Boeing's New F-15EX

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
803
So the Eagle 2 has a much more modern radar with the APG-82 (V-1) AESA instead of the original on the Strike Eagle.
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
703
Reaction score
433
So the Eagle 2 has a much more modern radar with the APG-82 (V-1) AESA instead of the original on the Strike Eagle.
82 is AESA from day 1) And was installed on 15E for some time already, so 15E id's not just limited to legacy 70.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,544
Reaction score
3,972
Not so (sorry) :
The AN/APG-82(V)1 combines the processor of the APG-79 used on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with the antenna of the APG-63(V)3 AESA from the F-15C for the F-15E.[7] The new radar also includes a new cooling system and Radio Frequency Tunable Filters (RFTF). RFTF is designed to enable the radar and the electronic warfare hardware (jamming) to operate simultaneously without degrading each other.[8] The new radar is currently being installed in the F-15E under the Radar Modernization Program (RMP).[9] In 2009, the proposed APG-63(V)4 radar was designated APG-82(V)1.[10] From 2017, Israel selected the APG-82(V)1 to install in its F-15Is.[11] In late October 2019 the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency approved a possible sale to Japan of up to 103 APG-82(v)1 radars for the upgrade of 98 Mitsubishi F-15Js to a "Japanese Super Interceptor" (JSI) configuration.[12]

The APG-63(V)3 radar is a more modern variant of the APG-63(V)2, applying the same AESA technology utilized in Raytheon's APG-79. The (V)3 is currently being retrofitted into F-15C/D and deployed in Singapore's new F-15SG aircraft and Saudi Arabia's new F-15SA aircraft. Raytheon delivered the first prototype APG-63(V)3 system in June 2006.[2] The company started work on an initial production order in October 2007.[3]
Source: Wiki
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
860
Reaction score
1,471
back to the Japanese F-15 upgrade controversey.. a bit more came from Alert 5 today

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.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
927
Reaction score
797

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 ?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,882
Reaction score
2,396
Where was the APG-63V2 ?


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.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795


Where was the APG-63V2 ?

In the late 1990's, as Raytheon was working on the ATF/F-22 radar program they also managed to provide an Active antenna upgrade to the APG-63 radar and equip a few aircraft in the 2000 timeframe.

 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
436
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.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
309
Reaction score
192
My only pet peeve is that’s it’s not a wholly new airframe so Eagle II doesn’t even make sense.

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?
Wait, I thought it had new wings wings that finally allowed usage of all the weapons stations.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
68
My only pet peeve is that’s it’s not a wholly new airframe so Eagle II doesn’t even make sense.

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?
Wait, I thought it had new wings wings that finally allowed usage of all the weapons stations.
I think you are right. It's been beefed up to allow for more flight hours and more usable weapons stations.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,544
Reaction score
3,972
EX have specific wings (same as QA and Upgraded SA) :
hveXIbXDOVGc8xbQEzaU_4QuR0sgHmuqAkj9PO6NOLNs_QPmR-upIAH0tkiF1bqvvQrmF7WxMgRJt3_EabwYELS8lPx3lN9vt-afEDfQMG0Jb-WV
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
436
I think you are right. It's been beefed up to allow for more flight hours and more usable weapons stations.
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."
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,544
Reaction score
3,972

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.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
163
Reaction score
302
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.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
163
Reaction score
302
My only pet peeve is that’s it’s not a wholly new airframe so Eagle II doesn’t even make sense.

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?
Wait, I thought it had new wings wings that finally allowed usage of all the weapons stations.
I think you are right. It's been beefed up to allow for more flight hours and more usable weapons stations.

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.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
142
Reaction score
169
EX have specific wings (same as QA and Upgraded SA) :
hveXIbXDOVGc8xbQEzaU_4QuR0sgHmuqAkj9PO6NOLNs_QPmR-upIAH0tkiF1bqvvQrmF7WxMgRJt3_EabwYELS8lPx3lN9vt-afEDfQMG0Jb-WV
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.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,544
Reaction score
3,972
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.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
142
Reaction score
169
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.
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
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
309
Reaction score
192

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
927
Reaction score
797
5 JASSM on a mudhen. Maybe this big payload capability is the reason for the EX. Certainly more than a F35 could carry.
(apologies if this doesn't belong in this thread)

This definitely belongs here.

5 JASSM's would make it very nasty missile truck. It can confidently saturates modern air defense from standoff range.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
547
Reaction score
340

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
Interesting pylon usage. Would the EX variant be able to carry the four missiles on its wings?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,882
Reaction score
2,396
Interesting pylon usage. Would the EX variant be able to carry the four missiles on its wings?

I don't think the outer wing stations are stressed for a 2,200-lb weapon. So far, all we've seen out there is two AMRAAM or a single HARM.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,474
Reaction score
3,359
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.)
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,882
Reaction score
2,396
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.)

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.
 

Josh_TN

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

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.

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:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,882
Reaction score
2,396
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.)

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.

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.

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.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
492
Reaction score
670
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.)

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.

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.

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.
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?
 

eagle

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
46
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:
(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.
 

eagle

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
46
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.)

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.

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.

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.
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?

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.
 

Similar threads

Top