Boeing F-15EX / F-15QA and related variants

Interesting pylon usage. Would the EX variant be able to carry the four missiles on its wings?
 
Makes me wonder if they could fit another pair at the front of the CFTs. (And why they'd put them at the back, where they're angled way down, instead of up front where they'd be level.)
 
sferrin said:
Makes me wonder if they could fit another pair at the front of the CFTs. (And why they'd put them at the back, where they're angled way down, instead of up front where they'd be level.)
Click to expand...

I'd guess they'd run into interference with the LANTIRN pods up front. It gets tight up there.

As for level, that's just how weapons hang on that rear CFT station; you see the same angle on iron bombs/JDAMs hanging back there. Presumably, it's actually more aerodynamic to follow the fuselage line (and the local airflow?) than to artificially force them down to be level with the horizon.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Makes me wonder if they could fit another pair at the front of the CFTs. (And why they'd put them at the back, where they're angled way down, instead of up front where they'd be level.)
Click to expand...

I'd guess they'd run into interference with the LANTIRN pods up front. It gets tight up there.

As for level, that's just how weapons hang on that rear CFT station; you see the same angle on iron bombs/JDAMs hanging back there. Presumably, it's actually more aerodynamic to follow the fuselage line (and the local airflow?) than to artificially force them down to be level with the horizon.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't need LANTIRN in an AGM-158 strike. I'm guessing it either is due separation issues or center of gravity issues. The downward cant of the ordnance on the fuselage would probably help with the former, though I imagine the back ordnance has to be jettisoned before the other stores to deal with the latter.

EDIT: actually thinking about it more, it really couldn't be CoG; F-15E's definitely have had Mk84 stores on the front and back which is in a similar weight class. I'm guessing separating from the front positions is problematic or that there are clearance issues with the AGM-158s being carried two at a time on the fuselage.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Makes me wonder if they could fit another pair at the front of the CFTs. (And why they'd put them at the back, where they're angled way down, instead of up front where they'd be level.)
Click to expand...

I'd guess they'd run into interference with the LANTIRN pods up front. It gets tight up there.

As for level, that's just how weapons hang on that rear CFT station; you see the same angle on iron bombs/JDAMs hanging back there. Presumably, it's actually more aerodynamic to follow the fuselage line (and the local airflow?) than to artificially force them down to be level with the horizon.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't need LANTIRN in an AGM-158 strike. I'm guessing it either is due separation issues or center of gravity issues. The downward cant of the ordnance on the fuselage would probably help with the former, though I imagine the back ordnance has to be jettisoned before the other stores to deal with the latter.

EDIT: actually thinking about it more, it really couldn't be CoG; F-15E's definitely have had Mk84 stores on the front and back which is in a similar weight class. I'm guessing separating from the front positions is problematic or that there are clearance issues with the AGM-158s being carried two at a time on the fuselage.
Click to expand...

The aircraft that they did the trial on has the LANTIRN NAV pod, along with a Sniper pod on the other side. They seem to be semi-permanent fixtures; you really never see the a/c flying without them hung. And I see aircrew online talking about unexpected ways the pods get used, like finding the runway under adverse conditions. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/316646-pods-carried-by-the-f-15e-strike-eagle/

I can also see some possibility that the MLGs might interfere with JASSM in the forward carriage position as well. Depends on exactly how far back the lugs are on the JASSM airframe.
 
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Makes me wonder if they could fit another pair at the front of the CFTs. (And why they'd put them at the back, where they're angled way down, instead of up front where they'd be level.)
Click to expand...

I'd guess they'd run into interference with the LANTIRN pods up front. It gets tight up there.

As for level, that's just how weapons hang on that rear CFT station; you see the same angle on iron bombs/JDAMs hanging back there. Presumably, it's actually more aerodynamic to follow the fuselage line (and the local airflow?) than to artificially force them down to be level with the horizon.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't need LANTIRN in an AGM-158 strike. I'm guessing it either is due separation issues or center of gravity issues. The downward cant of the ordnance on the fuselage would probably help with the former, though I imagine the back ordnance has to be jettisoned before the other stores to deal with the latter.

EDIT: actually thinking about it more, it really couldn't be CoG; F-15E's definitely have had Mk84 stores on the front and back which is in a similar weight class. I'm guessing separating from the front positions is problematic or that there are clearance issues with the AGM-158s being carried two at a time on the fuselage.
Click to expand...

The aircraft that they did the trial on has the LANTIRN NAV pod, along with a Sniper pod on the other side. They seem to be semi-permanent fixtures; you really never see the a/c flying without them hung. And I see aircrew online talking about unexpected ways the pods get used, like finding the runway under adverse conditions. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/316646-pods-carried-by-the-f-15e-strike-eagle/

I can also see some possibility that the MLGs might interfere with JASSM in the forward carriage position as well. Depends on exactly how far back the lugs are on the JASSM airframe.
Click to expand...
With the APG-82 going fleet wide, will the navigation pod and Dragon's Eye pod still be carried? Perhaps the AAQ-13 could be replaced by the Legion pod?
 
According to old flight manuals, LANTIRN pods had to be carried with CFTs installed...
...but that has changed, both no pod or targeting pod only configurations are possible, with CFTs:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RSAF_McDonnell_Douglas_F-15SG_Strike_Eagle_(6900911225).jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/15/30/f51530bf1919d8e316da2dd9e05761d2.jpg(The F-15SG does not have the new FBW, so the FBW is not the reason)

I guess the reason for mounting the JASSMs aft is clearance with the main gear. If possible, they would load single heavy munitions at the center stations, like they do with GBU-24s or Israeli stuff.
The JASSM looks like its pretty wide. But maybe it could fit theoretically, but with dangerously low margins, or the new loading tool is only useable at the rear of the jet.
 
isayyo2 said:
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Makes me wonder if they could fit another pair at the front of the CFTs. (And why they'd put them at the back, where they're angled way down, instead of up front where they'd be level.)
Click to expand...

I'd guess they'd run into interference with the LANTIRN pods up front. It gets tight up there.

As for level, that's just how weapons hang on that rear CFT station; you see the same angle on iron bombs/JDAMs hanging back there. Presumably, it's actually more aerodynamic to follow the fuselage line (and the local airflow?) than to artificially force them down to be level with the horizon.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't need LANTIRN in an AGM-158 strike. I'm guessing it either is due separation issues or center of gravity issues. The downward cant of the ordnance on the fuselage would probably help with the former, though I imagine the back ordnance has to be jettisoned before the other stores to deal with the latter.

EDIT: actually thinking about it more, it really couldn't be CoG; F-15E's definitely have had Mk84 stores on the front and back which is in a similar weight class. I'm guessing separating from the front positions is problematic or that there are clearance issues with the AGM-158s being carried two at a time on the fuselage.
Click to expand...

The aircraft that they did the trial on has the LANTIRN NAV pod, along with a Sniper pod on the other side. They seem to be semi-permanent fixtures; you really never see the a/c flying without them hung. And I see aircrew online talking about unexpected ways the pods get used, like finding the runway under adverse conditions. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/316646-pods-carried-by-the-f-15e-strike-eagle/

I can also see some possibility that the MLGs might interfere with JASSM in the forward carriage position as well. Depends on exactly how far back the lugs are on the JASSM airframe.
Click to expand...
With the APG-82 going fleet wide, will the navigation pod and Dragon's Eye pod still be carried? Perhaps the AAQ-13 could be replaced by the Legion pod?
Click to expand...

APG-82 doesn't have a TFR mode afaik...
The AN/ASQ-236 Dragon's Eye is a specialised piece of recce equipment, with side looking capabilites. Highly doubtful it could be replaced with the main radar.
Instead of carrying the Legion pod, they would include the Tiger Eye IRST mounted above the targeting pod as shown in the second pic above.
 
sferrin said:
Makes me wonder if they could fit another pair at the front of the CFTs. (And why they'd put them at the back, where they're angled way down, instead of up front where they'd be level.)
Click to expand...
Even if they could, that's a lot of mass and the aerodynamics.... What would that do to aircraft range?
 
The GBU-10 is about 2100 pounds. 5 along with 2 tanks have been carried and used operationally.
At 2250 lbs, AGM-158 weighs not much more than a GBU-10.
 
TomcatViP said:
F-15QA crashed on landing. Both pilot ejected:
A Boeing F-15 was involved in a ground ejection incident at MidAmerica St. Louis Airport around 07.30AM LT on May 18, 2021. According to the reports, both pilots successfully ejected: one of them refused treatment and the other was taken to the hospital with minor injuries, KMOV reported.
Click to expand...

https://theaviationist.com/2021/05/18/f15qa-ground-ejection/
Click to expand...

Thankfully both crew managed to eject and are okay. I am surprised that one of the crew refused medical treatment, I thought that it was mandatory that you got taken to hospital and checked out after an ejection.
 
TomS said:
stealthflanker said:
They ejected while the plane is still on the ground ?
Click to expand...

Yes. The plane ended up in the grass along the runway, but it's not clear yet whether it was there (or headed that direction) before they punched out.
Click to expand...
Looks very salvageable at least. but i expect cockpit electronics would be done for.
 
Some good results from Northern Edge

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-15ex-wins-some-loses-some-in-northern-edge/
The F-15EX has “full air-to-ground capabilities,” but those were not exercised in the wargame, he said. “The EX’s primary goal was to go up there and execute the current C-model mission.” It performed air dominance as well as homeland defense missions, he said.
Click to expand...
Perhaps expanding the future ANG missions, or a back-door pilot to replace/modernize the existing E fleet?
 
isayyo2 said:
Some good results from Northern Edge

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-15ex-wins-some-loses-some-in-northern-edge/
The F-15EX has “full air-to-ground capabilities,” but those were not exercised in the wargame, he said. “The EX’s primary goal was to go up there and execute the current C-model mission.” It performed air dominance as well as homeland defense missions, he said.
Click to expand...
Perhaps expanding the future ANG missions, or a back-door pilot to replace/modernize the existing E fleet?
Click to expand...
The article Made It sound a bit like they used the Eagle's EW system to act as an improvised growler for the F35s.
I wander if they could use some F15s to carry powerful jammers and not depend on the growlers anymore.
 
How can an USAF General be "pretty impressed" by just a couple of "new" hardpoints? I can understand EPAWSS... but the pylons...
 
Ingraman said:
How can an USAF General be "pretty impressed" by just a couple of "new" hardpoints? I can understand EPAWSS... but the pylons...
Click to expand...

Lieutenant Colonel, not General.

And if those two extra hardpoints means four extra AMRAAM, that's a potential increase of almost 70% in onboard BVR shots per aircraft, from 6 AMRAAM to 10 AMRAAM (plus 2 AIM-9X). That's "pretty impressive" in my book.
 
I suspect they are more impressed with the EW system compared to plane jane F-15s, especially the C model. The radar and cockpit would also be radically different.
 
Most, if not all of the C's have AESAs these days; the cockpits though would definitely be radically different.
 
TomcatViP said:
Prior to each (D)ACBT engagement or intercept. In addition, a check for proper operation of all
transfer tanks (wing tanks/CFTs balanced and tank 1 feeding) will be performed prior to and between
engagements or planned maneuvering above 30 units AOA.
Click to expand...
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/15V3.pdf
Google "F-15 + AoA + Limit"
Click to expand...
If that's the only thing - that might've been misunderstanding. "Unit" is not degree, it's measure on AoA indicator, smaller than actual degree quite substantially.
1621788747997.png

So yeah, F-15 being capable of 35 degrees AoA is... Let's stay a hefty overstatement. Same goes to it being easily better than all mentioned platforms.
 
It's not because I take 10 min to find a link suitable to awnser your request that this only should be the base for a denial.

After another 10min:
The MP was flying as lead of a two-ship formation during a dissimilar basic fighter maneuver
(BFM) sortie with an F-22A, assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron. While maneuvering
defensively in relationship to the Mishap Wingman (MW), at approximately 5,400 feet mean sea
level (MSL) and 180 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), the MP initiated a vertical climb to
65 degrees nose high, 20 degrees of right bank, 39 degrees Angle-of-Attack (AOA), and 1.2 Gs,
which apexed near 6,300 feet MSL and 105 KIAS, before a significant nose drop occurred. The
MP perceived the MA was not tracking as desired and initiated an unload of approximately one
fist-width’s forward stick with full right rudder. The nose pitched down and to the right to
65 degrees nose low, 110 degrees of right bank, -26 degrees AOA and G forces decreasing from
1.2 to -0.3 Gs. With right rudder still commanded, the MA experienced a negative G departure
from controlled flight with a snap roll entry to the left that transitioned to an inverted, negative G
spin. The MP received no indications of hydraulic, electrical, fuel, engine, structural, or flight
control system malfunctions. The MP was unable to recover the MA and ejected at approximately
1,100 feet MSL.
The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) President found, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
cause of the mishap was the MP’s improper application of forward stick with full right rudder,
Click to expand...
 
TomcatViP said:
It's not because I take 10 min to find a link suitable to awnser your request that this only should be the base for a denial.

After another 10min:
The MP was flying as lead of a two-ship formation during a dissimilar basic fighter maneuver
(BFM) sortie with an F-22A, assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron. While maneuvering
defensively in relationship to the Mishap Wingman (MW), at approximately 5,400 feet mean sea
level (MSL) and 180 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), the MP initiated a vertical climb to
65 degrees nose high, 20 degrees of right bank, 39 degrees Angle-of-Attack (AOA), and 1.2 Gs,
which apexed near 6,300 feet MSL and 105 KIAS, before a significant nose drop occurred. The
MP perceived the MA was not tracking as desired and initiated an unload of approximately one
fist-width’s forward stick with full right rudder. The nose pitched down and to the right to
65 degrees nose low, 110 degrees of right bank, -26 degrees AOA and G forces decreasing from
1.2 to -0.3 Gs. With right rudder still commanded, the MA experienced a negative G departure
from controlled flight with a snap roll entry to the left that transitioned to an inverted, negative G
spin. The MP received no indications of hydraulic, electrical, fuel, engine, structural, or flight
control system malfunctions. The MP was unable to recover the MA and ejected at approximately
1,100 feet MSL.
The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) President found, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
cause of the mishap was the MP’s improper application of forward stick with full right rudder,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And this is the case with instantaneous AoA in which plane crashed?.. How is that an indicator of useful performance?
 
If the plane hasn't stalled at 39deg of attack, it's a useful performance (note the mentioned attitude of 65 nose up). Stall is angle of attack dependent (not speed, nor attitude) ;)
 
The f-15 is still a formidable fighter and could in my eyes match up against foreign fifth gen fighters fairly well. Still though im glad ngad is coming pretty soon.
 
TomcatViP said:
If the plane hasn't stalled at 39deg of attack, it's a useful performance (note the mentioned attitude of 65 nose up). Stall is angle of attack dependent (not speed, nor attitude) ;)
Click to expand...
It's clearly not a sustainable performance, the fact is he did stall upon reaching that AoA, and it's not an instantaneous process, so the stall may well have become inevitable at a significantly lower AoA. If you're actively pitching up the nose as the stall initiates the nose drop first has to overcome the increase in AoA before it actually starts to drop, which probably puts you deeper into the stall before you realise what's happening. KIAS is interesting, he was very low energy to try that sort of extreme pitch-up - makes me wonder if he was trying to match the F-22 in low speed manoeuvring and forgot it has thrust vectoring and an F-15 doesn't.
 
It says that he used a full rudder while on negative alpha while being slow, so it looks like he set the airplane for an inverted spin. There are videos of f-15Es pulling high alpha but it is mostly instantaneous, not sustained, apparently, the f-15 starts to lose stability if you keep pulling alpha so it is not like a hornet. The new EX might have a flight control system that makes the airplane carefree and helps prevent stuff like the accident mentioned above while extracting more performance of the aircraft. I don't think it is wrong to purchase them, the Russians have su-35s, Chinese have the flanker clones. I think that the EX might end up having a better radar than stealth aircraft and could act as a missile platform.
 
TMA1 said:
The f-15 is still a formidable fighter and could in my eyes match up against foreign fifth gen fighters fairly well. Still though im glad ngad is coming pretty soon.
Click to expand...
Oh, it definitely is, no argue here. Just pushing "it's the best in everything and only gets better" agenda in areas where it is definitely not the case is unwise imo.
 
That's not an agenda. Don't evade the discussion by calling names please.

The example clearly states that the departure was with his change in direction (reversal). If you are not in a stall, you are within your flying domain.
Moreover, the plane is in a bank. Most a/c are yaw limited to the point that at high alpha (for many around 25 degree), rudder is rendered inoperative and roll restricted (the Meuh effect on the Rafale - Release stick, Release stick).
You have noticed the low speed (180 downto 105kt) but not the fact that it was an evasive manoeuvre. I see it as of much interest.

Last but not least, when it comes to the EX, the test pilot demonstrated such confidence in the new model that he repeatedly hit the pitch limiter right above the runway, in a bank at the end of his initial flight.The videos were posted here. Have a fresh look at it.

View: https://youtu.be/kJEQse4Aq4Q?t=40
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom