Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-15 carrying 16 missiles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • F-15 carrying 16 missiles

    Look at what Boeing it's working on. A way for the F-15 to carry 16 missiles!

    Boeing is putting its latest and greatest combat aircraft developments on show for industry and Washington power brokers. This includes new F-15 configurations that allow the 43-year-old design to lug 16 air-to-air missiles into combat instead of the standard eight it carries today.
    Talk about a flying shotgun! The photo shows one carrying 14 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinder X. With a modern radar, coupled with the fighter's speed, this combo could cover a massive area in space with just a few fighters.

  • #2
    I have a perfect name for this variant: F-15G Missileer
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'd like to see that thing decked out in CUDA missiles!

      Sounds like an F-15 missileer would pair well with an F-22 or F-35 that could be in close to the enemy to satisfy ROE identification requirements. An F-15 at high speed and altitude would be a great missile launching platform.
      Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 15 Sep 15,, 21:24.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        I have a perfect name for this variant: F-15G Missileer
        Niceee
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
          Look at what Boeing it's working on. A way for the F-15 to carry 16 missiles!



          Talk about a flying shotgun! The photo shows one carrying 14 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinder X. With a modern radar, coupled with the fighter's speed, this combo could cover a massive area in space with just a few fighters.
          Performance is going to suffer as is the maneuverability, what with the 16 heavy aerodynamically shape speed brakes hanging from the airframe. More missiles equals less fuel which means less range and less time aloft. You are burning fuel to just to take of and land with AMRAAMs?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dazed View Post
            Performance is going to suffer as is the maneuverability, what with the 16 heavy aerodynamically shape speed brakes hanging from the airframe. More missiles equals less fuel which means less range and less time aloft. You are burning fuel to just to take of and land with AMRAAMs?
            It shouldn't be that bad; it's basically an F-15E airframe with the extra FAST packs, so it's already got almost double the amount of fuel as a C (without the external tanks). Plus, the F-15E lugs around a lot more ordnance than that (and a lot draggier), but it's still got decent range. Put a centerline 610-gal. fuel tank on it, get it up around 60K at cruise speed (0.90M), and you have a nice, high-altitude missile carrier for the F-22's/F-35's. If you want to stretch the range even more, ditch the lower two AIM-120D's on the lower part of the inner pylons, and add a couple more 610-gal. external tanks; that would be a total of 35,550 lbs. of fuel.
            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

            Comment


            • #7
              It's sort of a lite version of the old B-1R proposal:



              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer
              B-1R

              The B-1R is a proposed upgrade of existing B-1B aircraft.[147] The B-1R (R for "regional") would be fitted with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and new Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. This variant would have a top speed of Mach 2.2, but with 20% shorter range.[148]

              Existing external hardpoints would be modified to allow multiple conventional weapons to be carried, increasing overall loadout. For air-to-air defense, an Active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar would be added and some existing hardpoints modified to carry air-to-air missiles. If needed the B-1R could escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters with its Mach 2+ speed. Few aircraft are currently capable of sustained speeds over Mach 2.[147]
              Last edited by citanon; 16 Sep 15,, 06:03.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                It shouldn't be that bad; it's basically an F-15E airframe with the extra FAST packs, so it's already got almost double the amount of fuel as a C (without the external tanks). Plus, the F-15E lugs around a lot more ordnance than that (and a lot draggier), but it's still got decent range. Put a centerline 610-gal. fuel tank on it, get it up around 60K at cruise speed (0.90M), and you have a nice, high-altitude missile carrier for the F-22's/F-35's. If you want to stretch the range even more, ditch the lower two AIM-120D's on the lower part of the inner pylons, and add a couple more 610-gal. external tanks; that would be a total of 35,550 lbs. of fuel.
                Besides, with 14 AMRAAMs, it's clearly set up for BVR. No need for much agility there. I'm sure they can set it up with, say, 10 sidewinders and 4-6 AMRAAMs.


                Originally posted by citanon View Post
                It's sort of a lite version of the old B-1R proposal:



                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer
                Or the old B-52 in the books. Only this is more realistic...

                Comment


                • #9
                  with the recent report talking about major service life extension updates and wing cracking on the C's, time to think about buying some new build's of the latest variant instead of trying to upgrade to it maybe?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                    with the recent report talking about major service life extension updates and wing cracking on the C's, time to think about buying some new build's of the latest variant instead of trying to upgrade to it maybe?
                    There's no way the USAF is going to "waste" money on what is essentially, a 40 year old design (even if it would be massively upgraded), while trying to justify it's need for all those super-duper-scifi F-35 and F-22. Next thing you know, someone would say "hey why not build an upgraded B-1 instead of a super-expensive new bomber?!" Can't have that...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                      There's no way the USAF is going to "waste" money on what is essentially, a 40 year old design (even if it would be massively upgraded), while trying to justify it's need for all those super-duper-scifi F-35 and F-22. Next thing you know, someone would say "hey why not build an upgraded B-1 instead of a super-expensive new bomber?!" Can't have that...
                      while I don't disagree, and I cant I cant find the article I read this morning to get an actual date for the comments (it was on yahoo, one of their linker articles) the comments came from an air force official discussing aging and what sounded like new found cracking and an earlier than expected need for service life extension modifications (new wings, etc) as well as upgrades to the radars and incorporating the infra red search and track feature.

                      I'd like to think that they would be smarter to look at new build aircraft with all the bells and whistles vs such extensive modificationsto old air frames.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                        It shouldn't be that bad; it's basically an F-15E airframe with the extra FAST packs, so it's already got almost double the amount of fuel as a C (without the external tanks). Plus, the F-15E lugs around a lot more ordnance than that (and a lot draggier), but it's still got decent range. Put a centerline 610-gal. fuel tank on it, get it up around 60K at cruise speed (0.90M), and you have a nice, high-altitude missile carrier for the F-22's/F-35's. If you want to stretch the range even more, ditch the lower two AIM-120D's on the lower part of the inner pylons, and add a couple more 610-gal. external tanks; that would be a total of 35,550 lbs. of fuel.
                        Weight and Drag no matter the aircraft is going to diminished the maneuverability and performance/range. I think there has to be a performance limitation with external stations.(Could be very wrong) Never flew a F-15 been in the sim though. I know there is an ex F-15 driver on this board I would love to know what he thinks of this idea. How do you get the enemy to agree to come to you and stay in the weapons envelope at stand off distance?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Dazed View Post
                          Weight and Drag no matter the aircraft is going to diminished the maneuverability and performance/range. I think there has to be a performance limitation with external stations.(Could be very wrong) Never flew a F-15 been in the sim though. I know there is an ex F-15 driver on this board I would love to know what he thinks of this idea. How do you get the enemy to agree to come to you and stay in the weapons envelope at stand off distance?
                          The F-15 E is a strike fighter that's already designed to deal with weight and drag.

                          Combat loaded fighters frequently perform under g load restrictions and range penalties.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                            with the recent report talking about major service life extension updates and wing cracking on the C's, time to think about buying some new build's of the latest variant instead of trying to upgrade to it maybe?
                            Nah, why keep buying parts for your old Pentium computer when you can spend that money for a brand new Core i5 flip book?

                            F-15 was a good design and it did everything we asked it to do and more. But it's time to retire. It is inefficient to hold on to a design that is obsolete.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dazed View Post
                              Weight and Drag no matter the aircraft is going to diminished the maneuverability and performance/range. I think there has to be a performance limitation with external stations.(Could be very wrong) Never flew a F-15 been in the sim though. I know there is an ex F-15 driver on this board I would love to know what he thinks of this idea. How do you get the enemy to agree to come to you and stay in the weapons envelope at stand off distance?
                              Fly the F-22 and F-35 ahead of the missile truck. The enemy will most likely detect the "purposely unstealthy" F-15 in the back first. They fly toward it. F-22 and F-35 "launch" their missiles from the missile truck and guide them to interception, all the while staying undetected. To paraphrase Agent Maxwell Smart, "it's the old forward observer staying hidden while calling in the artillery strike trick."
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X