Jump to content

F-15SE "Silent Eagle" revealed.


Recommended Posts

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw090317_1_n.shtml

"A new version of the F-15 Eagle combat aircraft, incorporating some stealth features, has been unveiled by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

Designated the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE), the new aircraft features outward-canted tail fins (similar to the F/A-18 Hornet) and conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) that can alternatively be converted into internal weapon bays to reduce the aircraft's radar cross section (RCS)."

"The new F-15 features two CFTs that could be converted into internal weapon bays and store air-to-air missiles - such as the short-range AIM-9 Sidewinder and medium-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) – or air-to-ground munitions – such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) or Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs).

"

Pics property of Boeing.

MSF09-0028-259_lg.jpg

Edited by Jonathan_Lotton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I'm looking for more images on this thing and can't find any, not even on the Boeing site. There's a nice profile on the Jane's page but no link to see it larger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gents, now my question is ... is this a mock up or photoshopped? There's just something that my eyes tell me is hinky with that pic. Cool concept in a way, not sure if I'm a big fan of it though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'nother big pic: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...09-0028-137.jpg

Video: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/b...ctid16748936001

(seriously, Flight Global has the best stuff by far) http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...tealthy-f-.html

::edit:: Whoa, I just realized there's only 1 big bay inside the CFT---there's just 2 separate doors. You can clearly see the "lower" AMRAAM inside the "upper" part of the bay before it lowers down.

Edited by David Hingtgen
Link to post
Share on other sites
'nother big pic: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...09-0028-137.jpg

Video: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/b...ctid16748936001

(seriously, Flight Global has the best stuff by far) http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...tealthy-f-.html

::edit:: Whoa, I just realized there's only 1 big bay inside the CFT---there's just 2 separate doors. You can clearly see the "lower" AMRAAM inside the "upper" part of the bay before it lowers down.

Must be the funky lighting that's just right out crazy! Thanks for all the links

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Silent Eagle prototype is based on F-15E1, the program's flight test aircraft. To date, it has been outfitted with the conformal tanks and the canted tails, which are for demonstration only and not structurally integrated. The actual canted tails would be added later if a customer requested them. Stealth coatings and engine intake blockers have not been added."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Weird. :P

Says the guy with that illustration in his siggy ... :D ;)

This does look interesting ...

Do the engine fairings look a little different too in the Aviation Week link posted above or is it just the canted tails throwing me off ?

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the engine fairings look a little different too in the Aviation Week link posted above or is it just the canted tails throwing me off ?

They're based on the Academy kit.

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you're reducing a superiority fighter, whose mainstay has been an assortment of 8 or more air-to-air missiles, down to only 4 missiles and limited range.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F15s I've seen rarely fly around without a centerline or underwing drop tanks. I haven't seen that much, but it appears to be the norm. That means its got short legs when in stealth mode, with half the weaponry, but oh wait! You can make the CFTs actually carry fuel! Now the only problem is you're flying around with NO missiles.

It's a no-win situation, it seems. Great to see them thinking outside the box, for sure! But I think this is a marketting stop-gap, nothing more. *shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of CFT left to hold fuel with the weapons bays also ...

Having the weapons internal ... reduces drag so that helps with the range ...

CFTs are much less "draggy" than hanging external bags from a pylon ...

I just say, throw on the forward canards and the TVN of the F-15ACTIVE also ... :(

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple questions on this:

1.) could older F-15's be retrofitted with the tailfins and CFT's? Selling the kits for that might be a more attractive sale to some folks, who could buy "used" USAF or Israeli Eagles.

2.) Wouldn't having the weapon bays inside the CFT's dramatically lower the fuel capacity of the CFT's?

3.) Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't this cut the munitions capacity of the Eagle in half? (4 missiles instead of 8?)

4.) Did they do anything to the exhausts? Or are they still big'ol hot holes for IR-guided missiles to lock-on to?

5.) Is this modification to the Eagle going to be that much of an improvement over say, a Super Hornet?

6.) Could they scab these mods onto any older Eagle? Or just the Strike?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2.) Wouldn't having the weapon bays inside the CFT's dramatically lower the fuel capacity of the CFT's?

From reading elsewhere it's my understanding that these new CFTs retain about a third of the original tankage (now 500 US Gal.), and the range is reduced by 180-200 miles compared to that with the F-15E.

3.) Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't this cut the munitions capacity of the Eagle in half? (4 missiles instead of 8?)

The lack of weapons could be made up by its low observability, although I personally don't see why having external ordnance is necessarily bad. There may be mission profiles that require a reduced RCS, though.

Considering the F-22 also needs external tanks to extend its range (and used them on at least one Bear intercept), I don't see the problem with the F-15SE going about its business with external tankage as well. So far I'm guessing the F-22 is the only stealth aircraft that can manage to store more than four weapons internally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
call me crazy but isn't the F-15 Undefeated in air to air combat? why change it? Having said that anything different is great!

Why change it? Because in 30 years, anybody building any kind of fighter that even THINKS they might challenge the top contender has done nothing but study, exploit, invent, and target the top contender. You don't think they've come up with something that's capable of handling a 30 year old design? Additionally, the entire battlespace has evolved greatly in the Eagle's lifetime. While the jet has undergone many modernizations and upgrades, there are limits to the capabilities of the airframe and the types of avionics/sensors you can put on it. Those limitations are exceeded by some of the potential adversary systems out there, particularly in the surface-to-air realm.

Or let me put it this way, how many 30 year old cars are still driven on the highway? More importantly, how many police departments would still drive 30 year old cruisers, because that's a better analogy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple questions on this:

1.) could older F-15's be retrofitted with the tailfins and CFT's? Selling the kits for that might be a more attractive sale to some folks, who could buy "used" USAF or Israeli Eagles.

2.) Wouldn't having the weapon bays inside the CFT's dramatically lower the fuel capacity of the CFT's?

3.) Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't this cut the munitions capacity of the Eagle in half? (4 missiles instead of 8?)

4.) Did they do anything to the exhausts? Or are they still big'ol hot holes for IR-guided missiles to lock-on to?

5.) Is this modification to the Eagle going to be that much of an improvement over say, a Super Hornet?

6.) Could they scab these mods onto any older Eagle? Or just the Strike?

1. One would assume any Eagle able to carry a CFT/FAST pack would be able to carry this CFT. So anything from the C, onwards.

2.Yes. Obviously eliminating a bunch of fuel to make room for missiles means less fuel.

3. No. Mounting a CFT doesn't eliminate the capacity to carry wing pylons. So the load would still be 8x, just with four of them being 'external', on the wing pylons. In fact, *if* they can mount CFT pylons as well (as it was suggested, IIRC), you may actually be looking at a 12x max missile load (4x in the CFTs, 4x under the CFTs, 4x on the wings). Although mounting external ordnance would reduce/eliminate the stealthiness gained by the internal munitions carriage. And contradict the whole point behind "stealthy" CFTs in the first place. Then again, if the goal is just to get a stealthy shooter up to take out a high-value target, you may not need eight missiles, either.

4. Looks like there's something on top, though I have no idea what.

5. Apples and oranges. The Super Hornet is a new aeroplane. This is a modification of an old one. More F-16AM than Mitsubishi F-2. Or F/A-18AM than F/A-18E. So the basic question is still more along the lines of "is the Eagle (with some new enhancements) better than the Super Hornet." The answer to which is... better at what?

6. Probably. That seems to be the pitch, anyway (isn't the Eagle line shut down now? So they *can't* build new jets). The big thing would be the structural changes needed to carry the CFTs, which was built in from the F-15C onwards.

7. Seems like a phenomenally stupid idea to me, though. I can't imagine arny current customers would really be that interested, and I can't imagine any potential customers for used jets (if the USAF is even willing to offer them) would want them over newer-build competitors. Frankly, it strikes me as something time-warped out of a 1987 Bill Gunston "Future Warplanes of the 21st Century" type book. A 'this is what we think this new 'stealth' thing will look like in the future' sort of concept. But really, it's just a new, glorified missile pylon. With a couple of sheet-metal canted tails pop-rivetted on as an afterthought. (seriously, those things look TERRIBLE... *this* is how Boeing wants to launch their new product?!?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
call me crazy but isn't the F-15 Undefeated in air to air combat? why change it? Having said that anything different is great!

Actually it has been constantly changing through various avionics and software upgrades; the F-15C of today is much more effective and lethal than the one that fought Desert Storm for example.

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...