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

back to the Japanese F-15 upgrade controversey.. a bit more came from Alert 5 today
http://alert5.com/2021/04/13/japan-...si-because-of-the-switch-from-dews-to-epawss/
Kishi says Japan has to spend more as the electronic warfare system that it choose for the upgrade faces parts shortages. Tokyo had wanted to buy 101 sets of the ALQ-239 Digital Electronic Warfare System (DEWS). It is now believe that they were told to switch to the new Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) instead.
Click to expand...
 
No way that can be considering the tomcat had kills approaching 150 miles. Maybe it was flying through the jet stream and launched at mach 2+ with a long glide from a ballistic profile..... I imagine this was a science experiment that couldn't be an every day use
 
rooster said:
No way that can be considering the tomcat had kills approaching 150 miles. Maybe it was flying through the jet stream and launched at mach 2+ with a long glide from a ballistic profile..... I imagine this was a science experiment that couldn't be an every day use
Click to expand...
Always wondered how far an AIM-54C (or AIM-47 with it's original Mach 6 motor) launched from an F-12B at Mach 3.2 and 80,000 feet would fly.
 
sferrin said:
rooster said:
No way that can be considering the tomcat had kills approaching 150 miles. Maybe it was flying through the jet stream and launched at mach 2+ with a long glide from a ballistic profile..... I imagine this was a science experiment that couldn't be an every day use
Click to expand...
Always wondered how far an AIM-54C (or AIM-47 with it's original Mach 6 motor) launched from an F-12B at Mach 3.2 and 80,000 feet would fly.
Click to expand...
What??? The 50s & 60s were amazing aerospace technology decades and SPF is such an amazing place to “read all about it” [and weep a little]
 
rooster said:
No way that can be considering the tomcat had kills approaching 150 miles. Maybe it was flying through the jet stream and launched at mach 2+ with a long glide from a ballistic profile..... I imagine this was a science experiment that couldn't be an every day use
Click to expand...
Not 150 miles, 150km. And it used exactly the loft trajectory you described)
As for really long shots - R-37 did 304km once.
 
GARGEAN said:
rooster said:
No way that can be considering the tomcat had kills approaching 150 miles. Maybe it was flying through the jet stream and launched at mach 2+ with a long glide from a ballistic profile..... I imagine this was a science experiment that couldn't be an every day use
Click to expand...
Not 150 miles, 150km. And it used exactly the loft trajectory you described)
As for really long shots - R-37 did 304km once.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the speculation is that AIM-120D is around 100 nm (185 km) range, so similar or slightly more than Phoenix. Probably with a lot of similar trajectory shaping going on.

Reading between the lines, I don't think this was meant to be claiming a world record, just the longest known US shot. I blame lazy writing. Plus of course the US doesn't actually have any unclassified "knowledge" of foreign missile shoots, so things like that R-37 shot or the Chinese long-range AAMs aren't "official" as far as the public relations folks are concerned.
 
TomS said:
And the speculation is that AIM-120D is around 100 nm (185 km) range, so similar or slightly more than Phoenix.
Click to expand...
I consider those as speculations, and a FAT ones. One doesn't achieve "50% more range!" while having same motor and same body layout.
 
Amraam is a 30y old missile that has survived a large swatch of technology improvements while remaining USAF's tip of the Spear.
50% would seem quite conservative.
 
TomcatViP said:
50% would seem quite conservative.
Click to expand...
Not for what is essentially electronics and software upgrade of missile that was put into use in 2000. It would be conservative for some load of really meaningful in terms of tech affecting range upgrades. New rocket motor, revised airframe with lifting body, ect - all this would be easily sufficient for such a boost while keeping rougthy same mass and dimensions. Software? No.
 
The 50% only makes sense if the original trajectory had no loft at all. Energy densities of rocket motors haven't changed drastically over the decades. The other possibility is that more fuel was stuffed into the body at the expense of warhead of guidance (or guidance electronics were further miaturized). But I always had a hard time believing the 50% number, personally.
 
Josh_TN said:
The 50% only makes sense if the original trajectory had no loft at all. Energy densities of rocket motors haven't changed drastically over the decades. The other possibility is that more fuel was stuffed into the body at the expense of warhead of guidance (or guidance electronics were further miaturized). But I always had a hard time believing the 50% number, personally.
Click to expand...
Problems are: A - we know that proper loft for long range shots was present since forever, and B - we know that it uses same engine as was used since AIM-120C-5.
 
GARGEAN said:
Josh_TN said:
The 50% only makes sense if the original trajectory had no loft at all. Energy densities of rocket motors haven't changed drastically over the decades. The other possibility is that more fuel was stuffed into the body at the expense of warhead of guidance (or guidance electronics were further miaturized). But I always had a hard time believing the 50% number, personally.
Click to expand...
Problems are: A - we know that proper loft for long range shots was present since forever, and B - we know that it uses same engine as was used since AIM-120C-5.
Click to expand...


https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199170/aim-120-amraam/
This says the C-7 has the new +5 (5-inch longer) rocket motor and shortened control actuator module, and the D has a new actuator control module and (obviously) the new guidance section.
 
I think the C-7 variant introduced the lofted trajectory for the AMRAAM series and the C-5 had already introduced the improved rocket motor. The D model having a 50% longer range over the C-7 doesn't seem feasible.

At some point the AIM-120D was envisioned as having a dual-pulse rocket motor but that never happened even though it really should have by now.
 
TomS said:
This says the C-7 has the new +5 (5-inch longer) rocket motor and shortened control actuator module, and the D has a new actuator control module and (obviously) the new guidance section.
Click to expand...
This motor was introduced with C-5. And yeah, guidance section change is more than expected)
 
GARGEAN said:
TomS said:
This says the C-7 has the new +5 (5-inch longer) rocket motor and shortened control actuator module, and the D has a new actuator control module and (obviously) the new guidance section.
Click to expand...
This motor was introduced with C-5. And yeah, guidance section change is more than expected)
Click to expand...

Annoyinfg that even the Air Force seems confused.

Fortunately we have a dedicated AMRAAM thread that seems to have better info.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aim-120-amraam-projects.127/post-285012
Jennings [Raytheon's AMRAAM business development director] said, "The AIM-120C-5 extended the range of the AIM-120B fairly significantly, by shortening the control actuation system in the back and adding fins to the back end of the rocket motor. That added pretty decent range capability when you go from AIM-120B to AIM-120C-5. The C-7 and the D share the same rocket motor, and the same form, fit, function, size, and control actuation system. And both the C-7 and D have the same rocket motor as the C-5. Throughout AMRAAM's development, there have been improvements into the flight profile of the missile to get to the target. These improvements have led to range increases as well, and the jump from the B to the C-7 was fairly significant. The D can fly slightly farther than the C-7, and the C-7 can fly farther than the C-5. But this range increase is in the order of low double-digit percentages."
Click to expand...

So it appears that there was a big jump with the C-5 (which fits with the bigger motor and smaller actuator section), then smaller increases the C-7 and D, presumably due to better trajectory shaping and tweaks.

One thing that jumps out is that sometimes people talk ab out the D haveing a much improved no-escape range. That's very different from the maximum kinematic range and could well be due to improvements in guidance techniques, for example.
 
TomS said:
So it appears that there was a big jump with the C-5 (which fits with the bigger motor and smaller actuator section), then smaller increases the C-7 and D, presumably due to better trajectory shaping and tweaks.
Click to expand...
Yup, exactly my point. Just blindly going with "AIM-120D has 50% range increase over AIM-120C-7" is just so wrong...
TomS said:
One thing that jumps out is that sometimes people talk ab out the D haveing a much improved no-escape range. That's very different from the maximum kinematic range and could well be due to improvements in guidance techniques, for example.
Click to expand...
That part is indeed reliant on software somewhat more than pure longshots, but I wouldn't expect really substantial increase in range here either, at least if software wasn't heavily flawed before. Which it definitely wasn't.
 
TomS said:
GARGEAN said:
Josh_TN said:
The 50% only makes sense if the original trajectory had no loft at all. Energy densities of rocket motors haven't changed drastically over the decades. The other possibility is that more fuel was stuffed into the body at the expense of warhead of guidance (or guidance electronics were further miaturized). But I always had a hard time believing the 50% number, personally.
Click to expand...
Problems are: A - we know that proper loft for long range shots was present since forever, and B - we know that it uses same engine as was used since AIM-120C-5.
Click to expand...


https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199170/aim-120-amraam/
This says the C-7 has the new +5 (5-inch longer) rocket motor and shortened control actuator module, and the D has a new actuator control module and (obviously) the new guidance section.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize the motor changed physical sizes in the more recent vesrions. So did the overall missile retain the same dimension but the control section was reduced to allow more propellant?
 
GARGEAN said:
TomS said:
So it appears that there was a big jump with the C-5 (which fits with the bigger motor and smaller actuator section), then smaller increases the C-7 and D, presumably due to better trajectory shaping and tweaks.
Click to expand...
Yup, exactly my point. Just blindly going with "AIM-120D has 50% range increase over AIM-120C-7" is just so wrong...
TomS said:
One thing that jumps out is that sometimes people talk ab out the D haveing a much improved no-escape range. That's very different from the maximum kinematic range and could well be due to improvements in guidance techniques, for example.
Click to expand...
That part is indeed reliant on software somewhat more than pure longshots, but I wouldn't expect really substantial increase in range here either, at least if software wasn't heavily flawed before. Which it definitely wasn't.
Click to expand...

I've learned something today, for sure. Now, the next issue is how to square the info on the AIM-120D with the Navy's implications that it matches the range of AIM-54. But that's probably a question for another thread.
 
TomcatViP said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...with-the-woman-who-runs-the-program-behind-it
Click to expand...

hmm too bad no range figure given but... this one is curious

"
Tyler: How does the APG-82 differ from the APG-63V3?

MS: The APG-82 was born from the APG-79 and the APG-63. The APG-63V3 is born from the V0 and V1 of that radar, which were the mechanically scanned arrays… The APG-63V3 is an AESA, and it has comparable capability to the APG-82, but at the same time, it really focuses on the air-to-air mission versus both air-to-air and air-to-ground, as we see in the APG-82.

There are some physical differences that go along with the two radars, the -63 has a power supply that is very similar to the APG-82, but then it also has four other units that go along with it. The APG-82 only has two other units that go along with it, and so that really helped also from our maintenance and improved aircraft reliability and availability perspective, which equates to reduced radar sustainment costs. In addition, the APG-82 is a four-channel radar and it has the ability to go to six…"

Where was the APG-63V2 ?
 
stealthflanker said:
Where was the APG-63V2 ?
Click to expand...

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-15s-looking-for-the-aesa-edge-04044/
AN/APG-63v2. The world’s first AESA radar system to be operationally deployed in a fighter aircraft, entering service with the F-15Cs at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska in December 2000. At present, 18 operational F-15Cs fly with the APG-63v2 radar, and a 19th F-15C has been equipped with the APG-63v3 for testing purposes. Current plans call for up to 48 more APG-63v3-equipped F-15C/Ds to join them, but some options under discussion could grow that number.

APG-63v3. Combines APG-63v2 AESA software with the hardware advances that went into the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II’s AN/APG-79 AESA radar. Whereas the AP-63v2 AESA had a square profile, the APG-63v3 can be recognized by the rounder shape of its array. It uses lighter and more advanced AESA technologies that include a tile array arrangement, and a new processor.
Click to expand...
 
So it's new wine in old wineskins... but you have to admit it's a damn fine wineskin.

It's also the quality vs. quantity argument again. Do you want just a few of the best, or many more of good enough? Remember that in the current industrial context, what you fight your wars with is what you have at the start.
 
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
My only pet peeve is that’s it’s not a wholly new airframe so Eagle II doesn’t even make sense.
Click to expand...

It’s not like the Silent Eagle that Boeing were trying to sell a few years ago, it is just a standard Eagle airframe. Though I take it that there will be a brand new AESA radar installed?
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought it had new wings wings that finally allowed usage of all the weapons stations.
 
rooster said:
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
My only pet peeve is that’s it’s not a wholly new airframe so Eagle II doesn’t even make sense.
Click to expand...

It’s not like the Silent Eagle that Boeing were trying to sell a few years ago, it is just a standard Eagle airframe. Though I take it that there will be a brand new AESA radar installed?
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought it had new wings wings that finally allowed usage of all the weapons stations.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. It's been beefed up to allow for more flight hours and more usable weapons stations.
 
EX have specific wings (same as QA and Upgraded SA) :
hveXIbXDOVGc8xbQEzaU_4QuR0sgHmuqAkj9PO6NOLNs_QPmR-upIAH0tkiF1bqvvQrmF7WxMgRJt3_EabwYELS8lPx3lN9vt-afEDfQMG0Jb-WV
 
Jimmo952 said:
I think you are right. It's been beefed up to allow for more flight hours and more usable weapons stations.
Click to expand...
Puts me in mind of that brag pic of the A-1 Skyraider with a gazillion weapons laid out in front of it and the comment "Unlike most other aircraft with promo pictures like this, the Skyraider can actually carry all of these weapons at once."
 
https://www.airforcemag.com/second-f-15ex-eagle-ii-delivered-to-eglin/
Despite just receiving the first aircraft, the Air Force is already planning its first exercise. The F-15EX will debut at Northern Edge 2021, according to Eglin. This Pacific Air Forces-hosted exercise is scheduled for May 3-14 in Alaska, and will include participants from the Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps, according to PACAF.
Click to expand...
 
It seems to be the case that Boeing is trying to use the upgrade programs of the existing F-15s abroad for further international sales of the new F-15EX. Few weeks ago there were reports concerning the upgrade costs of the Korean F-15Ks nearing $ 90 million per aircraft. Parallel to that, Boeing allegedly offered a $ 30 million price tag (per aircraft) for upgrades under the condition that ROKAF buys 20 more F-15EX for their 4th iteration of F-X program, which currently seems to be heavily in favor of F-35As.

Maybe the cost problems concerning the JSI upgrades for the Japanese eagles are of similar nature. I mean, since Boeing has no incentives to lower the costs for the upgrades of the existing planes that are slowly going to be phased out in a decade or two, maybe they are trying to milk the F-15s for one last time.
 
Jimmo952 said:
rooster said:
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
My only pet peeve is that’s it’s not a wholly new airframe so Eagle II doesn’t even make sense.
Click to expand...

It’s not like the Silent Eagle that Boeing were trying to sell a few years ago, it is just a standard Eagle airframe. Though I take it that there will be a brand new AESA radar installed?
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought it had new wings wings that finally allowed usage of all the weapons stations.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. It's been beefed up to allow for more flight hours and more usable weapons stations.
Click to expand...

It was also going to have a radar blocker installed, ala Super Bug or X-32. During the 3rd F-X in Korea, Boeing also offered an angled vertical tails for some reason but obviously since the other planforms were not aligned on the plane, it was way less effective and such offer was ultimately retracted.

Btw that conformal weapons bay was codeveloped with KAI and that was one of their salespoint in the 3rd F-X program as well.
 
TomcatViP said:
EX have specific wings (same as QA and Upgraded SA) :
hveXIbXDOVGc8xbQEzaU_4QuR0sgHmuqAkj9PO6NOLNs_QPmR-upIAH0tkiF1bqvvQrmF7WxMgRJt3_EabwYELS8lPx3lN9vt-afEDfQMG0Jb-WV
Click to expand...
Its new wings alright.. but its still "missing" any LE-flaps.
The fact that it can utilize the outer wing weapon station, has more to do with its new digital FBW, and much less about new wings.
 
The F-15 in it's original form is good for 32/35 AoA. It's better than a M2K, a Rafale, an early Typhoon, a F-16 or a Su-27...
It was said that FBW an the gain in wing's weight has improved this number but I think we are unable yet to quantity it.
 
TomcatViP said:
The F-15 in it's original form is good for 32/35 AoA. It's better than a M2K, a Rafale, an early Typhoon, a F-16 or a Su-27...
It was said that FBW an the gain in wing's weight has improved this number but I think we are unable yet to quantity it.
Click to expand...
No. Those Hardpoint farings were there before on earlier F-15's.
But they expirience unstable flight behaviour when they mounted something on them, and the old FBW could not compensate for this at that time.
That is why they were left unused.

With the new digital FBW they fixed this.

Combat Aircraft Monthly; F-15QA/SA
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom