Boeing unveils the "stealthy" F-15 Silent Eagle

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Also the main reason to stealth up your fighter other than A2A is SAMs. SAMs have traditionally been a bigger problem than other fighters in many cases.

That "stealth" thing myth is now over. Stealth only works as a part of a comprehensive and very complex system of multiple (dozens maybe?) airplanes of different type flying simultaneously.

 

We know that stealth works really "good" against the opponent who can not turn their radars on. And when we discuss technology here, I would assume we compare advanced technologies as well as no numerical advantage of one side.

 

Let me remind you that the max time Yugoslavian SAM systems could be stayed on was 25 to 30 seconds! You bet stealth works really good under such circumstances.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[CE_Mikemonster]

We are talking about a reduced RCS F-15, not stealth aircraft. Please stop using the word 'stealth' mate, or we'll end up in a debate about F-117's and Iraqi defences in Desert Storm which is not to do with your original question:

So, what's the point of that stealthy F-15 is when it can only carry 4 AMRAAM's? I guess it is good enough to fight against Su-27S and MiG-29S?

 

 

I understand your point though which seems to be; 'Why have a reduced-RCS aircraft when no radars are operating?'

[Not saying I agree though]

Edited March 20, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[Groove]

Mikemonster, please don't mention the F-117!

 

Damn, im sure it's too late!...

[GGTharos]

... yeah, I mean, when the moons and planets line up, you can shoot down a Su-35 with a spitball too.

 

Russian aircraft are applying the same techniques. In other words ... stealth is EFFECTIVE.

 

Regardless of whether it is attributed to a system or a singleton, it has worked and does work.

 

And may I remind you that Stealth Aircraft have flown into hornet's nests and their pilots have trained hard at Red Flags before. One shoot-down doesn't prove anything.

 

Further, neither the MiG-29S nor Su-27S are a match for the modern F-15C. The F-15SE is meant to counter /new/ variants, not old ones that are not even competitive at this point.

 

Let me remind you that the max time Yugoslavian SAM systems could be stayed on was 25 to 30 seconds! You bet stealth works really good under such circumstances.

[Vault]

That "stealth" thing myth is now over. Stealth only works as a part of a comprehensive and very complex system of multiple (dozens maybe?) airplanes of different type flying simultaneously.

 

We know that stealth works really "good" against the opponent who can not turn their radars on. And when we discuss technology here, I would assume we compare advanced technologies as well as no numerical advantage of one side.

 

Let me remind you that the max time Yugoslavian SAM systems could be stayed on was 25 to 30 seconds! You bet stealth works really good under such circumstances.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

Hajduk maybe you can tell me why the NATO, Russia and India has invested and is still investing billions of dollars into VLO R&D when stealth technology is according to you just a "myth"?. VLO in a nutshell increases PK.

 

Stealth doesn't force SAMS to scan for short intervals, HARM missiles with loiter capabilities do that.

 

EDIT* Damn GG beat me to it.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Vault

[CE_Mikemonster]

Stealth doesn't force SAMS to scan for short intervals, HARM missiles with loiter capabilities do that.

 

or ALARM :)

 

(I have to reap some reward for the 'BAe or nothing' policy over here!)

[Vault]

or ALARM :)

 

(I have to reap some reward for the 'BAe or nothing' policy over here!)

 

OK you got me there bud lol the HARM can't loiter. By HARM I actually meant homing anti radiation missile. I wasn't speaking about a specific missile.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Got ya, see what you mean bud.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk maybe you can tell me why the NATO, Russia and India has invested and is still investing billions of dollars into VLO R&D when stealth technology is according to you just a "myth"?. VLO in a nutshell increases PK.

 

Stealth doesn't force SAMS to scan for short intervals, HARM missiles with loiter capabilities do that.

 

EDIT* Damn GG beat me to it.

The myth about stealth is that many people confuse it, or believe that it is a different word for invisible. As a matter of fact, back in my home country of Serbia, F-117 is almost always referred to as "invisible". Many popular shows on Discovery, Military, TLC even Hystory channels often use the word invisible when talking about stealth.

 

You and me and most of the participants on this forum know better. We know that stealth means stealth and not more then that. And, it has its advantages, and when used as a part of a system, it can do the job just fine. But let us be realistic when talking about stealth.

 

Crew of six SAM operators found the F-117 on their radar, prepared for launch, launched, guided and hit it in 25 seconds. Situation would be way different if they could keep their radar on all the time. The stealth would be way less effective then. And that was the military starved by 10 years of sanctions (preparation for attack).

[CE_Mikemonster]

Regardless, to produce a high-tech front line combat aircraft without at least some aspect of reduced RCS is to start at an immediate disadvantage (EDIT: in this day and age)

 

 

'How much smaller is the "Silent Eagle's" RCS compared to the F-15E?'

 

That is really what matters. If it's not substantial then I think you're right Hajduk, there's not much point in implementing it.

 

 

 

EDIT: PS i'm saying these statements in 'marks' so we can debate that (seems to be your original point), rather than get into a bizarre journey through time and space as the debate continues along a million different subjects with no conclusion at all in the end.

Edited March 21, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster
clarity.

[Teknetinium]

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

 

Question: How many Su-35 will be in service in, lets say, 5 years?

Groove, dont make Russians get hard ON.Its silly to compere like that, If Poland want to buy Su-35 Russians will built them. So my answer to u is that it depend how many customers u have.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Groove
language

[Groove]

Watch your language Tekentinium, thanks in advance.

 

I dont know what Poland has to do with Su-35 which are going into service with Russian AF. I

[Teknetinium]

Sorry for the language, I find it so silly to compere who has most aircraft, leads to discussions as nukes lool, we should compere as I always say machine to machine. F-15SE have no comments yet. Rather then I would sit in Su-35/EF2000/Rafale then F-15SE

Edited March 21, 2009 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

I'd rather sit in the plane that's made out of the plane that has some incredible 100+:0 K/D ratio.

[Groove]

But if we try to compare somehow realistic engagements, it will never be a 1on1 scenario. Conflicts / wars are not fair, as you know. You will always bring as much firepower with you as you can.

[GGTharos]

Any way, in terms of theoretical possibilities, if it happened to be the case that the F-15SE can reduce the RCS from some rumored 10m^2 to 1m^1, detection range against the F-15SE should drop to 50% of that for an F-15, more or less.

 

Should they be able to remodel it as well as the F-18E was, and drop the RCS to 0.5 or lower, detection range can drop very, very significantly.

 

If - and it's all a big if. They do seem to claim they can match the F-35 frontal RCS however, which would be a very significant step, potentially dropping detection of the F-15SE to 1/16th the range of F-15E's ... that's about what, 8%?

[CE_Mikemonster]

ouchies :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I'd rather sit in the plane that's made out of the plane that has some incredible 100+:0 K/D ratio.

I would rather not brag much about that "incredible" kill ration here on this forum. BTW let just mention the last two kills: dozens of fighters in the air, few F-15's among them. Two AWACS on station. Against two MiG-29A's with broken RWR's, and pilots not able to communicate over the radio.

 

GG, is that what you want to use to show how good F-15 is? If you say Yes, I say, cheap salesman.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[59th_LeFty]

How much attention did the aicrcraft manufacturers pay to RCS when constructing planes such as F-15, F-16, F-18? I think it's out the question that they were favouring other things instead of it. I mean, the 'same' plane, (re)constructed by keeping other things in view (stealth in this case) doesn't have that perfectly designed structural integrity more, therefore, reducing their other superior capabilities. What I'm saying: this F-15 might (or surely) not as fast, as agile, or has the range and amount of weapons as it is designed for.

 

So if I stick with this, comparing F-15SE with even an F-15E is like comparing PAK-FA to F-15.... Other world, other needs.

[topol-m]

I'd rather sit in the plane that's made out of the plane that has some incredible 100+:0 K/D ratio.

 

It is good at shooting old metal, piloted by unexperienced pilots, armed with obsolete weapons in a situation of totall information and quantity superiority. So will be a Su-27 against some Starfighters or F-5s. I doubt that if the f-15s had seen a 100 russian pilots in lets say mig-29 with R-77 and R-73, or some Su-27s or mig-31s it would still have the same K/D ratio. I`m not saying its a bad aircraft but i`m saying put it in a serious fight with competitive fighters/pilots and lets then talk about K/D.

Edited March 22, 2009 by topol-m

[Grimes]

It is good at shooting old metal, piloted by unexperienced pilots, armed with obsolete weapons in a situation of totall information and quantity superiority. So will be a Su-27 against some Starfighters or F-5s. I doubt that if the f-15s had seen a 100 russian pilots in lets say mig-29 with R-77 and R-73, or some Su-27s or mig-31s it would still have the same K/D ratio. I`m not saying its a bad aircraft but i`m saying put it in a serious fight with competitive fighters/pilots and lets then talk about K/D.

 

Having superiority of information, technology, and most importantly training are kinda the factors that have huge influence on a fight no matter the arena. Simply arguing that the F-15s had an unfair advantage in its air combat battles and that such an advantage discredits its achievements is naive.

[Weta43]

Having superiority of information, technology, and most importantly training are kinda the factors that have huge influence on a fight no matter the arena. Simply arguing that the F-15s had an unfair advantage in its air combat battles and that such an advantage discredits its achievements is naive.

 

To some extent this is true, but quoting kill ratios in vastly uneven conflicts doesn't really say much about the quality of the technology or armed service in question were they pitted against a more equal adversary.

Bragging about some of the kills in that list is a bit like bragging about the kill ratio of the British while fighting Zulus in the days of the Empire (or a boxer adding knocking down his neighbour's errant child to his KO list).

Machine guns against spears? Yes, it's proof of the technilogical superiority & manufacturing capability of the British Empire when compared to Zulu tribesmen or "hotentots", but not really evidence that the same thing would happen when fighting an army with something approaching technological parity (say Germany 1914 - 1918.).

The F-15 is/was a technological marvel & 4 on 4 I'd probably bet on an F-15C over a non upgraded Su-27 variant (1 on 1 - probably the Su-27), but some of those 100+ to zero kills are in the zero bragging rights range...

[Vault]

The myth about stealth is that many people confuse it, or believe that it is a different word for invisible. As a matter of fact, back in my home country of Serbia, F-117 is almost always referred to as "invisible". Many popular shows on Discovery, Military, TLC even Hystory channels often use the word invisible when talking about stealth.

 

You and me and most of the participants on this forum know better. We know that stealth means stealth and not more then that. And, it has its advantages, and when used as a part of a system, it can do the job just fine. But let us be realistic when talking about stealth.

 

I agree the word "stealth" is often confused with invisible, personally I prefer to use the word "VLO".

 

Crew of six SAM operators found the F-117 on their radar, prepared for launch, launched, guided and hit it in 25 seconds. Situation would be way different if they could keep their radar on all the time. The stealth would be way less effective then. And that was the military starved by 10 years of sanctions (preparation for attack).

 

Hajduk with the upmost respect that F-117 kill was a VERY lucky shot, the odds on that happening a second time must be huge, I bet the Serb army would run out of SAMS before they got that lucky again, that SAM was very fourtunate to have gone active when the F-117 was out of its VLO parameters. The pilot had a bad day and the Serb SAM got lucky, The F-117 was never designed to fly close or directly over SAM. If those ex-soviet SAM were so effective against VLO targets we'd see a whole Museum dedicated to VLO US aircraft not just 1 single VLO airframe.

 

With modern day ARM SAM search radars are unable to keep there radars permantley active.

[tflash]

For those who, by sheer concidence, would be interested in the *topic* of this thread, there is a somewhat more lenghty follow-up article in aviation week: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw032309p1.xml&headline=Stealthy%20F-15%20Could%20Breathe%20Life%20into%20St.%20Louis%20Facility

 

And something about the context, or at least part of it: http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/03/23/200903230012.asp

[GGTharos]

Good find tflash.