the post 2030 time-frame where you can then look at closing down the F-35A acquisition program a few years ahead of schedule to pay for the PCA.

Pay for them with the decreased money going into government that Trump is cutting from the budget. The US *needs* to rebuild and it's going to cost money; rebuild is not going to happen without increasing the defense budget. Reagan did it. He did it, cut taxes, and got us out a recession. The 15 line is still warm and the US needs more than 183 Raptors to tow the line. Or maybe it's possible to build 200+ F-35s a year, and the excess over the 160 planned can be a 1:1 F-15C/D replacement. It's a hell of a lot better than souped up 20 year old Vipers.

A single dollar above the budget caps requires 60 votes in the senate. How are you going to cut the non defense discretionary spending and yet secure those votes? You'd probably need 10 democrats if you take into account a couple of republicans that could sway either way but it seems extremely unlikely that Trump or anyone else for that matter will be successful in unilaterally increasing defense spending beyond current levels while at the same time reducing spending elsewhere. Not in the current political environment. So that really is not a realistic option. Moving on, the current 4% FY18 increase in defense spending is to a large part focused on readiness (as it should be) and from what it appears the Navy and the Army have featured better as far as the defense spike. A fully funded nuclear recapitalization program and a 350 ship Navy is likely to eat most of the modest budget growth you are likely to see.

This leaves two realistic options. Option 1 would be to give in and increase spending everywhere and through it adding to the debt, or 2, removing the budget control act and with it the sequester so that you can in the future pass a defense plan through a simple majority. Option 1 is unlikely to happen as long as the OMB director is around and option 2 has already been walked back upon compared to the campaign promises and is also likely to be opposed by the fiscal conservatives in Trump's own party. Where does this leave us? A modest hike in defense spending compared to proposed Obama levels which will be insufficient to fund any new large acquisition programs for the USAF.

This then takes us back to the current state of affairs which would force the USAF to make choices. It is also tough to go to congress with a plan to cut a heavy figther in the fleet on account of O&S reduction and then put forth a proposal to buy the same. Most likely, this is one thing they are looking at and it won't really be followed through upon. It is budget season after all.
 
Some background: ADCP-II is the prerequisite for IRST, EPAWSS, advanced datalinks, advanced radar modes etc.
But ADCP-II is physically and logically incompatible with the mechanically scanned arrays in the F-15 fleet.

At the moment, all F-15Es are all programmed budgetarily to have AESAs but that's not the case with the F-15C/D fleet particularly the ANG fighters.

They have ruled out maintaining a split ADCP-II/non-ADCP-II F-15 fleet which means all the F-15C/Ds need the AESA.
So you have to find the money for that which has to be weighed against other priorities e.g. F-16 AESAs.
But because of the ANG angle, I would expect Congressional plus-ups for F-15 C/D AESAs to be an easy sell.
 
"Podcast: Decoding the F-15 Retirement Proposal"
Apr 20, 2017 Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and James Drew | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-decoding-f-15-retirement-proposal
 
"Boeing Opposes F-15C Retirement Plan"
Apr 17, 2017 James Drew | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Boeing is speaking out against a controversial proposal by the U.S. Air Force to retire the F-15C Eagle fleet, saying an upgraded Lockheed Martin F-16 is no substitute for its Cold War-era air superiority fighter.

The service has floated the idea of retiring all F-15C squadrons in favor of F-16s equipped with active electronically scanned array radars for the homeland defense mission. This would avoid a major structural service life extension of the F-15C, pegged at $30-40 million per airplane for new wings and a remanufactured center fuselage. Money saved could be spent on the development and production of a future air dominance aircraft, or perhaps free up cash to boost the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II buy rate.

Boeing says the F-16 cannot match the F-15 in terms of speed, range, payload or radar capability, and would make a poor Eagle replacement, even as a short-term stopgap.

Boeing is fatigue testing the Eagle and its air-to-surface attack variant, the F-15E Strike Eagle, at the company’s plant in St. Louis. The results suggest that a relatively simple and inexpensive longeron replacement will keep the F-15 fleet soaring into the mid-2030s and perhaps longer.

The $30-40 million cost cited by the head of Air Combat Command in March represents the total cost of remanufacturing the center fuselage and installing new wings, Boeing says. That cost estimate was provided at the service’s request, it adds.

“That approach, we believe, is the costliest solution and a worst-case scenario; it’s not something we believe is under serious consideration at this time,” Steve Parker, vice president of Boeing F-15 programs, said in an April 17 interview. “That would take it out another 40-50 years.”

Parker says the longerons are already being replaced by the Air Force as the F-15s cycle through programmed depot maintenance. The total cost is $1 million per aircraft for parts and labor.

Boeing says the Eagle is structurally viable out to 15,000 flight hours with this upgrade, allowing the fleet to continue in its current role until the mid-2030s, based on current flying rates.

The Air Force will replace the longerons on all 235 F-15Cs by 2023/24 based on the current timeline. In its fiscal 2017 budget request, the service proposed flying the aircraft through 2045, which would require major structural upgrades, beginning with a full wing replacement in the 2020s.

Parker said “$1 million per aircraft is just the standalone structural modification taking it into the 2030s.”

The F-15 structural modifications are just one aspect of continued F-15 service. The Air Force already has billions of dollars tied up in capability upgrades, many of which are well underway.

The service is most of the way through a major radar upgrade, installing Raytheon’s all-digital APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array on the F-15C/D and APG-82(V)1 on the F-15E. The F-15E has already begun flying with the Advanced Display Core Processor II. Meanwhile, BAE Systems’ Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (Epawss) electronic combat suite recently passed the government’s critical design review milestone and will transition to begin flight testing in early 2018.

Boeing says all these pieces will keep the F-15C’s talons sharp well into the 2030s. Retiring the F-15 early would diminish the service’s fighter capacity and capability, the firm says.

The Air Force’s F-15 to F-16 transition proposal is being considered as part of the fiscal 2019 “planning choices” process. It would mostly affect the Air National Guard, but also active-duty squadrons based in the UK and Japan.
“Why would you divest and replace [the F-15C] with an asset that does not have as capable of a radar system, doesn’t have the range, speed and payload and the same ability to protect the homeland?” Parker asks. “If we’re under attack, don’t you want the fastest, quickest platform that can carry more and take the threat out?”

The F-15 was originally meant to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, of which Boeing was a key supplier. But the production run was truncated at 187 operational aircraft and closed in 2011.

The Air Force’s Penetrating Counter-Air/F-X program, which is in the analysis of alternatives phase, is meant to field enough aircraft by the 2030s to allow the 183-aircraft F-22 fleet to assume the Eagle’s homeland defense role. Separately, the service has approved a Lockheed-run service life extension of the F-16C/D, adding 4,000 hr. of additional structural life to 300 select Block 40-52 aircraft, keeping them around until 2048.

Even with the question mark hanging over the F-15C fleet, Boeing is still pitching “2040C Eagle” capability upgrades to the Air Force and potential international customers, such as Qatar.

The 2040C capability suite includes conformal fuel tanks, an infrared search-and-track sensor, a fifth-generation communications gateway, and quad-pack missile racks on weapon stations No. 2 and No. 8, in addition to the electronic warfare, radar and processor improvements.

Boeing says there is strong interest in these capabilities, and it recently signed a contract with the Air National Guard to conduct airworthiness tests of conformal fuel tanks.

The company also is developing the missile racks on its own dime to carry four Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles apiece instead of two. Boeing is demonstrating the quad-pack racks for an undisclosed international customer, with flight testing expected this year.

“We’ve seen renewed interest, even with the chitter-chatter about the predicational [retirement plan],” Parker says. “If you’re a nation and you need to defend your sovereignty, you need an air superiority fighter. We have the best, most advanced air superiority fighter currently in production.”
 
The air defence of the United States is a task which IMHO requires a big, two-engined, two-man interceptor with plenty of weapons and fuel. The F-22 is better used for air superiority at the sharp end, with perhaps a few dedicated to the protection of extremely high-importance threat axes or a backstops for the F-15's. Oh, and reopen the line and build at least two hundred more.
 
pathology_doc said:
The air defence of the United States is a task which IMHO requires a big, two-engined, two-man interceptor with plenty of weapons and fuel.

I'd agree with most of this except for the two-man requirement. I'd also be interested to hear how the lessons learned from the F-16 ADF would be applied to the determination of what would serve homeland air defense the "best." For that matter, I don't think the F-106 was ever considered to be deficient as an air defense interceptor, just overtaken by technology.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-touts-advanced-fighter-versions-different-animals
 
First flight with the Legion Pod..

https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense
 

Attachments

  • F-15_LegionPod.jpg
    F-15_LegionPod.jpg
    79.6 KB · Views: 853
This news article seems applicable to this thread.

New wings on Qatar F-15s pave upgrade path for USAF

A Qatari order for the F-15 Advanced Eagle will introduce a new structural upgrade for the wing that could be offered as a service life extension option for the US Air Force’s F-15Cs and for the fleets of other international customers, a top Boeing manager says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-wings-on-qatar-f-15s-pave-upgrade-path-for-usaf-446189/
 
Archibald said:
The F-15 is such a beautiful aircraft.
It definitely is, to me it the F-15 has a look of raw power to it. Although there are a few minor details that upset its appearance. The different sized RWR antenna or whatever those are on top of the vertical tails and the lack of the "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Archibald said:
The F-15 is such a beautiful aircraft.
It definitely is, to me it the F-15 has a look of raw power to it. Although there are a few minor details that upset its appearance. The different sized RWR antenna or whatever those are on top of the vertical tails and the lack of the "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles.

The F-15 has no soul. Same for its little brother. The Tomcat ate its lunch and stole its milk money.
 
Airplane said:
The F-15 has no soul. Same for its little brother. The Tomcat ate its lunch and stole its milk money.
Thank you for a really informative contribution expressed in such a mature way.
It really helps the quality of this forum, and level of enjoment.
 
LowObservable said:
Is that different from the F-15SA wing where the outer pylons are activated?

Seem to be. It's basically a rewing as part of a SLEP effort. The pylon structure is there in any case, but the proposed new wing is supposed to be stronger and longer-lived within the same outer mold line. I suppose that might let them hang more weight on the outer pylons, but it seems to be independent of whether that station is active or not.

It's funny to see that the idea of conformal tanks holding more that just fuel is coming around yet again (cf the original FAST pack concept). One of these times, it may stick.
 
Airplane said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Archibald said:
The F-15 is such a beautiful aircraft.
It definitely is, to me it the F-15 has a look of raw power to it. Although there are a few minor details that upset its appearance. The different sized RWR antenna or whatever those are on top of the vertical tails and the lack of the "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles.

The F-15 has no soul. Same for its little brother. The Tomcat ate its lunch and stole its milk money.

Not every plane of note is a movie star. Not going to lie, I love the Tomcat, but the Eagle is a damn fine airplane and still undefeated in air to air combat. No other fighter with a noteworthy kill record can make that claim.
 
My understanding of the Tomcat was that it was vastly underpowered with a powerplant not exactly renowned for being reliable while being very expensive. I think they could have made the Tomcat much better.
 
Foo Fighter said:
My understanding of the Tomcat was that it was vastly underpowered with a powerplant not exactly renowned for being reliable while being very expensive. I think they could have made the Tomcat much better.

Makes one think how well it would have performed with a couple of F-110's instead of TF-30's. ;)
 
Sundog said:
Foo Fighter said:
My understanding of the Tomcat was that it was vastly underpowered with a powerplant not exactly renowned for being reliable while being very expensive. I think they could have made the Tomcat much better.

Makes one think how well it would have performed with a couple of F-110's instead of TF-30's. ;)

You mean like the F-14Bs & Ds? ;) And even those didn't have quite as much power as the originally planned F401-P-400

" The winner of the engine contest was the Pratt & Whitney entry, which was later redesignated F401-P-400. This engine was a derivative of the JTF22 Advanced Technology Engine, which had also spawned the F100 turbofan that was used by both the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F401-P-400 offered 16,400 pounds of thrust dry and an afterburning thrust of 28,000 pounds.

The seventh Tomcat (BuNo 157986) was set aside to serve as the prototype. It flew for the first time on September 12, 1973 with one F401-P-400 engine and one TF30 engine. Later, the aircraft was equipped with two F401 engines. With the new engine, the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-14B was raised to greater than unity, offering a much improved performance. "

vs 27k for the F110-GE-400

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1985/1985%20-%200882.PDF
 
1) The Navy didn’t prioritize it over other programs (even though Congress kept trying to give them money for it).

2) The F100 had a troubled development and the F401, as a derivative, might have been affected by the same issues.

More discussion here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,23340.0/all.html
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom