That SU-57 is the most stealthy in the World. Everyone is still looking for it, including the Russian MOD. Rumor is it can turn in to a super yacht. 😆 🤣 😂
Su-57 has the remarkable ability to turn into a superyacht, a sprawling villa complex on the Black Sea coast, a penthouse apartment in London, or enough hookers and blow to last a lifetime!
The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs. Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.
Yeah, I imagine that is going to be interesting since the specs the army gave both companies effectively describe a Bradley but with an XM913 50mm chain gun.
The M2 has to be replaced because it lacks the electrical power for an APS (Active Protection System). It's already overweight and adding an APS would likely require a beefed-up suspension and another performance hit from all that added weight.
@@colincampbell767 among a myriad of other things. 25mm ammo also isn't great against armor, and it doesn't have the space to create meaningful airburst ammo.
The Raptors are nowhere near the Eagles. They want you looking at the Eagles while the Raptors get in close and the Eagle's massive radar guides the Raptor's missiles.
@@makoa26 Nifty. I think the last time I read a Clancy novel, the Soviet Union was still a thing. Most of the what I've heard/read about how the Raptor is used in exercises is various ways of using it as a force multiplier for non-stealth platforms. It figures he would come up with something similar.
@@that.schampOther way around, actually. They want to use the F-15EX as a missile boat for F-22 and F-35s. The sneaky planes with light payloads will get in and designate targets for the heavily-armed F-15s sitting at a safe distance.
@that.schamp yes, it's been decades since I've read a Clancy novel, but sometimes when you're reading, you have to stop and question if he's giving some of our tactics away🤣🤣🤣
The reason why the YF-23 Black Widow had intake ducts that snaked in an S-shape was to help hide intake fan of the jet engines, as those supposedly give massive radar returns. By comparison, the F-15's intake ducts are a straight line to it's engines, just like the F-14. Both aircrafts in turn have massive RCS's because of that design feature.
Having some features less the expensive paint to reduce RCS is an improvement. It would give pilots a few extra seconds to engage targets. At least that R&D did not go to waste.
The EX upgrade makes stealth for F-15 redundant. It's a high performance missile truck flying a few miles behind the F-35, just waiting until the SAMs go quiet.
Maybe but it looks like it’s weapon payload is compromised though. Judging just by the video it has 4 stealth hard points. Whereas it normally would have 9 non stealth hard points. One of its primary advantages is the amount of ordinance it can carry… if your just using four missiles an f35 can do that while actually being a stealth fighter and being cheaper. I’m not sure if this is true but I’m guessing the canting the tail fins reduces its performance as well. I find it kinda strange to choose the f15 for this particular mission over the f16 or f18, while they don’t quite perform as good as the f15, they are much cheaper, already upgraded and already as “stealthy” as the stealth eagle. It seems wasteful to use this platform. The f15 is just too expensive for what it gives you.
@@NickSteffen I think one big reason they're choosing to keep it around is it'll be able to carry the hypersonic missiles in development, which the F-22 or 35 won't be able to do, even NGAD might not have the internal capacity for it but we'll have to wait for that. I'm sure the F18/F16 could carry them but the F-15's speed and altitude would give the missile a much better ability. Also canted tails can sometimes help improve yaw ability during high alpha manoeuvres where the fuselage may otherwise block some of the airflow.
@@aidanwilliams9452 The F18 super hornet is partially stealthy from the front. Also you can't just can't tilt the vertical tail fins without adjust the tail wing and main wing.
Not stealing the previous quote but "it wants you to know it's there, and it plans to beat you anyway" that soared through my synapses and urged a must have comment. That phrasing is what a f15 encompasses, exudes mind you. Spot on Alex as always
The F-15 SE without the RAM coating would still be a fantastic aircraft IMO. The RAM coating's upkeep cost and not being stealthy enough both combine to make it not a good choice for an aircraft role that demands stealth. But the other advantages offered are worth something even without the RAM coating. Things like the canted vertical tails and conformal weapon bays are IMO things that should be brought forward into ongoing efforts to continue improving the F-15. The conformal weapons bays (and avionics improvements) are truly what I think are the best developments of the F-15 SE program. However, the conformal weapons bay could be iterated upon further. The concept is currently limited in the things it can do. What I think is needed is to turn the internal weapons bays into something as close to "just another hardpoint, but low drag" as possible. I call the concept a "Conformal modular bay", it would have several internal mounting stations which can have all kinds of different functional modules installed. Functions that I've thought of currently include: Fuel storage, weapons carriage, targeting pod functionality, ECM/Jammer pod functionality, and towed decoy pod functionality. Weapons carriage modules could take up a number of stations corresponding to the size of weapon they can carry. I think there might be room to even carry something like a miniaturized version of the rotary bomb rack used internally in the bomb bay of the B-52 and B-1, just scaled down to work only with the SDB (and maybe carrying only 3 or 4 bombs instead of 6 or 8). This would probably allow for the (internal!) carriage of anywhere from 9 to 16 SDB's, depending on length constraints inside the pod and the ability to carry 3 or 4 SDB's per rotary rack. Additional SDB's could then be carried on external pylons if needed, along with likely additional fuel. Why would you want to do that? Because sometimes you need a lot of targets taken out, they were smart enough to not group up, and for whatever reason you can't use cluster munitions. Obviously, best results would be gained when used with a targeting pod module as well.
the F-15EX would be able to carry 16 missiles (basically every hardpoint where it could carry an AMRAAM was doubled), if it was combined with conformal weapons bays from the F-15SE it could carry 20, obviously because it's a combination of both the EX and the SE call it the F-15SEX
This is basically the entire philosophy for the 6th gen fighters soon to be gracing our skies, ie. Making them Ultra modular where the jet can be quickly and effortlessly modified for different mission profiles.
It's one of those cases when the right call was made. Silent Eagle didn't provide any benefits over F-35, so getting one instead of Fat Amy doesn't make sense either. But it wasn't all in vain, because many of its components were used for producing EX. I still think that the F35 + F15EX combo is the most potent force multiplier in the near future
@@wisenber well, obviously there’s no real benefit over F-35. Otherwise nations would have purchased SE instead. While F35 can’t match F15’s top speed (even though SE has reduced top speed due to additional drag) it can super-cruise and still remain stealthy. SE’s payload has been reduced in favor of reduced RCS, and with external hard points F-35 will have similar payload. So the only SE’s advantage is service ceiling which is not much of advantage if you can be easily spotted. But most importantly, SE doesn’t have any benefits over F35 as a STEALTHY platform
@@TymaDem No real benefit other than the ones I listed? No, the payload isn't the same. No, the speed isn't the same. No, the ceiling isn't the same. No, I never said anything about stealth, nor did you. And you're right, nations didn't buy a plane that isn't being produced, much the same way I didn't purchase a herd of unicorns.
Something I've wondered for a while: could they possibly eliminate the vertical and horizontal tail surfaces and replace them with two all moving tail surfaces canted out at 45 degrees similar to what was used on the YF-23?
In my opinon of things F-15 is a deterrent aircraft an everyday workhorse. It wants to show it is there. It wouldn't work if the enemy couldn't see it. I always though radar picked up vertical lines, but you said it was right angles. I bow to your superior knowledge sir. Excellent work as ever.
I can't believe countries put radar reflectors on the F35 for this reason, to have presence. but also to keep the enemy from learning exactly when the F35 is detectable.
@@lukaswhite362 Just wait for the balloon to go up, then the reflectors will be taken off and the REAL Stealth capability of the F35 will be unleashed.
It all comes down to reflections. You get a strong signal from a surface normal (3D version of perpendicular) to the radar, because the signal just bounces right back at you. A right angle works even better than a flat surface, simply because of the math of reflections. Add another right angle and you get a corner reflector, which is about the brightest thing on a radar return that is possible.
Two questions: 1) Why did they not keep the canted tail surfaces for the EX? I read elsewhere that it actually also increased the range. So increased range, decreased radar return, and I don't see how it would have any major impact on maintenance costs. So why didn't they use them? 2) Why no Silent Super Hornet? I know there has been some work to reduce its RCS, but why not go all out to see how low they can get it like the F-16s.
F-15 Active from the anime Patlabor 2 is interesting. Did come with a big Kinnairds up in the front by the intakes and angular wing services to give it the appearance of self. There was also angular, vertical and horizontal stabilizers in the incorporated in the design. There was also the internal weapons bay design from the silent Eagle added too the anime version.
This story goes further back than 2008, South Korea, and the Silent Eagle. Look at the F-15 MANX that MDC offered to South Korea in 1996. I did an artist impression of this for Graham Warwick’s article in Flight International, 20-26 November 1996. The F-15 ACTIVE/MANX was a tailless design, with upward F-23 style tailplanes, thrust vectoring, faceted wings and intakes, and a chined forward fuselage to name but a few changes from the F-15A-Es. Even then, MDC was trying to extend the life of the F-15, and give a complementary design to work with, but not in competition, to both the F-22 and the JSF programme as it was called then. Note, the similarity in layout of the MDC/BAe JSF entry, which was knocked out of the JSF race around the same time as the article was published.
It should be pointed out that the 'Silent Eagle' had the same problem as China's J-20 does: It only has meaningful stealth value from directly ahead. Anything even at a slight angle would detect it a lot easier, which made it completely useless for doing anything in hostile airspace (especially anywhere there would be roving air patrols). Frontal-only stealth has only very niche uses.
Do you know why? I was just thinking myself "Why do I like this channel so much?" I watch lots of military tech channels and plenty of them are really good. I've been trying to figure out why *Sandboxx* is my favorite military tech channel. I'm sure a lot has to do with how likeable Alex is, but I'm still not sure why I like this channel so much. Maybe someone else can articulate what makes this channel so great.
The radar return signature of the F-15 is analogous to the Sonic Boom of the Blackbird, back in the day when we WANTED those on the ground to hear it KNOWING, all the while, that they could not TOUCH it. They referred to that as "Blackbird Diplomacy"
@@TonyChan-eh3nz Because there are only a small number of F-22s available (Originally there were supposed to be 750 built) and the F-35 isn't an air-superiority fighter.
The F-15 currently is leaving some performance. For example it could use an update it to the F110-GE-132 engine with 2D thrust vectoring to give it that little bit extra :)
The stealth F-18 is the Super Hornet, which incorporates a lot of stealth features such as the carat inlet design which is also used on the F-22. Its radar signature is much less than other 4th gen aircraft.
The only benefit I can see is that what little stealth it has could allow it to break radar locks easier... not actual stealth. Also consider the added upfront costs and maintenance on the RAM
@@amazin7006 It doesn't have any penetration capability, because even the reduced stealth profile applied from directly up ahead. It wouldn't have any use in hostile airspace.
@@Xenomorphine The meaning of "hostile airspace" is not a fixed, penetration simply means reducing the effectiveness of air defense. For example (numbers used for demonstrative purposes) an air defense system with 100km range against a non-stealth aircraft could be reduced to maybe 60km with a low observable aircraft, meaning the newer stealthier f15 would get an additional 40km of range to fire its missiles before it could be shot down.
I am not sure that I am following the argument against the F-15SE. If we accept the additional cost of HAVE Glass for the F-16 fleet then why wouldn't the same cost differential be justified for the F-15 fleet? It seems to me that reducing the RCS signature from 25M2 to 1-5M2 would have a larger impact on survivability then reducing the RCS of the F-16 from 5M2 to 1.2M2. Put another way Airmen wear OCP camouflage not because it makes them invisible but because it delays their detection by enemy forces better than wearing hunter orange. If the intent of the F-15EX is to partner with the F-35 then how does it make sense to maintain the RCS of a house? The cost of the F-15SE was $100M which is what we are now paying for the F-15EX which has the F-15SE capabilities minus the RCS reductions.
The F-16 is more of a front line combatant, which requires stealth The F-15 EX is built around hanging out in the back, safe from anything. The F-35’s and 22’s will do the targeting, and the eagles’s will do the shooting. And having such massive missiles kills stealth anyways, so it doesn’t matter how stealthy you could make the eagle anyways.
@@TonyChan-eh3nz, you have made valid points with regard to one potential use of the F-15EX. The F-15 was designed using the philosophy of “Not a pound for air to ground” with the idea that it would be a dedicated air to air fighter but it has remained relevant for all of these years because it was good at many other missions. Producing the EX with a massive RCS based on the assumption that it will only serve in the capacity of a rear echelon bomb truck due to its ability to carry lots of long range missiles externally ties it unnecessarily into a limited mission set and doesn’t take into account the fact that enemy targeting radar capabilities will advance. The F-15 will never be stealth but if giving it canted tails and LO coatings then it may enjoy the ability to operate in many of the environments that the F-16 currently does without the limitations of range or performance under load. If we assume that the EX is destined to operate only as a bomb truck in the rear for 5th generation aircraft then what happens when the targeting range of enemy aircraft or Air Defenses against a >25M RCS target exceeds that of the weapons that it can carry?
0:15 wait, where is the video from last week about reducing the F-16's radar cross section? I only see a video from two weeks ago about F-16s in ukraine?
A mass produced 5- may have come in handy years ago, but the economy of scale of the F35 is getting to the point that it may be superfluous at this point.
So why not keep some low observable features of silent eagle, like canted vertical tail and integrated IRST. That should at least make it more survivable. Of course I am assuming that Boeing already did flight computer to account for the canted tail. I also heard canted vertical tail also reduce drag, seems like a win win situation of incorporating that design element. No need for expensive stealth coatings.
It offers maximum performance across all altitudes and speeds allowable by the technology. There is no other " fighter" that can fight to the edge of space and also fight close to the trees with equal performance using the technology the f15 has , no thrust vectoring, no special materials Sure you can design a faster or more maneuverable fighter but it would still be only marginally above what the f15 does but without everything else the f15 brings. It also has great endurance and survivability, it can fly with a full wing blasted OFF Its radar is interceptor grade , can over power and enable reliable engagement beyond visual range It just can do it all
The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why Sikorsky they abandoned that design, as they first came up with it. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they already lost the Blackhawk transport replacement to the Bell V280 Valor?
@@texasranger24 I think the Sikorsky entry also has a lot more range and speed, and possibly payload. On the other hand, the Bell entry is a lot smaller and maybe a lot cheaper
I was hoping that Beoing would have gone with thrust vectoring for the new F15EX, compared to some other upgrades I would think it would be relatively cheap and give the new EX a marked increase in its already impressive manuverability, showcased by the NASA F15 experimental demonstrator.
The F-15 STOL/MTD had 3d thrust vectoring (and even AI/neural network flight controls at one point) and the F-15B had 2d thrust vectoring. My guess is they determined supermaneuvrability is not really valuable for any future conflict, especially compared to stealth.
During experimentation, it's generally found that it brings very little benefits, while simultaneously adding a ton or so ov extra weight, which woudl be better used on fuel.
As was previously talked about the F-15 is a really big plane. It is also pretty heavy. It is not really a dog fighter like the F22 or the F16, or even the F18. If you are up close and doing a traditional dog fight you are doing it wrong. It is designed to go really fast while carrying more ordinance than some countries have, strike and fly away. It can hold it's own in a dog fight if it needs to but that is not what it is supposed to be used for.
Stealth is a true game-changer. Flying the big stick 4 ship, line abreast, also defines the game. Having a mix of both???? Welllll, maybe the bad guys don't want to play.
The USAF will be getting new F-15EX’s because their F-15C/D’s are wearing out. The air force hoped for F-35’s but they cannot be produced fast enough to replace them.
@@trolleriffic ….the F-22 was the F-15’s intended replacement. Till Congress cancelled F-22 production. The only stealth fighter today is the F-35. Since F-35 mass production was a decade late. The USAF painted itself into a corner by avoiding buying more non stealth fighters. Till now. So the air force is now buying the F-15EX.
If we are still making F-15's new, would it not make since to just evolve the plane forward? To incorporate stealth potentials if not actual capabilities while not compromising (greatly) the F-15's "curb stomp you" capabilities. It seems that the only thing holding the F-15 back is that you can only attach or remove stuff from the plane so much. Then suddenly after that point, the plane suddenly become impractical. So the better option would be to make a plane that would better accept upgrades with minimum cost, but could still be that "big stick" an even be deployed on masse if ever called for.
Yes Boeing is delivering the F-15EX which can get close to Mach 3 and can carry all the ordinance an air base can find and then more! Remember the US has around 3500 fighter jets alone. The cost of upgrades is not what the Air Force is worried about. The cost of $30k an hour compared to triple that over the airframes life when compared to the F-35. Most of our AF will remain 4-4.5 Gen aircraft. Seeing the F-16 and F-18 both also had first flights in the 70s they are all affordable options when compared to 5th and 6th gen not just in unit cost but overall cost over the life of the aircraft. The EX will have all modernized systems and some how an increase in payload. Meaning it was scary before and now that squeezed even more juice out of it!
Not sure about acceleration. F15 still have a higher thrust to weight ratio and can do a vertical acceleration. And as for speed, F22 top speed is 'classified', but F15 is faster than F22 'official' top speed.
@1968gadgetyo Listen to the Fighterpilot podcast with F-15 turned F-22 pilot Terry Scott. He says something along the lines of. I chased down 2 F-15s from behind, they were supersonic, but my closure rate to them was also supersomic. I also read F-22 pilots say that nothing beats it in acceleration, the Typhoon is the closest but the Raptor still beats it.
@@michaeld1170 Top speed for F15 must be the F15-C air superiority variant, clean at full after burner. As the F-22 can supercrisue, having after burner it's like turbo kicking in after 200 km/ph. 👍
I'd be interested to see a purpose built, low cost, reduced visibility aircraft. So designed with a stealthy shape but with less use of radar absorbing material for less maintenance, initial cost and lower weight. It's impressive how low visibility the F-16 has become but it strikes me as being a very expensive way to go about achieving it. At this point most major companies have a good idea of what shapes are stealthy so they could take that existing infrastructure, use composites and a limited amount of radar absorbing coatings like the foil used on the edges of panels and have something more affordable and less capable than the F-35 to sell to countries who can't afford it (or we don't want to have it)
Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon are all designed with stealth elements and some materials in their shape and structure. Their RCS is pretty low compared to older 4th gen designs, even with HAVE GLASS, so they're a bit like a semi-stealth idea.
"He who see first has already half the victory." ~Erich Hartmann ...... If the other guy sees you first, you're at a tremendous disadvantage, I don't care how good your aerodynamics are. The F-15EX is at a tremendous disadvantage with a big RCS. It should care that it can be seen so easily.
@@patrickjanecke5894 According to what I've heard from exercises the F-35's been in, it doesn't need a distraction. Especially a very expensive distraction like the F-15EX.
@@777Outrigger I wasn't intending that to be taken seriously. F-15EX is mostly meant as a supplemental missile truck, handing missile control to the F-35.
@@patrickjanecke5894 I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. But I still think the F-15EX is a waste of money from the Boeing lobby. It's my understanding that most of the USAF leadership didn't want it. Only the Pentagon.
The new EX is suppose to be pushing Mach 3 in a intercept setup and can also carry like 25k ordnance if they are going in to get dirty and bring the hurtie
@@Xenomorphine note what was said intercept, which means 6 missiles and a possible pod. But the new one has built in IRST and a lot of the sensors on board. Full load no it cannot maybe pay attention to what was written first.
@@mattadams7922 I did "pay attention." Kindly be more respectful. What you claim and what it might actually be doing are not necessarily the same thing. Let's see the source. Because I've often read people falsely claim even the normal Eagle is capable of flying at over Mach 2 during combat and such, when it actually can't do with a weapons load. Keep in mind that IRST is also only one type of sensor it might be using. That's why I speculated 'if'.
@@Xenomorphine well, go look for the information. It exists. Sources are the internet and a personal acquaintance. The F15C in Air to Air config can fly well over Mach 2 loaded. This comes from a very good source that is trusted. The new one has more thrust, by a large margin better avionics, better construction, and other things. 6 missiles and 2 fuel tanks which they only use to take off and get going fast then drop is a pretty standard intercept, or A2A package whichever you prefer. The early ones could do over Mach 2 with that and the speed eagle clean with really old engines and several other factors against it came close to Mach 3 admitted. I understand this stuff pretty well and that's why the eagle carries its missiles in intercept configuration on its body as opposed to on its wings for the drag factor. The EX engines are about 25 to 30% more powerful then the speed Eagle engines.
@@mattadams7922 Flying at Mach 3 is so much more difficult than Mach 2 and just an increase in thrust won't cut it. The intakes would need a total redesign and it might need a different engine as well. A 25-30% thrust increase won't do much when drag scales by the square of the speed.
Vortex generated from the wings will interfere with the rudder. The leading edges in the F18 causes the vortex away from the fuselage. Thus the F18 can canted more. For the EX, I suspect there need to be structural redesign. Not only the rudder attachment points, but the main wings as well.
It's best role now is as a missile truck loaded with OTH weapon systems that are linked up with the F35s, F22 and B21 this way they stay hidden while the F15 dumps 22 missiles per plane into the enemy
Improving an aircraft with a tennis-court sized radar profile would be easy. So much to work with ! But as Alex pointed out, the resulting aircraft was not worth the investment.
Stealth is not a great capability. It just means you may sneak into the enemy's hood unnoticed. The F-15 screams "Imma eff you up, rn." You better believe that most or all our fighters and AWACS are seeing heat signatures.
stealth is essential when avoiding radar guided missiles which currently have the biggest range. Even if the plane is detected it can defend from being targeted. The only discussion now is if the physical stealth is worthwhile when electronic warfare devices can replace it completely now or in the near future.
@@Truspio See desert storm. We blinded them with Wild Weasel AC (F-16 and F-111) before sending fighters in country. That blinding made RG missles blind. Also, ROE requires sight verification before shootee shootee. Other than bombers I think it is just nu and schinee for the brass to droll over.
@@rcstl8815 ROE doesn't necessarily require visual ID - it didn't in the Gulf War. If the pilot or the people on the ground need to "see" the enemy then that's where things like the F-35's EOTS come into play. They can ID targets at much greater range than the Mk 1 eyeball, in a wider range of weather conditions day and night and can send imagery to headquarters for analysis and to let the top brass make an informed decision on whether to clear the pilot to attack.
The F-15SE was a failure because it couldn't meet the 'threshold' of what constituted a true low observable capable aircraft hence why the entire project was stillborn. The other problems that were unresolved was the square shaped inlets and even the heavily curved geometry of the modified airframe as well ...
Genuine question here, if the super hornet is already near a single square meter in RCS, why can't the already proven manufacturing techniques and materials used for the super hornet be applied to an entirely new F-15 airframe? Since Boeing is already making the EX as new airframes from scratch I couldn't see how the material science used on the hornet can't be applied to reduce the EX's radar signature. I guess my question really is what exactly were the budgetary obstacles the F-15SE faced that the super hornet didn't? What exactly made the F-18E worth the cost? Considering they're somewhat comparable in RCS
@@Xenomorphine that's not necessarily stopping them from acquiring EXs though, and that's integral to my question asking why exactly can't the material science used on the Super Hornets be applied to these new airframes.
@@SmoochyRooThe EX is being forced on the USAF. They're doing their best to stop that, which is why the training center for them was closed down - probably the biggest indicator of legitimate future plans. The F-15 is as much of an evolutionary dead end. They're more expensive to purchase than the superior F-35 is. There isn't much point.
Is stealth still the big driver militarily? As the missile matrix matures, speed and range, put some of the sneak burden on the missile itself and reduce the cost of conversion, big stick or otherwise!
If anything it's only getting more important as radars and other sensors get more sophisticated. Stealth missiles have been around for years, but AFAIK only for ground attack and initially for the strategic nuclear strike role (AGM-129 etc)
Did Boeing decide to charge too much for the development of the SE? The cost of stealth coating has dropped dramatically in the last decade. One would think that any effort to prolong the production life of the F15 would help Boeings bottom line well into the future. The current cost of the EX seems absurdly high considering the aircraft’s airframe was designed in the late 60 & early 70 and all the tooling must have been paid off 50 years ago.
The cost of stealth RAM isn't the issue. RAM just can't handle the heat of Mach 3. As for the EX, well, the frame itself is just about the only thing original left. Engines, avionics, radar, ECM, networking their missiles with F-35s...it all costs.
Northop Grumman E-11A BACN (Civilian base: Global Express 6000), High altitude, Ayatollah Mike, so how are you doing? That's probably one of the most high-tech aircrafts ever. The number of the Heavy Industries involved is like aliens were about to invade the Earth. The aircraft is capable of both combat and surveillance. The timing of being shot or having technical issues makes it strange.
Why is the radar cross section 25 times that of an F18 when its only maybe twice the size? Is the f18 built partially stealthy or something? If the hornets return is only 1sq meter that seems ridiculously small for the aircrafts size.
Not sure why they didn't just angle the vertical stabs and do a little LO coating on a few RCS problems as a standard measure for the Eaglea. Seems like an obvious "hey whadya know!" kind of thing..
F-15 is meant to be a beast, and the RAM would burn off before it even got close to enemy radar. That's why the EX is meant to work in tandem with the F-35.
@@patrickjanecke5894 I'm not suggesting they coat the whole plane in RAM, just problem areas. Same thing they do with the F16 and F18. It would still work with 5th gen planes. The F35 is junk IMO. Just a super expensive AWACS and tech demonstrator.
@@patrickjanecke5894 The RAM will not burn off. The F-15 is not a Mach 3 airplane, not even close. Not only that, it cannot sustain high Mach numbers for any duration of time....we're talking minutes. It drinks fuel like a drunken sailor when in afterburner. If speed was an issue then the F-22 would have the same problem and it does not.
@@patrickjanecke5894 made no mention of the F-35. F-22 can supercruise well above that for a long time. Regardless….none of these jets fly fast enough to burn off RAM
There is a place for non-stealth. Look at ground support with the A-10. But a more expensive F15? It's time has come and gone. It first flew over 50 years ago.
I know radar cross section is nebulus at best, but I'm curious, does anyone know which airplane has the biggest radar cross section? I'm thinking the B-52, but I'm just guessing.
See, this is the result of cutting off F-22 manufacturing. Trying to kludge one of the biggest fighters in the sky into a stealth fighter is pretty laughable. No S-ducts, vertical intakes, rounded engine exhaust ports...at some point, you gotta call a spade a spade. Feels like if F-22 manufacturing were still online, the Raptor might have been able to be upgraded to carry more weaponry (though, the F-22 was never going to go to the export market). I also wonder how far off underwing stealth weapons pods are to let F-35s carry more ammunition, assuming that they're feasible to begin with.
While watching the video and hearing about external fuel tanks and hard points being removed from the F15 to reduce RCS, I thought that having a more stealty hardpoint ( an internal hard point in the wings) would allow the plane to still carry external fuel tanks. Yes, external fuel tanks would reduce RCS, but if you use them for the first stage of the flight mission, they could be dropped by the time the plane gets near hostile territory, thus allowing the plane to carry a greater munition payload.
What I can’t understand is why they don’t use the canted tail fins on the new F-15EX. It seems like no downside, drastic drop in radar return plus if I remember correctly it made the jet much more fuel efficient. Almost making up for the lost fuel tanks. I can’t imagine it would cost more on these new jets being built. And it looks cooler, what the fuck Boeing or Lockheed and the airforce am I missing something?
More lift will inevitably involve some increase in drag. It might not be a big difference but it could be a factor. There's also the fact that the existing F-15 is such a good design that it doesn't really need to be changed, even if those changes make sense.
"It wants you to know it's there, and that it's going to beat you anyway..." love this
Also ridiculous. Anything able to be detected and tracked can be destroyed before it reaches you.
@@Xenomorphineok arm chair general
@@kameronjones7139 Let the rest of us know when you want to contribute somehting more valuable than immature name-calling. 👍
The F-15 has destroyed 104 hostile a/c in air-to-air combat. No F-15 has ever been shot down on air-to-air combat. Best kill ratio ever.
@Xenomorphine let the rest of now when you want stop being an arm chair general 👍
That SU-57 is the most stealthy in the World. Everyone is still looking for it, including the Russian MOD. Rumor is it can turn in to a super yacht. 😆 🤣 😂
😂
The T=14 Armata tank is even more stealthy.
@@protorhinocerator142 However there have been many T-95 spotted in low flight for brief periods
russia have blyatformers
Su-57 has the remarkable ability to turn into a superyacht, a sprawling villa complex on the Black Sea coast, a penthouse apartment in London, or enough hookers and blow to last a lifetime!
The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs.
Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.
Yeah, I imagine that is going to be interesting since the specs the army gave both companies effectively describe a Bradley but with an XM913 50mm chain gun.
The M2 has to be replaced because it lacks the electrical power for an APS (Active Protection System). It's already overweight and adding an APS would likely require a beefed-up suspension and another performance hit from all that added weight.
@@colincampbell767 among a myriad of other things. 25mm ammo also isn't great against armor, and it doesn't have the space to create meaningful airburst ammo.
So you can send a flight of F15s, and tuck some stealth fighters right under them, and then...surprise! There are TWO flights of angry warbirds.
The Raptors are nowhere near the Eagles. They want you looking at the Eagles while the Raptors get in close and the Eagle's massive radar guides the Raptor's missiles.
I swear Tom Clancy had put a scenario similar to this in one of his books
@@makoa26 Nifty. I think the last time I read a Clancy novel, the Soviet Union was still a thing.
Most of the what I've heard/read about how the Raptor is used in exercises is various ways of using it as a force multiplier for non-stealth platforms.
It figures he would come up with something similar.
@@that.schampOther way around, actually. They want to use the F-15EX as a missile boat for F-22 and F-35s. The sneaky planes with light payloads will get in and designate targets for the heavily-armed F-15s sitting at a safe distance.
@that.schamp yes, it's been decades since I've read a Clancy novel, but sometimes when you're reading, you have to stop and question if he's giving some of our tactics away🤣🤣🤣
The reason why the YF-23 Black Widow had intake ducts that snaked in an S-shape was to help hide intake fan of the jet engines, as those supposedly give massive radar returns. By comparison, the F-15's intake ducts are a straight line to it's engines, just like the F-14. Both aircrafts in turn have massive RCS's because of that design feature.
Super interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Having some features less the expensive paint to reduce RCS is an improvement. It would give pilots a few extra seconds to engage targets. At least that R&D did not go to waste.
The EX upgrade makes stealth for F-15 redundant. It's a high performance missile truck flying a few miles behind the F-35, just waiting until the SAMs go quiet.
Maybe but it looks like it’s weapon payload is compromised though. Judging just by the video it has 4 stealth hard points. Whereas it normally would have 9 non stealth hard points. One of its primary advantages is the amount of ordinance it can carry… if your just using four missiles an f35 can do that while actually being a stealth fighter and being cheaper.
I’m not sure if this is true but I’m guessing the canting the tail fins reduces its performance as well.
I find it kinda strange to choose the f15 for this particular mission over the f16 or f18, while they don’t quite perform as good as the f15, they are much cheaper, already upgraded and already as “stealthy” as the stealth eagle. It seems wasteful to use this platform. The f15 is just too expensive for what it gives you.
@@NickSteffen I think one big reason they're choosing to keep it around is it'll be able to carry the hypersonic missiles in development, which the F-22 or 35 won't be able to do, even NGAD might not have the internal capacity for it but we'll have to wait for that. I'm sure the F18/F16 could carry them but the F-15's speed and altitude would give the missile a much better ability.
Also canted tails can sometimes help improve yaw ability during high alpha manoeuvres where the fuselage may otherwise block some of the airflow.
@@aidanwilliams9452 The F18 super hornet is partially stealthy from the front. Also you can't just can't tilt the vertical tail fins without adjust the tail wing and main wing.
@@mrbaab5932 Yeah I know just mentioning the alpha advantage it gives to the hornet and others with canted stabilisers
Another favorite Roosevelt quote of mine 'diplomacy is saying nice doggy while looking for a big stick'
Not stealing the previous quote but "it wants you to know it's there, and it plans to beat you anyway" that soared through my synapses and urged a must have comment. That phrasing is what a f15 encompasses, exudes mind you. Spot on Alex as always
👏👏I think think this is the shortest non-short video you've ever done. Still an excellent video for between meetings.
0:28 Just 2 bros in hazmat suits killing it!
Love it! lol
The F-15 SE without the RAM coating would still be a fantastic aircraft IMO.
The RAM coating's upkeep cost and not being stealthy enough both combine to make it not a good choice for an aircraft role that demands stealth.
But the other advantages offered are worth something even without the RAM coating.
Things like the canted vertical tails and conformal weapon bays are IMO things that should be brought forward into ongoing efforts to continue improving the F-15.
The conformal weapons bays (and avionics improvements) are truly what I think are the best developments of the F-15 SE program.
However, the conformal weapons bay could be iterated upon further.
The concept is currently limited in the things it can do. What I think is needed is to turn the internal weapons bays into something as close to "just another hardpoint, but low drag" as possible.
I call the concept a "Conformal modular bay", it would have several internal mounting stations which can have all kinds of different functional modules installed.
Functions that I've thought of currently include: Fuel storage, weapons carriage, targeting pod functionality, ECM/Jammer pod functionality, and towed decoy pod functionality.
Weapons carriage modules could take up a number of stations corresponding to the size of weapon they can carry. I think there might be room to even carry something like a miniaturized version of the rotary bomb rack used internally in the bomb bay of the B-52 and B-1, just scaled down to work only with the SDB (and maybe carrying only 3 or 4 bombs instead of 6 or 8). This would probably allow for the (internal!) carriage of anywhere from 9 to 16 SDB's, depending on length constraints inside the pod and the ability to carry 3 or 4 SDB's per rotary rack. Additional SDB's could then be carried on external pylons if needed, along with likely additional fuel.
Why would you want to do that? Because sometimes you need a lot of targets taken out, they were smart enough to not group up, and for whatever reason you can't use cluster munitions.
Obviously, best results would be gained when used with a targeting pod module as well.
the F-15EX would be able to carry 16 missiles (basically every hardpoint where it could carry an AMRAAM was doubled), if it was combined with conformal weapons bays from the F-15SE it could carry 20, obviously because it's a combination of both the EX and the SE call it the F-15SEX
This is basically the entire philosophy for the 6th gen fighters soon to be gracing our skies, ie. Making them Ultra modular where the jet can be quickly and effortlessly modified for different mission profiles.
It's one of those cases when the right call was made. Silent Eagle didn't provide any benefits over F-35, so getting one instead of Fat Amy doesn't make sense either. But it wasn't all in vain, because many of its components were used for producing EX. I still think that the F35 + F15EX combo is the most potent force multiplier in the near future
At least until NGAD and AI wingmen take over.
@@patrickjanecke5894 Verbatim
" Silent Eagle didn't provide any benefits over F-35"
Speed, payload, ceiling.....
@@wisenber well, obviously there’s no real benefit over F-35. Otherwise nations would have purchased SE instead. While F35 can’t match F15’s top speed (even though SE has reduced top speed due to additional drag) it can super-cruise and still remain stealthy. SE’s payload has been reduced in favor of reduced RCS, and with external hard points F-35 will have similar payload. So the only SE’s advantage is service ceiling which is not much of advantage if you can be easily spotted. But most importantly, SE doesn’t have any benefits over F35 as a STEALTHY platform
@@TymaDem No real benefit other than the ones I listed? No, the payload isn't the same.
No, the speed isn't the same.
No, the ceiling isn't the same.
No, I never said anything about stealth, nor did you.
And you're right, nations didn't buy a plane that isn't being produced, much the same way I didn't purchase a herd of unicorns.
Something I've wondered for a while: could they possibly eliminate the vertical and horizontal tail surfaces and replace them with two all moving tail surfaces canted out at 45 degrees similar to what was used on the YF-23?
Probably, but you're talking about a very significant redesign of the aircraft which would be expensive and take a while.
In my opinon of things F-15 is a deterrent aircraft an everyday workhorse. It wants to show it is there. It wouldn't work if the enemy couldn't see it. I always though radar picked up vertical lines, but you said it was right angles. I bow to your superior knowledge sir. Excellent work as ever.
I can't believe countries put radar reflectors on the F35 for this reason, to have presence. but also to keep the enemy from learning exactly when the F35 is detectable.
@@lukaswhite362 It also makes air traffic control a lot easier if they can actually see the aircraft
@lukaswhite362 yup, sometimes you need to be seen to make your point
@@lukaswhite362 Just wait for the balloon to go up, then the reflectors will be taken off and the REAL Stealth capability of the F35 will be unleashed.
It all comes down to reflections. You get a strong signal from a surface normal (3D version of perpendicular) to the radar, because the signal just bounces right back at you. A right angle works even better than a flat surface, simply because of the math of reflections. Add another right angle and you get a corner reflector, which is about the brightest thing on a radar return that is possible.
Two questions:
1) Why did they not keep the canted tail surfaces for the EX? I read elsewhere that it actually also increased the range. So increased range, decreased radar return, and I don't see how it would have any major impact on maintenance costs. So why didn't they use them?
2) Why no Silent Super Hornet? I know there has been some work to reduce its RCS, but why not go all out to see how low they can get it like the F-16s.
1:44 I love this.
Sometimes you have to know when NOT to reboot a good movie and let it be.
F-15 Active from the anime Patlabor 2 is interesting. Did come with a big Kinnairds up in the front by the intakes and angular wing services to give it the appearance of self. There was also angular, vertical and horizontal stabilizers in the incorporated in the design. There was also the internal weapons bay design from the silent Eagle added too the anime version.
Loved this statement: I wants you to know it's there, but it's going to beat you anyway.
It wants you to know that it's there, and it's going to beat you anyway. Alex, I love it!
This story goes further back than 2008, South Korea, and the Silent Eagle. Look at the F-15 MANX that MDC offered to South Korea in 1996. I did an artist impression of this for Graham Warwick’s article in Flight International, 20-26 November 1996. The F-15 ACTIVE/MANX was a tailless design, with upward F-23 style tailplanes, thrust vectoring, faceted wings and intakes, and a chined forward fuselage to name but a few changes from the F-15A-Es. Even then, MDC was trying to extend the life of the F-15, and give a complementary design to work with, but not in competition, to both the F-22 and the JSF programme as it was called then. Note, the similarity in layout of the MDC/BAe JSF entry, which was knocked out of the JSF race around the same time as the article was published.
It should be pointed out that the 'Silent Eagle' had the same problem as China's J-20 does: It only has meaningful stealth value from directly ahead. Anything even at a slight angle would detect it a lot easier, which made it completely useless for doing anything in hostile airspace (especially anywhere there would be roving air patrols).
Frontal-only stealth has only very niche uses.
Cool aircraft belongs in a museum along other outstanding aircraft we will never see again such as the f14 and The Phantom
Don't care how many years have.
Have gone by tired of Boeing taking credit for this fighter
I once heard the Eagle described as the linebacker of the skies. It's stuck with me.
@SandboxxApp 0:13-0:34 …what are you talking about?? There’s no video from last week about this…
these videos are the highlight of my week
Do you know why?
I was just thinking myself "Why do I like this channel so much?"
I watch lots of military tech channels and plenty of them are really good. I've been trying to figure out why *Sandboxx* is my favorite military tech channel. I'm sure a lot has to do with how likeable Alex is, but I'm still not sure why I like this channel so much. Maybe someone else can articulate what makes this channel so great.
I really hope they aren’t.
The radar return signature of the F-15 is analogous to the Sonic Boom of the Blackbird, back in the day when we WANTED those on the ground to hear it KNOWING, all the while, that they could not TOUCH it. They referred to that as "Blackbird Diplomacy"
Damn I love this channel!
The start of the video says "last week we covered USAF plans to make F-16 stealth" except, I can't find this video?
F15: (whistles) Here I am (waving), get ready to have your arse kicked.
The Silent Eagle's conformal weapons packs should be put into production and deployed on current F-15s.
Why? That's the job for 5th Gen planes, not the eagle
@@TonyChan-eh3nz Because there are only a small number of F-22s available (Originally there were supposed to be 750 built) and the F-35 isn't an air-superiority fighter.
@@nicholasmaude6906the F-35 is a monster in both ground combat and air superiority. It can do both better than anything except maybe the F-22.
Please talk about the new Abrams M1E3
Love the F15, the F15EX is my favorite non-stealth plane ❤🔥
When will you publish longer episodes again?
They should just call the regular F-15 the “loud eagle”
*Screeching Eagle
I'm still holding out hope.
Especially for the f-15ex, we could call it the f-15SEX
That suffix is reserved for the F69
F-15, we love you just the way you are.
Seems like the kind of thing that would work better billed as an upgrade package for existing planes in inventory rather than buying new F-15s.
If you aren't adding options for your customers, you aren't trying hard enough.
Too many changes to be an upgrade. The shape of the airframe would have to change for a start.
The F-15 currently is leaving some performance. For example it could use an update it to the F110-GE-132 engine with 2D thrust vectoring to give it that little bit extra :)
I always like to see concept art of stealth f16 and f18
The stealth F-18 is the Super Hornet, which incorporates a lot of stealth features such as the carat inlet design which is also used on the F-22. Its radar signature is much less than other 4th gen aircraft.
I still think we'll see the Silent Eagle at one point.
Wonder how many classified aircraft we have
The SE version gave up fuel for bombs, that could be a regrettable priority if low on fuel and home and gas are far away.
The only benefit I can see is that what little stealth it has could allow it to break radar locks easier... not actual stealth. Also consider the added upfront costs and maintenance on the RAM
Improved penetration, so if its used along side an f35 it can fire its missiles with much better range for the f35 to take over and guide them in
@@amazin7006 It doesn't have any penetration capability, because even the reduced stealth profile applied from directly up ahead. It wouldn't have any use in hostile airspace.
@@Xenomorphine The meaning of "hostile airspace" is not a fixed, penetration simply means reducing the effectiveness of air defense.
For example (numbers used for demonstrative purposes) an air defense system with 100km range against a non-stealth aircraft could be reduced to maybe 60km with a low observable aircraft, meaning the newer stealthier f15 would get an additional 40km of range to fire its missiles before it could be shot down.
Thank you again for another concise and insightful video, my friend.
👍🏻🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸👍🏻
I am not sure that I am following the argument against the F-15SE. If we accept the additional cost of HAVE Glass for the F-16 fleet then why wouldn't the same cost differential be justified for the F-15 fleet?
It seems to me that reducing the RCS signature from 25M2 to 1-5M2 would have a larger impact on survivability then reducing the RCS of the F-16 from 5M2 to 1.2M2.
Put another way Airmen wear OCP camouflage not because it makes them invisible but because it delays their detection by enemy forces better than wearing hunter orange.
If the intent of the F-15EX is to partner with the F-35 then how does it make sense to maintain the RCS of a house?
The cost of the F-15SE was $100M which is what we are now paying for the F-15EX which has the F-15SE capabilities minus the RCS reductions.
The F-16 is more of a front line combatant, which requires stealth
The F-15 EX is built around hanging out in the back, safe from anything. The F-35’s and 22’s will do the targeting, and the eagles’s will do the shooting. And having such massive missiles kills stealth anyways, so it doesn’t matter how stealthy you could make the eagle anyways.
@@TonyChan-eh3nz, you have made valid points with regard to one potential use of the F-15EX.
The F-15 was designed using the philosophy of “Not a pound for air to ground” with the idea that it would be a dedicated air to air fighter but it has remained relevant for all of these years because it was good at many other missions.
Producing the EX with a massive RCS based on the assumption that it will only serve in the capacity of a rear echelon bomb truck due to its ability to carry lots of long range missiles externally ties it unnecessarily into a limited mission set and doesn’t take into account the fact that enemy targeting radar capabilities will advance.
The F-15 will never be stealth but if giving it canted tails and LO coatings then it may enjoy the ability to operate in many of the environments that the F-16 currently does without the limitations of range or performance under load.
If we assume that the EX is destined to operate only as a bomb truck in the rear for 5th generation aircraft then what happens when the targeting range of enemy aircraft or Air Defenses against a >25M RCS target exceeds that of the weapons that it can carry?
0:15 wait, where is the video from last week about reducing the F-16's radar cross section? I only see a video from two weeks ago about F-16s in ukraine?
Came to the comments to ask the same thing.
A mass produced 5- may have come in handy years ago, but the economy of scale of the F35 is getting to the point that it may be superfluous at this point.
It's fair to say the F-35 is past the point of being both the better and cheaper option than many proposed alternatives.
You're telling me that they almost fixed the one thing I despise about the F-15? The damn vertical tail fins. They need to be angled.
And! It is LOUD! We have one nearby at the National Guard. It sounds like "WRATH"
So why not keep some low observable features of silent eagle, like canted vertical tail and integrated IRST. That should at least make it more survivable. Of course I am assuming that Boeing already did flight computer to account for the canted tail. I also heard canted vertical tail also reduce drag, seems like a win win situation of incorporating that design element. No need for expensive stealth coatings.
The canted tail also grants extra lift and frees up ballast for extra fuel range.
Yeah seems like a no brainer not to incorporate it on the eagle 2
Which video talked about the stealth-ing of the F-16?
If you are not able to arrange the engine ducts to shield the engines from radar there is not much point trying to make it stealthy.
One thing I always wondered is why is the f15 so good? What makes it so much more capable than most other platforms?
It offers maximum performance across all altitudes and speeds allowable by the technology.
There is no other " fighter" that can fight to the edge of space and also fight close to the trees with equal performance using the technology the f15 has , no thrust vectoring, no special materials
Sure you can design a faster or more maneuverable fighter but it would still be only marginally above what the f15 does but without everything else the f15 brings.
It also has great endurance and survivability, it can fly with a full wing blasted OFF
Its radar is interceptor grade , can over power and enable reliable engagement beyond visual range
It just can do it all
A video about the AAS / FARA (armed scout helicopter) program would be cool. Sikorsky has the S-97 Raider compete with the Bell+Textron 360 Invictus.
The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why Sikorsky they abandoned that design, as they first came up with it. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they already lost the Blackhawk transport replacement to the Bell V280 Valor?
@@texasranger24 I think the Sikorsky entry also has a lot more range and speed, and possibly payload. On the other hand, the Bell entry is a lot smaller and maybe a lot cheaper
I was hoping that Beoing would have gone with thrust vectoring for the new F15EX, compared to some other upgrades I would think it would be relatively cheap and give the new EX a marked increase in its already impressive manuverability, showcased by the NASA F15 experimental demonstrator.
The F-15 STOL/MTD had 3d thrust vectoring (and even AI/neural network flight controls at one point) and the F-15B had 2d thrust vectoring. My guess is they determined supermaneuvrability is not really valuable for any future conflict, especially compared to stealth.
During experimentation, it's generally found that it brings very little benefits, while simultaneously adding a ton or so ov extra weight, which woudl be better used on fuel.
The F15 is a sniper, not a brawler.
As was previously talked about the F-15 is a really big plane. It is also pretty heavy. It is not really a dog fighter like the F22 or the F16, or even the F18.
If you are up close and doing a traditional dog fight you are doing it wrong.
It is designed to go really fast while carrying more ordinance than some countries have, strike and fly away.
It can hold it's own in a dog fight if it needs to but that is not what it is supposed to be used for.
Is it though? There's still a squishy pilot in there that wants to not be squished to paste from the g-force.
Excellent!
Stealth is a true game-changer. Flying the big stick 4 ship, line abreast, also defines the game. Having a mix of both???? Welllll, maybe the bad guys don't want to play.
Thanks
It's called the f22...
Yeah, the F-15 is unabashedly the big stick.
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
The USAF will be getting new F-15EX’s because their F-15C/D’s are wearing out. The air force hoped for F-35’s but they cannot be produced fast enough to replace them.
F-35 was never intended to be the replacement for the F-15.
@@trolleriffic ….the F-22 was the F-15’s intended replacement. Till Congress cancelled F-22 production. The only stealth fighter today is the F-35. Since F-35 mass production was a decade late. The USAF painted itself into a corner by avoiding buying more non stealth fighters. Till now. So the air force is now buying the F-15EX.
If we are still making F-15's new, would it not make since to just evolve the plane forward? To incorporate stealth potentials if not actual capabilities while not compromising (greatly) the F-15's "curb stomp you" capabilities. It seems that the only thing holding the F-15 back is that you can only attach or remove stuff from the plane so much. Then suddenly after that point, the plane suddenly become impractical. So the better option would be to make a plane that would better accept upgrades with minimum cost, but could still be that "big stick" an even be deployed on masse if ever called for.
Yes Boeing is delivering the F-15EX which can get close to Mach 3 and can carry all the ordinance an air base can find and then more! Remember the US has around 3500 fighter jets alone. The cost of upgrades is not what the Air Force is worried about. The cost of $30k an hour compared to triple that over the airframes life when compared to the F-35. Most of our AF will remain 4-4.5 Gen aircraft. Seeing the F-16 and F-18 both also had first flights in the 70s they are all affordable options when compared to 5th and 6th gen not just in unit cost but overall cost over the life of the aircraft. The EX will have all modernized systems and some how an increase in payload. Meaning it was scary before and now that squeezed even more juice out of it!
F-22 OUTPERFORMS the F-15 in every fighter metric. Speed, maneuverability, acceleration, climb rate, range, you name it.
Not sure about acceleration. F15 still have a higher thrust to weight ratio and can do a vertical acceleration. And as for speed, F22 top speed is 'classified', but F15 is faster than F22 'official' top speed.
@1968gadgetyo Listen to the Fighterpilot podcast with F-15 turned F-22 pilot Terry Scott.
He says something along the lines of. I chased down 2 F-15s from behind, they were supersonic, but my closure rate to them was also supersomic.
I also read F-22 pilots say that nothing beats it in acceleration, the Typhoon is the closest but the Raptor still beats it.
@@michaeld1170 Top speed for F15 must be the F15-C air superiority variant, clean at full after burner. As the F-22 can supercrisue, having after burner it's like turbo kicking in after 200 km/ph. 👍
kills? Yeah, that was a low blow.
I'd be interested to see a purpose built, low cost, reduced visibility aircraft. So designed with a stealthy shape but with less use of radar absorbing material for less maintenance, initial cost and lower weight. It's impressive how low visibility the F-16 has become but it strikes me as being a very expensive way to go about achieving it. At this point most major companies have a good idea of what shapes are stealthy so they could take that existing infrastructure, use composites and a limited amount of radar absorbing coatings like the foil used on the edges of panels and have something more affordable and less capable than the F-35 to sell to countries who can't afford it (or we don't want to have it)
Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon are all designed with stealth elements and some materials in their shape and structure. Their RCS is pretty low compared to older 4th gen designs, even with HAVE GLASS, so they're a bit like a semi-stealth idea.
"He who see first has already half the victory." ~Erich Hartmann ...... If the other guy sees you first, you're at a tremendous disadvantage, I don't care how good your aerodynamics are. The F-15EX is at a tremendous disadvantage with a big RCS. It should care that it can be seen so easily.
You would think so, but remember that it's the distraction. The F-35 flying ahead of it saw you first.
Yeap...because knowing is half the battle.
@@patrickjanecke5894 According to what I've heard from exercises the F-35's been in, it doesn't need a distraction. Especially a very expensive distraction like the F-15EX.
@@777Outrigger I wasn't intending that to be taken seriously. F-15EX is mostly meant as a supplemental missile truck, handing missile control to the F-35.
@@patrickjanecke5894 I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. But I still think the F-15EX is a waste of money from the Boeing lobby. It's my understanding that most of the USAF leadership didn't want it. Only the Pentagon.
Cause sorta stealthy isn’t worth the juice for the squeeze
The new EX is suppose to be pushing Mach 3 in a intercept setup and can also carry like 25k ordnance if they are going in to get dirty and bring the hurtie
I'd doubt those figures, honestly. External weapons eat into speed quite substantially. Especially if also having sensor pods and fuel tanks.
@@Xenomorphine note what was said intercept, which means 6 missiles and a possible pod. But the new one has built in IRST and a lot of the sensors on board. Full load no it cannot maybe pay attention to what was written first.
@@mattadams7922 I did "pay attention." Kindly be more respectful.
What you claim and what it might actually be doing are not necessarily the same thing. Let's see the source. Because I've often read people falsely claim even the normal Eagle is capable of flying at over Mach 2 during combat and such, when it actually can't do with a weapons load.
Keep in mind that IRST is also only one type of sensor it might be using. That's why I speculated 'if'.
@@Xenomorphine well, go look for the information. It exists. Sources are the internet and a personal acquaintance. The F15C in Air to Air config can fly well over Mach 2 loaded. This comes from a very good source that is trusted. The new one has more thrust, by a large margin better avionics, better construction, and other things. 6 missiles and 2 fuel tanks which they only use to take off and get going fast then drop is a pretty standard intercept, or A2A package whichever you prefer. The early ones could do over Mach 2 with that and the speed eagle clean with really old engines and several other factors against it came close to Mach 3 admitted. I understand this stuff pretty well and that's why the eagle carries its missiles in intercept configuration on its body as opposed to on its wings for the drag factor. The EX engines are about 25 to 30% more powerful then the speed Eagle engines.
@@mattadams7922 Flying at Mach 3 is so much more difficult than Mach 2 and just an increase in thrust won't cut it. The intakes would need a total redesign and it might need a different engine as well. A 25-30% thrust increase won't do much when drag scales by the square of the speed.
But why didn't they use the canted tail fins on the EX?
Vortex generated from the wings will interfere with the rudder. The leading edges in the F18 causes the vortex away from the fuselage. Thus the F18 can canted more. For the EX, I suspect there need to be structural redesign. Not only the rudder attachment points, but the main wings as well.
We all like the big stick!
It's best role now is as a missile truck loaded with OTH weapon systems that are linked up with the F35s, F22 and B21 this way they stay hidden while the F15 dumps 22 missiles per plane into the enemy
When I grow up, I want to be a F-15.
Compromises not worth it.
i wonder if F-15 Silent Eagle can be added in Modern Warships game
Improving an aircraft with a tennis-court sized radar profile would be easy. So much to work with ! But as Alex pointed out, the resulting aircraft was not worth the investment.
The "Flying Tennis Court" doesn't really make an effective stealth platform? Go figure.
Stealth is not a great capability. It just means you may sneak into the enemy's hood unnoticed. The F-15 screams "Imma eff you up, rn." You better believe that most or all our fighters and AWACS are seeing heat signatures.
stealth is essential when avoiding radar guided missiles which currently have the biggest range.
Even if the plane is detected it can defend from being targeted.
The only discussion now is if the physical stealth is worthwhile when electronic warfare devices can replace it completely now or in the near future.
@@Truspio See desert storm. We blinded them with Wild Weasel AC (F-16 and
F-111) before sending fighters in country. That blinding made RG missles blind. Also, ROE requires sight verification before shootee shootee. Other than bombers I think it is just nu and schinee for the brass to droll over.
@@rcstl8815 ROE doesn't necessarily require visual ID - it didn't in the Gulf War. If the pilot or the people on the ground need to "see" the enemy then that's where things like the F-35's EOTS come into play. They can ID targets at much greater range than the Mk 1 eyeball, in a wider range of weather conditions day and night and can send imagery to headquarters for analysis and to let the top brass make an informed decision on whether to clear the pilot to attack.
I still think the USAF needs an a new nonstealth fighter.
The F-15SE was a failure because it couldn't meet the 'threshold' of what constituted a true low observable capable aircraft hence why the entire project was stillborn. The other problems that were unresolved was the square shaped inlets and even the heavily curved geometry of the modified airframe as well ...
Genuine question here, if the super hornet is already near a single square meter in RCS, why can't the already proven manufacturing techniques and materials used for the super hornet be applied to an entirely new F-15 airframe? Since Boeing is already making the EX as new airframes from scratch I couldn't see how the material science used on the hornet can't be applied to reduce the EX's radar signature.
I guess my question really is what exactly were the budgetary obstacles the F-15SE faced that the super hornet didn't? What exactly made the F-18E worth the cost? Considering they're somewhat comparable in RCS
Even the USAF doesn't want new F-15s. They want the superior F-35.
I think a lot of the RCS difference is in the shape. Notice the F-18 has much more angled tail than the F-15 and far fewer sharp right angles
@@Xenomorphine that's not necessarily stopping them from acquiring EXs though, and that's integral to my question asking why exactly can't the material science used on the Super Hornets be applied to these new airframes.
@@SmoochyRooThe EX is being forced on the USAF.
They're doing their best to stop that, which is why the training center for them was closed down - probably the biggest indicator of legitimate future plans.
The F-15 is as much of an evolutionary dead end. They're more expensive to purchase than the superior F-35 is. There isn't much point.
@@Xenomorphine I guess that makes sense, I gotta look into how exactly they were forced to purchase them because I find that a bit weird.
Is stealth still the big driver militarily? As the missile matrix matures, speed and range, put some of the sneak burden on the missile itself and reduce the cost of conversion, big stick or otherwise!
If anything it's only getting more important as radars and other sensors get more sophisticated. Stealth missiles have been around for years, but AFAIK only for ground attack and initially for the strategic nuclear strike role (AGM-129 etc)
F-15SE "Silent Eagle."
Isn't it "Walk softly and carry a big stick?
that pod does not look like a HARM would fit
Why didn't they roll out a version of the F16 with the Ram?
Last week's video.
Have Glass is exactly that
Did Boeing decide to charge too much for the development of the SE? The cost of stealth coating has dropped dramatically in the last decade. One would think that any effort to prolong the production life of the F15 would help Boeings bottom line well into the future. The current cost of the EX seems absurdly high considering the aircraft’s airframe was designed in the late 60 & early 70 and all the tooling must have been paid off 50 years ago.
The cost of stealth RAM isn't the issue. RAM just can't handle the heat of Mach 3. As for the EX, well, the frame itself is just about the only thing original left. Engines, avionics, radar, ECM, networking their missiles with F-35s...it all costs.
Is it true that USAF will buy 150 F-15EX?
Northop Grumman E-11A BACN (Civilian base: Global Express 6000), High altitude, Ayatollah Mike, so how are you doing?
That's probably one of the most high-tech aircrafts ever. The number of the Heavy Industries involved is like aliens were about to invade the Earth. The aircraft is capable of both combat and surveillance. The timing of being shot or having technical issues makes it strange.
Why is the radar cross section 25 times that of an F18 when its only maybe twice the size? Is the f18 built partially stealthy or something? If the hornets return is only 1sq meter that seems ridiculously small for the aircrafts size.
Not sure why they didn't just angle the vertical stabs and do a little LO coating on a few RCS problems as a standard measure for the Eaglea. Seems like an obvious "hey whadya know!" kind of thing..
F-15 is meant to be a beast, and the RAM would burn off before it even got close to enemy radar. That's why the EX is meant to work in tandem with the F-35.
@@patrickjanecke5894 I'm not suggesting they coat the whole plane in RAM, just problem areas. Same thing they do with the F16 and F18.
It would still work with 5th gen planes.
The F35 is junk IMO. Just a super expensive AWACS and tech demonstrator.
@@patrickjanecke5894 The RAM will not burn off. The F-15 is not a Mach 3 airplane, not even close. Not only that, it cannot sustain high Mach numbers for any duration of time....we're talking minutes. It drinks fuel like a drunken sailor when in afterburner.
If speed was an issue then the F-22 would have the same problem and it does not.
@@jimm2216 And F-35 is limited to seconds above Mach 1.3.
@@patrickjanecke5894 made no mention of the F-35. F-22 can supercruise well above that for a long time. Regardless….none of these jets fly fast enough to burn off RAM
yeah I mean they started with a really bad stealth shape, that's basically impossible to bandaid over
There is a place for non-stealth. Look at ground support with the A-10. But a more expensive F15? It's time has come and gone. It first flew over 50 years ago.
Here I am now prepare to die, Says the F15
put the F-22A Raptor back in production
Yaaa no 6th gen is right around the corner
They are cool, but they are already past their prime.
@@patrickjanecke5894 The USAF is in desperate need for the F-22A Raptor,
Go the stuka route and slap a big siren on the nose.
I know radar cross section is nebulus at best, but I'm curious, does anyone know which airplane has the biggest radar cross section? I'm thinking the B-52, but I'm just guessing.
C 5 Galaxy in American inventory,
It's quite literally the size of a very large 2 story house. Like pushing 100 m2
Maybe large turboprops like Tu-95 or An-22
Airbus A380? I've heard Airbus is considering converting some of the A380 to cargo variant. I wonder how many Rapid Dragon could fit inside.
Boeing should stick to making second rate passenger planes.
See, this is the result of cutting off F-22 manufacturing. Trying to kludge one of the biggest fighters in the sky into a stealth fighter is pretty laughable. No S-ducts, vertical intakes, rounded engine exhaust ports...at some point, you gotta call a spade a spade.
Feels like if F-22 manufacturing were still online, the Raptor might have been able to be upgraded to carry more weaponry (though, the F-22 was never going to go to the export market).
I also wonder how far off underwing stealth weapons pods are to let F-35s carry more ammunition, assuming that they're feasible to begin with.
While watching the video and hearing about external fuel tanks and hard points being removed from the F15 to reduce RCS, I thought that having a more stealty hardpoint ( an internal hard point in the wings) would allow the plane to still carry external fuel tanks.
Yes, external fuel tanks would reduce RCS, but if you use them for the first stage of the flight mission, they could be dropped by the time the plane gets near hostile territory, thus allowing the plane to carry a greater munition payload.
What I can’t understand is why they don’t use the canted tail fins on the new F-15EX. It seems like no downside, drastic drop in radar return plus if I remember correctly it made the jet much more fuel efficient. Almost making up for the lost fuel tanks. I can’t imagine it would cost more on these new jets being built. And it looks cooler, what the fuck Boeing or Lockheed and the airforce am I missing something?
More lift will inevitably involve some increase in drag. It might not be a big difference but it could be a factor. There's also the fact that the existing F-15 is such a good design that it doesn't really need to be changed, even if those changes make sense.