Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 333940414243
Results 1,261 to 1,284 of 1284

Thread: USAF not F-35 thread

  1. #1261
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,676
    But Spud, the F-15C is an air superiority fighter, so no way to compare it with a F-35.
    Comparison should be F-15C with F-22 and F-15E with F-35.
    Given that a f-15C could surpass mach 2,5 while F-35 just get mach 1,6 in an interception run I would claim a No contest there.

  2. #1262
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    The F-35 kicked the F-15E's butt while it was G-limited & Block limited at Block 3i. It also kicked the F-15C's butt in BFM. Stealth and Situational Awareness are the most important features to an Air Superiority Fighter, which the F-35 has in spades.

    While the F-35 was not designed as an Air Superiority fighter like the F-15C, that does not mean that it can't do the job.

    The F-15C could only do mach 2.5 on paper as that was clean and would run out of fuel very quickly (ie it was not a combat-relative capability). Besides, it never did it in combat in achieving their 100+:0 combat record.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  3. #1263
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,932
    This is a stupid argument. Let’s keep this thread clean of the usual hyperbole such as
    “F-15C can do Mach 2.5 and F-35 Mach 1.6”

    No armed F-15C can reach Mach 2.5. Most top speed figures for fighters are useless. They cannot reach them armed with externals, and can only maintain such speeds for a very brief time. Most every fighter (MiG-31 aside) is limited to 700-800 knots when carrying weapons externally. BTW, tell Singapore and Korea that the F-15E isn’t an air-superiority fighter. They seem to view it as very capable in that role.

    usaf “NOT” F-35 thread.......
    Last edited by FBW; 31st May 2018 at 17:21.

  4. #1264
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,408
    Time on station and range are all tied to fuel. They are all just different ways to describe using the same feature. However, we are specifically talking about the F-15C and not the F-15E, so it does not have "that" much fuel. In a clean A2A config (no EFTs), the F-35 actually has a longer combat radius than the F-15C but loses to the F-15C when it carries EFTs (by ~300nm).

    Speed is a non-issue since no F-15 has gone above Mach 1.4 in combat.

    As far as the EW, no, it does not stack up against the F-35's, especially in the area of jamming or situational awareness.

    On the radar, while it may have a larger array, it is not as advanced as the F-35 (it's not new, but a combo of the old back-end with APG-79 front-end) or "sensor fused" the the extent that the F-35 is. It also makes no claim of LPI or jamming.
    PW or GE should do a ADVENT lite and put em on their engines mounted on F-15E.
    See how the AL-31F was evolving into a much better engine 117S with great success.
    And thus the range difference between F-15E and F-35 would rise.


    To think the F-35 can overlap the F-15E is bogus.
    Thanks

  5. #1265
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    There is not enough of a customer base for PW/GE to pay for ADVENT development.

    ADVENT for F-35 will come long before anything else (as an upgrade) so the gap between F-15 and F-35's range will get even smaller.

    To think the F-35 can overlap the F-15E is bogus.
    The specific scenario was to possibly buy F-15Es because the F-15C were not getting their EW upgrades. In that scenario the F-15C is playing the part of Air Superiority which the F-35 is clearly dominant in. If the requirement was max range or max load then the conversion would be different.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 31st May 2018 at 19:12.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  6. #1266
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Time on station and range are all tied to fuel. They are all just different ways to describe using the same feature. However, we are specifically talking about the F-15C and not the F-15E, so it does not have "that" much fuel. In a clean A2A config (no EFTs), the F-35 actually has a longer combat radius than the F-15C but loses to the F-15C when it carries EFTs (by ~300nm).
    F-15Cs might get CFTs now, so there's that.
    But the F-35 with 8+ tons internal fuel better outranges an F-15C with 6+ tons internal fuel, both at similar weights. It would be terrible if it didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Speed is a non-issue since no F-15 has gone above Mach 1.4 in combat.
    Doesn't mean it's a non-issue. Time to get to Mach 1.4 matters. Also does that include non-USAF combat? One could argue USAF F-15s never faced a serious opponent that required them to go faster. Also, Mach 1.4 over the Iraqi desert is more than Mach 1.4 elsewhere due to climate.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    As far as the EW, no, it does not stack up against the F-35's, especially in the area of jamming or situational awareness.
    Hopefully, after EPAWSS has been canned. Again, you better hope the modern day ASQ-239 beats the Eagles ancient ALQ-135. Unless active jamming outside the frontal area is required, ALQ-135 still has the edge there.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  7. #1267
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    The F-35's VLO airframe makes up for off-axis jamming and it also has towed decoys. The F-35's can also engage in "Cooperative EW".

    The F-35 has already demonstrated it's dominance over F-15Cs and F-15Es (with APG-82, EPAWSS, and JHMCS) while it was limited to Block 3i. We are beyond the opinion stage at this point. Given that a new F-15E cost more than a F-35 in both procurement and O&S, there is no economic argument for them either... unless you work for Boeing.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #1268
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,246
    Not with EPAWSS, IOC is planned for 2020 (?). And without knowing RoE, we are not 100% beyond the opinion stage. For all we know, the demonstrated dominance could be based entirely on missile lock equals kill parameters i.e. not very realistic settings.

    Something different:
    What is this F-15C carrying under the wing? Python AAM? Without fins/wings of course. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonath...in/dateposted/
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	jonathanhaylock_26631848447_26631848447_F-15C.jpg 
Views:	77 
Size:	701.5 KB 
ID:	260780
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  9. #1269
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    121
    Something different:
    What is this F-15C carrying under the wing? Python AAM? Without fins/wings of course.
    Looks like CATM-9.

  10. #1270
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,246
    Unlikely look at the shape of the seeker head.
    Found this: https://forum.keypublishing.com/show...hon-5-For-USAF
    So Python 5 seems plausible.

    Edit: Looks the same to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...7am_refule.jpg
    Last edited by eagle; 1st June 2018 at 04:19.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  11. #1271
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle
    . Again, you better hope the modern day ASQ-239 beats the Eagles ancient ALQ-135. Unless active jamming outside the frontal area is required, ALQ-135 still has the edge there
    ASQ-239 can perform jamming independent of APG-81, it has its own antenna for that task (they came from 2 different manufacturer, APG-81 came from Northrop while ASQ-239 is made by BAE)
    https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/pro...measure-system
    F-35 can also carry fiber optic towed decoy. In short, it should be more than capable of jamming outside frontal area.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	d1Q46Rh.png 
Views:	4 
Size:	320.5 KB 
ID:	260786

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo
    Given that a f-15C could surpass mach 2,5 while F-35 just get mach 1,6 in an interception run I would claim a No contest there.
    F-15 with 4 missiles is limited to Mach 2.1 at max thrust and Mach 2.2 with V-max.
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 1st June 2018 at 04:42.

  12. #1272
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    765
    Unlikely look at the shape of the seeker head.
    Found this: https://forum.keypublishing.com/show...hon-5-For-USAF
    So Python 5 seems plausible.
    That F-15C unit one of the 53rd Wing Test and Eval squadrons. A similar looking missile is mounted on this Israeli F-15D,
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F-15I photo_29463.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	358.8 KB 
ID:	260784


    Appears, to me at least, to be too thin for a Python 5 on both aircraft, if the following graphic is anything to go by,

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	000-p-4-3-www-ausairpower-net.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	34.2 KB 
ID:	260785

    Could be an ACMI pod but appears to be lacking antenna. Could be a Inertial Global Positioning System Integration Pod with a different nose?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  13. #1273
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,408
    There is not enough of a customer base for PW/GE to pay for ADVENT development.

    ADVENT for F-35 will come long before anything else (as an upgrade) so the gap between F-15 and F-35's range will get even smaller.
    If you can retro-fit engines to already existing F-15E flying, F-15SA, F-15SK. Indonesian F-15. If Israel orders more. If USAF order more F-15E. Then there is a pressedence for new engines on F-15E.
    Thanks

  14. #1274
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Nobody is going to sink the hundreds of millions into an "ADVENT" engine for the F-15E unless it has firm orders for it.

    The ADVENT version of the F-135 is already in the works because they know there will be thousands of customers.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #1275
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,131
    PW or GE should do a ADVENT lite and put em on their engines mounted on F-15E.
    See how the AL-31F was evolving into a much better engine 117S with great success.
    And thus the range difference between F-15E and F-35 would rise.

    No one is willing to pay for it because no one really needs it. The Strike Eagles are not going away anytime soon and with weapons, and mission systems upgrades already fielded, or being developed they will serve their intended roles quite well alongside the 5th generation aircraft, Bombers and UASs. Neither GE, nor PW will be stupid enough to sink $3-5 Billion to develop an engine for a legacy aircraft that no one has expressed any interest for. So far, the customer has indicated preliminary interest in spinning off AETP into various EMD PORs, aimed at everything from NGAD to F-35/F22 and even legacy systems. Once the 6 AETP engines are tested and testing is complete, EMD spin-off is likely to happen for NGAD and perhaps the F-35 but there will be little room for additional applications given budgets, need etc. The fighter roadmap for the USAF will primarily look at developing the next genreation tactical aircraft, and sustainment and upgrades on the F-22 and F-35 fleets with the latter growing at 2 squadrons a year and expected to double in the medium term. Legacy upgrades are rightly focused on keeping them relevant and improving their survivability and ability to partner with the likes of the F-35, F-22 and B-21.

    Very few nations are buying new F-15Es or other derivitatives. The upgrade market will likely heavily focus on mission system enhancements which, as with other aircraft, is pivotal for survivablity and lethality. The industrial base sustaining and upgrading these aircraft will rightly focus on electronics, sensors, weapons, EW and networking. Meanwhile, the 5th generation user base is growing rapidly. There will be more than 1000 F-35s out in the field by the early 2020s and new ones will be delivered at a very high rate. Looking into the future, the USAF has committed $10 Billion to the 6th generation fighter family on top of the $2+ Billion invested (or committed) on the AETP engine demonstrators. GE and PW much like other A&D players are in it to make money and the customer has made it quite clear that it is interested in buying a boat load of F-35s and investing serious cash in developing a 6th generation aircraft. IR&D usually follows through towards programs that will yeild profits down the road so expect most OEMs to invest in areas where they sense a large market and demand.

    To think the F-35 can overlap the F-15E is bogus.
    The Strike Eagles are going to be around for quite a while, and you do not need like for like replacement. Aircraft, program's and the SE behind them is done with a mission need and via an analysis of alternatives. I don't think the USAF will ever require a dedicated F-15 E replacement..things will just move on from the F-22, F-35 to the NGAD with the UAS and Tactical Bombers making up the other aspects of the strike mission.

    The F-35 has already demonstrated it's dominance over F-15Cs and F-15Es (with APG-82, EPAWSS, and JHMCS) while it was limited to Block 3i. We are beyond the opinion stage at this point. Given that a new F-15E cost more than a F-35 in both procurement and O&S, there is no economic argument for them either... unless you work for Boeing.
    EPAWSS has not yet flown.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 1st June 2018 at 12:33.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  16. #1276
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    EPAWSS has not yet flown.
    Sorry, my bad. I meant "fully updated".
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 1st June 2018 at 16:24.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  17. #1277
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    ASQ-239 can perform jamming independent of APG-81, it has its own antenna for that task (they came from 2 different manufacturer, APG-81 came from Northrop while ASQ-239 is made by BAE)
    F-35 can also carry fiber optic towed decoy. In short, it should be more than capable of jamming outside frontal area.
    Towed decoys yes, ASP-239 active jamming no. It has its own antennas, sure, but those are not for active ECM. The link says "providing the aircraft with radio-frequency and infrared countermeasures", i.e. chaff and flares. There are provisions to upgrade the system to a full ECM suite afaik.

    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    F-15 with 4 missiles is limited to Mach 2.1 at max thrust and Mach 2.2 with V-max.
    F100-100 engines haven't been in use for quite some time now. Mach 2.3+ with -220 engines. Also, use of the V-max switch is prohibited.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  18. #1278
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    That F-15C unit one of the 53rd Wing Test and Eval squadrons. A similar looking missile is mounted on this Israeli F-15D,
    That's an F-15I and I take it is carrying the same Python 5 training round. With the USAF having bought only 20 missiles, I would expect them to be used with a test unit. Maybe playing aggressor since the pic was taken during a Red Flag exercise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    Appears, to me at least, to be too thin for a Python 5 on both aircraft, if the following graphic is anything to go by,
    That's what I thought too but the lack of fins is misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    Could be an ACMI pod but appears to be lacking antenna. Could be a Inertial Global Positioning System Integration Pod with a different nose?
    With an optical seaker head? The guidance/warhead area is dark grey like on a missile. The motor area is blue indicating no live motor.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  19. #1279
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle
    Towed decoys yes, ASQ-239 active jamming no. It has its own antennas, sure, but those are not for active ECM. The link says "providing the aircraft with radio-frequency and infrared countermeasures", i.e. chaff and flares. There are provisions to upgrade the system to a full ECM suite afaik.
    The brochure say "offensive and defensive digital electronic warfare capability" and "simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and RWR" so iam pretty sure ASQ-239 aperture can be used to perform jamming.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FdXl88B.png 
Views:	20 
Size:	473.1 KB 
ID:	260819Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5tDxlhx.png 
Views:	9 
Size:	853.8 KB 
ID:	260820
    BAE video also shows the aircraft perform jamming from wing aperture. In short, i don't see any reason to believe ASQ-239 is a passive rwr only
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 2nd June 2018 at 03:12.

  20. #1280
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    I think that brochures need to be read with certain 'filter'. "Multispectral countermeasures" sound great until you realize it is just chaff and flares. Electronic attack capabilities undoubtely mean it is integrated to radar.
    With only 2 equipment racks, I am certain those are hi-band and low-band receivers. There doesn't seem to be transmitter units.

  21. #1281
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,932
    It specifically states jamming without interfering with radar.

    Can we move this over to f-35 thread? No need for a back and forth on the F-35 on this thread when there is an entire thread dedicated to the F-35.

  22. #1282
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    This is a stupid argument. Let’s keep this thread clean of the usual hyperbole such as
    “F-15C can do Mach 2.5 and F-35 Mach 1.6”

    No armed F-15C can reach Mach 2.5. Most top speed figures for fighters are useless. They cannot reach them armed with externals, and can only maintain such speeds for a very brief time. Most every fighter (MiG-31 aside) is limited to 700-800 knots when carrying weapons externally. BTW, tell Singapore and Korea that the F-15E isn’t an air-superiority fighter. They seem to view it as very capable in that role.
    Lots of oversimplification in this thread. Top speed figure is not 'useless' but rather an indication of fighters supersonic performance. Just because both are limited to relatively modest maximum mach number while carrying stores does not mean that faster aircraft doesn't have any advantage. Variable inlet ramps give a fighter better supersonic performance through the envelope, whereas plane with fixed inlets can give best performance over much narrower part of its envelope. In practical terms it means that faster aircraft can reach its practical top speed faster, and in wider altitude regime, even if practical maximum speeds are in same ballpark. In interceptions this means better acceleration and less fuel burned to achieve the interception -> more practical endurance.
    Also, top speed might help a pilot to save his bacon from unfavourable situation once weapons and stores are expended. 20% higher dash speed means that enemy missiles have 20% smaller window to shoot you down.
    Finally, there might be operational requirement sometimes to identify high-speed bandits in non-shooting war scenarios. In those cases, external stores are not necessarily required and all that matters is the ability to acquire target visually.

    These are not necessarily huge deal-breakers when evaluating overall fighter performance, but it is incorrect to say that F-35 or say F/A-18 have equivalent speed to F-15 in practical terms.

  23. #1283
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,932
    Answer over in f-35 thread.

  24. #1284
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Yama
    I think that brochures need to be read with certain 'filter'. "Multispectral countermeasures" sound great until you realize it is just chaff and flares. Electronic attack capabilities undoubtely mean it is integrated to radar.
    With only 2 equipment racks, I am certain those are hi-band and low-band receivers. There doesn't seem to be transmitter units.
    It said "offensive and defensive digital electronic warfare capability". No one consider chaffs and flares as offensive digital electronic warfare. Then there is little fact that ASQ-239 is made by BAE while APG-81 is made by Northrop Grumman,if that isn't enough, it also states "simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and RWR". Literally no reason to think the system can't perform jamming. Look at BAE brochure for EPAWSS, very similar wording is used.
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 3rd June 2018 at 18:18.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES