hobbes221 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Didn't I just say not too long ago that an upgraded Eagle might show up? All in all it looks good. I thought I heard awhile ago something about Eagles being used for the SEAD role once the F-22s were on the flight line so maybe this is looking in that direction? Lower RCS, some ARMs and a GIB... we might just be looking at the next and newest Wild Weasel. Knew a guy who flew F-105s hunting SAMs over Vietnam, great stories, damn good man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ironically, the ECM/HARM hardpoint was finally removed on the E-model Eagle... Anyways---why the US would win WWIII due to airpower alone: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/L...laxy/1499256/L/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbes221 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ironically, the ECM/HARM hardpoint was finally removed on the E-model Eagle... Anyways---why the US would win WWIII due to airpower alone: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/L...laxy/1499256/L/ As you say those hardpoints were removed, but did you see on the powerpoint that pic that had those shown with twin rails mounted? Also I'm from Tucson, man the Bone Yard is too cool and sad at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) Ironically, the ECM/HARM hardpoint was finally removed on the E-model Eagle... Anyways---why the US would win WWIII due to airpower alone: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/L...laxy/1499256/L/ Could they have decided to integrate it into the aircraft itself? Afterall the F-15SG has those weird pods on the tail booms that nobody can explain yet. This could be something similar. Edited March 21, 2009 by edwin3060 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Huh. Maybe they added them back in or something. Though, the actual plane mocked up is the first F-15E, so maybe it still had them. (the first F-14D didn't even have GE engines) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 The video makes (slightly) more sense if you read the article: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...-bollywood.html I just hope they don't get any contracts in the UK soon, because they'd have no option but to pick Morris Dancing... [1] [1] Not a guy called Morris who dances. Traditional folk dance. Involves pigs bladders. On a stick. Look, just read Terry Pratchetts Lords and Ladies, okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bri Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I just hope they don't get any contracts in the UK soon, because they'd have no option but to pick Morris Dancing... [1] [1] Not a guy called Morris who dances. Traditional folk dance. Involves pigs bladders. On a stick. Look, just read Terry Pratchetts Lords and Ladies, okay? hmm, protecting the UK from an invasion by Elves with Morris dancers by an Isreali Defence firm in a Bollywood production Now there is a plot for a cult movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) Lol on the ejection seat video. "Plane slamming down on the runway" Copilot: Should we eject? Pilot: Nah, we're still good. "second impact" Copilot: Dude!? Pilot: She'll pull through. Copilot: We're on fire! Pilot: Meh. Copilot: The plane is coming apart around us! Pilot: OK fine. The F-15SE looks interesting though I don't see it being able to go into combat with just internal weapon loads alone. They'd have to mount some kind of external hardpoints on it you'd think. The AESA radar is certainly a given if they went with producing it but I wonder if it would receive the updated avionics from the F-22. Thrust vectoring could also be an appealing upgrade for it. Looks like it could be an option for the Koreans to replace their F-15K Slam Eagle with in the future. Edited March 22, 2009 by Shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...ouis%20Facility Linked article mentions that Boeing is not going to include engine blockers for the baseline F-15SE, which probably means that any significant RCS reduction (i.e. to the level of the F-35 frontal) is probably a pipe dream. Looks like the only retrofittable equipment would be the CFTs and maybe some RAM, which probably won't significantly reduce the RCS. Along with the possible removal of ECM/HARM capability mentioned by David, the F-15SE doesn't look as enticing to me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_WOZ Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 This must be the inspiration behind Macross's Fanracer and Fanliner: RFB Fantrainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbes221 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Linked article mentions that Boeing is not going to include engine blockers for the baseline F-15SE, which probably means that any significant RCS reduction (i.e. to the level of the F-35 frontal) is probably a pipe dream... Almost sound like they are trying to stage the design to allow for ether the widest range of requirements and/or cost. No reason that an intake system could not be fitted if a customer asked. This would look to give the largest possible amount of sales by being able to offer just what the customer needs, not having the design fixed in one configuration with say having the weapons packs fixed on the airframe and such. Along with the possible removal of ECM/HARM capability mentioned by David I think we were just talking about the two outer wing hardpoints being removed that have really never been used operationally, I think that it would be no problem to shoot HARMs off the main pylons. And IIRC there is work on a ARM that would be carried by the F-22s and F-35s in the weapons bays so that might also work. Good stuff Shadow Pilot: Meh. Edited March 24, 2009 by hobbes221 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Already there's interest coming from Korea http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/dat...00903230012.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 HARM on main pylon would be fine, HARM has its own launcher which mounts to any pylon. (LAU-88) HARM's way too big for internal anyways. I'm surprised they're even considering a bay-carried ARM for the F-22/35. AMRs have always been inherently large missiles, wonder if the range/speed would be cut severely by making one bay-sized. Interesting note in that earlier article about the bay weapon options for the F-15SE: "The top bay includes a rail launcher suitable for an AIM-9, AIM-120, a single 500-lb. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) or two Small-Diameter Bombs. The bottom bay could dispatch these or a 1,000-lb. JDAM" Means you could put 6 bombs of various sizes internally----almost a steath-CAS plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 HARM's way too big for internal anyways. I'm surprised they're even considering a bay-carried ARM for the F-22/35. AMRs have always been inherently large missiles, wonder if the range/speed would be cut severely by making one bay-sized. I suppose the F-22 gets to lob the missile from higher and faster and presumably closer to the target to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbes221 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 And I guess with today's weapons you could do the SEAD/DEAD missions without ARMs, using things like JDAM and JSOW type weapons. All you really need is the Weasel gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Annoyed at myself for not thinking of that----missiles generally do derive their top speed depending on their launch speed. An ARM launched in supercruise will be pretty fast regardless then. Ok, so what will the slow-as-hell F-35 do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Ok, so what will the slow-as-hell F-35 do? Copy that awesome dive-bomber attack from Stealth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) Ok, so what will the slow-as-hell F-35 do? Aw, its no Raptor but that tubby thing is actually supposed to be supercruise capable too right? edit: Aw crap. I just found out that tubby doesn't supercruise! Always thought it could, with the internal payload and all... Edited March 25, 2009 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Aw, its no Raptor but that tubby thing is actually supposed to be supercruise capable too right? Nope--- subsonic cruise... but it's still no worse than the current teen series fighters so I wouldn't call it slow! Apparently it accelerates like a bat out of hell as well (not surprising given it's massive engine). Besides, Boeing has already stated that the F-15SE is more geared towards DCA, and the stealth features are more or less useless against ground radars (since it is only frontal stealth). In the case of Korea, I think they should go for the F-35s if they want stealth or a F-15K upgraded to F-15SG avionics ( AESA, EW, etc) if they want to supplement their F-15 fleet-- going for the F-15SE is neither here nor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Copy that awesome dive-bomber attack from Stealth? hey mentioned the monster, beat him, burn him, fillet him, feed him to Rosie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Nope--- subsonic cruise... but it's still no worse than the current teen series fighters so I wouldn't call it slow! Apparently it accelerates like a bat out of hell as well (not surprising given it's massive engine) Everything I've read says M1.6 top speed, though one place said "1.8 unofficially". That's Super Hornet slow or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 F-22 just crashed in California: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/25/ai...-in-california/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Porkchop Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) Great... another reason for the haters of the F-22 program to demand it's end. Edited March 25, 2009 by Evil Porkchop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Don't speculate about the crash, officials will release word once there is any. OPSEC approved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyp Durron Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Got to admit, that crash doesn't help my confidence in them as much as I like their design from an aesthetic point of view. -Kyp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 yeah but dont trust that info coming from cnn..... in the article they called the F-22 "At $150 million apiece, the F-22A is the most expensive Air Force jet". They need to take some time before the release a story like this and do some research and simple math then they will find the B-2 stealth bomber hold most expensive Jet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Maybe they ment fighter jet? Still a bit sloppy ofcourse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 yeah but dont trust that info coming from cnn..... in the article they called the F-22 "At $150 million apiece, the F-22A is the most expensive Air Force jet". They need to take some time before the release a story like this and do some research and simple math then they will find the B-2 stealth bomber hold most expensive Jet. oh believe me, I take everything I read on CNN with a grain of salt the size of a cow lick. But as the point of the article is that an F-22 crashed and not a discourse on the budget issues around one, I'll let it pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 On a more light-hearted note, I found and bought these today: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Used to take a pack of those with me to school everyday for lunch back in the day. Loved those things. Sucks to hear about the F-22 crash. My condolences go out to the test pilots family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Everything I've read says M1.6 top speed, though one place said "1.8 unofficially". That's Super Hornet slow or worse. Yes and no-- how often do fighter jets hit their top speed anyway, except in testing? Can the F-16 even hit Mach 2.0 when loaded with 2 1000lb and 2 AMRAAMs? I think the F-35 should be able to sustain a greater average speed than the teen series fighters, even if the top speed is lower, thus not being a slow fighter by any means. Condolences to the family of the test pilot. Will this crash affect the number of operational fighters (i.e. down to 182 from 183)? Depending on the conditions of the crash it might affect the number of additional fighters the AF may get. But, looking at it another way, crashes are bound to happen-- even the B-2, treated with extra special kid gloves, crashed from--water condensing in a pitot tube. I just hope this doesn't scare away supporters of the F-22 program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 I think this now makes two production F-22's loss. The reality is that with a high performance fighter you are going to lose a lot more of them then a bomber. In the case of the B-2, for example, it basically takes off, flies to some point across the globe, comes back, lands, and that's about it. With a fighter, the aircraft is going to be flying through a lot more flight regimes and exposing itself (and its pilot) to all kinds of G forces. This is why you got to build aircraft like these in greater numbers. Regardless of the media source, I wish more of these "journalists" would sit down and look over the stats and performances of the F-22 vs. the F-35, not to mention what they are designed to do. The F-22 is probably stealthier (notice all the "bumps" and stuff that have appeared on the production F-35 while the F-22 is much cleaner), has a MUCH bigger air-to-air missile payload, greater thrust-to-weight ratio, longer range (I think! I'll have to double check), two-engined reliability. The only thing the F-35 can do better is carry larger bombs internally. The F-22 was tailored for pure air-to-air while the F-35 was created to be a cheaper aircraft to act as ground support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-19 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 On a more light-hearted note, I found and bought these today: What, no F-14? It would be the most awesome candy if it had F-14 gummies! In fact, it would be so awesome, there would be a warning label on the package warning about how awesome it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bri Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Got to admit, that crash doesn't help my confidence in them as much as I like their design from an aesthetic point of view. -Kyp I guess tastes differ, I think all stealth aircraft cept the SR-71 are ugly as sin. Tbf I don't like the delta wings either so that leaves very little modern aircraft. Come to think of it, it's only the Flanker that looks decent of the latest stuff. hmm, I'm curious what does everyone think are the coolest planes? For me it would be the F14, the F15 and the big ugly shooty things like the A-10 and the AC130. Edited March 26, 2009 by Bri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Northrop Grumman NGB - now with (retractable?) canards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts