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

sferrin said:
Why not just stuff them in the CFTs?
Click to expand...
It’s not that easy. Think about how difficult and costly it was to deliver the NGJ-MB. Now we have to redesign and split up the arrays and somehow integrate a functional RAT, power generation and cooling into a conformal OML. I’m not going to bet against the ingenuity of the US defense base but such a thing would in all likelihood be eye wateringly expensive vs adapting NGJ-MB itself or building a derivative but still podded version.
 
trang said:
EX sounds like an over-the-counter medication. Embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Like, oh, Ex-Lax for example;):D? Or, say, EX-con, EX-spouse or EX-(Insert term);):D.

That's why I refer to it as the F-15F (Which logically should've been designated).
 
Forest Green said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Meink: Air Force 'Probably' Too Small, F-15Es Still Have Value

Air Force Secretary nominee Troy Meink said he wants to study how long fourth-generation fighters like the F-15E can continue to add value.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
For air policing over the USA, they'll serve till the life of the airframe. 2040-ish.
For interception over Europe, likewise.

For deep interdiction:
Over a country without a functional IADS, till the life of the airframe.
Over a country with a semi-functional IADS, they're done.
Over a country with an actual IADS, they were obsolete 10-15 years ago.
 
While being an aerospace engineer having professionally worked in civilian/commercial reusable winged orbital transport vehicle conceptual design back in the day, as an admittedly complete layperson when it comes to modern military supersonic fighter/interceptor/whatever air to air combat aircraft design I am honestly, truly baffled that two seaters still appear to rule the day - I honestly expected two seat F-15/F-16/F-18 et al non-US/Western European adversary models to be, apart from trainer versions, relegated to the scrap heap by now, with smart electronics, even before the current AI craze, taking over the the functions of the back seater, much like droids on the Star Wars Incom T-65 X-wing starfighter would - what am I missing (and yes, this is a genuine knowledge seeking question, complete with an old geezer redundant reference :D)?
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
I honestly expected two seat F-15/F-16/F-18 et al non-US/Western European adversary models to be, apart from trainer versions, relegated to the scrap heap by now
Click to expand...

I don't recall the details but there was this paper published by a USMC flight-officer about 2010 that read on the DTIC website detailing how the USMC discovered during the 1980s in using the F/A-18A/C that for certain missions they needed the two-seat F/A-18B/Ds and IIRC this paper speculated based on the experience about the possible need for the USMC to need a two-seat F-35.
 
NMaude said:
I don't recall the details but there was this paper published by a USMC flight-officer about 2010 that read on the DTIC website detailing how the USMC discovered during the 1980s in using the F/A-18A/C that for certain missions they needed the two-seat F/A-18B/Ds and IIRC this paper speculated based on the experience about the possible need for the USMC to need a two-seat F-35.
Click to expand...
Hello NMaude, thank you for your kind reply, but the reference you quote appears to be 15 years out of date, which in my understanding may be like three development generations behind the innovation frontier. I am looking for any current relevant analyses/assessments/evaluations.
 
martinbayer said:
While being an aerospace engineer having professionally worked in civilian/commercial reusable winged orbital transport vehicle conceptual design back in the day, as an admittedly complete layperson when it comes to modern military supersonic fighter/interceptor/whatever air to air combat aircraft design I am honestly, truly baffled that two seaters still appear to rule the day - I honestly expected two seat F-15/F-16/F-18 et al non-US/Western European adversary models to be, apart from trainer versions, relegated to the scrap heap by now, with smart electronics, even before the current AI craze, taking over the the functions of the back seater, much like droids on the Star Wars Incom T-65 X-wing starfighter would - what am I missing (and yes, this is a genuine knowledge seeking question, complete with an old geezer redundant reference :D)?
Click to expand...

The jury is split, see the Rafale. The AdA has single-seat and two-seat Rafales, the Aéronavale for weight reasons has to do with single-seat Rafales.
 
martinbayer said:
I honestly expected two seat F-15/F-16/F-18 et al non-US/Western European adversary models to be, apart from trainer versions, relegated to the scrap heap by now, with smart electronics, even before the current AI craze, taking over the the functions of the back seater, much like droids on the Star Wars Incom T-65 X-wing starfighter would - what am I missing (and yes, this is a genuine knowledge seeking question, complete with an old geezer redundant reference :D)?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it's a matter of task saturation. The pilot is flying the airplane. There may be an autopilot but the pilot still needs to monitor what the plane is actively doing. And that doesn't leave a whole lot of spare brainpower or attention for doing the other stuff, like watching the long-range radar or telling the drones/CCAs what to do or telling the jammers what to do or talking the CAS onto a target.

Plus, in a dogfight having two sets of eyes helps a lot, as long as the crew has trained to divide their visual search areas.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As I understand it, it's a matter of task saturation. The pilot is flying the airplane. There may be an autopilot but the pilot still needs to monitor what the plane is actively doing. And that doesn't leave a whole lot of spare brainpower or attention for doing the other stuff, like watching the long-range radar or telling the drones/CCAs what to do or telling the jammers what to do or talking the CAS onto a target.

Plus, in a dogfight having two sets of eyes helps a lot, as long as the crew has trained to divide their visual search areas.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Seems to be the reason why the AdA has two-seat Rafales for strike, same story with the Mirage 2000D/N before them.

Going back further in time, the Mirage IIIE seemingly had issues similar to the contemporary F-105D and its thunderstick system : single crew information overload. Also applied to F-104G.
 
Archibald said:
The jury is split, see the Rafale. The AdA has single-seat and two-seat Rafales, the Aéronavale for weight reasons has to do with single-seat Rafales.
Click to expand...
Hello Archibald, the real question then is what are the technology drivers that could enable a single seat Rafale fleet across the board?
 
Volume.

The USAF never fielded a two seat strike variant of the 105. The wild weasel was on offspring with a dedicated mission that needed a dedicated wso.

On the contrary, the F104 and Mirage were much smaller platforms unable to host the bulky avionics that came with the automation of their mission (all weather low level penetration - the Mirage really matching that with the 2KN/2KD only).
 
Scott Kenny said:
As I understand it, it's a matter of task saturation. The pilot is flying the airplane. There may be an autopilot but the pilot still needs to monitor what the plane is actively doing. And that doesn't leave a whole lot of spare brainpower or attention for doing the other stuff, like watching the long-range radar or telling the drones/CCAs what to do or telling the jammers what to do or talking the CAS onto a target.

Plus, in a dogfight having two sets of eyes helps a lot, as long as the crew has trained to divide their visual search areas.
Click to expand...
I think a lot, if not all, of watching/monitoring the long-range radar or telling drones/CCAs or jammers what to do or talking the CAS onto a target, could be automated, as could be situational awareness in dogfight situations. Having additional eyes in dogfights can be easily accomplished with wide field micro cameras under domes all around the aircraft that cover the whole sphere around the aircraft in strategic locations full time rather than having two humans cover only roughly a little more of half the hemisphere on top of the plane haphazardly.
 
Archibald said:
Spot on. Seems to be the reason why the AdA has two-seat Rafales for strike, same story with the Mirage 2000D/N before them.

Going back further in time, the Mirage IIIE seemingly had issues similar to the contemporary F-105D and its thunderstick system : single crew information overload. Also applied to F-104G.
Click to expand...
Time and technology moves on... I believe current IT technology (even *without* AI) can be made to handle wetware information overload.
 
martinbayer said:
I think a lot, if not all, of watching/monitoring the long-range radar or telling drones/CCAs or jammers what to do or talking the CAS onto a target, could be automated, as could be situational awareness in dogfight situations. Having additional eyes in dogfights can be easily accomplished with wide field micro cameras under domes all around the aircraft that cover the whole sphere around the aircraft in strategic locations full time rather than having two humans cover only roughly a little more of half the hemisphere on top of the plane haphazardly.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but remember that driving a car on city streets in compliance with traffic laws is sufficiently complicated that it took a good 15 years from "we want to do this" to "we can sorta do this but it still needs active human monitoring and even then it kills people faster than the monitoring human can react."
 
TomcatViP said:
Volume.

The USAF never fielded a two seat strike variant of the 105. The wild weasel was on offspring with a dedicated mission that needed a dedicated wso.

On the contrary, the F104 and Mirage were much smaller platforms unable to host the bulky avionics that came with the automation of their mission (all weather low level penetration - the Mirage really matching that with the 2KN/2KD only).
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, those arguments are overcome by events today in light of the progress of modern electronics.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Possibly, but remember that driving a car on city streets in compliance with traffic laws is sufficiently complicated that it took a good 15 years from "we want to do this" to "we can sorta do this but it still needs active human monitoring and even then it kills people faster than the monitoring human can react."
Click to expand...
I actually think that being engaged in an aerial three dimensional no holds barred dogfight where there are no two dimensional stop signs, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, jaywalkers, bicyclers, one way streets, speed limits, dead ends, or any other surface traffic rules to be observed is way easier than just following central air combat traffic control, if any directions at all.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
If I understand correctly, those arguments are overcome by events today in light of the progress of modern electronics.
Click to expand...
yes and no. Modern avionics are certainly more compact but sensors take up space and generate drag, leading to a minimal size for a modern efficient fighter jet. Same thing with power generation: the size of its engine will impart a constraint on the size of the airframe. So the problem is still present today.
 
martinbayer said:
I actually think that being engaged in an aerial three dimensional no holds barred dogfight where there are no two dimensional stop signs, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, jaywalkers, bicyclers, one way streets, speed limits, dead ends, or any other surface traffic rules to be observed is way easier than just following central air combat traffic control, if any directions at all.
Click to expand...
Which is why we've had an effective dogfighting AI developed years before a street legal "chauffeur" AI system.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom