F15SG Eagles for RSAF (Military Nuts)

So all F-15SG is a two seater eagle? I wonder if the American allow us to take up the optional trust vectoring engines which was tested on F-15.

user posted image

QUOTE (homing @ Dec 5 2006, 10:10 PM)

So all F-15SG is a two seater eagle? I wonder if the American allow us to take up the optional trust vectoring engines which was tested on F-15.

user posted image

yar all the F-15SG eagles are two seaters. there has never been any mention of single seat ones.

QUOTE (Unimog52344 @ 06 DEC 2006)

QUOTE (Homing @ 05 DEC 2006)

So all F-15SG are two-seater Eagles...??? I wonder if the American allow us to take up the optional trust-vectoring engines which was tested on F-15.

Yar, all the F-15SG Eagles are two-seaters. There has never been any mention of single-seat ones.

Single-Seating can only be found on the F-15A and F-15C Eagles (Air-Superiority Fighters).
Ours are based on the F-15E Strike Eagle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. IceBerg ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNeTxx ~~

--------------------

Those thrust-vector engines are sadly experimental.

If we manage to get them, I'm still not that confident that they might be reliable..

Sorry LaserLordz, when you said experimental, do you mean F15 with thrust vectoring is experimental or the thrust vectoring is experimental? Becos' the Russians already have a jet powered by such engines right? And its the SU30 or Migs....sorry not too sure. But the Chinese are intending to buy or have bought them already and that's what's putting the F18s and F15s used by Japanese Air Force and USAF in danger of being overwhelmed right??

QUOTE (Sayaret @ Dec 6 2006, 03:41 PM)

Sorry LaserLordz, when you said experimental, do you mean F15 with thrust vectoring is experimental or the thrust vectoring is experimental? Becos' the Russians already have a jet powered by such engines right? And its the SU30 or Migs....sorry not too sure. But the Chinese are intending to buy or have bought them already and that's what's putting the F18s and F15s used by Japanese Air Force and USAF in danger of being overwhelmed right??

The one on the F15 is a test.It was too expensive anyway.Cost as much as brand new f15 just to upgrade the normal F15 to that standard with canards and stuff.Might be cheaper with vectoring only though

Trust vector nozzles fitted on F15 is only experimental. The last I read is that unless there is clear improvement and advantage for fitting such nozzles and the cost of R & D can be covered with sufficient demand then fitting such nozzle will become a reality.

Pictures of the F15K

What the dif. wrt the F15SG ? Any MNs care to share?

ROKAF F-15K Super Eagle Walk Around

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mu_yeol_...ndex.php?Page=1

RSAF's F15SG is supposed to be replacement for the Skyhawk which role is Ground attack....does that means the paint work for F15SG will be the SEA camo ? :unsure: yucks!

QUOTE (Callsign 24 Seira @ Dec 6 2006, 09:27 PM)

RSAF's F15SG is supposed to be replacement for the Skyhawk which role is Ground attack....does that means the paint work for F15SG will be the SEA camo ? :unsure: yucks!

I agree SEA camo sucks even on an A-4 skyshawk or any plane. Pray they dun paint the eagle that way.

QUOTE (homing @ Dec 6 2006, 09:32 PM)

QUOTE (Callsign 24 Seira @ Dec 6 2006, 09:27 PM)

RSAF's F15SG is supposed to be replacement for the Skyhawk which role is Ground attack....does that means the paint work for F15SG will be the SEA camo ? :unsure: yucks!

I agree SEA camo sucks even on an A-4 skyshawk or any plane. Pray they dun paint the eagle that way.

At least I'm not alone on that (SEA camo)

Anyway, we have MN's Kace who did a fantastic job on a F15SG model wif the SEA camo...check it out !

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=538&st=15

It will probrably be the same paint scheme as our F5s and F16s.

Our Eagles have the more advanced V3 AESA radar as opposed to the ROK's. Possible Israeli avionics and EW suite if history is anything to follow by, as per the F-16Ds BLK52+. ;)

Don't think the F-15s will be in SEA camo.

At least i hope not. :D

user posted image

QUOTE (Callsign 24 Seira @ Dec 6 2006, 09:27 PM)

RSAF's F15SG is supposed to be replacement for the Skyhawk which role is Ground attack....does that means the paint work for F15SG will be the SEA camo ?...

The A-4s are in the SEA camo b'cos they need to fly low (for air support) and above the tree-lines (SEA terrain), therefore the SEA camo (but not sure on the sand colours) is to 'blend' them among the greenery and make them difficult to see by enemy fighters.

Therefore even though the F-15SGs are to replace the A-4s, the Eagles are not supposed to fly the same profile (down to the dirt). Given its superior nav and attack avionics/systems, the Eagles can perform (& even excel) the attack role from higher attitude (& still stike its target) as compared to A-4s that need to fly low to ensure accuracy.

Even though a SEA-camo F-15 does look refreshing, I strongly believe that the F-15SG will be in F-15E USAF-syle grey camo.

On the other hand, F-15Is that replaced the F-4s are in desert camo, it is not due that the F-15Is are low flyers but rather that Middle East skies tend to be less cloud cluster than in SEA. Therefore, the F-15I when view from above (in a clear sky) will stick out like a sore thumb if they are grey-coloured over a desert landscape.

Yeah...agree...look at the MY Migs....standard grey.... But then again, it would be good to have one or two with more unique paints....like for example the aircrafts used to have a shark-mounth painting at the nose cone area....that would be refreshing!!

Originally posted at this forum on 9 Nov 2004

USAF F 15E doctrine: Ingenious or Suicidal?

“……………………..It is inevitable that when you transform an aircraft meant for air to air combat into an attack aircraft, you would want to retain that air combat prowess and enjoy the best of both aspects. That is exactly what the USAF expects of the Boeing F 15E Strike Eagle - the ability to carry out attack roles adequately whilst retaining the combat capabilities of the charlie.

Current and future USAF doctrine wants to exploit this hybrid capability to the fullest by training and demanding the F 15Es "fighter their way into the target area, deploy their payloads and then fight their way out"

Is this perhaps a too ambitious doctrine on the part of the USAF? Especially in these days when air defences and available fighter planes are becoming extremely advanced and capable.

Whereas It is true that the F 15E has operated to these parameters during the Desert Storm and latter in Bosnia and Kosovo, these deployments were not truly valedictory given the fact that either enemy defences were either of low calibre or relatively non-existent at all. If USAF or other users of the attack version of the eagle plan for worst case scenarios, then they must plan to deploy the F 15Es in the face of a well equiped and well-trained adversary…………………………”

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=190

Is the perception indicated by the above post still valid??

Hi Callsign,

Well, it may be up to the Israelis to prove the air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities of the F15s.....they would be the at the tip of the spear together with the F16s...plus of course other Israeli ingenious weapons...

But to be honest the plane is a good plane however way we see it cos RSAF wouldnt buy it if it wouldnt be able to match our varied current and mid to long term requirements given the planes that our neighbours are acquiring...

RSAF would have to really train our pilots well and allow them to have the best possible role models to train and learn from.... bw do u know if our pilots get to fly with the Israelis??

QUOTE (Dahawk @ Dec 7 2006, 08:27 AM)

Don't think the F-15s will be in SEA camo.

At least i hope not. :D

user posted image

Is this pic a promotional pic by Boeing before we order the F-15SG, photoshop pic or its really our RSAF aircraft in training? :D

QUOTE (tankee1981 @ Jan 15 2007, 04:52 PM)

QUOTE (Dahawk @ Dec 7 2006, 08:27 AM)

Don't think the F-15s will be in SEA camo.

At least i hope not. :D

user posted image

Is this pic a promotional pic by Boeing before we order the F-15SG, photoshop pic or its really our RSAF aircraft in training? :D

our eagles are not even built yet.....these should be photo shopped.

Dark green... Same as the USAF ones i hope...

And I hope the paint they use won't turn pink after weathering.

Regarding USAF F-15E doctrine, I think its been rather mispercieved by the above post as well. The Strike Eagles are capable of much more than just low level deep penetration strikes. A four ship flight of strike eagles doesn't have to always fight its way to the enemy. It can always be supplemented by another 4 ship flight of BVRAAM equipped Strike Eagles to really dominate the skies on the way to the target.

Its the ability to maximise the versatility of the Strike Eagle that makes up the Strike Eagle "doctrines." Not just sticking to low level penetration strikes.

Came across these info… (any disagreements with their views?...)

The F15E + Super Eagle
The F-15E+ Super Eagle will closely match the technology on board South Korea's new F-15K and Singapore's F-15SG, (incidently, these versions will keep Boeing's F-15 production lines busy until around 2010). The South Korea and Singapore versions are the most technically advanced F-15's on the planet, or at least they were before the F-15E+ Super Eagle.

According to Boeing represenatives the Super Eagle should cost $60 million and includes enhancements such as Raytheon's APG-63 Version 3 AESA radar featuring electronic attack and broadband communications capabilities, the most advanced ground attack software, a new radar warning receive and 15 "smart stations" under the wing enabling it to carry more weaponsthan ever before.

These "Super Eagle" technologies could also be retrofitted onto the existing F-15E fleet. The Air Force has 217 F-15E Strike Eagles.Boeing reps say an additional wing or two of F-15E+'s, somewhere around 100-150 aircraft, would fill the long range strike role until F-35 Lightning II fighters reach combat units in sufficient numbers.

So will the Super Eagle ever take flight? It's a very political issue, since any USAF move to buy an interim force of F-15E+s could send an unintentional message to international F-35 Lightning II partners that the USAF is backing away from its JSF commitments. Congress, the State Department and Lockheed will most likely not let this happen. However, foreign friends have expressed interest in the Super Eagle.

Note: The USAF have rejected the F15E+
=======================================================================
Another post …..
During Ops Enduring Freedom, 'just to prove they could' an F-15E was flown all the way from Dharan to Kabul and back. A 17hr trip, they had to peel the aircrew out with a snow shovel and a jammer.

During these and subsequent missions out of the Arab republics, the F-15E was typically flown assymetric tanked to allow it to carry at least one heavy weight, large finned, munition under wing and a mix of GBU-12 or GBU-31 on the CFT. Ignoring the fact that ANY use of external gas (where you don't drop the tanks on emptying them) is an exercise in diminishing returns and that the F-15E /already/ has 24,000lbs internally and in the conformals, it must be kept in mind that the F-15E has _zero_ HARM or other suppression missile options and even if it should gain this option, when it carries large carriage box munitions, it also typically loses the wing shoulder (rail) stations for even 'self defense' AAM. Which themselves total all of four weapons, only two of them BVR capable.

You just don't want to 'self escort' your way into a truly deep target matrix without a host of reactive systems options. Not when you're conventional signatured. Because now tired fights against outnumbered and limited ordnance/EW backups as you begin an infinitely complex decision process by which you choose to fight or choose to bomb but cannot do both (one F-15E crew in ODS dropped all their expendables getting to within 10nm of target, only to have to go home because 'they thought they could' make it in to what should have been clearly seen to be a package-target that did indeed next-day get 'the full treatment' with Weasels and EA).

As a legacy airframe, the F-15E doesn't meet spec for the GSTF. But adding more aircraft (widening the spares pipe) would mean accepting it's deployment tail as a given in the 'specialist interdictor' mission whose only true advantage is a small edge in gas pass from KCs over F-16s.

My understanding is that the F-15E/GBU-39 setup is already sufficient for 16 independent weapon releases. And from photos, I assume that this is a function of the forward and aft HRL stations each being loaded with a BRU-61 smart rack.

the BRU-61 is itself a wonder in that, as a smart pneumatic rack it is capable of adjusting carriage and release performance to numerous locations on multiple airframe types AND (along with the BRU-57) accomodating 90% of the current smart weapons inventory. Which means that if we need to, we can shift to MALD or CLAW or GBU-38 or SMACM or Dominator as the situation requires STILL without commiting to wireup of all those stations. Even as the rack itself can be shifted on to the F-22/35 fleet without any major change in THEIR cleared useage of it either.

Which of course brings us to targeting. 90% of todays 'fighter mission' in both Iraq and AfG are NTISR related. And the pilots /hate them/ because, just as the A2A fleet once did, they are effectively boring holes in the sky doing all of nothing, waiting on the enemy's convenience.

In this mission, the APG-63V(3) is just next to worthless because the APG-70 is already capable of displaying a .64nm patch map from 20 miles out. And would not see the kinds of 3-4 man IED planting party along a major road network that would be useful in that role. But the AAQ-33/38 CAN see these kinds of targets. And it is another largely plug'n'play system compared to the heavyweight AESA installation which required dedicated fusealge engineering changes in the F-15C fleet.

And let's be real here. WITH AIM-120D, the F-15E can probably defeat most (limited opfor count, low technology) threats with single shot STT or HDTWS or even MIDS type uplink and no change whatsoever to the mechanical APG-70 array. OTOH, if the threat is 'serious' in either numbers or longer pole, then the F-15E, is a bit of a pig in a poke regarding both the number of shots available and it's ability to generate the PHYSICAL performance necessary as a _bomber_ to aggressively match and defeat threat geometries.

A new radar thus comes off as useless 'Golden Eagle' _plating_ for a system installation that, especially in small numbers, may well run 4 million+ dollars per aperture set for a fleet, fully half of which will be fatigue dated by the time the program even starts. And the other half of which will be _conop obsolescent_ long before they even enter into service.

Lastly, let's talk engines. Unless something has just radically changed recently, the majority of the existing F-15E fleet still runs on F100-PW-220 engines. Engines which are so low powered that one F-15E pilot commented that, with full fuel and the equivalent of 3 Mk.82 bombs in weight, he could barely maintain level flight and 300 knots indicated at 25,000ft. And that to plug the tanker often meant going to burner on one side or toboganing just to hold station. As such and /particularly/ if you are going to continue to employ the Beagle as a 'dual role' platform with D1/R1 employment tasking at longer ranges, you had better well acknowledge that you are going to be tanker dragging those F-15Es by the nose all the way to target and all the way back. Simply because you cannot get the profile altitude and airspeed you need to get good legs to great radius such as the E's huge internal fuel load would nominally suggest. Again, this is a PROVEN FACT based on quotes from the lead designer of Janes F-15E. And other pilots talking about ODS operations in Smallwood's _Strike Eagle_. Which means you are either buying into the F100-PW-229. Or starting up an entirely NEW engine line based on the GE IPE powerplant. Which is going to mean another 6-8 million dollars per airframe, even as an 'upgrade'.

ARGUMENT:
The basis of F2T2EA is PRESENCE. Because like ASW, 90% of what you sanitize is empty void. At the same time, you have to be able to /stay on station/ so that what aircraft you do have deployed are able, in and of themselves as ISR assets, to be 'in the moment' when a fleeting/TCT target set does pop up. And not be (for instance) halfway inbetween in transiting back to base. Or asleep at the wheel (another Smallwood quote, regarding an entire FLIGHT of F-15E crews which simply 'napped' all the way across Kuwait during the 1991 campaign) due to conflicting ops needs to work both day and night. This argues against the use of a manned, in-and-out, system at all because systems like the A-45 which are honest about NOT BEING A 'FIGHTER' can take 12-14,000lbs of gas to 1,100nm and sit there for 2 hours while the F-15E rating is to hit 'Northern Greece from the base of the Sinai Peninsula' or some 750nm. If you want to do persistent strike, you have to BE THERE to achieve the mission. If you want in and out, use the F-22 which can only take half as many SDB but does so _internally_, _at speed_ which means that it is neither bothered by threats which simply never see it. And can hobbit it's way there and back again (to the same radius) at roughly twice total sortie evolution speed using HALF as many tankers.

Moderators..maybe a good idea to re-route those posts on F15SG to this thread; ...and The thread on Singapore Next Generation Fighter for posts on the F35, JSF

Boeing Awarded Singapore Ministry of Defence Contract for Additional F-15SG Aircraft

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 22, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that the Singapore Ministry of Defence has exercised an option to purchase eight F-15SGs and has ordered four additional aircraft. The option is part of the original contract for 12 F-15SG aircraft announced by Singapore in 2005.
"We are proud that Singapore has chosen to acquire additional F-15SGs. The Strike Eagle is a combat-tested fighter with the most technologically advanced systems, and we are confident the F-15SG will meet the defense needs of Singapore," said Chris Chadwick, vice president and general manager, Global Strike Systems.
The Boeing F-15SG is a derivative of the U.S. Air Force F 15E Strike Eagle, the world's most capable long-range, multi-role fighter. It can simultaneously perform air-to-ground and air-to-air missions during day or night, in virtually any weather. It carries significant payload, reaches speeds in excess of Mach 2 and incorporates some of the most advanced military technologies. Integration and flight testing of the F-15SG will be performed at Boeing facilities in St. Louis and Palmdale, Calif., beginning in November. Boeing has produced more than 1,500 F-15s. In addition to the United States, Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel operate F-15 fleets.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/milita...071022b_nr.html

Boeing, St Louis Delivery Table
Look at F15s line?

http://www.boeing.com/ids/ids-back/deliveries.html

QUOTE (Callsign 24 Seira @ Jan 16 2007, 10:38 PM)

Came across these info… (any disagreements with their views?...)

The F15E + Super Eagle
The F-15E+ Super Eagle will closely match the technology on board South Korea's new F-15K and Singapore's F-15SG, (incidently, these versions will keep Boeing's F-15 production lines busy until around 2010). The South Korea and Singapore versions are the most technically advanced F-15's on the planet, or at least they were before the F-15E+ Super Eagle.

According to Boeing represenatives the Super Eagle should cost $60 million and includes enhancements such as Raytheon's APG-63 Version 3 AESA radar featuring electronic attack and broadband communications capabilities, the most advanced ground attack software, a new radar warning receive and 15 "smart stations" under the wing enabling it to carry more weaponsthan ever before.

These "Super Eagle" technologies could also be retrofitted onto the existing F-15E fleet. The Air Force has 217 F-15E Strike Eagles.Boeing reps say an additional wing or two of F-15E+'s, somewhere around 100-150 aircraft, would fill the long range strike role until F-35 Lightning II fighters reach combat units in sufficient numbers.

So will the Super Eagle ever take flight? It's a very political issue, since any USAF move to buy an interim force of F-15E+s could send an unintentional message to international F-35 Lightning II partners that the USAF is backing away from its JSF commitments. Congress, the State Department and Lockheed will most likely not let this happen. However, foreign friends have expressed interest in the Super Eagle.

Note: The USAF have rejected the F15E+
=======================================================================
Another post …..
During Ops Enduring Freedom, 'just to prove they could' an F-15E was flown all the way from Dharan to Kabul and back. A 17hr trip, they had to peel the aircrew out with a snow shovel and a jammer.

During these and subsequent missions out of the Arab republics, the F-15E was typically flown assymetric tanked to allow it to carry at least one heavy weight, large finned, munition under wing and a mix of GBU-12 or GBU-31 on the CFT. Ignoring the fact that ANY use of external gas (where you don't drop the tanks on emptying them) is an exercise in diminishing returns and that the F-15E /already/ has 24,000lbs internally and in the conformals, it must be kept in mind that the F-15E has _zero_ HARM or other suppression missile options and even if it should gain this option, when it carries large carriage box munitions, it also typically loses the wing shoulder (rail) stations for even 'self defense' AAM. Which themselves total all of four weapons, only two of them BVR capable.

You just don't want to 'self escort' your way into a truly deep target matrix without a host of reactive systems options. Not when you're conventional signatured. Because now tired fights against outnumbered and limited ordnance/EW backups as you begin an infinitely complex decision process by which you choose to fight or choose to bomb but cannot do both (one F-15E crew in ODS dropped all their expendables getting to within 10nm of target, only to have to go home because 'they thought they could' make it in to what should have been clearly seen to be a package-target that did indeed next-day get 'the full treatment' with Weasels and EA).

As a legacy airframe, the F-15E doesn't meet spec for the GSTF. But adding more aircraft (widening the spares pipe) would mean accepting it's deployment tail as a given in the 'specialist interdictor' mission whose only true advantage is a small edge in gas pass from KCs over F-16s.

My understanding is that the F-15E/GBU-39 setup is already sufficient for 16 independent weapon releases. And from photos, I assume that this is a function of the forward and aft HRL stations each being loaded with a BRU-61 smart rack.

the BRU-61 is itself a wonder in that, as a smart pneumatic rack it is capable of adjusting carriage and release performance to numerous locations on multiple airframe types AND (along with the BRU-57) accomodating 90% of the current smart weapons inventory. Which means that if we need to, we can shift to MALD or CLAW or GBU-38 or SMACM or Dominator as the situation requires STILL without commiting to wireup of all those stations. Even as the rack itself can be shifted on to the F-22/35 fleet without any major change in THEIR cleared useage of it either.

Which of course brings us to targeting. 90% of todays 'fighter mission' in both Iraq and AfG are NTISR related. And the pilots /hate them/ because, just as the A2A fleet once did, they are effectively boring holes in the sky doing all of nothing, waiting on the enemy's convenience.

In this mission, the APG-63V(3) is just next to worthless because the APG-70 is already capable of displaying a .64nm patch map from 20 miles out. And would not see the kinds of 3-4 man IED planting party along a major road network that would be useful in that role. But the AAQ-33/38 CAN see these kinds of targets. And it is another largely plug'n'play system compared to the heavyweight AESA installation which required dedicated fusealge engineering changes in the F-15C fleet.

And let's be real here. WITH AIM-120D, the F-15E can probably defeat most (limited opfor count, low technology) threats with single shot STT or HDTWS or even MIDS type uplink and no change whatsoever to the mechanical APG-70 array. OTOH, if the threat is 'serious' in either numbers or longer pole, then the F-15E, is a bit of a pig in a poke regarding both the number of shots available and it's ability to generate the PHYSICAL performance necessary as a _bomber_ to aggressively match and defeat threat geometries.

A new radar thus comes off as useless 'Golden Eagle' _plating_ for a system installation that, especially in small numbers, may well run 4 million+ dollars per aperture set for a fleet, fully half of which will be fatigue dated by the time the program even starts. And the other half of which will be _conop obsolescent_ long before they even enter into service.

Lastly, let's talk engines. Unless something has just radically changed recently, the majority of the existing F-15E fleet still runs on F100-PW-220 engines. Engines which are so low powered that one F-15E pilot commented that, with full fuel and the equivalent of 3 Mk.82 bombs in weight, he could barely maintain level flight and 300 knots indicated at 25,000ft. And that to plug the tanker often meant going to burner on one side or toboganing just to hold station. As such and /particularly/ if you are going to continue to employ the Beagle as a 'dual role' platform with D1/R1 employment tasking at longer ranges, you had better well acknowledge that you are going to be tanker dragging those F-15Es by the nose all the way to target and all the way back. Simply because you cannot get the profile altitude and airspeed you need to get good legs to great radius such as the E's huge internal fuel load would nominally suggest. Again, this is a PROVEN FACT based on quotes from the lead designer of Janes F-15E. And other pilots talking about ODS operations in Smallwood's _Strike Eagle_. Which means you are either buying into the F100-PW-229. Or starting up an entirely NEW engine line based on the GE IPE powerplant. Which is going to mean another 6-8 million dollars per airframe, even as an 'upgrade'.

ARGUMENT:
The basis of F2T2EA is PRESENCE. Because like ASW, 90% of what you sanitize is empty void. At the same time, you have to be able to /stay on station/ so that what aircraft you do have deployed are able, in and of themselves as ISR assets, to be 'in the moment' when a fleeting/TCT target set does pop up. And not be (for instance) halfway inbetween in transiting back to base. Or asleep at the wheel (another Smallwood quote, regarding an entire FLIGHT of F-15E crews which simply 'napped' all the way across Kuwait during the 1991 campaign) due to conflicting ops needs to work both day and night. This argues against the use of a manned, in-and-out, system at all because systems like the A-45 which are honest about NOT BEING A 'FIGHTER' can take 12-14,000lbs of gas to 1,100nm and sit there for 2 hours while the F-15E rating is to hit 'Northern Greece from the base of the Sinai Peninsula' or some 750nm. If you want to do persistent strike, you have to BE THERE to achieve the mission. If you want in and out, use the F-22 which can only take half as many SDB but does so _internally_, _at speed_ which means that it is neither bothered by threats which simply never see it. And can hobbit it's way there and back again (to the same radius) at roughly twice total sortie evolution speed using HALF as many tankers.

Took some time to look through the 2nd "view."

Damn long post, but quite a good read.

One interesting note was about the F-15E's lack of HARM-capability. I'm not sure if this will remain in the E+ or SG variant. Before anyone goes "EEAAIY!!! We've been scammed!" I'd like to say that I've long heard of the Strike Eagle's reputation in the department of airborne self-protection jamming, as well as capabilities to pin point emitting radars.

With an offending radar spotted, and its radar spoofed, all the Strike Eagle has to do is shove a GBU/JDAM down its throat. Is that better than a HARM? Perhaps. Kill probability of the radar is still equally high even when its operators turn it off, thats' for sure. And a lot of these have to do with not just the hardware, but the software that knit the systems together.

Self Escorting doesn't mean every ship of a single 4-ship flight who will go in, perform the SEAD Strike, Fighter Sweep and OCA Strike. There is only so much a single aircraft can carry and do. But how can it then claim to be able to self escort? I believe that its the platform versatility and long legs that allow different ships of a single flight to cover a different job. Flight Lead and his Wingman may pack 6 or more AMRAAMs, and perhaps just 2 GBUs. They can function as the flight's cover against enemy fighters, while perhaps Element Lead and his wingie can load up with more GBUs, and 2 AMRAAMs for self protection.

Fair enough, a single "self-escorting" flight of Strike Eagles would find it troublesome, if not impossible to hit a target that is heavily defended. True enough these should be deemed as "package-targets" with multiple flights responsible for SEAD, EA, and Strike. However, not every target out there is as well entrenched as that? They would be targets ripe for the picking by the Strike Eagles. The Vipers and Super Hornets can't do that, they lack the legs, the protection and the weapons to "self escort" to hit these "light targets." Without Strike Eagles, these light targets would have to be hit by a package, consuming more aircraft, and reducing sortie rates.

And why the F-15E+ is discounted as GSTF platform simply by its "legacy" label eludes me. My limited knowledge knows of no other aircraft that carries live ordinance when deploying to a hotzone. They can effectively sortie the moment they get refueled.

And just because an F-15E+ can load up 16 SDBs doesn't it will nor does it mean its gonna hang around to drop 16 SDBs one by one. The entire point to SDB being smaller and equally lethal doesn't necessarily mean every platform will carry more of them. It simply means, instead of having a 2000lb BLU-109 hanging off my rack, i have one thats just a little over 200lb. Maybe I can even have 2 of them, just for good measure, and maybe 4 if I want to hit secondaries.

The author then goes to talk about NTISR missions, which the RSAF will not fly with our F-15SG, so there's little to talk about. We're not going into Afghan or Iraq anytime soon I hope, and I doubt our Strike Eagle pilots would be involved in boring NTISR sorties.

As for the APG-70 sufficient to defeat most known limited opfor adversaries with a AIM-120D, I think he also pretty much slipped on what the Strike Eagle was made for. The benefits an AESA radar to the Strike Eagle is immense by just the scan time and Low Probability of Intercept. With the new APG-63v3, the Strike Eagle can "look" faster, improve the situation awareness, while being relatively covert. Sure, you can support an AIM-120D shot with as many "JOINT-insertSuffixHere-" assets, but it doesn't hurt to have a guy out there that can look after for himself right?

Agreed, a full load of fuel, + Mk84s ( I really don't think he meant Mk82s) pretty much slows a Strike Eagle down to a snails pace and would probably require more than full-military just to maintain level flight. But there have been radical changes. The above mentioned SDBs! They are a hell lot lighter than even Mk82s too!

Final argument, IMO has little to do with us. We are not gonna use our F-15SG for NTISR, but more for in and out- runs which the author advocates the use of F-22s. Sadly for us, we are not cleared for F-22s. Thankfully too, else ERP gantries would be going up by a dollar before the next GE.

QUOTE (Shotgun @ Oct 24 2007, 02:44 AM)

Damn long post, but quite a good read.

One interesting note was about the F-15E's lack of HARM-capability. I'm not sure if this will remain in the E+ or SG variant. Before anyone goes "EEAAIY!!! We've been scammed!" I'd like to say that I've long heard of the Strike Eagle's reputation in the department of airborne self-protection jamming, as well as capabilities to pin point emitting radars.

With an offending radar spotted, and its radar spoofed, all the Strike Eagle has to do is shove a GBU/JDAM down its throat. Is that better than a HARM? Perhaps. Kill probability of the radar is still equally high even when its operators turn it off, thats' for sure. And a lot of these have to do with not just the hardware, but the software that knit the systems together.

Self Escorting doesn't mean every ship of a single 4-ship flight who will go in, perform the SEAD Strike, Fighter Sweep and OCA Strike. There is only so much a single aircraft can carry and do. But how can it then claim to be able to self escort? I believe that its the platform versatility and long legs that allow different ships of a single flight to cover a different job. Flight Lead and his Wingman may pack 6 or more AMRAAMs, and perhaps just 2 GBUs. They can function as the flight's cover against enemy fighters, while perhaps Element Lead and his wingie can load up with more GBUs, and 2 AMRAAMs for self protection.

Fair enough, a single "self-escorting" flight of Strike Eagles would find it troublesome, if not impossible to hit a target that is heavily defended. True enough these should be deemed as "package-targets" with multiple flights responsible for SEAD, EA, and Strike. However, not every target out there is as well entrenched as that? They would be targets ripe for the picking by the Strike Eagles. The Vipers and Super Hornets can't do that, they lack the legs, the protection and the weapons to "self escort" to hit these "light targets." Without Strike Eagles, these light targets would have to be hit by a package, consuming more aircraft, and reducing sortie rates.

And why the F-15E+ is discounted as GSTF platform simply by its "legacy" label eludes me. My limited knowledge knows of no other aircraft that carries live ordinance when deploying to a hotzone. They can effectively sortie the moment they get refueled.

And just because an F-15E+ can load up 16 SDBs doesn't it will nor does it mean its gonna hang around to drop 16 SDBs one by one. The entire point to SDB being smaller and equally lethal doesn't necessarily mean every platform will carry more of them. It simply means, instead of having a 2000lb BLU-109 hanging off my rack, i have one thats just a little over 200lb. Maybe I can even have 2 of them, just for good measure, and maybe 4 if I want to hit secondaries.

The author then goes to talk about NTISR missions, which the RSAF will not fly with our F-15SG, so there's little to talk about. We're not going into Afghan or Iraq anytime soon I hope, and I doubt our Strike Eagle pilots would be involved in boring NTISR sorties.

As for the APG-70 sufficient to defeat most known limited opfor adversaries with a AIM-120D, I think he also pretty much slipped on what the Strike Eagle was made for. The benefits an AESA radar to the Strike Eagle is immense by just the scan time and Low Probability of Intercept. With the new APG-63v3, the Strike Eagle can "look" faster, improve the situation awareness, while being relatively covert. Sure, you can support an AIM-120D shot with as many "JOINT-insertSuffixHere-" assets, but it doesn't hurt to have a guy out there that can look after for himself right?

Agreed, a full load of fuel, + Mk84s ( I really don't think he meant Mk82s) pretty much slows a Strike Eagle down to a snails pace and would probably require more than full-military just to maintain level flight. But there have been radical changes. The above mentioned SDBs! They are a hell lot lighter than even Mk82s too!

Final argument, IMO has little to do with us. We are not gonna use our F-15SG for NTISR, but more for in and out- runs which the author advocates the use of F-22s. Sadly for us, we are not cleared for F-22s. Thankfully too, else ERP gantries would be going up by a dollar before the next GE.

Firstly, yeap F15E+ including SGs do not have HARM capability. it's not so bad since we have ways to get around it.

Radar System AN/APG63 V3
The APG-63 radar system ....was the first airborne radar system to incorporate software programmable signal processor. That means APG-63s software can be upgraded without replacing the hardware. APG-63 radars are installed on F-15A/B and early F-15C/D aircraft.

The AN/APG-63(V)2 is a major radar upgrade for the US Air Force F-15C aircraft. This upgrade will add AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) capabilities to the proven APG-63 radar. AESA technology will increase F-15C's combat performance, while enhancing reliability and maintainability. The promising AESA technology is being developed for the fifth generation fighter aircraft like the F/A-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. In 2006 the APG-63(V)2 was operational with an US Air Force F-15C/D squadron based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.

The AN/APG-63(V)3 is a follow-on AESA radar that leverages the APG-63(V)2 improvements and the US Navy's APG-79 AESA radar technology. It is intended to equip F-15C/D aircraft owned by the Air National Guard. The APG-63(V)3 will enter operational evaluation in late 2006.

The AN/APG-70 is a vastly-improved APG-63 radar. APG-70 features new air-to-air and air-to-surface modes allowing ground attack capability. It is employed on late F-15C/D, F-15E, F-15S (Saudi Arabia's F-15E) and F-15I (Israel's F-15E).

As for the F 15K, the Raytheon AN/APG-63(v)1 radar is installed :
Air-to-air and air-to-ground modes of APG-70 radar with additional sea-surface searching/tracking, ground-moving target tracking, and enhanced high-resolution ground mapping for long-distance target identification; Improved reliability and maintainability

Thanks to YF for these clarification...
APG-70 is the original APG-63 with upgraded 'back-end', meaning the DSPs were upgraded, and put on the Strike Eagles. A2G modes were added as well. The APG-63V3 is a far more modern radar than the APG-70 though, as it features an active array. The most logical reason why the '63' designation was used is because it was evolved from the APG-63(V)2 line, which was the original 63(V)1 (which is without A2G modes) but with an active array.

SDB
As for the mention of SDB.(Small Diameter Bombs).....there's a thread brewing at SP.

October 22, 2007: The U.S. Air Force has produced an innovative dud with its new SDB (small diameter bomb). Turns out that while the SDB was being developed, a lot of cheaper competition showed up. Work began on the 250 pound SDB smart bomb, seven years ago. It was set to enter service in 2006, and did so. But the only aircraft equipped to drop it is the F-15E. The SDB was tested in the F-22 , but there are no plans to deploy F-22s carrying SBD, for several years.
SDB (small diameter bomb) is a completely new smart bomb design, weighing only 250 pounds. This weapon has a shape that's more like that of a missile than a bomb (70 inches long, 190 millimeters in diameter), with the guidance system built in. The smaller blast from the SDB is still pretty substantial (51 pounds of explosives). A new SDB design has a Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) warhead, which reduces the number of metal fragments created when the bomb explodes, and increases the blast effect. This is meant to reduce casualties to nearby civilians. But there are cheaper solutions to the US$50,000 SDB.

Click on this link to read all the comments ...very interesting, Airforce ordance being challenged by Ground launched weapon systems!

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/art...aspx?comments=Y

More on Lockheed website on SDB
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/milita...060926a_nr.html

DATE:23/10/07
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
Singapore firms Boeing F-15 options, orders additional four fighters
By Siva Govindasamy

Singapore has exercised an option for eight Boeing F-15SGs and ordered an additional four aircraft, bringing the total number that will eventually be in service to 24.

The decision, a follow-up to a 2005 contract for 12 F-15s, is part of Singapore's "continuing effort to renew its fighter fleet", says the country's ministry of defence.

The aircraft are scheduled for delivery from 2010, it adds. Industry sources say that the 29,000lb (130kN) General Electric F110-GE-129 engine, which was selected to power the first 12 F-15SGs, has been selected for the second 12 as well.

Integration and flight testing of the aircraft will be at Boeing's St Louis, Missouri and Palmdale, California sites from November, the company says. Both batches of F-15s will have similar configurations, but Singapore has not released details.

A US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notification to the US Congress in 2005, however, said that the weapons included 200 AIM-120C AMRAAM missiles with six Captive Air Training (CAT) rounds, and 200 AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles with 24 CAT and dummy rounds.

For the air-to-ground role, the aircraft were to be supplied with 50 GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and 30 AGM-154A-1 Joint Stand Off Weapons both with BLU-111 warheads, and 30 AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapons.

Singapore was also to be supplied with 24 Link 16 multifunctional information distribution system/low volume terminals (fighter datalink terminals) and 44 pairs of AN/AVS-9(V) night vision goggles.

The aircraft are also likely to be fitted with the Raytheon AN/APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array radar, and the Data Device high-performance 1553 databus or HyPer-1553TM tested by the Boeing Phantom Works F-15E1 Advanced Technology Demonstrator aircraft.

It has been speculated that Singapore will work with Israel to modify and upgrade its F-15s. The Israeli F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) is equipped with an Elisra SPS-2110 integrated electronic warfare system, and its crews wear DASH helmet sights.

The F-15s will replace Singapore's fleet of McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks. A new round of procurement decisions to replace ageing Northrop F-5s with a new tactical fighter are due to start in 2008, with Singapore to choose between more F-15s and the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.

Singapore aligned with the JSF programme in 2002 at the "security co-operation participant" level, the lowest rung of the four-tier international team.

The F-35's development delays have kept Singapore waiting for nearly two years for data about the country's unique final configuration, but this is expected in early 2008 and will launch a review phase allowing the service to choose either the F-35 or the F-15 for its next fighter purchase.

Singapore also plans in 2008 to issue a shortlist for a requirement for advanced jet trainers, choosing among the Alenia Aermacchi M-346, BAE Systems' Hawk 128 and Korea Aerospace Industries T-50. It is also considering either a replacement or a mid-life update for its fleet of Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft.

some interesting developments in bold...

Potentially F-35As and P-8MMA? :lol:

QUOTE (LazerLordz @ Oct 24 2007, 09:40 AM)

Potentially F-35As and P-8MMA? :lol:

i would think given the f-15 purchase, AJT replacements, F-5 replacement...the F-50s would most probably be given a MLU....given the stretch budget...

DASH? I thought RSAF put through a purchase of JHMCS for the F-15SGs?

QUOTE (kanzer @ Oct 24 2007, 10:51 AM)

i would think given the f-15 purchase, AJT replacements, F-5 replacement...the F-50s would most probably be given a MLU....given the stretch budget...

Given our current state of economy I wouldn't worry so much on the stretch budget. The payment for all this big tickets item had been planned for long ago and is usually staggered over a period of time. You don't pay off 1 shot. That would be crazy! B)

You had stated that F-5 replacement is F50. Why you say so? Care to share your thought? If you are talking about MLU for F-5s it was carried out in the mid 90s with structure strengthening, avionics and radar upgrade. RSAF intend to retire the F-5 S/Ts from 2010 onwards IIRC. :rolleyes:

QUOTE (LazerLordz @ Oct 24 2007, 09:40 AM)

Potentially F-35As and P-8MMA? :lol:

I would certainly like to see P-8 MMA being added to RSAF ORBAT. The acquisition of such advanced platform would place RSAF in the forefront of maritime surveillance but I think that F-50 MPA still have some life in them. MLU with advanced Mexican electronics and surveillance system would change the designation to F-50 MMA? :rolleyes:

QUOTE (Shotgun @ Oct 24 2007, 02:44 AM)

One interesting note was about the F-15E's lack of HARM-capability. I'm not sure if this will remain in the E+ or SG variant. Before anyone goes "EEAAIY!!! We've been scammed!" I'd like to say that I've long heard of the Strike Eagle's reputation in the department of airborne self-protection jamming, as well as capabilities to pin point emitting radars.

With an offending radar spotted, and its radar spoofed, all the Strike Eagle has to do is shove a GBU/JDAM down its throat. Is that better than a HARM? Perhaps. Kill probability of the radar is still equally high even when its operators turn it off, thats' for sure. And a lot of these have to do with not just the hardware, but the software that knit the systems together.

I agree with your observation here.

I was thinking the AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA would be able to further improve the capabilities to pin-point emitting radars. JDAM or JSOW would be a good response to such a threat.

QUOTE (Shotgun @ Oct 24 2007, 02:44 AM)

Final argument, IMO has little to do with us. We are not gonna use our F-15SG for NTISR, but more for in and out- runs which the author advocates the use of F-22s. Sadly for us, we are not cleared for F-22s. Thankfully too, else ERP gantries would be going up by a dollar before the next GE.

You wanna get haul-up for 'interview' is it? :D :lol: :P

F-15SGs will boost region's security. :)

(See NST online 24 Oct 2007)

QUOTE (diCam @ Oct 24 2007, 12:42 PM)

QUOTE (kanzer @ Oct 24 2007, 10:51 AM)

i would think given the f-15 purchase, AJT replacements, F-5 replacement...the F-50s would most probably be given a MLU....given the stretch budget...

Given our current state of economy I wouldn't worry so much on the stretch budget. The payment for all this big tickets item had been planned for long ago and is usually staggered over a period of time. You don't pay off 1 shot. That would be crazy! B)

You had stated that F-5 replacement is F50. Why you say so? Care to share your thought? If you are talking about MLU for F-5s it was carried out in the mid 90s with structure strengthening, avionics and radar upgrade. RSAF intend to retire the F-5 S/Ts from 2010 onwards IIRC. :rolleyes:

i did not say that F-5 replacement is F50....what i am trying to say is that with all the acquistions going on which will include the replace of f-5s, the fokkers will most likely to go for MLU instead of a new replacement.

do note that the govt is spending a great deal tax payer money here. while they can be planned for, it does not mean that what we planned for is what we will get. while currently the depreciation of US$ will help us maximize our defense purchase now, what will happened if the US$ appreciate? are we going to pay through our nose? i believe that spending must be prudent and it pays to be wise and maximize and stretch our defense dollars to the max before any new acqusition take place. e.g. A-4 upgrades, SM1, Ultra. all these are done at a fraction of the cost of new aquistions....

QUOTE

do note that the govt is spending a great deal tax payer money here. while they can be planned for, it does not mean that what we planned for is what we will get. while currently the depreciation of US$ will help us maximize our defense purchase now, what will happened if the US$ appreciate? are we going to pay through our nose? i believe that spending must be prudent and it pays to be wise and maximize and stretch our defense dollars to the max before any new acqusition take place. e.g. A-4 upgrades, SM1, Ultra. all these are done at a fraction of the cost of new aquistions....

Right on. What's needed is not the 'latest and bestest', but what can do the job well enough, so that more money can be freed up for other places. With a limited budget, this is simply prudent. I think considering Singapore's past practices of upgrading the SM1s, F-5s and A-4s, we can be reasonably assured that they won't spend money to buy F-15s just because F-15s are more cool than some other XXXX plane.

QUOTE (kanzer @ Oct 24 2007, 01:53 PM)

QUOTE (diCam @ Oct 24 2007, 12:42 PM)

QUOTE (kanzer @ Oct 24 2007, 10:51 AM)

i would think given the f-15 purchase, AJT replacements, F-5 replacement...the F-50s would most probably be given a MLU....given the stretch budget...

Given our current state of economy I wouldn't worry so much on the stretch budget. The payment for all this big tickets item had been planned for long ago and is usually staggered over a period of time. You don't pay off 1 shot. That would be crazy! B)

You had stated that F-5 replacement is F50. Why you say so? Care to share your thought? If you are talking about MLU for F-5s it was carried out in the mid 90s with structure strengthening, avionics and radar upgrade. RSAF intend to retire the F-5 S/Ts from 2010 onwards IIRC. :rolleyes:

i did not say that F-5 replacement is F50....what i am trying to say is that with all the acquistions going on which will include the replace of f-5s, the fokkers will most likely to go for MLU instead of a new replacement.

do note that the govt is spending a great deal tax payer money here. while they can be planned for, it does not mean that what we planned for is what we will get. while currently the depreciation of US$ will help us maximize our defense purchase now, what will happened if the US$ appreciate? are we going to pay through our nose? i believe that spending must be prudent and it pays to be wise and maximize and stretch our defense dollars to the max before any new acqusition take place. e.g. A-4 upgrades, SM1, Ultra. all these are done at a fraction of the cost of new aquistions....

My apology kanzer. I'd got mixed up with F50 and FA-50 and also the way your sentence was phrased... ;)

QUOTE (YourFather @ Oct 24 2007, 04:10 PM)

QUOTE

do note that the govt is spending a great deal tax payer money here. while they can be planned for, it does not mean that what we planned for is what we will get. while currently the depreciation of US$ will help us maximize our defense purchase now, what will happened if the US$ appreciate? are we going to pay through our nose? i believe that spending must be prudent and it pays to be wise and maximize and stretch our defense dollars to the max before any new acqusition take place. e.g. A-4 upgrades, SM1, Ultra. all these are done at a fraction of the cost of new aquistions....

Right on. What's needed is not the 'latest and bestest', but what can do the job well enough, so that more money can be freed up for other places. With a limited budget, this is simply prudent. I think considering Singapore's past practices of upgrading the SM1s, F-5s and A-4s, we can be reasonably assured that they won't spend money to buy F-15s just because F-15s are more cool than some other XXXX plane.

Agree. There is already an established practice of upgrading the equipments and platforms up to the point that it cannot be upgraded further to stretch every defence $. I think the Blk 52/52+ will be slated for common MLU after 2010 to ensure that RSAF keep pace with the advancement of technologies.

View Full Version: F15SG Eagles for RSAF