Wednesday, February 15, 2012

F-15 Boeing strike eagle / silent eagle specs from Singapore air show

Here is some interesting reading for the F-15 strike eagle / silent eagle path.


Anonymous said...

I wasn't aware that the SA version included activation of the stations 1 & 9.

Interesting too is that they are converting the old F-15S powered by old P&W F100 motors with 25k lbf thrust, to GE110 with 29k lbf. That should enable an interesting performance upgrade. (no CFT)

One question I've had is what is Boeing' line capacity as a max annual rate for manufacturing the F-15? Are they maxed out with the expected F-15SA order and hoping to transition into an F-15K+/SE as the final F-15SA roles off the line? Or can Boeing accommodate additional orders between FY14 and FY16 eg?

I'd bet for the same PUC cost of an FY14 F-35A, one could buy a ready-to-go F-15SA/SG+ variant, plus Sniper/IRST, plus AAMs, plus maybe even a large aperture Recon pod for good measure!


Scoot7 said...

I'm a little behind on my F-15 systems studies, what's the deal with stations 1 & 9? When they say "activation" that sounds like they have existed in the structure of the jet all along, but I've never seen anything but smooth skin there until the SA.
Pretty sweet capes.

tereora said...

Something I have often wondered but never understood - why did Australia not go for the F15? The F18 isn't even close, and its not like Australia has an aircraft carrier (only reason you would accept so many compromises - weight, slow speed etc).

- Vastly superior to anything Australia has fielded in the past for A-A / interceptor
- The E model with two seats is about as close to the F111 capability you can get from the US
- Super-cruise, and range seem far more suited to the vast continent size of Australia

Canuck Fighter said...

From the info sources I've read, the F15 program built 15 Eagles in 2011, the highest number since the 33 units built in 1999.
On the F18 side I believe the numbers were 49 units (all variants).
It would be interesting in deed to know what the maximum capacity actually is.

Canuck Fighter said...

If an Eagle is outfitted with the proposed conformal weapons bays and GE-132 engines, would it be capable of supercruise?

Canuck Fighter said...

At some point the Israelis are going to jump on this Silent Eagle band wagon. They will have to purchase (use their credits) another 24-48 Eagles to counter the Saudis. At least that will be the argument. The US will eventually allow the sale, just not before the November Presidential election. South Korea has said that their RFP decision will be in October of this year. My bet is on the SE for the decision.
As time ticks by and Canada/Australia bumble around on the future of their air power, they may be losing out on production spots allowing them to receive the aircraft in time. Australia has somewhat already committed for the SH direction with the initial 24. Canada still has a chance to get this right and replace the legacy 18's with something that is capable, affordable and timely.
(**sorry, had to throw in the Boeing tag line)

Yawn said...

Canuck fighter,

The Strike Eagle is still significantly heavier than the A-D variants and the CFTs don't negate drag, so supercruise is unlikely.

About Israel as a potential client, I remember a report a couple of years back claiming that Obama had refused a direct request from the Israeli P.M. So unless there's a drastic political change in Washington, no F-15SEs for Israel.

Anonymous said...

A very nice a/c, but the only place you'll ever see one in RCAF colours is a model builder site. If Canada bails on the Joint Cluster****, it'll be for the SuperHornet, "niche fighter", tho some may consider it to be...

And that so-called 'report' of Obama rejecting Israeli requests for the F-15SE is pure BS. Just another neo-con Internet meme.

Anonymous said...

@ tereora

I totally agree. My friend of mine asked the same question about Australia not go for the F-15. The reason why Australia didn't go for the F-15 for the Mirage replacement is because the results were dropped from the equation, leaving,in November 1979 a generation shortlist with just two types - the F-16 and F-18 and the F-15A-D variants didn't have secondary ground attack capability and claimed it was expensive. Which I disagree, for e.g. the Isreali AF's F-15C/D variants did carry ground attack weapons in their fleet.

Australia needs a high capability fighter with hefty firepower, greater long range endurance, bigger weapons payload, more powerful fire control radar and sensors and the most important speed capabilities (at Mach 2+) than its F-X competitors and of course like you said.

- Vastly superior to anything Australia has fielded in the past for A-A / interceptor

- The E model with two seat configuration is about as close to the F-111 capability you can get from the US.

- Super-cruise, and range seem far more suited to the vast continent size of Australia

Just to note that Australia is about 2,222 nm (4,000 km) wide. Aircraft designed for European use such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, MiG-35, SAAB JAS-39 Gripen and American F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 JSF have too short a range for use by such a large country as Australia. Those aircraft are unsuitable to cement Australia's regional air power lead. Small fighters with short range are only ideal for smaller NATO countries e.g. Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland etc, Middle East and South American nations to operate them. The reason why the small airframes are only ideal for those countries is because of the vast size of their country is surrounded by land areas, small economy which means their range is not as important which are ideal for short range fighters with either single or two engines. (Actual range varies with mission)

We should've replaced the 71 Classic Hornet fleet with F-15s, which I had been thinking about having a mixed force of F-15AU and F-22AU concepts (since the formidable fleet of F-111's has been retired half way through the aircraft's service life which was a very nasty mistake with wrong reasons) that will provide a potent combination of flexibility and capability to suit Australia's "long range" requirements.

Australia should be the "Eagle and Raptor country" not the Classic/Super Hornet fleet and upcoming lemon JSF's.


Anonymous said...

@ tereora

Also, another alternative I was thinking for a while, is to develop a new single seat F-15 based on the latest advancements in F-15E as an export variant for new and existing customers to purchase the fighter for predictable costs, in a similar concept to the Sukhoi Su-35S Super Flanker-E.

If anyone thinks the new pre-posed single seat F-15 is a fantastic idea. I recommend this great concept can be email to Brad Jones Director, F-15 US Air Force Development Programs.

Roger Besancenez Boeing Vice President, F-15 Program or

Richard 'Rick' Banholzer, Boeing's Director of Business Development for Air Force Fighters and Weapons about the idea of developing a new proposed single-seat F-15. Boeing can suggest the export designation of the Eagle for e.g. the F-15F or any idea's they can come up with.


move companies said...

Hi you are doing a great job. I was looking for this information. I found it on your page its really amazing.I am sure that these are your own views. I hear exactly what you’re saying and I’m so happy that I came across your blog. You really know what you’re talking about, and you made me feel like I should learn more about this. Thanks for sharing useful information; I’m officially a huge fan of your blog.

Spiritwalker said...

This is what Australia should be investing in. Forget the f-22 as (a) to expensive to buy and maintain. (b) US won't release it to buy on the export market to anyone.

F-35 is looking like the a-12 all over again in my opinion.

Basically we are buying an f-16 replacement which we have never had!

Makes sense to buy a f-111 replacement which the f-15SE (or strike eagle equivalent) fills the roll nicely.

Singapore being one of the latest nations to buy the f-15SE equivalent, I don't see why Australia has seriously looked at this option, as they are a proven airframe.

Makes me nervous (and others for sure) that other nations around us have Latest Russian generation aircraft and we don't have anything of equivalent to match it.

Wiki link for those curious -