Jump to content

Interesting Press release on the F-15SA


Recommended Posts

I hope somebody within Canada's RCAF is listening to this...

We could afford a bunch more silent Eagles than F-35s.

Twin engines make it survivable/palatable for Arctic and over-ocean flying (can anybody say NORAD?).

Some stealth features evident - but when does Canada go in on day 1 of the war and drop smart bombs in a surprise attack?

Huge range.

Two crew members to solve workload problems in flight and on squadron (we are notoriously short-staffed and overworked at the fighter pilot level).

Sigh.

This is no longer my fight - let's hope somebody wakes up in DND, though.

ALF

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope somebody within Canada's RCAF is listening to this...

We could afford a bunch more silent Eagles than F-35s.

Twin engines make it survivable/palatable for Arctic and over-ocean flying (can anybody say NORAD?).

Some stealth features evident - but when does Canada go in on day 1 of the war and drop smart bombs in a surprise attack?

Huge range.

Two crew members to solve workload problems in flight and on squadron (we are notoriously short-staffed and overworked at the fighter pilot level).

Sigh.

This is no longer my fight - let's hope somebody wakes up in DND, though.

ALF

First off, Silent eagles are 1.5~2.0 times more expensive to purchase than an F-35 in the 2020 timeframe (we don't know the final cost of the Silent Eagle, but the K versions go for about 100 USD in FY2006, and thats not a SE package) The O&M costs are significantly higher due to two engines and low number of airframes produced.The F-15Ks O&M have basically quadrupled in the last few years.

Furthermore the survivability argument for two engines really doesn't exist anymore given the advances in engine reliability with the newer model P&W engines. There hasn't been a crash with the new Block 50 F-16s due to engine failure yet, with over a decade of service using these engines.

With respects to the Arctic mission, with superior sensors, integration and networking capabilities, a group of shorter ranged F-35 will be able to do more work than an SE. And having stealth I believe will be a prerequisite not only for day one of an operation, but possibly for the last day as well. If Kosovo is any indicator, opponents will attempt to attire western nations by only using their systems when there is a high probability to attack. That's what they did with the F-117. So having stealth all the time is a net benefit for the RCAF at times of war.

Adding a back seater to reduce workload doesn't make sense given the financial and personnel pressures facing the RCAF. Adding a backseater only adds more burden to the train... meaning another individual that has to be trained and qualified for operations. That means more money and resources NOT going to pilot training, while introducing another potential shortage that can reduce aircraft availability. Staying with a single seater will keep the personnel demands low, which is what you want to achieve.

Finally, there is a reason why the F-35 has been winning more and more export orders. The F-15SE was always a gamble of sorts... that it would potentially displace some F-35 sales. It has failed to do that. The current buyers really are legacy clients who wanted some upgrades to their current fleet. Singapore is the exception to that but it could not wait for even the original JSF timeline for a replacement. It has faced serious challenges trying to create a compelling business case in the face of the massive production potential of the F-35 program and its advanced capabilities.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, Silent eagles are 1.5~2.0 times more expensive to purchase than an F-35 in the 2020 timeframe (we don't know the final cost of the Silent Eagle, but the K versions go for about 100 million(?) USD in FY2006, and thats not a SE package) The O&M costs are significantly higher due to two engines and low number of airframes produced.The F-15Ks O&M have basically quadrupled in the last few years.

The Korean and the Singaporian decided on the F-15 Eagle years ago. It was compete again the EuroFighter and long before the F-35 first flight. Cost was not the deciding factor. Both are small (geographically speaking) countries who needed air superiority and wanted ground attach in a single airframe. F-15 fitted the bill then, and still does for the Saudi today. They also got the technology transfer that they are looking for. The Singaporian did a lot of upgrade to the design and paid for them (the technology), which is why Boeing called it the most advanced version of F-15 in production. Most country will do a threats analysis before deciding the best fighter purchase for them.

For most countries, the F-35 is a lower cost (on paper) multi-role fighter option that promised lower cost O&M. The Super Hornet is a proven lower cost multi-role fighter option with proven low cost O&M, but very limited stealth. The SH is also the second AESA radar equiped fighter in production and has an electronic warfare verison in the Growler, EA-18G. It is a well known rumor that the SH won technical and cost competition, but lost in foriegn sale due to technology transfer restriction that the US government imposed more than once. The Australian seem to be very pleased with their SH and are thinking about more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I'm bummed that I'm in the US right now. I got to go to the Singapore Air Show every other year until I moved away. When I was back in December it was raining cats and dogs. I'm going to have to see if my next trip back will be in conjunction with the airshow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But stealth wins air battles...... :whistle:

f-117-00000004.jpg

since 1991, Yes.

So all other nations get a capable, cost effective, and proven platform where as the US gets the F-35????

Once upon a time it was "So all other nations get a capable, cost effective, and proven platform where as the US gets the F-15????"

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

since 1991, Yes.

Once upon a time it was "So all other nations get a capable, cost effective, and proven platform where as the US gets the F-15????"

"Once Upon a Time", the F-15 went from first flight to Operational Service in less than four years ... :whistle:

Gregg

Edited by GreyGhost
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Once Upon a Time", the F-15 went from first flight to Operational Service in less than four years ... :whistle:

Gregg

But We had to pay the price operationally for the F-15's teething problems as none were worked out through testing.

We still were short parts and putting in long hours trying to keep the Eagle flying in the beginning, 12 hour shifts and having 12 hour shift on weekend duty was the norm.

Most sorties were flown without certain items that would be unheard of in operations today.

There were times we would have 2-3 Can Birds and shift them around so they would not go Hanger Queen.

Most nights when I worked Swing shift I did not get home till 5am after going to Rollcall 3:45 the day before.

Don't get me wrong still loved working on the 15 just the teething problems were worked out with the blood a sweat on ops side for along time after the jet became operational.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, Silent eagles are 1.5~2.0 times more expensive to purchase than an F-35 in the 2020 timeframe (we don't know the final cost of the Silent Eagle, but the K versions go for about 100 USD in FY2006, and thats not a SE package) The O&M costs are significantly higher due to two engines and low number of airframes produced.The F-15Ks O&M have basically quadrupled in the last few years.

Furthermore the survivability argument for two engines really doesn't exist anymore given the advances in engine reliability with the newer model P&W engines. There hasn't been a crash with the new Block 50 F-16s due to engine failure yet, with over a decade of service using these engines.

With respects to the Arctic mission, with superior sensors, integration and networking capabilities, a group of shorter ranged F-35 will be able to do more work than an SE. And having stealth I believe will be a prerequisite not only for day one of an operation, but possibly for the last day as well. If Kosovo is any indicator, opponents will attempt to attire western nations by only using their systems when there is a high probability to attack. That's what they did with the F-117. So having stealth all the time is a net benefit for the RCAF at times of war.

Adding a back seater to reduce workload doesn't make sense given the financial and personnel pressures facing the RCAF. Adding a backseater only adds more burden to the train... meaning another individual that has to be trained and qualified for operations. That means more money and resources NOT going to pilot training, while introducing another potential shortage that can reduce aircraft availability. Staying with a single seater will keep the personnel demands low, which is what you want to achieve.

Finally, there is a reason why the F-35 has been winning more and more export orders. The F-15SE was always a gamble of sorts... that it would potentially displace some F-35 sales. It has failed to do that. The current buyers really are legacy clients who wanted some upgrades to their current fleet. Singapore is the exception to that but it could not wait for even the original JSF timeline for a replacement. It has faced serious challenges trying to create a compelling business case in the face of the massive production potential of the F-35 program and its advanced capabilities.

Interesting arguments, Neu

I don't know the actual or projected costs of the F-15 variants, nor the F-35, so I can't argue that directly. I have been reading lately though that the JSF is also rising in cost. Fleet size is a real concern with Canada's budget. Maybe the Super Hornet makes more sense than the Strike Eagle then. Commonality of parts (reuse existing spares, ground support equipment, etc), and ease of transition for pilots and techs are compelling arguments.

I also wonder about the robustness of the stealth coatings on the skin, and how that will work out in icing and with runway contaminants that accrete on the skin. We had enough problems with gear proximity switches on the Hornet when it came into service, due to contamination from our urea and sand-coated runways in winter.

Having flown both twin and single-engine jets for years, I agree that the reliability is increasing, but one Canada Goose in an intake will destroy one engine, and force an ejection in the JSF. The F-15 or 18 will fly home very nicely on the remaining one. I've spent hours turning in the CAP over Baffin Island, and thanked the procurement folks that bought the Hornet instead of the Viper for that extra peace of mind.

Networkability and interoperability are still possible with the latest Super Hornets or Eagles. AESA Radar and advanced data links are very nice.

Sure stealth is a tactical advantage, but for the JSF to be stealthy it cannot carry external stores, making it carry very limited fuel and weapons (especially air to ground).

As far as personnel goes, one reason I left the military after 20 years of service was the incredible workload in the Hornet world. With very few pilots on squadron, we had massive secondary duties, and there were never enough people around to do all the jobs. Days off were not guaranteed, and working hours were very long. The Voodoos had twice the personnel, plus a simpler aircraft and role to go with it. I totally agree with you that our budget is limited for personnel. Salaries take up a large portion of the Defence budget. On the other hand, many good people have been overworked and burnt out by the workload in the fighter force, and have chosen to take their skills elsewhere (like Air Canada). Alleviating some of that burden could make the difference in retention. I would rather have more qualified people stay than have a good budget to train more green replacements.

In 1989, my squadron here in Bagotville went from 19 pilots (our 'establishment' or authorized numbers) down to 13 in two months, due to releases. It took almost a year to get back to 18 or 19. Then more guys left. The crisis was averted because a few years later they started closing squadrons in Europe, and shipping personnel and aircraft back to Cold Lake and Bagotville.

We went through more than one "Get Well" program, which promised to improve the working conditions and other irritants, but they misfired and had no long-term impact. I have heard (indirectly) that things are not much better nowadays, even with an aircraft that is hugely more capable than the Hornets I flew until 1996.

I don't think there's any right answer here, nor is it a simple topic. I've been out of the game for almost 16 years now, so I don't know what went into the requirements, or whether they are valid. All I do know is that it's an awfully small fleet for a lot of money. And pilots will be working harder than ever with reduced resources, meaning they will not have much incentive to stick it out for the long run.

You offer an interesting perspective. I look forward to seeing how this all plays out. Now I need that popcorn-eating emoticon...

ALF

Edited by ALF18
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't mind I'll address a few points...

Interesting arguments, Neu

I don't know the actual or projected costs of the F-15 variants, nor the F-35, so I can't argue that directly. I have been reading lately though that the JSF is also rising in cost. Fleet size is a real concern with Canada's budget. Maybe the Super Hornet makes more sense than the Strike Eagle then. Commonality of parts (reuse existing spares, ground support equipment, etc), and ease of transition for pilots and techs are compelling arguments.

The problem is that by 2030 the hornet will be a very old piece of kit... almost 35 years in service. With the US Navy retiring it at that point, the costs of maintaining that program (especially upgrades) will increase significantly. By comparison Canadian F-35s will be about 10 years old and be in ongoing production. The costs are increasing, but it really depends on when and how many aircraft the GoC decide to buy. The government was prepared to pay as much as $70 million per aircraft, and I suspect that, or a little more might be the price they pay. Its still significantly less than the current generation of F-15s available.

I also wonder about the robustness of the stealth coatings on the skin, and how that will work out in icing and with runway contaminants that accrete on the skin. We had enough problems with gear proximity switches on the Hornet when it came into service, due to contamination from our urea and sand-coated runways in winter.

One of the key things about the F-35 is the navy's role in its development. It placed a large number of specifications and that would not have normally been there had it been an AF program. Consequently the stealth carbon matting on the F-35 are significantly more durable than anything previously deployed in order to survive the carrier environment, to the extent they are being retrofitted onto the F-22. The Navy's role also affects things like redundancy and failure rates too, which is important for your subsequent point:

Having flown both twin and single-engine jets for years, I agree that the reliability is increasing, but one Canada Goose in an intake will destroy one engine, and force an ejection in the JSF. The F-15 or 18 will fly home very nicely on the remaining one. I've spent hours turning in the CAP over Baffin Island, and thanked the procurement folks that bought the Hornet instead of the Viper for that extra peace of mind.

This was one aspect that I looked at: I interviewed a number of your colleagues and dug up some of the stats. Absolutely the buffer of the second engine probably allows greater leeway if an warning light comes on (or god forbid) the engine fails. I agree that you might not see many more crashes, however mission abort rates may increase significantly. I also think its important to consider the Norwegian experience using the F-16 in a similar environment for over twenty years, and the fact that the US Navy is once again putting a single engine plane on the carrier deck.

Networkability and interoperability are still possible with the latest Super Hornets or Eagles. AESA Radar and advanced data links are very nice.

The F-35's networking capabilities should be even superior to those. The Navy is upgrading the Shornet, but there are limits without the LPI capabilities of MADL. Furthermore those capabilities will continue to be upgraded in the future... which might not be the case for the Shornet or the Eagle.

Sure stealth is a tactical advantage, but for the JSF to be stealthy it cannot carry external stores, making it carry very limited fuel and weapons (especially air to ground).

Actually this is one of the F-35's biggest advantages. Basically all the performance figures cited are with it fully loaded in a stealth configuration. Even with a comparable load of two 2000lbs JDAMs, the F-35 has superior range to the Super Hornet (with the latter carrying tanks.) The calculations I've done with an northern intercept loaded F/A-18E (two winders and three bags) vs some of the figures for a similarly loaded F-35 indicate the latter has at least 75NM advantage in range.

As far as personnel goes, one reason I left the military after 20 years of service was the incredible workload in the Hornet world. With very few pilots on squadron, we had massive secondary duties, and there were never enough people around to do all the jobs. Days off were not guaranteed, and working hours were very long. The Voodoos had twice the personnel, plus a simpler aircraft and role to go with it. I totally agree with you that our budget is limited for personnel. Salaries take up a large portion of the Defence budget. On the other hand, many good people have been overworked and burnt out by the workload in the fighter force, and have chosen to take their skills elsewhere (like Air Canada). Alleviating some of that burden could make the difference in retention. I would rather have more qualified

people stay than have a good budget to train more green replacements.

Based on the early information coming out of the USAF, I think the F-35 will change alot of things for the RCAF on the training and maintenance side. There is a lot of discussion how quite a bit of training will be moved to simulators, lessening the actual burden on airframes and sortie generation. The performance based logistics type contract that L-3 will offer should simplify the maintenance program while keeping (or increasing) the aircraft's reliability.

In 1989, my squadron here in Bagotville went from 19 pilots (our 'establishment' or authorized numbers) down to 13 in two months, due to releases. It took almost a year to get back to 18 or 19. Then more guys left. The crisis was averted because a few years later they started closing squadrons in Europe, and shipping personnel and aircraft back to Cold Lake and Bagotville.

We went through more than one "Get Well" program, which promised to improve the working conditions and other irritants, but they misfired and had no long-term impact. I have heard (indirectly) that things are not much better nowadays, even with an aircraft that is hugely more capable than the Hornets I flew until 1996.

I don't think there's any right answer here, nor is it a simple topic. I've been out of the game for almost 16 years now, so I don't know what went into the requirements, or whether they are valid. All I do know is that it's an awfully small fleet for a lot of money. And pilots will be working harder than ever with reduced resources, meaning they will not have much incentive to stick it out for the long run.

You offer an interesting perspective. I look forward to seeing how this all plays out. Now I need that popcorn-eating emoticon...

ALF

One of the things I'd urge you to consider is that the defense debate in Canada is actually very poor right now. The Parliamentary Budget Officer report that came out a year ago was horribly done, particularly its cost estimate. For a more balanced view you need to go to specialized US commentators and look at the budget/breifing documents. I'm trying to get something out by the spring but there is just too much going on.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

since 1991, Yes.

That helped in one war. The outcome would have been the same, but the loss of life would have increased.

Once upon a time it was "So all other nations get a capable, cost effective, and proven platform where as the US gets the F-15????"

The criticism back then was that it was too big and didn't fit in with the Lightweight fighter program the Fighter Mafia was trying to push. They also used the argument of cost, but in reality it had more to do with their doctrine at the time, which led to the F-16 and F-18. The Eagle program also had a real threat in what the Soviets were flying and although we were unaware of the capability of the Mig-25 until one defected, it was still a real and valid threat. With our #1 stragetic threat being our economy the Air Force is trying to get while the getting's good, even if that means cutting proven weapon systems instead of getting our money's worth out of the current, paid-for, airframes. With the cuts to the A-10 and the AMRAAM replacement it's clear what they're trying to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is, the stations had caused stress cracks in the wings when used ...

Gregg

Thanks Gregg.

I think I'll build my self a Saudi F-15SA with station 1 and 9 attached.

Should bring something more to the beautiful Strike Eagle.

/Bosse

Link to post
Share on other sites

So all other nations get a capable, cost effective, and proven platform where as the US gets the F-35???? But stealth wins air battles...... :whistle:

The new F-15SA's are going to be light years ahead in capability of the current Echos in the AF inventory...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Once Upon a Time", the F-15 went from first flight to Operational Service in less than four years ... :whistle:

Gregg

Did the F-15 have to hover or land on an aircraft carrier?

Beyond what Ol Crew Dog said, I am just pointing out that at one point, every weapon system is new, expensive and unproven, where as the last weapon system was anything but. Spears are proven combat weapons, but I prefer a rifle, the next generation will prefer something else. things evolve and those who don't evolve get dead. You are going to have to expand, get outside your comfort zone and try new things to improve. thats with almost any area in life.

That helped in one war. The outcome would have been the same, but the loss of life would have increased.

Yep, don't know if you noticed this but the west can be very sensitive to casualties. you can win battles but if too many people die, withdraw demands are issued. Also this F-15 has stealthy features so I would say that stealth seems to be a pretty relevant thing. also towards the end of vietnam a whole 25 percent of combat sorties were SEAD. That a huge chunk of your force, having to do a very dangerous mission.

The criticism back then was that it was too big and didn't fit in with the Lightweight fighter program the Fighter Mafia was trying to push. They also used the argument of cost, but in reality it had more to do with their doctrine at the time, which led to the F-16 and F-18. The Eagle program also had a real threat in what the Soviets were flying and although we were unaware of the capability of the Mig-25 until one defected, it was still a real and valid threat. With our #1 stragetic threat being our economy the Air Force is trying to get while the getting's good, even if that means cutting proven weapon systems instead of getting our money's worth out of the current, paid-for, airframes. With the cuts to the A-10 and the AMRAAM replacement it's clear what they're trying to do.

You really think we havn't gotten the most out of 40 year old designs and airframes? The problem isn't getting enough out of them believe me, its that they are overused old and tired. Remember that the phantom was a pretty hard plane to replace and plenty of Phantom upgrades/improvements were in the books but the whacky USAF demanded an revolution rather than an evolution. I think we have all seen how that worked out. plenty of countries still use F-4s but I honestly think the USAF made the right choice. I don't think they have regrets. It should have been Phantoms phorever, then before that F-86's forever, then P-51s forever.

A-10 cut: Nothing is going to replace a Battleship for armor and guns, but Aircraft Carriers don't need armor or guns to beat them. At one point Armor and Guns aren't going to be enough. the F-15E probably did more to spell the death of the A-10 than anything else. I would say it surpassed the A-10 sometime ago. OTOH you are upset that we aren't developing an AMRAAM replacement... isn't the AMRAAM "proven off the shelf technology"? have we gotten the most of the AMRAAM yet?

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
The new F-15SA's are going to be light years ahead in capability of the current Echos in the AF inventory...

Right this minute that might be true, but the F-15E is getting the new APG-82 AESA and new EPAWSS, i.e. Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, which will boost its defense systems considerably beyond what available for export.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right this minute that might be true, but the F-15E is getting the new APG-82 AESA and new EPAWSS, i.e. Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, which will boost its defense systems considerably beyond what available for export.

While true, it still won't have a digital fly-by-wire flight control system.

The F-15SA is going to be completely different on the inside. Outwardly it may look like an Echo but that's about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While true, it still won't have a digital fly-by-wire flight control system

Yes, but does that add any actual warfighting capability? Probably not. I'd wager that if anything the fly-by-wire takes away the "feel" of the aircraft which would have allowed the pilot to judge the airspeed and g-loading of the jet without ever having to look at the HUD or refer to the instruments. But conversely, I suppose it will be easier to pull 9G in the jet- right now, that takes finesse and skill. If anything it's a combat effectiveness neutral upgrade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but does that add any actual warfighting capability? Probably not. I'd wager that if anything the fly-by-wire takes away the "feel" of the aircraft which would have allowed the pilot to judge the airspeed and g-loading of the jet without ever having to look at the HUD or refer to the instruments. But conversely, I suppose it will be easier to pull 9G in the jet- right now, that takes finesse and skill. If anything it's a combat effectiveness neutral upgrade.

I think that the era of Red Baron flying his Fokker is long gone. :coolio:

I don't see how the old hydro-mechanical control will give more "feel" of the aircraft than the electro-mechanical actuators of the "fly-by-wire". I am not a pilot. So I don't know how a pilot can judge the airspeed and G loading of a supersonic jet without looking at the instruments. Any help from our pilot friend to explain how it happens?

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...