aurcovEven the earliest F-15A marks ever had “only” 215kg of ballast, prior to any equipment refits being offset against it. While that’s still a frankly surprisingly large amount, it’s nowhere near the claimed 300kg supposedly available for removal on the Strike Eagle.
– Even by 1991, the then-current F-15C block was down to half that ballast weight. How much, if any, ever made the transition over to the F-15E airframe, with its revised structure, twin-seat cockpit (putting a multi-hundred pound ejection seat in a very favourable location!) and increased avionics fit is anybody’s guess, but a further reduction seems likely.
Remember that the E is heavier than the A/C. The 2 x P&W 229 weight almost 1/2 ton more compared to 2 x 220. This in turn, imposed a more solid (heavier) structure.
aurcov17t or more with CFTs, which is the only way you should compare it – without them the range penalty is so severe as to make it almost MiG-29-like. Compare it to a Super Hornet, itself not exactly an aircraft known for stellar range performance (it’s ok, but no Flanker) – unless fitted with CFTs, the Strike Eagle:
– is still about 1000kg heavier
– carries almost 1000kg LESS internal fuel
– has around 6000kg more engine thrust to feed (with, if anything, a lower BPR than the -220 engines on the F-15C)CFTs are NOT a bonus, but a necessity for the Strike Eagle to obtain range performance appropriate for an aircraft its size!
You ignore it’s a detail: with CFTs the F 15 E still carry 11.5 t. of weapons. And it carry this load for 1000 Nmiles. Can you name something similiar?
aurcov31,700 is weight for F-15C.
F-15 does not bring much more than F-16.
It does: radius
aurcovThose weights are for non AESA models. F-15SA with twin pilots will be quite bit heavier and draggier.
It can be a surprise, but in the case of F 15, the AESA wouldn’t add weight !
While in another plane, the oversized cooling system needed for AESA radar would add weight. The reason is that the standard F 15 has 300 kg of ballast in the nose for mass balance. The cooling system for the APG 63 (V)3 or APG 82, is less than 300 kg, while the AESA array is actually lighter than the mechanical antenna and its servo.
The SA will be lighter than the standard E for another 2 reasons:
-FBW. They say they save 500 kg (cables, pulleys, etc. for the standard mechanical system);
-the DEWS (digital electronic warfare system) is packed in one box vs. 6 boxes the ALQ 135 + ALE 56 in the F 15 E.
So, the SA will be ligher than the E…:)
aurcovSources said otherwise…
F-15E:http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=102
Su-35S:
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbpOf course we don’t know the flight profile, but I think that both has the same class of range ( F-15E can probably achieve a better range than just 2,400 miles , when flying high with 2CFTs + 3EFTs).
Radius (in-out) not range is the most important. The F 15 E can do 1000 Nmiles in A-G, and 900 nmles in A-A with CFTs (no EFTs). See: http://www.slideshare.net/TheDEWLine/silent-eagle-media-briefdoc. With CFTs that’s ~ 1200 Nmiles.
aurcovIsn’t this F-15SA an pimped up F-15E?
I’m confused why you would compair it with F-15C:confused:
Two different birds and roles.And it looks like the IRIST is located on/inside the inner wing pylon.
Should do for look down attack missions.
But it has limited view of the forward hemisphere for A2A missions.Looks like the Su-35S is more optimized for A2A mission, even if it can haul heavy A2G weapons and has the same class of range as F-15E.
Don’t think so. The F 15 E can fly 900 Nmiles with CFTs and 1200 Nmiles with CFTs +EFTs.
aurcovF-15SA will not be a game changer, but will be still more efective than older F-15C ( AESA radar, IRST, new ECM) in air combat. F-15C upgraded with AESA radar, and new IRST in the near future will be as good as F-15SA in BVR, with better manoeuvrability ( thx to better T/W and lower wing loading compared to the strike eagle).
Hey, but F-15SA main purposes will be air to ground.
The weight of the F 15 C is 13 t. and it has 2 x 105 kN engines; the E is 15 t. and has 2 x 135 kN engines. Do the math…
aurcovIs the F-15SA a Game changer.
Compared to a normal F-15.
Are there any improvements in manoeuvrability etc over a F-15c:D
Yes, because the FBW. Beside, the F 15 C doesn’t need any improvement in maneuvrabilty…
aurcovWhile were on the subject, the first F-15SA has flown it’s maiden flight. Features all fly-by-wire controls, fully colored display, and an additional weapon station (that’s always been an option but never utilized). Strange that the USAF confirmed this before Boeing.
Interesting photo.
1. It seems that the F 15 SA has a missile warning system;
2. Nice oversized jammers !
3. The colors are similar to the USAF F 15 C (two tone grey). IIRC the Saudi F 15 C are one-tone grey, while the 2 seaters (all versions: E, I, K, SG) have a one-tone darker grey.
aurcovUm.. i think some people have taken this “impressive weapon load” thread a little out of context.
Any one can build a model plane and put thousands of plastic bombs under the wings…. hardly impressive.
This includes screen grabs from games… and photoshopped images which people think are real…..
The model was at Boeing box at AFA exhibition: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/boeings-upgraded-f-15e-strike.html .
BTW, an F 15E can alreday carry all what’s in the photo, except for what’s under the external wings pylons.
aurcovHis scenario is pretty plausible and has been demonstrated in wargames like red flag.
In order for a F22 to fire a missile at a target it (or another jet with MADL) will have to track the target, most likely its another F22. This will alert the target that can respond by engaging ECM.
Do you know a EW system that can detect/jamm the APG 77?
For instance, getting a radar to lock an the large Su30MKI was almost impossible so the USAF-pilots in the excercise went for gun kills. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html
You did not pay atention: the F 15 and Su 30 MKI engaged only in WVR at Red Flag 2008. The guy talks about Cope India 2004 when the non-AESA F 15 radar couldn’t burn throught the powerfull Israeli-made jammers that the Indians use on their Russian planes.
An AESA equiped F 15 (not to mention F 22) can very easy obtain a lock-on against a Su.
The Su35S has a pretty low RCS for a fighter in that size (~1sqm) so having sensors warning the pilot in time isnt a problem.
1 sqm is not a low RCS these days. And RCS and size are not necesarely correlated: look at B2 –it’s not too small.
Pak FA will be the way for the Russians to reclaim the title of having the most capable fighter in the AF.
:p :p :p
aurcovOK, it’s a mock-up, but the F 15 SA will be capable of carrying this load, while the US/Israeli/SKorean/Singaporean F 15 will be able too if the wing external stations are activated.
So: 1 x AGM-88, 2 x AIM-9X, 4 x AIM-120, 1 x AGM-84, 9 x mk-82, 2 x mk-84, 8 x GBU-39/40 …
aurcovYou are forgetting that CUDA is American and therefore magic. Personally I don’t understand why Lockheed doesn’t make it half the size so that the F-35 can carry 24 of them and destroy whole squadrons of T-50s at a time.
Well, considering the past (F86/MiG15; F4/MiG21; F15-16/MiG23-25-29) it can be assumed that in a hypotetic confrontation, a few F 35 will “destroy squadrons of T 50s at a time”…
aurcovWing loading:
Rafale C: 276 kg/m2 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAM
F-35A: 428 kg/m2 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAMTWR:
Rafale C: 1,22 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAM
F-35A: 1,07 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAMAnd keep in mind that Rafale will have even better turn rates compared to F-35 than just wing loading alone would suggest, due to its superior aerodynamics and higher TWR. Same goes for Typhoon and Gripen.
In order to compare correctly two fighters, you should start from the same blockstart.
-Wing loading: add the body area to the wing area (since both produce lift) for the two fighters, and you’ll end with similar values;
-TWR: internal fuel for F 35=8.3 t; internal fuel for Rafale= 4.5 t. If you compare the two fighters with the same fuel load (let’s say 50 % of the Rafale, or 2.25 t), you’ll end with a TWR for F35 of 1.2.
As I said, similar numbers.
OTOH, the F 35 will fly clean. Any other fighter – not.
aurcovAurcov – Each EODAS sensor stares at one-sixth of the universe – 60 x 60 degrees. That’s not far from the FOV of a cellphone camera. The EODAS sensor is about 1MP. Cellphone cams are 5MP. 4MP would equal 2x the linear resolution.
Try as I may, I can’t see more detail than I have pixels.
Unlike you, I have seen the shipboard EODAS work, live. (And I doubt that I would have done if it had as much magic in the sensor boxes as you and Spud seem to think.) It’s what you’d expect – the sensors wired into a COTS processing and display/control suite.
Where did you see the navalized EODAS –do you work for NG? I ask this because this version is in prototype stage.
And you’d be surprised how many “hot” objects there are in the sky and on the ground, and how you have to go about telling which of these blobs are threats and which are not.
In the sky — not too many; OTOH, on the ground — plenty.
BTW, the EOTS tells the pilot if there are hostille or friendly, not the EODAS.
Sign In
