Posted on 06/03/2013 11:47:17 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Boeing F-15SE
Balanced survivability over stealth in fighter jet
By Kang Seung-woo
ST. LOUIS ― Since the beginning of Korea’s Fighter Experimental (F-X) III project, all talk has been about one factor: stealth capability.
With the intention of replacing its aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s with high-tech combat aircraft, the Air Force is keen to purchase a radar-evading “fifth-generation” aircraft with the likes of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ― although it had to overcome a series of technical hiccups earlier this year.
However, Howard Berry, Boeing’s F-X III campaign director, does not believe that customers should have to trade performance for survivability.
“The message that I want to leave you with is that it is not all about stealth. That is just one element of the survivability equation,” he said during an interview with the Korean press contingent at a Boeing factory in St. Louis, Mo., on May 15.
“While we believe that stealth is an important capability in combat, we have designed the F-15 Silent Eagle around something that we call ‘balanced survivability’ that incorporates not only stealth but also the aircraft’s radar, EW (Electronic Warfare) suite, sensor suite, aircraft speed and service ceiling.”
He added that the Silent Eagle has not sacrificed other aircraft capabilities to achieve the survivability and lethality characteristics that will be required for combat aircraft operating in the battle arena of today and the threat environment expected in the years ahead.
Boeing is vying against the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), hoping to sell its Eurofighter Tranche 3, and Lockheed Martin which is touting its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the 8.3 trillion-won ($7.5 billion) competition.
The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will announce the successful bidder that will then sell the high-end fleet of 60 multi-role fighter jets by the end of June.
The Silent Eagle is a proposed upgrade of the F-15E and F-15K Slam Eagle, another variant of the F-15E that was acquired in phases I and II of the F-X program in 2002 and 2008, respectively. According to Boeing, the Silent Eagle shares more than 85 percent of the features in the Slam Eagle.
But Berry said that there are significant advancements to the features and key systems of the Slam Eagle. They include among other things, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, a digital electronic warfare (EW) suite, fly-by-wire flight control system and a display core processor computer, station 1 and 9 carriage capability, a cockpit, and improved radar cross section.
However, more than anything else, the Silent Eagle is buoyant about its large and diverse weapons payload.
“We bring the largest weapons payload to the F-X competition among all the competitors,” Berry said.
“Also, it has a very diverse payload and a large variety of weapons that are interoperable with U.S. forces on the peninsula. What is often lost in people is our capability to carry heavy weapons ― 3,000 pound- and 5,000 pound-class weapons in addition to 2,000 pound class and below.”
And what the Korean Air Force should keep in mind is that the F-15 can also be stealthy ― although it lacks the same low-observable characteristics of the F-35 or F-22 Raptor ― thanks to the conformal weapons bays (CWBs) on each side of the aircraft that allows it to carry weapons internally and more importantly, not give away the Silent Eagle’s position to radar.
The CWB is designed, engineered and manufactured by the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI).
“In the early days of a conflict, when air dominance has yet to be achieved, it will certainly be very important to be stealthy at some level and we believe with the introduction of the conformal weapons bay, we bring the requisite amount of stealth to operate effectively in such an environment,” the director said.
Boeing, whose F-15 was designed a full decade before stealth technology was applied to other fighters, also introduced twin vertical tails set outward at 15 degrees and had radar-absorbent material for the unveiling.
The F-X III program is the most expensive procurement deal in the nation’s history and Korea plans to take advantage of it as part of its indigenous fighter plane program, or the KF-X. In line with this, Boeing has expressed its readiness to support Korea in the realization of it KF-X program by offering a comprehensive offset package.
“We have outlined a low-risk engineering, manufacturing and development program, drawing on Boeing’s proven program management know-how and our established relationships with key aerospace industry partners around the globe to bring best-of-industry expertise and technology to help Korea take KF-X from concept to production and operations,” Berry said.
“We remain focused on fostering the growth and continuing evolution of Korea’s already world-class aerospace industry. With that in mind we have also designed a Korean industry technology advancement roadmap, which identifies steps companies will need to take and skills they must have to get to where Korea wants to be with its indigenous fighter development program.”
Despite Boeing’s renewal and readiness to commit to support the nation's KF-X project, the F-35 is still seen as a front-runner in the lucrative competition, largely because of it being widely viewed as the most credible next-generation fighter jet in the competition.
But Berry advises his competitors to talk about their platforms’ real capability that they will bring to the Korean Air Force rather than resting on a marketing strategy.
“There are a lot of talks on the market place about stealth and many of our competitors like to throw around what I would call a broad marketing term such as fifth generation,” he said.
“Rather than talk at that level, I would rather talk about what would call elements of capability, (which is) the real punch or real capability that the platform brings to the fight.”
.jpg)
Length: 19.45 m
Height: 5.64 m
Wingspan: 13.05m
Maximum speed: Mach 2.5
Payload (Internal weapon carriage): A mix of air-to-air weaponry: AIM-120, AIM-9
A multitude of air-to-ground ordnance, including precision guided munitions, JDAM, small-diameter bomb
first year of flight: 1972
0bama... lowering expectations at every turn
"Balanced survivability" in this case means not enough capability in any particular scheme or method to be effective. The radar range equation means that not only does the chance of detection lower with a lower reflection, also a smaller jamming power becomes adequate.
Stealth not only enables defensive survivability, it enables offensive penetration, so that the opponent doesn't have adequate warning to defend himself against missiles, penetration paths can be shorter, for deeper penetration, and you don't have to attach ever larger rockets to the back end of your warheads to enable launch at standoff distances.
But if the F-35 is prohibitively expensive, then you are out of luck?
Oh noes, here come 2,000 Chinese aircraft! We’d better get all 12 F-35’s up there to stop them!
Active stealth will probably prove more capable, in the end, than any aircraft design. As well as a thousand times cheaper.
Stealth is overrated. The US-fighters might be stealth against radar systems used on other fighters but this stealth feature is killed by just using longer wavelengths.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-L
bkmk
I’d like to see Boeing successful in this. It is nearly a 40 year-old design but so is the basis of the Sukhoi?
Boeing is struggling with marketing. How to sell something this old as new again against the sexy flavors-of-the day.
The debate rages on. The limitations and unreliability of the 35 against the EADS offering pitted against an updated and very capable aircraft with a great track record.
The days of the manned aircraft are probably numbered anyway but we thought that about the gun as well didn’t we?
So what kind of chinese aircraft did they build 2000 of?
Except that Active stealth requires detailed knowledge of the signal that it is to cancel, which means you have to know the enemy waveform in advance, and your aircraft’s response to it.
Even if you knew that on any given day, the enemy could just change it to a different wave form, like you change your password on a computer, and about as quickly.
Of course. But computers are moving into the realm where processing power makes it relevant. But forging shapes and materials for stealth gets only more expensive and less effective. while also being vulnerable to changing signal.
Me, I’m waiting for the first Romulan craft...
lol...
probably copies of the MiG21
hahaha
What is troubling about that? Well, the problems are as follows:
1) It shows Boeing to be a liar. Simply put, it is incredulous to state that simply putting RAM coatings, and allegedly in the final version - if it goes ahead - a radar blocker in the intakes - will give it the same level of low-observability as a 5th generation plane. If all that needed to happen is slap some RAM paint coatings and put a blocker in the intakes, then why bother spending billions developing the intensive shaping tolerances for 5th gen planes? A simple logical question. Especially considering that the F-15, in its 'normal' state, is one of the unstealthiest fighter jets currently fighting. According to some figures it has a RCS of around 20m2, which doesn't compare favorably with, for example, 4.5 gen planes like the Rafale and Typhoon that have around 1m2 to 2m2. Yet some RAM application bring it to the frontal RCS of the F-35, which is generally given as 0.001m2? Total lie from Boeing.
2) The second troubling thing about that statement is if Boeing is not lying. What that means is that the F-35's RCS is nowhere near 0.001m2, but rather at more or less the same level as a clean Typhoon with no missiles/pylons (allegedly 0.5m2). If Boeing is not lying, that means that the F-35's frontal stealth will not be sufficient at all, even against more advanced fighter radars in the X-band. It will also mean it is useless against S band and L band radars. That means the F-35 would basically be a slow plane with little functional stealth that only happens to have a cool avionics suite.
3) Another interpretation would be that the US version of the F-35 is stealthy, at a functional level, but the F-35s that the JSF partner nations are getting are simply not functionally stealthy. Why is this a problem? Well, it would mean that there is really no need for many of them to buy a very expensive fighter whose number one strength, it's alleged stealth, is simply not functionally sound. Hence you may see more like Canada pulling out, and others looking for more affordable solutions like the Typhoon. Only those countries with STOVL carriers will be 'forced' to purchase F-35 since there is no other viable option going forward with the continued retirement of the Harrier.
In essence, it is one of those three. Either Boeing is lying about the SE being anything close to the F-35 in terms of stealthiness, or Lockheed is lying about the F-35 having any level of functional stealth, or the partner nations (with the possible exception of the UK and Israel) are getting sold snake oil. Take your pick of the lot. However, there is no way that the F-15 SE is as stealthy, in any hemisphere, as the F-35 unless the F-35 has the same stealth level as a Rafale or Typhoon, which would be quite sad.
Unless, of course, there is a fourth option. That Boeing has managed to develop magical RAM coatings that can instantly reduce an object's RCS from near 20m2 to 0.001m2. Maybe they should apply some of that magic RAM to the national debt!
A thoughtful response, thank you.
The 35 bothers me and the twisting of the truth is common so that would not surprise me of the 15SE. I confess that I want the SE to be a good airplane that meets it’s claims. Wishing won’t make that happen of course.
The only way to know the RCS is to take them out to White Sands and put them on the test stand. I guess there are other places.
The contrast in power, reliability, speed and ruggedness compared to the 35... well.
However, the main problem with the F-15 is the stealth question. That is also the main selling point for the F-35. It is not its avionics suite, which is really good and the main reason why my views on the JSF significantly softened to the point where I think, for the US, it is not necessarily a bad buy. Well, that and the fact it will never be used against an adversary who can actually fight back, like say China or Russia. Against the 'usual suspects' I've asserted that even a souped up F-4 Phantom would be sufficient for the likes of Afghanistan, Somalia, Grenada, et al. Anyways, the main selling point for the F-35 in the modern market is stealth, and the main reason why the F-15 will be a very difficult sell is, again, stealth - or its lack of it. That's the new coke, and if a plane doesn't have an answer to it it will find it difficult to remain relevant in terms of new sales.
Thus RCS becomes a key issue, which is also why Boeing is spending its own money I believe developing the SE. It is also the same reason Boeing is doing the same to develop a stealthier version of the F/A-18, a version of which was shown with stealthy missile pods during their bid to have India buy them. Of course that bid lost to the Rafale, which had several financial and technical advantages, and by the way also offered some sexy pictures of a stealthy no-tail Rafale with stealthy pods (the Rafale already offers a version of active stealth).
Thus, it boils down to RCS and in that debate the F-35 has a strong case against the F-15. To be honest, were it not for the delays, issues and cost increases there would be no argument from most of the countries that can afford expensive planes and are cleared to buy the 35. It is just that delays end up leading to questions, such as the ones that came up in Canada and the ones that are not yet bubbling but definitely simmering in Australia and, arguably, the UK.
And it comes back to my three points in my prior post. Someone is lying and/or being lied to. Either:
1 - Boeing is full of the dark smelly stuff in terms of the SE being ANYWHERE CLOSE to the 35 in terms of RCS;
2 - Lockheed is full of the same stinky doodoo in terms of the 35 having ANYTHING CLOSE to 0.001m2 RCS;
3 - or Lockheed is accurate about the US version of the 35 having a low observable RCS, but that the export versions of the F-35 are as about as stealthy as a Typhoon or MiG-35 with no weapons or weapon pylons. Which sucks bad for the partner nations thinking they are getting the F-22's little brother when in fact they are not even getting a cousin thrice removed, and would in fact be far better served getting a westernized PakFa (a whole other kettle of fish type of discussion btw, but for the purposes of this post the PakFa is basically what the SE would be if you fed it steroids and pixie dust from birth. Not as good as the Raptor, but arguably better than anything else).
One of those three points applies here. Guaranteed. None of us have access to the real truth or any legit data, of course, but definitely one of those three is the case here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.