Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
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.
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
703
Reaction score
433
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.
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.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,880
Reaction score
2,394
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.
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.



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.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
764
Reaction score
125
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.
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
703
Reaction score
433
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.
This motor was introduced with C-5. And yeah, guidance section change is more than expected)
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,880
Reaction score
2,394
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.
This motor was introduced with C-5. And yeah, guidance section change is more than expected)

Annoyinfg that even the Air Force seems confused.

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


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."

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.
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
703
Reaction score
433
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.
Yup, exactly my point. Just blindly going with "AIM-120D has 50% range increase over AIM-120C-7" is just so wrong...
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.
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.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
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.
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.



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 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?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,880
Reaction score
2,394
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.
Yup, exactly my point. Just blindly going with "AIM-120D has 50% range increase over AIM-120C-7" is just so wrong...
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.
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.

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.
 

siegecrossbow

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
69
Reaction score
40
Slightly off-topic, but Japan is cleared to transform 98 of its F-15J Eagles into "Japanese Super Interceptors".
Link: https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/japan-f-15j-modernization
Funding suspended: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/12/12/national/2021-budget-f-15/

I feel Japan does need a fighter that performs the “grunt work” of long range naval patrol and interception even as its fleet shifts to F-35s and perhaps the F-3 once that’s ready. Scrambling fifth generation aircraft, which are maintenance heavy and expensive, against Bears and H-6s is not the best use of defense budget. This is why I think USAF’s decision to invest in the F-15X is justified.

The F-15J airframes are very old, with the newest built in the late 1990s. It’s probably better for them to either acquire F-15X or indigenize airframe/engine production.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
492
Reaction score
670
The F-15J airframes are very old, with the newest built in the late 1990s. It’s probably better for them to either acquire F-15X or indigenize airframe/engine production.
They're old, but like the Saudi C/Ds how many flight hours have been racked up? I'd guess it's a bit lower than what the USAF has been through. Japan's J birds are almost bone stock MSIPs minus some IFF mods, they're still flying with APG-63V1s at best and they do not have Link 16 whatsoever...
New build EXs would be a great option no doubt, but how many could they afford?
 

siegecrossbow

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
69
Reaction score
40
The F-15J airframes are very old, with the newest built in the late 1990s. It’s probably better for them to either acquire F-15X or indigenize airframe/engine production.
They're old, but like the Saudi C/Ds how many flight hours have been racked up? I'd guess it's a bit lower than what the USAF has been through. Japan's J birds are almost bone stock MSIPs minus some IFF mods, they're still flying with APG-63V1s at best and they do not have Link 16 whatsoever...
New build EXs would be a great option no doubt, but how many could they afford?

Probably several magnitudes higher than Saudi Arabia, which is under no challenge from hostile regional air forces. The only major one I can think of is Iran, which does not operate strategic bombers.


When an airframe is used that much, it becomes more of a maintenance liability than an actual asset. Cost may not be as big of an issue if the U.S. purchases the F-15EX in large numbers and other customers like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, or Singapore express interest. Once several production lines are in place, cost per aircraft can be reduced dramatically.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
1,236
If they tie the buy into the usaf acqusition it would be far more cost effective I agree. There is still a market around the lexx developed nations for the airframes they already have.
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
107
Reaction score
210
Not 100% sure where to put this, feel free to move.

F-15 pilot thanks spotter who raised the alarm when he spotted F-15 trailing sparks:

The USAF have a very good relationship with the local spotter community, and with the photographers over in the Mach Loop. If its someones last flight through the loop they'll tip the regulars there off, do a very low run through, with the cockpit tipped towards where the photographers are and get sent the hi-res pics back in return as a keepsake.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
434
Returning to the AIM-120 for a moment.

If I remember accurately, one of the changes introduced with the D was a repackaging of the electronics in a more circular layout to free up space in the center for more fuel. Then it was decided not to put in the extra fuel after all and range increase was mostly attributed to flying, "...a more optimum profile.

True or fals? And, if true, that void should still be there and maybe they could start using it if they want to increase range.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Slightly off-topic, but Japan is cleared to transform 98 of its F-15J Eagles into "Japanese Super Interceptors".
Link: https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/japan-f-15j-modernization
Funding suspended: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/12/12/national/2021-budget-f-15/

I feel Japan does need a fighter that performs the “grunt work” of long range naval patrol and interception even as its fleet shifts to F-35s and perhaps the F-3 once that’s ready. Scrambling fifth generation aircraft, which are maintenance heavy and expensive, against Bears and H-6s is not the best use of defense budget. This is why I think USAF’s decision to invest in the F-15X is justified.

The F-15J airframes are very old, with the newest built in the late 1990s. It’s probably better for them to either acquire F-15X or indigenize airframe/engine production.
Japan is one of our most important allies in the region. I say no way do they need flying radar reflectors. Time to get into this century. Maybe a less advanced egad is appropriate but then you have to spend the money to develop a new variant .
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
860
Reaction score
1,471
Now that we know the model number for this variant, I've updated the thread title so that this thread focuses on the QA and EX (which are related).
In the Japanese thread, I wrote that the JPN government is planning to standardize around 3 combat aircraft. the F-35, the next gen Japanese aircraft, and an advance F-15 model. I suspect it could possibly be some variant of the EX as well.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
492
Reaction score
670
Now that we know the model number for this variant, I've updated the thread title so that this thread focuses on the QA and EX (which are related).
In the Japanese thread, I wrote that the JPN government is planning to standardize around 3 combat aircraft. the F-35, the next gen Japanese aircraft, and an advance F-15 model. I suspect it could possibly be some variant of the EX as well.
Is it possible Mitsubishi's tooling still exists? That would certainly speed up an F-15EJ (EXJ?) production run.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
274
Reaction score
136
Now that we know the model number for this variant, I've updated the thread title so that this thread focuses on the QA and EX (which are related).
In the Japanese thread, I wrote that the JPN government is planning to standardize around 3 combat aircraft. the F-35, the next gen Japanese aircraft, and an advance F-15 model. I suspect it could possibly be some variant of the EX as well.
Is it possible Mitsubishi's tooling still exists? That would certainly speed up an F-15EJ (EXJ?) production run.
Tooling isn't the problem it's certifying all the custom Japanese electronics and having to pay for all of that one time engineering work.
 

siegecrossbow

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
69
Reaction score
40
Returning to the AIM-120 for a moment.

If I remember accurately, one of the changes introduced with the D was a repackaging of the electronics in a more circular layout to free up space in the center for more fuel. Then it was decided not to put in the extra fuel after all and range increase was mostly attributed to flying, "...a more optimum profile.

True or fals? And, if true, that void should still be there and maybe they could start using it if they want to increase range.

I'm more interested in whether the dual-pulse motor rumor was true.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,697
Reaction score
830
Had 4 QAs fly over in formation at relatively low altitude Tuesday - been a while since I have seen and especially heard that! Assuming they were practicing for this event or showing the Boss what they had.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Turns out they were giving VIP rides to the Bosses.... Mark
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
860
Reaction score
1,471
slightly off topic

but how does everyone here feel about merging the classic F-15 and the advanced F-15 threads into one mega F-15 thread?

at least for this section, the number of posts for the classic F-15 is actually not that many.
but we do have quite a few F-15 related threads in A&S that should be merged one way or another
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
slightly off topic

but how does everyone here feel about merging the classic F-15 and the advanced F-15 threads into one mega F-15 thread?

at least for this section, the number of posts for the classic F-15 is actually not that many.
but we do have quite a few F-15 related threads in A&S that should be merged one way or another
Burn the heretic!!!!!

:)
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
492
Reaction score
670
slightly off topic

but how does everyone here feel about merging the classic F-15 and the advanced F-15 threads into one mega F-15 thread?

at least for this section, the number of posts for the classic F-15 is actually not that many.
but we do have quite a few F-15 related threads in A&S that should be merged one way or another
I'll have to say "Pass" as a 20+ page mega thread isn't alway conductive for research.
However, if we ever get that "view all pages" feature again I'd be for it ;)
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
221
Reaction score
173
I have a question concerning the Pratt&Whitney F100 and the General Electric engines and that is where exactly are they made in the US? I've tried looking on the wikipedia but the articles concerning their makers are vague as to where they're actually built.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
1,236
I think that sort of information would be very deliberately kept vague. No reason for us plebs to know that sort of thing.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,880
Reaction score
2,394
I have a question concerning the Pratt&Whitney F100 and the General Electric engines and that is where exactly are they made in the US? I've tried looking on the wikipedia but the articles concerning their makers are vague as to where they're actually built.

Any US Government contract award will tell you what state the work will be done in (usually broken down by percentage).
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
221
Reaction score
173
I have a question concerning the Pratt&Whitney F100 and the General Electric engines and that is where exactly are they made in the US? I've tried looking on the wikipedia but the articles concerning their makers are vague as to where they're actually built.

Any US Government contract award will tell you what state the work will be done in (usually broken down by percentage).
Would you please elaborate as I haven't looked at any such contracts, so where are these power-plants produced?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,473
Reaction score
3,358
I have a question concerning the Pratt&Whitney F100 and the General Electric engines and that is where exactly are they made in the US? I've tried looking on the wikipedia but the articles concerning their makers are vague as to where they're actually built.

Any US Government contract award will tell you what state the work will be done in (usually broken down by percentage).
Anymore they try to spread things out to as many states as possible. Do they include where final assembly is done, typically?
 

philip.morten

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
2
Reaction score
4
I have a question concerning the Pratt&Whitney F100 and the General Electric engines and that is where exactly are they made in the US? I've tried looking on the wikipedia but the articles concerning their makers are vague as to where they're actually built.

Any US Government contract award will tell you what state the work will be done in (usually broken down by percentage).
Would you please elaborate as I haven't looked at any such contracts, so where are these power-plants produced?
Fom https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2707824/source/GovDelivery

Raytheon Technologies Corp., East Hartford, Connecticut, has been awarded a $212,053,200 delivery order against the F100 production program’s indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for F100-PW-229 install engines. Work will be performed in East Hartford, Connecticut
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,473
Reaction score
3,358
I have a question concerning the Pratt&Whitney F100 and the General Electric engines and that is where exactly are they made in the US? I've tried looking on the wikipedia but the articles concerning their makers are vague as to where they're actually built.

Any US Government contract award will tell you what state the work will be done in (usually broken down by percentage).
Would you please elaborate as I haven't looked at any such contracts, so where are these power-plants produced?
Fom https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2707824/source/GovDelivery

Raytheon Technologies Corp., East Hartford, Connecticut, has been awarded a $212,053,200 delivery order against the F100 production program’s indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for F100-PW-229 install engines. Work will be performed in East Hartford, Connecticut
Does Raytheon own P&W now? :confused:
 

Similar threads

Top