exdraken Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 39 minutes ago, Stuart Wilson said: IIRC the F-15EX is rated for 20,000 flying hours vis 16,000 for the E model and 8,000 for the A,B,C and D models. At 300 hrs per airframe per year that equates to a service life of 66 years per aircraft without a subsequent life extension. It's just possible the F-15 might see out the Century! Stuart We(myself) will definitely not see the century out Do you really think this technology will still be relevant in 30 years? But then the focus on stealth may be a dead end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Wilson Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 6 hours ago, exdraken said: We(myself) will definitely not see the century out Do you really think this technology will still be relevant in 30 years? But then the focus on stealth may be a dead end... I don't think any of us know how technology will change in 30 years, however, an aircraft with a good performance and payload like the F-15 will probably still be able to find a role even as a platform for stand-off weaponry and air defence, where stealth is less important. I can't see overall aircraft performance improving much in the next 30 years, at least not in a way that would allow large numbers of aircraft to be affordable. Hypersonic missies are one thing but a hypersonic aircraft that can be used for years of service is either a long way off or likely to be very expensive. Stuart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted February 6, 2021 Author Share Posted February 6, 2021 When the F-15 first flew in 1972, I doubt many people thought it would still be in production in 2021. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 Hallo Basically, the F-15 is a good basic design. She has more skills because of the high cost compared to her peers in the western world. Now that the western allies are increasingly coming under cost pressure and at the same time need life extension, increased combat capability and other updates from the existing equipment, this is a logical development. At the same time, the entire stealth development is very expensive, very fragile and associated with many risks in operational use. Thus, the F-15 is a sensible plan B. Of course, there is also the fact that the selection of available types of aircraft is very small due to the reduction in type. You should also keep in mind that you cannot put everything on one card. Stealth is just one card. Because of the experiences from Israel interwoven with the F-15 from the very beginning, as a contemporary witness I can fully understand the decision. Happy modelling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsprop Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 I see absolutely no reason the F-15 won't lost another 50 years. It comes down to specification. If there is a specification for a multi role fighter, capable of being a mach 2 interceptor and being a bomb truck, all at a reasonable cost - then there is no reason an updated F-15 cannot fill the role. Historically, military aircraft become obsolete because flight performance surpasses their capability. This is not happening now, the F-35 for example is slower than the F-15 (in fact, the F-35 avoids supersonic flight as it ruins the airframe). Fighter aircraft now become obsolete because their systems become outdated, update the systems and the aircraft is still relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) On 2/8/2021 at 1:39 PM, wellsprop said: This is not happening now, the F-35 for example is slower than the F-15 (in fact, the F-35 avoids supersonic flight as it ruins the airframe). Not Disputing this but pondering. If this is the case why build it with engines designed to super-cruise at Mach speed without Afterburners ? Oh well just another reason for me to dislike the massive waste of money that the plane is. Edited February 10, 2021 by Corsairfoxfouruncle 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsprop Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Because it doesn't need to be supersonic and it was never intended to be a supersonic interceptor. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/ The key to the F35's ability is it's stealth and sensors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 9 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: Not Disputing this but pondering. If this is the case why build it with engines designed to super-cruise at Mach speed without Afterburners ? Oh well just another reason for me to dislike the massive waste of money that the plane is. Because when compared to previous types, supercruise allows to fly faster compared to engines at 100% with no AB but using less fuel than the same types at the same speed using AB. Even in case of interception missions this is an advantage compared to types that were faster but in the end only went supersonic over a small part of their mission because of fuel constraints. While maximum speed has been neglected in the last 20/30 years, one of the performance parameter that the US in particular has been focusing on is range, hence the interest in massive internal fuel loads on the F-35. Range on internal fuel not only means reaching farther, it also means being able to avoid the couple of fuel tanks that most '70s aircraft have to carry (see the F-16 for example), tanks that take pylon room that could be used for weaponry and that result in added drag, hence less range than achievable with the same quantity of fuel carried internally. More range also means less tankers per mission, with an overall better use of the resources available. Supercruise is one of the capabilities that allow higher range on an average mission 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 6 hours ago, Giorgio N said: While maximum speed has been neglected in the last 20/30 years, one of the performance parameter that the US in particular has been focusing on is range, hence the interest in massive internal fuel loads on the F-35. Range on internal fuel not only means reaching farther, it also means being able to avoid the couple of fuel tanks that most '70s aircraft have to carry (see the F-16 for example), tanks that take pylon room that could be used for weaponry and that result in added drag, hence less range than achievable with the same quantity of fuel carried internally. More range also means less tankers per mission, with an overall better use of the resources available. Supercruise is one of the capabilities that allow higher range on an average mission So kind of emulating the Su-27 / Flanker concept plus stealth minus good aerodynamics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsprop Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 On 06/02/2021 at 11:11, Stuart Wilson said: IIRC the F-15EX is rated for 20,000 flying hours vis 16,000 for the E model and 8,000 for the A,B,C and D models. At 300 hrs per airframe per year that equates to a service life of 66 years per aircraft without a subsequent life extension. It's just possible the F-15 might see out the Century! Stuart 20000?!?! Thats incredible! The Typhoon only manages 6000 and I recall the Tornado only got to 7500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted February 10, 2021 Author Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) The new F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III has a 9000 hour airframe life (up from 6000) due to some design changes by Boeing. Not sure exactly what changes they've made. Edited February 10, 2021 by Slater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsprop Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Slater said: The new F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III has a 9000 hour airframe life (up from 6000) due to some design changes by Boeing. Not sure exactly what changes they've made. It's quite possible they've made no design changes at all and they've just done further fatigue/FEA analysis and/or fatigue testing - it's quicker and cheaper than redesigning (which requires FEA and fatigue testing anyway). However, they have possibly introduced newer parts/assemblies with improved fatigue resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted February 12, 2021 Author Share Posted February 12, 2021 Luftwaffe Tornadoes get a pretty extensive rework, apparently: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/first-german-tornado-to-pass-through-life-extension-programme-makes-maiden-flight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairystick Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 On 2/3/2021 at 10:55 PM, Alan P said: This seems like window dressing for a contractor balancing act. Much more to it than is evident. The Eagle fleet is aging, and not well with earlier models. Finances have been eaten up with -22 & -35 development costs, now add in the B-21 costs. The wallet is empty for further "grey with pointy nose" development, so working with tried & true (-15 / -16 types) makes financial sense. As mentioned in the thread, the quality of build & performance is a generational step ahead with the -EX. Yes, some mid-east countries will be purchasing & I'd bet Israel will be too at some stage. (If they were smart, the -14 line would be put back in production...);-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 On 2/14/2021 at 5:17 PM, hairystick said: (If they were smart, the -14 line would be put back in production...);-) They cant all the forms and spares were destroyed by the Bush administration in 07 or 08. This was to prevent Iran from getting new parts or spares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairystick Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/17/2021 at 4:21 PM, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: They cant all the forms and spares were destroyed by the Bush administration in 07 or 08. This was to prevent Iran from getting new parts or spares. Yes, I know. Also the destruction in AMARG is intended to keep spares out or Iranian hands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted February 24, 2021 Share Posted February 24, 2021 https://theaviationist.com/2021/02/24/the-first-f-15ex-received-u-s-air-force-camouflage-and-markings/ https://i1.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/F-15EX_New_Camouflage_1.jpeg?resize=678%2C381&ssl=1 And in classic 2 grey fighter style colours! Wonder if they will get Have Glass stealth paint later on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted February 24, 2021 Share Posted February 24, 2021 2 hours ago, exdraken said: Wonder if they will get Have Glass stealth paint later on... It's as stealthy as a foil wrapped barn door, so it's unlikely! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Mike Sierra Posted February 24, 2021 Share Posted February 24, 2021 On 12/02/2021 at 03:18, Slater said: Luftwaffe Tornadoes get a pretty extensive rework, apparently: Oh yeah, spending millions on old hardware just because the MoD is unable to obtain approval from lawmakers to fund the envisaged F/A-18Fs and Gs they wanted to acquire to fill the gap once the Tornados are withdrawn from service. Not so smart in my view… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted February 24, 2021 Share Posted February 24, 2021 17 minutes ago, Alan P said: It's as stealthy as a foil wrapped barn door, so it's unlikely! F-16s are also getting it... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted February 24, 2021 Share Posted February 24, 2021 5 minutes ago, Sierra Mike Sierra said: Oh yeah, spending millions on old hardware just because the MoD is unable to obtain approval from lawmakers to fund the envisaged F/A-18Fs and Gs they wanted to acquire to fill the gap once the Tornados are withdrawn from service. Not so smart in my view… You need quite a few million per ach single new plane...around a 100 actually.... and spend them in the US..... Probably hard to explain currently! so as long as capability is maintained I do not see the problem. Job is to lob nukes and HARMs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Mike Sierra Posted February 24, 2021 Share Posted February 24, 2021 On 06/02/2021 at 12:31, exdraken said: But then the focus on stealth may be a dead end... Possibly, if radar technology (or other forms of aircraft detection) evolve further, maybe the current stealth concepts won`t work adequately sometimes in the no so distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Mike Sierra Posted February 24, 2021 Share Posted February 24, 2021 4 minutes ago, exdraken said: and spend them in the US..... Probably hard to explain currently! Valid point! Yet I would imagine that the Luftwaffe would not just pick the Hornets from Boeing`s production line, but that there would be some sort of deal that would allow German aviation industry to have their share in the project - as they did in the past. As regards cost per flying hour, I have no knowledge, but my gut feeling tells me that the Hornets would come cheaper. Wouldn’t they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 6 hours ago, exdraken said: F-16s are also getting it... Yes but F-16s already have an 80% smaller RCS than F-15s... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now