Boeing unveils the "stealthy" F-15 Silent Eagle

[topol-m]

Stealthy F-15? Think again.

 

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_DfbUPDqtPVI/ScCi3Eqis3I/AAAAAAAAA-w/e-epwByK0JY/5thGenVSHlocompared.jpg

 

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_DfbUPDqtPVI/ScCi3Vo4kEI/AAAAAAAAA_A/P27q5utlty0/NS3.jpg

 

Also a little info on russian AESA radar:

 

The latest incarnation of the Zhuk radar family featuring an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA). The radar uses 680 4 channel transceiver modules with a power output of 5 watts per channel. The radar is stated to provide a detection range of 130 km for a head on target with up to 30 targets tracked and 6 of those engaged at any one time. As an AESA the radar is liquid cooled, with each transceiver capable of being switched off to prevent damage from overheating and switched on again when cooled. Two variants of the Zhuk-A exist: the FGA-29, and the follow on FGA-35 which will boast an improved detection range of 200 km with 60 targets tracked, the radar will also support a maximum mapping resolution of 1*1m in air to surface mode. The FGA-35 will feature a 700mm antenna with an increased number of transmit and receive modules to between 1000-1,100, a 20 degree incline and a peak power of 6 kW

Edited March 19, 2009 by topol-m

[EtherealN]

You know what this "discussion" has reminded me of?

 

When a friend of mine back in high school who was in the Home Guard loudly and with absolute certainty proclaimed that the quality of the Swedish armed forces were so good that we would have no problem brushing aside a full-scale NATO invasion. Rediculous of course since just a single american carrier group would establish air parity even before counting what was present at other bases within operational radius. (Gone are the days when Sweden had the world's fourth strongest air force... *sniff*)

 

But the point being that there was such patriotic zeal going on that he really believed it; all information coming in had been filtered to fit that world view. That's something I'm seeing in this thread - it's all become a bloody penis measuring contest about which side has the best ability to deploy phallic-shaped objects on the other.

 

Also, Topol-M, No-one has said that it's a Stealth plane. People has said that it has a reduced head-on radar cross section and has in many ways been modified from "stock" F-15's to make it more difficult to detect. Not impossible, not stealth, just more difficult. "Silent Eagle" is just a marketing name.

[RedTiger]

But the point being that there was such patriotic zeal going on that he really believed it; all information coming in had been filtered to fit that world view. That's something I'm seeing in this thread - it's all become a bloody penis measuring contest about which side has the best ability to deploy phallic-shaped objects on the other.

 

Welcome to the ED forums! :megalol:

[EtherealN]

Hahah, fair enough. :D

[Maximus_G]

The biggest issue here is not the Su-35 radar, but rather the R-27 missile series and the data-link-less RVVAE.

:huh: Are you joking?

Where did you find that RVV-AE is "data-link-less"?

And also, does the R-27 have datalink?

 

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

 

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

It depends mainly on its foreign customers... and the same rule fully applies to the Silent Eagle.

[GGTharos]

:huh: Are you joking?

Where did you find that RVV-AE is "data-link-less"?

And also, does the R-27 have datalink?

 

It's perhaps not so much the missile, as uh .. incomplete systems being sold to a certain country. So no, he isn't joking. India, IIRC, was not given radars with datalink for the R-77 which they complained about bitterly IIRC. I also believe the Chinese didn't fare better there, except, again, AFAIK, they home-brewed their own to deal with it.

The brints tried the 120's without datalink systems (cheaper) found out they might as well have bought AIM-7's. You need datalinks for them ARHs, at least as far as current technology goes.

 

Yes, R-27® versions have datalink.

[Maximus_G]

India, IIRC, was not given radars with datalink for the R-77 which they complained about bitterly IIRC.

 

So, not a single Indian fighter can fire RVV-AE beyond the missile radar's detection range?

Any prooflinks?

[nscode]

They can. But their performance at those ranges is downgraded (easier to spoof) and also they can't use advanced flight profiles, so their max range is shorter.

[Groove]

What do they need them for? There is no threat in the world that Russia face, that would require Su-35 in service. So why would Russia rush to produce something that does not really need at the moment?

 

Thanks for not answering my question ;)

[Groove]

I agree, they need them but not in great numbers. Why should they pay for production, maintenance of hundreds of aircrafts, when there is no need for such large airforce especially for fighters. Investment in other projects is better and thats what they are doing, ICBMs development and production for example.

 

So we are talking about paper tigers ?

 

And yeah, who need fighters when you have ICBMs... lol

[Grimes]

 

And yeah, who need fighters when you have ICBMs... lol

 

I'm quite content with our governments using fighter aircraft everyday for whatever usage they seem fit rather than ICBMs....

[topol-m]

And yeah, who need fighters when you have ICBMs... lol

 

I cannot imagine what use you could have for 500-600 fighters. Such number of fighters haven`t been used by a single side in a conflict since WW2, now that you can hit targets with missiles (not necessarily nuclear ) hundreds and thousand km away its pure wastfulness to maintain such large airforce, which is becoming obsolete in several decades as technology advances. And in a great danger for one of the big nuclear states, i`m talking a full scale war like a new russian D-Day in California or an american D-day in a...lets see..., ah well in Kamchatka - i dont see how using nukes can be avoided. And when you begin to take hits in most big towns and military bases your fleet of fighters and bombers is quickly becoming obsolete.

[Weta43]

Last OT post :-)

By "more powerful", I assumed he meant overall, not literally in the amount of energy it projects. [/QUOTe]

 

Maybe - but it could have been construed as saying AESA units actualy had a higher power output - & for the benefit of those who missed the original discussion, I thought I'd point out that while the EASA probably holds an advantage is in terms of ECM / ECCM, having more frequency hopping ability for a non-cooperative target, if the AESA unit of the F-22 and the PESA unit of the Su-35 are compared, the Su-35 probably has by GG's reckoning a 20% greater detection & tracking range - which is not insignificant when coupled with the Su-35's ability to maintain a 'lock' while actually flying away from the target (& in doing so significantly decreasing closing speed, and increasing the time till the other aircraft can track/launch on the Su-35)

 

This was an interesting thread for any that missed it:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=28752&page=3

Edited March 19, 2009 by Weta43

[EtherealN]

Topol-M, that is kind of beside the point though, isn't it?

 

The Silent Eagle is NOT requested or primarily targeted for use by the united states. It's an F-15 variant intended for export, which means it would be used by countries that are not nuclear powers and that Russia or other countries using russian materiel could end up in a fight with. In such a fight one might want to limit the use of nuclear weapons since well, even if it were to be a "limited" nuclear war you will have commited political suicide by using them.

 

Finally:

I cannot imagine what use you could have for 500-600 fighters. Such number of fighters haven`t been used by a single side in a conflict since WW2

 

Operation Desert Storm involved a grand total of some 2500 fighter and attack aircraft. Roughly 1400 american and the roughly 650 Iraqi jets. (Saudi 175, British some 70, and a small assembly from other nations.)

 

I didn't manage to find any numbers for the amount of aircraft used for the 2003 invasion, but it is noteworthy that the September 5 assault (that is, pre-invasion) did include no less than 100 aircraft (the quote I found said "100+"), in spite of the Iraqi air force being, well, pretty much Iranian. :P

 

EDIT: Globalsecurity quotes the US order of battle for the 2003 invasion as 518 aircraft, though including transport aircraft.

Edited March 19, 2009 by EtherealN

[nscode]

The PESA higher raw output power actually has even more significance against a low RCS target.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Last OT post :-)

 

 

Maybe - but it could have been construed as saying AESA units actualy had a higher power output - & for the benefit of those who missed the original discussion, I thought I'd point out that while the EASA probably holds an advantage is in terms of ECM / ECCM, having more frequency hopping ability for a non-cooperative target, if the AESA unit of the F-22 and the PESA unit of the Su-35 are compared, the Su-35 probably has by GG's reckoning a 20% greater detection & tracking range - which is not insignificant when coupled with the Su-35's ability to maintain a 'lock' while actually flying away from the target (& in doing so significantly decreasing closing speed, and increasing the time till the other aircraft can track/launch on the Su-35)

 

This was an interesting thread for any that missed it:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=28752&page=3

This is very interesting.

[Groove]

I cannot imagine what use you could have for 500-600 fighters. Such number of fighters haven`t been used by a single side in a conflict since WW2, now that you can hit targets with missiles (not necessarily nuclear ) hundreds and thousand km away its pure wastfulness to maintain such large airforce, which is becoming obsolete in several decades as technology advances. And in a great danger for one of the big nuclear states, i`m talking a full scale war like a new russian D-Day in California or an american D-day in a...lets see..., ah well in Kamchatka - i dont see how using nukes can be avoided. And when you begin to take hits in most big towns and military bases your fleet of fighters and bombers is quickly becoming obsolete.

 

This one made my day, rep incoming!

 

Give us more!

[Kuky]

Well actually for a country that has very large airspace (due to large land area) you do need larger airforce to be able to cover all this airspace. I'd hate to see a nuclear war and I'm sure no country wants it as it would hit back as a boomerang, so standard air warfare is still very valid and more likely be done against smaller countries, not just US/Russia/China.

 

If Russia has 10's of thousand Km of border to cover they'd need few hundreds fighters to be able to defend any part of this border.

[Pilotasso]

Large scale air wars do hapen. Even if one side is lopsided. All recent conflicts had thousands of planes deployed. In Israel no so long ago there were battles where close to 100 planes being shot down in very short period of time (hours).

 

Most NATO members dont have airforces that large. They would be wiped out in a day if used isolated. Any medium sized conflict between modern nations will see a substancial number of planes shot down. Its not a WWI romance. Its a real possibility.

[LaRata]

How many Su-35 are in service in comparision to normal F-15s?

 

IndianAF Su-30UB Win over The F-15C in Aero India 2005 ...

 

LaRata

[Pilotasso]

Aero India is an airshow not an exercise. You mean cope India. Indians "won" because they dictated the rules of engagement. Both "sides" claimed superiority in red flag. So go figure.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Groove]

This thread is getting better and better every day! WTG! :cheer3nc:

[topol-m]

IndianAF Su-30UB Win over The F-15C in Aero India 2005 ...

 

LaRata

 

 

Oh boy! I remember several years ago when a russian test pilot of Sukhoi Design Bureau flying Su-37 invited any foreign pilot with any fighter chosen to a demonstrational air fight but no one showed. Hehe cowards.

[GGTharos]

Perhaps you should remember that all country militaries (including the one your test pilot's from) have a policy of 'No DACT' unless in a particular exercise.

 

That DACT allegedly did happen in '08, and Su-30's got owned by non-TVC F-15C's.

 

Oh boy! I remember several years ago when a russian test pilot of Sukhoi Design Bureau flying Su-37 invited any foreign pilot with any fighter chosen to a demonstrational air fight but no one showed. Hehe cowards.

[topol-m]

Perhaps you should remember that all country militaries (including the one your test pilot's from) have a policy of 'No DACT' unless in a particular exercise.

 

That DACT allegedly did happen in '08, and Su-30's got owned by non-TVC F-15C's.

 

And who was piloting that Su-30 some indonezian rookie probably? And what exactly it got owned at?