Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: dy031101 on February 12, 2012, 01:24:58 PM
-
The discussion with production F-17 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=790.msg8455#msg8455) makes me wonder about one thing- did GE compete for the engine to be used by the F-15? If they did, what engine did they enter the competition with?
========================================================
Nevertheless, even though it couldn't be the YJ101 or F404 that GE competed for the F-15's engines with, I feel tempted to think of a F-15 powered by a cluster of three of these turbofans, too......
-
I don't know if there was any original competing engine, although in recent years the F-15 has been available with the GE F110 engine. Variants with this so far include the F-15K, SG and updated S versions.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/RSAF_Boeing_F-15SG_Strike_Eagle_DRW_Butler.jpg)
(http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/images/stories/illustrations/export/f15k/overview_engines.jpg)
-
One concept I am toying with is the idea of an F-15 fitted with a probe & drogue air-to-air refuelling arrangement. Either for the proposed F-15N or as an option for export versions.
-
Another could be a VG wing onto an F-15 body. Bit of a twist from the usual 'normal' wing on a VG machine.
Regards,
John
-
I'd think the F-15 would look quite fetching with a cranked arrow delta wing configuration, like the F-16XL.
-
One concept I am toying with is the idea of an F-15 fitted with a probe & drogue air-to-air refuelling arrangement. Either for the proposed F-15N or as an option for export versions.
I've been doing a bit of doodling on that for a navalized F-15 (I'm calling it a F-15M since someone took the F-15N designation on another board for a VG navalized F-15) and it looks like I could handily replace the flying boom receptacle with a probe & drogue set-up that would use much the same real estate. Contra-wise, I've found enough now to reverse that for a F-14 for USAF use.
-
One concept I am toying with is the idea of an F-15 fitted with a probe & drogue air-to-air refuelling arrangement. Either for the proposed F-15N or as an option for export versions.
I've been doing a bit of doodling on that for a navalized F-15 (I'm calling it a F-15M since someone took the F-15N designation on another board for a VG navalized F-15) and it looks like I could handily replace the flying boom receptacle with a probe & drogue set-up that would use much the same real estate. Contra-wise, I've found enough now to reverse that for a F-14 for USAF use.
I've been contemplating the very same set-up for my AV-19 build Evan, seeing as the Marines favour that type of refueling system. I had wondered if the probe would be too far back though, or is there something that would extend the probe far enough forward to be seen easily from the cockpit.
-
I don't think you can extend it forward enough and have it fit the available "real estate". My F-15M was going to be a two-seater and the GIB could help with watching the probe and drogue. In your case, would the probe be that much farther aft than it is on the current Harrier?
-
The discussion with production F-17 ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=790.msg8455#msg8455[/url]) makes me wonder about one thing- did GE compete for the engine to be used by the F-15? If they did, what engine did they enter the competition with?
I believe the naval version of the GE engine in the original competition was the F400 but I'm not totally certain (it *has* been some 40 years after all). I know P&W competed in the B-1 competition with an engine with the internal designation JTF20 and the F100/F401 family was the JTF22 but I don't know the GE designations any closer.
-
I don't think you can extend it forward enough and have it fit the available "real estate". My F-15M was going to be a two-seater and the GIB could help with watching the probe and drogue. In your case, would the probe be that much farther aft than it is on the current Harrier?
Considering that my AV-19 is heavily influenced by the F-15, I had done a lot of viewing of F-15 pic's, the seat position in the AV-19 is a bit closer to the wing root fairing of an F-15, but then I moved the wing root back a bit on the AV-19 so looks about the same distance to where the recepticule is. I think though we could have some sort of extender working in the probe mechanism but I was really wondering just how much.
-
A telescoping front end, with a mechanism that extends it when the probe is extended would work. As I remember, the inflight refueling probes on various rotary-winged platforms are actuated forward for refueling to get the drogue farther away from the rotor disk so there might be something there. I don't think I'd want to use too many extensions, though, as I'd be concerned about structural integrity if there were too many sections.
-
Sometime in midst of F-22 and F-35 budget issues I read that Boeing proposed a USAF "F-15 on steriods" as the article said. A lower cost yet high performance alternative or suplement to the others. What I read did not give specifics.
Bill
-
A telescoping front end, with a mechanism that extends it when the probe is extended would work. As I remember, the inflight refueling probes on various rotary-winged platforms are actuated forward for refueling to get the drogue farther away from the rotor disk so there might be something there. I don't think I'd want to use too many extensions, though, as I'd be concerned about structural integrity if there were too many sections.
I was thinking of doing a set up similar to either the Tornado (my preferred):
(http://www.arcair.com/awa01/001-100/awa046-Tornado/part3/images_Ross_Spenard/tornado2.jpg)
Or F-18:
(http://www.arcair.com/awa01/501-600/awa565-F-18-Lu/12.jpg)
Or telescoped helicopter wise from the existing refueling port.
Either way, the need would be to get the probe in the pilot's eye sight. Obviously for the first two options, it would need to be on the same side as the real world point to aid simplicity of piping etc.
Regards,
Greg
-
Don't ignore or overlook the refueling probe attached to a fuel tank. There are several variations on that theme including one that has a telescoping probe that is stowed in the fuel tank when not in use. I downloaded a couple of images of one that was based on the fuel tank used on the F-16.
-
Don't ignore or overlook the refueling probe attached to a fuel tank. There are several variations on that theme including one that has a telescoping probe that is stowed in the fuel tank when not in use. I downloaded a couple of images of one that was based on the fuel tank used on the F-16.
That would be this one:
(http://airrefuelingarchive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/vista_arts.jpg)
(http://airrefuelingarchive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/f-16-vista-sargent-fletcher-art-s-pod.jpg)
(http://airrefuelingarchive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/sargent-fletcher-art-s-pod-aerial-refueling-tank.jpg)
I did consider, but it isn't as elegant as a aircraft mounted probe.
-
With regard to the IFR probe, I'd bypass the telescoping aspect completely and go for a shorter swing out probe like you see on the Sepecat Jaguar:
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/sepecat-jaguar.jpg)
net photo
Or F-105
(http://www.passion-aviation.qc.ca/images/wotr/f105_2.jpg)
net photo
I don't really see a reason to put any more hydraulics than are really required into it.
-
My initial plan was to use the existing refueling position of the F-15 but then I thought the probe would be 'out-of-view'. Using an F-18 set-up was considered but the way I've positioned the cockpit (right where the gun would be) sort of nulified that, but I like that Jaguar set up Upnorth posted, that would work for my project.
-
My initial plan was to use the existing refueling position of the F-15 but then I thought the probe would be 'out-of-view'.
Same here. The reason I am tending towards the Tornado style is that it also makes it more obvious that this is a later add-on.
-
If you want the probe tucked away, but still see some evidence of it, have you considered the set ups of the Su-24 and Su-27 IFR probes?
-
Good ideas Upnorth :) but I think I want to keep the solution more towards a McD one or at the very least, Western World.
The Jaguar system would work very well, but I think I'll try moving the F-18 probe opening around and down the side under the windshield edge first. I think there's enough room there.
-
If you want the probe tucked away, but still see some evidence of it, have you considered the set ups of the Su-24 and Su-27 IFR probes?
Yep another valid option:
(http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/misc_pics/Su-30MKI_01.jpg)
I think I am going to go with the Tornado style for now put maybe also have the stander boon receptacle left there - theory being that both options are able to be accommodated...
-
I think I am going to go with the Tornado style for now put maybe also have the stander boon receptacle left there - theory being that both options are able to be accommodated...
Hey, why not? It worked for the Thud. :)
-
Does it need to be retractable? If it doesn't have to be, you could go for a fixed probe à la Mirage F.1 or 2000. Or maybe even a bolt-on affair like the probe the Israelis used on their F-4s?
Something different:
THIS PRESENTATION (http://www.boeing.com/singapore2012/pdf/0214_f15.pdf) for the Singapore Airshow 2012 was linked to in a thread on ARC. Looks like they intend to use weapon stations 1 and 9, the outboard stations under the wings, again. IIRC, these were always there, but there hasn't been any need for them yet.
-
If you really wanted a simple adaptation, how about a probe assembly that's fixed to the airframe and fits into the existing boom connection?
-
Maybe something akin to the EE Lightning's probe?
(http://v5.cache6.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2981035.jpg)
-
If you really wanted a simple adaptation, how about a probe assembly that's fixed to the airframe and fits into the existing boom connection?
Not necessarily simple Evan, just something that will retracted in the space available and be visible to the pilot when extended. And of course Western derived --
Most of the 'bolt-on' probes always look to me like the designers and engineers forgot something, or (as more likely the case) it wasn't a requirement when the aircraft was designed, then after it was like, 'err! we can't go anywhere without one'.
Much in case was the original Harrier probe, then they got a bit clever with the second adaption. The Lightning probe though was totally 'hind-sight' to me and looks quite ugly.
My AV-19 would be third generation (maybe forth) so I think the bolt-on or just stick-out probe would be a thing of the past.
-
Don't ignore or overlook the refueling probe attached to a fuel tank. There are several variations on that theme including one that has a telescoping probe that is stowed in the fuel tank when not in use. I downloaded a couple of images of one that was based on the fuel tank used on the F-16.
That would be this one:
([url]http://airrefuelingarchive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/vista_arts.jpg[/url])
([url]http://airrefuelingarchive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/f-16-vista-sargent-fletcher-art-s-pod.jpg[/url])
([url]http://airrefuelingarchive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/sargent-fletcher-art-s-pod-aerial-refueling-tank.jpg[/url])
I did consider, but it isn't as elegant as a aircraft mounted probe.
I was just thinking (ow, ow, ow!): One could potentially adapt this type of setup (see above) into the F-15's FAST packs:
(http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/FAST-packs.jpg)
-
What about this sort of solution?
(http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/5/2bc36c6b-b9b6-4f11-a5fe-7a2585b98d73.Large.jpg)
net photo
I'd think you could just modify the existing F-15 IFR hatch to hinge to the side and install the telescoping tube into the existing fuel receptacle.
I think there'd be the room for it and it looks a whole lote more elegant than that fuel tank mounted idea to me.
-
That is certainly elegant.
-
Looks realistic. Not out of place. :)
-
I could see both systems for your AV-19, since it's a new design and you want to see to as many customers as possible (theoretically, you could do a dual system version of the F-35A with very little difficulty as the probe bay area is left empty on the current F-35A). Now, my F-15M will likely get a telescoping probe that also rotates up a bit from the wing plane, but I'm wanting something that'll work with the existing F-15 fuel system without a lot of extra plumbing being added.
Just a thought for someone doing a Phantom II what-if, there's no reason you couldn't build a variant of that with both USAF and USN inflight refueling systems. It might look interesting on something derived from a F-4E/F.
-
I could see both systems for your AV-19, since it's a new design and you want to see to as many customers as possible
Ah! now there's a thought, I was wondering what I could use the space for in the original refueling position. I didn't realise the F-35A had duel-refueling capability. I think that's how it will go --- thanks Evan, that's two ideas you've given me now, I was getting a bit of 'tunnel' vision there for a while ---
-
It's not that the F-35A does have dual capability but that a dual capability could be done without over much difficulty (the "real estate" is available as forward fuselage systems installations are common across all three variants - I was very actively involved in that - and the probe area was deliberately left empty on the F-35A). There is, of course, a bit of a penalty in weight and cost, but that's up to the purchaser to do the trade off.
-
Off on a different tangent - artists's impression of a Patriot SAM armed F-15:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/new%20one/Patriot15.jpg)
-
Off on a different tangent - artists's impression of a Patriot SAM armed F-15:
'Twould definitely fit that old advertising slogan for ATT Long Distance, "Reach out and touch someone!"
-
Before the Silent Eagle there was this:
(http://dc391.4shared.com/img/O9YLIMjN/s7/F15XX.jpg)
-
Which got me wondering...
... any possibility of mounting low-observable pods of some sort for ASRAAMs under the intakes (used for LANTIRN pods on F-15E), in addition to adopting the Silent Eagle's AMRAAM FAST Packs?
-
Actually, I was thinking of the new L-O centerline pod for the Super Hornet on the F-15's centerline and wing pylons; possibly with a special variant for the centerline with additional sensors (this has been proposed). Add that to the SIlent Eagle's versions of the FASTPACs. I suspect you could take a few measures to reduce the signature of the inlets and engine faces also.
-
Found this cool 1/72 F-15 build while looking for something completely different....
(http://pds2.egloos.com/pds/1/200607/23/52/a0011752_22463617.jpg)
SOURCE (http://xtal.egloos.com/1375908) (with two more pics of this build)
I guess this was heavily inpired by the F-15 in "Patlabor: The Movie 2".
-
Silent Eagle eat your heart out! :)
-
Pops to mind --- Patriot SAM armed B-1 Missileer.
-
Pops to mind --- Patriot SAM armed B-1 Missileer.
Not far from this topic, ALHTK (Air Launched Hit-To-Kill) PAC-3 for F-15
http://youtu.be/OnVHEmROaMM (http://youtu.be/OnVHEmROaMM)
http://youtu.be/zpFkYmwh0SQ (http://youtu.be/zpFkYmwh0SQ)
Rafa
-
Recon F-15:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/scan0011.jpg)
-
Recon F-15:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/scan0011.jpg[/url])
A different pod was studied and flight tested on 71-0291 for the "Peek Eagle" program. The pod looked like a stretched version of the F-14 recce pod mounted conformally on the centerline. Going by the data in the first two Aerofax F-15 books on the sensor fit, you could easily model it by splicing two F-14 pods together. I'm strongly thinking of doing some F-15D's to have an auxiliary recce role with such a pod, conformal tanks, and, possibly, LATRIN or similar navigation aids.
-
Some SEAgles:
(http://homepage3.nifty.com/8bee/f15n11.jpg)
(http://hyperion.mystarship.com/models/Categorized/North%20America/USA/USN%20F-15N/f-15n-3.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/volzj/F-15N03.jpg)
(http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/images/f15ndr_1.jpg)
-
Some SEAgles......
Don't you make me go through all the trouble of pasting together another Shipbucket graph just to put the SEAgle in pic #1 and #3 on a ship, dang it! >:D
-
Some SEAgles:
That first one is pretty close to the F-15M series I'm working on, mainly in 1/144 and 1/72.
-
The thought occurred to me, with Japan looking to replace their F-4EJ's, how about F-15EJ's incorporating all the latest upgrades, possibly even a variation of the Silent Eagle?
-
I must admit that had Japan been a little faster in their selection process, then the F-15EJ to the latest standard (ala the Korean or Singaporean birds) would have been my first choice. Mind you, I am very happy that they have gone with the F-35. ;)
-
an almost was, Iran had orders in place for both the F.15 and F.16 til the fall of the Shah ...
cheers, Joe
-
:)
-
(http://dc373.4shared.com/img/EZJAZYwR/s7/_2__AdvInt.jpg)
-
Note the HARMs:
(http://dc363.4shared.com/img/Ubec0QGR/s7/DefenceSuppression.jpg)
-
(http://dc124.4shared.com/img/x1hrVBu6/s7/F-15U_FR1294.jpg)
-
(http://dc338.4shared.com/img/3HZuPw1O/s7/FAST-packs.jpg)
-
Very subtle Jose, me likey 8)
Greg, makes you wonder why those fast packs haven't been tested/used in real life, or have they?
-
Probably a multitude of reasons why - some sensible, some not. One you could add is a FAST pack with a retractable probe refuelling 'attachment' ...similar to what I already posted back at Reply # 26 (http://forums.phpfreaks.com/Smileys/nrg_alpha/anim_face_wall.gif)
-
([url]http://dc338.4shared.com/img/3HZuPw1O/s7/FAST-packs.jpg[/url])
FedEx/DHL/UPS Delivery Eagle with the critical cargo FAST Packs and a pair of those COD pods (from the US-3 Viking) under the wings for the ultimate in speedy delivery.
-
([url]http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww37/jmsfbip/JAS38-Viggle-JASDF.jpg[/url])
Brilliant
-
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-15-F111_02.jpg)
Note: fuselage has been widened.
-
Different...
-
How about a 1/144th scale F-15SE? Already painted with markings for the JSDFAF.
More here at the product information page for the Tomytec 1/144th scale pre-painted F-15SE Silent Eagle kit (Gimix series AC12) (http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10121236)
Click on thumbnail image or html to view product information page.
(http://www.1999.co.jp/itbig12/10121236.jpg) (http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10121236)
The price is a bit steep but if you absolutely have to have an F-15SE and are not concerned with what it will cost then this is your chance :)
-
^ I've got one of their F-15Js (the still somewhat whiffy version with an IRST) and an RF-4EJ Kai (F-4EJ with recon pods). Very, very nice kits. Easily the best F-15s (apart from Revell's F-15E) F-4s in the scale. If only they'd sell them as proper (unpainted) kits at half the price.....
-
This is probably going to come across as complete heresy to real F-15 fans, but it has always left me cold from a looks standpoint without the FAST packs fitted. Without those to give it some curves, it was just a bit too slab sided to me.
I would love to see the F-15 with more curves and blending in the design.
-
([url]http://dc338.4shared.com/img/3HZuPw1O/s7/FAST-packs.jpg[/url])
Anyone have any further material on these concepts? I've been considering a pair of "Conformal Booster Rockets" for a WHIF, and was thinking the Augmented Thrust pack might be a start if I could lay hands on more data and several extra parts to try to kitbash it from.
-
Another crazy idea... is it feasible to add shoulder rails to Station 5 (centerline) like on 2/8 and are proposed for the SA and SE on 1/9?
-
Another crazy idea... is it feasible to add shoulder rails to Station 5 (centerline) like on 2/8 and are proposed for the SA and SE on 1/9?
I'm thinking that clearance issues, both with surrounding structure and with the ground might cause problems there. I could see a "triple-rack" of three LAU-138s, but not shoulder mounts and any substantive centerline store. Personally, I intend to do one with a "Peak Eagle" recce pod there. Going by the data in the first two Aerofax books on the F-15, I can get it by combining two of the F-14's recce pods and there's a gorgeous picture of the testbed in Soaring Eagles.
-
(http://www.sdwaypoint.us/pics/F-15-XX.jpg)
-
Next question, is wingtip-to-wingtip BOL's overkill in the countermeasure department? And is the old "stinger" between the afterburners on the early A/B's strong enough to support a tail-mounted Rear Warning Radar or an optical sensor for DAS?
-
Next question, is wingtip-to-wingtip BOL's overkill in the countermeasure department? And is the old "stinger" between the afterburners on the early A/B's strong enough to support a tail-mounted Rear Warning Radar or an optical sensor for DAS?
As long as you can control when they are released, no. Better too much than not enough. As to your second question, you might fit a Rear Warning Radar there but I sincerely doubt you'd fit a DAS sensor there, there doesn't appear to be near adequate volume, let alone adequate stiffened volume. Those sensors require a very sturdy mounting and certain installations in the F-35 require "interesting" structure to mount them with all the other considerations involved and you have both electrical and cooling fluid installations to worry about with DAS.
-
([url]http://www.sdwaypoint.us/pics/F-15-XX.jpg[/url])
This, plus the drawings for the navalized version were the basis of my F-15M concept. I've got most of the bits to do it in 1/144 and 1/72 and, maybe, even one in 1/48.
-
A possibility that was pushed: West German F-15s in the '80s. Instead of F-4Fs and Tornadoes.
-
A possibility that was pushed: West German F-15s in the '80s. Instead of F-4Fs and Tornadoes.
And if you'll take fictional inspiration, the Polish F-15s from Larry Bond's Cauldron.
-
I have a stalled US Marines/navy F-15 E sat at the back of my bench, this has a retrofitted A-4 skyhawk refueling prob fitted to the right side of the forward fuselage, with a fared in connector pipe plumbed into where the original receptacle was. I have also done some F-16's for use by the Marines and navy for use in my Honduras task force. The reason they have these aircraft is that a lot of the navy and Marines a/c are still deployed to Afghanistan, and the F-15/16 were dragged out of Davis Monthan AFB, dusted off and retro fitted with the relevant stuff. I also have some A-7's dragged out of the nursing home and up-engined, as well as being given the ability to use modern weaponry. One F-16 is a SUFA and is now a US Marines bomb truck, also fitted with a IFR probe.
Chris
-
I have a stalled US Marines/navy F-15 E sat at the back of my bench, this has a retrofitted A-4 skyhawk refueling prob fitted to the right side of the forward fuselage, with a fared in connector pipe plumbed into where the original receptacle was. I have also done some F-16's for use by the Marines and navy for use in my Honduras task force. The reason they have these aircraft is that a lot of the navy and Marines a/c are still deployed to Afghanistan, and the F-15/16 were dragged out of Davis Monthan AFB, dusted off and retro fitted with the relevant stuff. I also have some A-7's dragged out of the nursing home and up-engined, as well as being given the ability to use modern weaponry. One F-16 is a SUFA and is now a US Marines bomb truck, also fitted with a IFR probe.
My only concern there would be that the F-15's probe would interfere with the gun on the right hand side. If you kept it clear of the muzzle, it should work.
-
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g77/Mlodj/F-15inCanadianmarkings.jpg)
-
The F-15XX is a real world proposal?
In theory, what was the top speed if only engine development occurred? Where this is going is the possibility of building up a high speed Israeli Strike Eagle/Recce to deal with current conflicts both near and far.
-
I think that, barring material replacement, Mach 2.8 with short excursions to Mach 3 is the best a F-15 airframe can do. Mind you, with material replacements to take the higher temp and the turbo-ramjet engines P&W was scheming as a JTF22 (in-house model number for all F100/F401 derivatives) development, you could probably go faster still.
-
Evan, this is an app where the F120-derived RTA1 Turbine-Based Combined Cycle (from low-bypass fan to turbojet to turboramjet, maybe even a pure ramjet mode for cherry on top) might have worked. Don't recall where, but I seem to recall having seen estimates that it could push an F-15- to F-22-size aircraft up to 4.1 (given airframe strength and heat tolerance), which might be where the crowd who did the Ace Combat series got their ideas.
Titanium and high-temp composites using the same structural engineering?
-
That I'd find believable. Pushing the envelope, but believable. That Turbine-Based Combine Cycle isn't that new, P&W was looking at it for a JTF22 variant back in 1974 but I don't think it got beyond paper. And, yes, a pure ramjet mode was part of it, closing off the core and using the bypass duct for the ramjet. Doing it now with a F120 starting point would be quite feasible, though I think I'd prefer to start with a developed F119 since that was something of a combined cycle engine already.
-
Evan, I thought YF120 was the combined-cycle and F119 the more conventional... and while I don't know about P&W actively developing new derivatives of the engine, I know GE is or at least was--denial about losing, or just looking to try to recover some of the F120 development cost?
As much as I PREFER P&W for crewdog maintenance reasons, GE is a little farther down the road to a 5th-Gen Fighter TBCC powerplant at this moment...
-
Evan, I thought YF120 was the combined-cycle and F119 the more conventional... and while I don't know about P&W actively developing new derivatives of the engine, I know GE is or at least was--denial about losing, or just looking to try to recover some of the F120 development cost?
As much as I PREFER P&W for crewdog maintenance reasons, GE is a little farther down the road to a 5th-Gen Fighter TBCC powerplant at this moment...
Okay, I may have mis-remembered there. You may well be right. The funny thing is, the best performing ATF demonstrator was the YF-23 with the GE engines. I understand why the F-22 was chosen (DOD was not impressed with Northrop's management at the time - can't say I totally blame them) but I'm still not certain why the P&W engine was chosen. BTW, given recent problems with the F135 engine, the ones that grounded the entire F-35 fleet, I'd argue that the F136 was killed too soon.
In any case, I do know that P&W was studying combined-cycle JTF22 derivatives in 1974 (they even appeared in a novel a few years later). Mind you, P&W's FLorida R&D Center couldn't do everything, not even they could make the XFV-12's engine installation work in augmented wing mode.
-
BTW, given recent problems with the F135 engine, the ones that grounded the entire F-35 fleet, I'd argue that the F136 was killed too soon.
Having spoken with P&W these last few days, I wouldn't be too concerned re the F135... ;). Mind you, personally I must admit that I preferred working with the F136 guys/gals when they were still in the game.
-
Someday I'd hoped to build a Strike Eagle with significant anti satellite capabilities.
-
Define "Significant"... one of my goals with the SE(Special) mod is to hang three to seven Aegis-derived Next-Gen ASATs off its pylons (centerline and one under each wing plus maybe two each on the CFT's) so each of the four aircraft (one manned, three ACAV's) could wreak havoc on a small satellite constellation, or all four deployed together could significantly degrade an enemy's regional space-based capabilities.
-
Significant: my idea was much lighter duty than yours! ;D ;D
-
Of course, since the three ACAV's would be packing ridiculously powerful onboard computers, doing an ASAT zoom-climb and then tight-band transmitting a virus straight into a target satellite's onboard computers, or possibly delivering an EMP attack via the AESA's, might be possible too... especially since one of the AI's has a bitchy streak and another's a prankster. LOL
Note: ACAV = Autonomous Combat Air Vehicle, essentially the only need for a human in the loop is to authorize weapons arm and give a final go/no-go for attack, otherwise the machine is completely self-sufficient including communicating with tankers and maintenance troops on the ground, kinda like a Skynet H-K in the Terminatorverse.
-
Define "Significant"... one of my goals with the SE(Special) mod is to hang three to seven Aegis-derived Next-Gen ASATs off its pylons (centerline and one under each wing plus maybe two each on the CFT's) so each of the four aircraft (one manned, three ACAV's) could wreak havoc on a small satellite constellation, or all four deployed together could significantly degrade an enemy's regional space-based capabilities.
Check out the image back at Reply #33
-
Bit heavy, Greg... (Am I correct that that's an entire Patriot not just the upper stage?) I was thinking of the final stages of an SM-6 like how the SM-2 upper-stage body became the STARM/Seekbat and the captive-carry ASAT shape for testing with the F-106 as Project Spike.
-
Fair enough...it really depends on how high a satellite you are after.
-
Fair enough...it really depends on how high a satellite you are after.
True, if you're going after one in GEO, you really need to use a surface-launched ASAT. I rather liked the ship-launched one used against an Argie satelleit in Choosers of the Slain.
-
Did any 1:48 F-15 get issued with an ASAT missile?
-
Did any 1:48 F-15 get issued with an ASAT missile?
Hasegawa made a limited edition one and I believe the early Academy Strike Eagle kits have a somewhat rudimentary one. I don't know if their later versions retained it.
-
I've got the manuals for the Academy OIF -E, -I and -K (bought two I's as parts donors), and none of the 2nd-gen kits have the ASAT.
-
Did any 1:48 F-15 get issued with an ASAT missile?
Only two that I know of, Academy with a very misshapen ASAT shape and the much more expensive and harder to find Hasegawa F-15A with ASAT. The Hasegawa ASAT shape looks much more like the real thing with the additional benefit of including 318th Fighter Squadron markings for one of the units that was to carry the weapon in real life. The ASAT shape in the Academy F-15 kits does look kindasortalike the ASAT but a bit overweight and out of shape. The Academy ASAT could be used for a multitude of what-if projects other than an ASAT. Most of the early Academy F-15 kits (fighter and strike eagle) contained this ASAT shape while Hasegawa only offered it in the one special release kit box.
-
i believe one of the US manufacturers offered it. Monogram? Revell? AMT? Something like like that, in a special boxing IIRC.
-
Two Mikes does (?did) a 1:48 ASAT. I happened to stumble across it on Facebook just yesterday while perusing some models built in the Eastern Bloc.
-
i believe one of the US manufacturers offered it. Monogram? Revell? AMT? Something like like that, in a special boxing IIRC.
ESCI/AMT-Ertl 1:72nd scale F-15 with ASAT and 318th FIS markings.
-
Two Mikes does (?did) a 1:48 ASAT. I happened to stumble across it on Facebook just yesterday while perusing some models built in the Eastern Bloc.
That is news to me and nice to know. Certainly cheaper than trying to find and purchase the Hasegawa kit.
-
Two Mikes does (?did) a 1:48 ASAT. I happened to stumble across it on Facebook just yesterday while perusing some models built in the Eastern Bloc.
That is news to me and nice to know. Certainly cheaper than trying to find and purchase the Hasegawa kit.
Unfortunately they don't appear to be listed anymore on the TwoMikes Website (http://www.twomikesresin.com/index1.html)
-
:(
-
Indeed - there I was ready to place an order. :icon_sueno:
-
Speaking of ASATs...
14 Photos:
http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=ASAT&chk=6cfe0&sel=1000&n=30 (http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=ASAT&chk=6cfe0&sel=1000&n=30)
Click the icon of the box with the downward pointing arrow to download the high-res versions.
Sample:
(http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imageRetrieve.action?guid=8d095563fb10f179acb4b545752b3425f86b0c6d&t=1&w=538&h=538)
-
if anyone needs one, my local stash has, buried somewhere in it, some of the 1st gen Academy kits with the rudimentary ASAT.
And, for those familiar with my situation, it is the local stash selection, not the remote southern stash that's some 100 miles south of here.
-
i believe one of the US manufacturers offered it. Monogram? Revell? AMT? Something like like that, in a special boxing IIRC.
ESCI/AMT-Ertl 1:72nd scale F-15 with ASAT and 318th FIS markings.
I suspected it was 1/72 but wasn't sure. I knew someone had done one along the way.
-
Two Mikes does (?did) a 1:48 ASAT. I happened to stumble across it on Facebook just yesterday while perusing some models built in the Eastern Bloc.
Hannants have some of these in stock still.
-
Why are the Eagle's wing tips not used for missile rails or pods?
-
Why are the Eagle's wing tips not used for missile rails or pods?
Well, they weren't needed when it was first designed and then flight tests showed that the trimmed back tips the production aircraft have were better than the squared-off tips of the prototypes (not sure if there was a drag penalty or some other complication).
-
Is there any real world airborne Patriot missile (or other) delivery system for the Eagle/Strike Eagle?
Given the current deployment of land based missile interceptors to counter potential N. Korean threats to my community, it got me wondering. And if yes, would that make the Strike Eagle both a bomber and an anti bomber?
-
I believe there've been some studies that way but I don't know of any hardware tests, at least not in the unclassified arena.
-
Would such a thing require a Strike Eagle or would a F-15C suffice?
The 142nd TFW is just to my right during my morning's commute, a few friends/acquaintances work there, and as I was cleaning in the storage area of the house today 3 Hasegawa F-15s were found that I must have bought in the mid-1990s. :). Serendipity?
-
F-15C's would probably do, though I can see them being upgraded to "Golden Eagles" with AESA radar and uprated engines.
If any of those Hasegawa kits are the original prototype issue wit the squared-off wingtips, I'd be interested in a trade of production wings for those.
-
No square wingtips...sorry. 2 F-15J kits and a Streak Eagle.
-
*shrug* It was a slim chance, but worth it as I need the square-cut wings for my navalized F-15s with wingtip IRAAMs.
-
Is there any real world airborne Patriot missile (or other) delivery system for the Eagle/Strike Eagle?
Given the current deployment of land based missile interceptors to counter potential N. Korean threats to my community, it got me wondering. And if yes, would that make the Strike Eagle both a bomber and an anti bomber?
I swear that I saw some concept drawings of PAC-3s being launched from an Eagle. Boxy looking thing under the wing.
Wait. Quick google finds this. Modified standard 600gal tank?
http://images2.china.com/mili/zh_cn/news2/569/20090630/2009063009263680578100.jpg (http://images2.china.com/mili/zh_cn/news2/569/20090630/2009063009263680578100.jpg)
-
I notice from a recent issue of Combat AIrcraft that the JASDF is looking at an indigenous design for an IRST to fit the F-15J-Kai. I wonder how that'd look mated to a Golden Eagle upgrade of existing F-15C/D's or new-builds of [i[SIlent Eagle[/i]?
-
^ Here's how it looks. THIS ARTICLE (http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/04/02/f-15j-da-asdf-com-flir/) has a few more pics. IIRC, this trial aircraft's been flying for a couple of years now.
(http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/F-15J-ASDF-FLIR-1.jpg)
-
Dusting this one off and adding an idea... if you put the "stinger" of the F-15A/B back on and joined it with a dorsal spine like an F-16I Sufa... might it be possible to mount not just a tail warning radar like Super Flanker but a full-fledged rear ATTACK radar so you could take potshots at tailgaters??
-
Would certainly look interesting.
-
How abot a F-15 in SE Asia camo scheme...or even a Sth Veitnamese F-15?
-
There you go!
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/F-15C-armed_SEA-finalwo_Shark.png)
And here's one a couple of years later in SEA wrap-around camo.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/F-15C-armed_SEA-wrap-finalshark.png)
-
Beautiful!! They do suggest a follow-on of a Strike Eagle in SE Asian night scheme with the black underside. Which leads me to wondering how the "Asia Minor" scheme would look on USAF, HAF< or TUrkish AIr Force F-15's.
-
Dusting this one off and adding an idea... if you put the "stinger" of the F-15A/B back on and joined it with a dorsal spine like an F-16I Sufa... might it be possible to mount not just a tail warning radar like Super Flanker but a full-fledged rear ATTACK radar so you could take potshots at tailgaters??
As an alternative, perhaps a lidar installation so they wouldn't even know they're being painted until a missile comes roaring back at them?
-
SEA uppers and black belly would look great. Maybe even with red stencils?
An Asia Minor Eagle I did, but in Iranian markings.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/F-15C-armed_Iran_AsiaMinor.png)
-
Dusting this one off and adding an idea... if you put the "stinger" of the F-15A/B back on and joined it with a dorsal spine like an F-16I Sufa... might it be possible to mount not just a tail warning radar like Super Flanker but a full-fledged rear ATTACK radar so you could take potshots at tailgaters??
As an alternative, perhaps a lidar installation so they wouldn't even know they're being painted until a missile comes roaring back at them?
Devious... you, sir, are a certified Evil Bastard. I knew there was a reason I liked you... :)
-
Good man Moritz! :)
-
Useful bit of data for anyone doing a build with Stations 1/9 installed: Per Boeing via one of the guys at ARC if memory serves, the outboards are only rated for 1000lb. Each LAU-128 adds 87#, so...
IF we assume an AIM-9X load...
376# = 2x AIM-9X
174# = 2x LAU-128
???# = 2x ADU-552 rail adapter
------------------
550# missiles and launchers means you're looking at about 450# available for A-G stores. Maybe a LAU-117+Maverick...
-
Why are the Eagle's wing tips not used for missile rails or pods?
Well, they weren't needed when it was first designed and then flight tests showed that the trimmed back tips the production aircraft have were better than the squared-off tips of the prototypes (not sure if there was a drag penalty or some other complication).
I seem to recall it was flutter, but don't hold me to that.....
-
Land a F-15 at PDX's south runway and damage it so badly the runway needs closed. After closing the runway, land another F -15 on the north runway and catch fire closing tat runway too.
Wait! That doesn't belong here......it is what really happened on 6-6-13.
-
Land a F-15 at PDX's south runway and damage it so badly the runway needs closed. After closing the runway, land another F -15 on the north runway and catch fire closing tat runway too.
Wait! That doesn't belong here......it is what really happened on 6-6-13.
Not quite what this report says Daryl ---
http://www.koin.com/2013/06/06/airplane-blows-2-tires-on-pdx-landing/ (http://www.koin.com/2013/06/06/airplane-blows-2-tires-on-pdx-landing/)
-
They omitted that the south runway construction closure is to repair F -15 caused damage. :icon_crap: We love our OR ANG Eagles here but they are getting old. :(
And we have been lobbying to get some custom painted tails on one or two, but to no avail. ;D
-
F-15 target drone...
-
F-15 target drone...
Aren't they all? ;D
[Grabs hat, coat, departs...]
-
Dedicated recce variant for countries who did not have access to satellite intel say from 1988-2000 or so.
-
Dedicated recce variant for countries who did not have access to satellite intel say from 1988-2000 or so.
Or production F-15D's modified on the line to be capable of using the recce pod developed under the Peek Eagle tests. The pod's easy enough to do by combining two F-14 TARPS pods. Soaring Eagles has a beautiful picture of the testbed in flight and some of the early Aerofax F-15 books have good details on the pod itself.
-
Well, the SA and SE are probably NOT using the old -A SUU-61 pylons for STN's 1/9... I just got my Hasegawa "A" (really a C with some backdating parts) and mocked it up, and for the shoulder rails they show the SE and proposals for SA having, the pylon needs to be at least as deep as the inboard SUU-59s.
I'm not even sure there'd be clearance for two AIM-9X or AIM-120 using a Dual Rail Adapter hung off the SUU-61... which would would really only need clearance for the upper fins.
EDIT: taking measurements confirms it. In 1/48, the SUU-59 is 6.5mm from wing lower surface to the centerline of the ADU-552's, while the SUU-61 is only 5mm to its bottom surface. Measuring from the top of the pylon at the wing LE to the bottom, SUU-59 is 12mm tall, -61 only 5, which says it needs to be upscaled by a factor of 2.5 in the vertical axis, or replaced with a longitudinally-reduced SUU-59 derivative.
-
Those who control the seas control everything.
F-15E Strike Eagles carrying extended range Harpoons for a land based anti-shipping role. Bases will include the massive Dwight D. Eisenhower air base known as the Interstate system along the US west coast.
-
The way California maintains their highways? There's better bases out there.
-
;D
-
I wouldn't base a Fieseler Storch on some of the Kommiefornia highways I've had to endure on vacation. LOL
-
There is a rumor the F-15s heading to the Saudis have strengthened outer wings and functioning stations 1 and 9.
-
ISTR that it was in the contract, but have yet to see any photos with Stn 1/9 fitted.
-
What if synthesis between contenders?
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-15_F16XL.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-15_F16XL.jpeg.html)
-
(http://the35mmslide.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/philip-castle-did-any-of-you-guys-19772.jpg)
-
Beautiful work by Phillip Castle, there. I definitely need to acquire second copies of his art collections.
-
Interestingly, I've just been reading in 'Battle Flight', the RAF had considered acquiring the F-15B and then converting it into a two-seat interceptor using Brit equipment plus drogue & probe IFR but keeping the F100 engines. It all came to an end because of the cost to do this alone and even a sub-assembly line set up in Europe to supply the UK, Germany and France didn't come to much either.
But it would make an interesting model to make ---
-
Well, I need to draw it up, but I can see a retractable probe and drogue installation that could fit where the flying boom receptacle is now and a couple bays forward in the LERX. It'd be telescoping, but it would work.
-
RAF Eagles sound great! :) Both in fighter and ground-pounder versions. Think of all the camos the Tornadoes sported. And all the squadrons they flew with. And the armament options.... :-*
Regarding the IFR probe placement: I did a couple of French Eagle profiles. One of them had a Mirage F.1-style IFR probe:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/French-Eagle-IFR-probe_zpsad4ced63.png)
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/9204daa2f27b7adbf2084fc0408a2861/tumblr_mz2jnkM4Gx1sb6iwko1_1280.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/f4a0d8c5833375366c9bc8a0e7693be3/tumblr_mxddo9i5E61sb6iwko1_500.jpg)
-
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/42749040f35f5dd58facd7325b688f47/tumblr_mytb7pH6Vs1sb6iwko1_1280.jpg)
-
:)
It tempts to pick up the Hasegawa two-seater, convert it to square wing tips and build something akin to the above.
Edit:
And the weapons on the French Eagle are.....?
Thanks,
Daryl J.
-
:)
Edit:
And the weapons on the French Eagle are.....?
Thanks,
Daryl J.
The small ones are Magic 550's, the large one are Magic Super 530F's (could be the 530D)
-
Here you go…from the real world:
(http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6817/f15fr5tw.jpg)
-
Nice, I had only seen one other picture of that F-15 before that one :)
-
Apparently, this is the same aircraft which some of you would recognize. Got the Monogram kit of this too
-
A question to those who might know;
Was there any other nose cone considered for the F-15, like a different one for a different radar ---
Like would an F-4 nose cone work --
I've read recently that the RAF had considered the F-15 but with Brit' equipment so I'm wondering if they would have got a specific nose cone.
-
I haven't heard or read anything to suggest that a different radar other than the AN/APG-63 and later AN/APG-70 was ever considered. Even if they were, I think one would try to keep the same radome for aerodynamic reasons. Perhaps some of the British equipment would relate to other subsystems such as radios, RWRs, EW etc?
-
My understanding is that the UK requirement would have been for a fully combat-capable two-seater, so the RAF would have wanted B/D airframes with a substantial re-work of the rear cockpit. The radar would have remained the same however. The cost of doing this was one of the factors that counted against the F-15 when decisions were being made in the early 1970s.
-
Well from what I read, the F-15 would have been cheaper than the alternative, which was the Panavia Tornado, which hadn't even got off the drawing board at the time. There were also plans to have an assembly plant in Europe for the F-15. The decision to go with the Tornado was to keep the UK current with fighter design and to keep it's designers in country.
-
There's a lot on the Tornado ADV decision in Battle Flight by Chris Gibson. Re the F-15, the factors were:
1. At the time the decision had to be made, there was a real doubt that F-15 production would continue past 1980, but the British Phantom replacement couldn't be afforded before 1985 due to the Tornado IDS program eating all the funds until then.
2. To meet RAF requirements, the F-15 would have to be substantially modified, with a fully-equipped rear cockpit for a WSO and probe-and-drogue refuelling.
3. The higher fuel consumption of the F-15 (and the F-14) relative to the Tornado would require a 30-40% increase in the RAF's tanker fleet, thus adding to their effective cost beyond the unit cost of the aircraft themselves.
4. Accepting the McDonnell Douglas proposal for European F-15 manufacture (which was only for the standard single-seater, by the way) would have effectively wiped out the UK's ability to design and manufacture advanced military aircraft. The UK aerospace industry employed some 200,000 people in 1973.
-
I haven't heard or read anything to suggest that a different radar other than the AN/APG-63 and later AN/APG-70 was ever considered. Even if they were, I think one would try to keep the same radome for aerodynamic reasons. Perhaps some of the British equipment would relate to other subsystems such as radios, RWRs, EW etc?
It would be interesting to equip a RAF two-seater with the AN/APG-64 proposed for the F-15N that would include the ability to operate Phoenix missiles, or a long-range equivalent. Perhaps also fitted with a joint RR/GE (possibly SNECMA, too) variant of the F110? I add SNECMA because there is commonality with the CFM56 there.
-
Heard the same thing ref F-15 production not continuing past 1980 in terms of a RAAF buy. Basically the F-15 was eliminated as it was seen as an orphan that would soon be out of production, the F-16 was eliminated due to the distaste the RAAF had developed for single engined aircraft due to Mirage losses, leaving only the F/A-18.
That aside an ex-RAAF colleague of mine insisted that Australia came close to ordering a split buy of 50 F-15 and 50 AV-8B in the late 70s early 80s to replace the Mirage and the Skyhawks before the carrier replacement was canned. Don't know if there was any truth in it but considering the Mirage was used as both a fighter and an attack platform I could see that a mix of air superiority fighters and attack aircraft may have been desired to replace them.
-
I haven't heard or read anything to suggest that a different radar other than the AN/APG-63 and later AN/APG-70 was ever considered. Even if they were, I think one would try to keep the same radome for aerodynamic reasons. Perhaps some of the British equipment would relate to other subsystems such as radios, RWRs, EW etc?
It would be interesting to equip a RAF two-seater with the AN/APG-64 proposed for the F-15N that would include the ability to operate Phoenix missiles, or a long-range equivalent. Perhaps also fitted with a joint RR/GE (possibly SNECMA, too) variant of the F110? I add SNECMA because there is commonality with the CFM56 there.
I was thinking of something along those lines Evan, only using a 'home-brewed' long range missile. I did read that the RAF wanted to continue using the Skyflash which was then in use on the F-4's and then equiped the Tornado ADV when it came operational. I'm thinking the same radar system that the Tornado got went in the F-15.
-
Perhaps the Tornado ADV's radar with a larger antenna to make full use of the F-15's larger radome? Too, how about a rocket-ramjet version of Skyflash Active for extended range operations (I could see an AMI variant using a similarly enhanced Aspide Active). If you wanted less dependence on the US and were willing to accept a bit more engine weight, an afterburning variant of the TF41 would be a good choice in that a test engine demonstrated 26,000 lbst in full afterburner in a test cell in 1967. I could see a RR/Allison team doing that, though they might want to recruit SNECMA for nozzle experience, or just adapt the M53 nozzle with adjusted scheduling.
-
This might come as a surprise,
Measuring the radome nose cone of the F-15 and Tornado ADV I find the Tornado's is a fraction bigger than the F-15's. Of course, this could be the quicks of the kits but they were both Hasegawa ones. I should say that from top to bottom, they were about the same measurement, side to side the ADV was wider.
The problem using an M53 nozzle (which I like) is that there's no aftermarket one in 1/72 scale. I have just read on a webpage about engines, the F-15E used the F110 as did an F-16C/D. I think I'll have a look at what I have in the stash.
http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html (http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html)
CORRECTION: I think this set has the M53 nozzles, I've got an enquiry in at Hannants to see what is actually included.
http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/ORA7209 (http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/ORA7209)
-
Just as a thought for the nozzles, make resin copies of one from one of the 1/72 Mirage 2000 kits out there or see what you can purchase directly from Heller. I intend to do that for my FAA/Aeronavale joint testbed for a F-14A upgrade (gives an excuse to put a F-14 in raspberry ripple).
-
He! He!, I had thought of dropping some exhausts into rubber -----
I've got one Mirage 2000 in the collection, only it's built -- I have found that the A-7E Corsair used an TF41 too
EDIT:
I've just made a bit of a discovery, I have three kits of the F-15E, one is built which is the Monogram kit of the F-15B that was converted to the F-15E prototype. I then have a Hasegawa kit of the same aircraft ( :icon_crap: ), when I had found that out after I had bought it sometime ago, I bought an Italeri F-15E. The discovery is while checking to see which kit had what exhaust nozzles, I find that this Italeri kit is also of the F-15E prototype - :-X
Is there a production F-15E kit in 1/72 out there ?
-
Is there a production F-15E kit in 1/72 out there ?
Robert,
Check the Academy 1:72nd scale F-15E kits. None at hand for me but the [Academy] as far as I know are the most recent tooling of that subject.
-
Thanks for that Jeff, I'll see if there's one available arounf the LMS's.
-
Revisiting the discussion re Probe & Drogue refuelling for F-15s, I recently stumbled across this: http://theaviationist.com/2012/03/23/israeli-f-15i-aar/ (http://theaviationist.com/2012/03/23/israeli-f-15i-aar/)
-
I just received an Tornado F.3 nose cone done by C-Scale from Trevor (Howard of Effingham on the What-If Forum). It will be a very subtle nose change when I do my RAF F-15.
-
Just as a thought for the nozzles, make resin copies of one from one of the 1/72 Mirage 2000 kits out there or see what you can purchase directly from Heller. I intend to do that for my FAA/Aeronavale joint testbed for a F-14A upgrade (gives an excuse to put a F-14 in raspberry ripple).
I remembered I had a kit of an F-16N but it's taken me a while to find it again. It was just a 'bagged' kit I got cheap from the LMS, no box and had been started and I had already raided the parts for another project. I found it again today and found what I thought it had, exhaust nozzle for an F110. I think I'll try making a couple of copies of this nozzle
-
I just received an Tornado F.3 nose cone done by C-Scale from Trevor (Howard of Nottingham on the What-If Forum). It will be a very subtle nose change when I do my RAF F-15.
Any chance of seeing a "mock-up" picture?
-
Sure TC, The difference is very slight as the side profile of it is not a lot different. It's in the top view you see a bigger difference because the F.3 nose cone is completely round and is wider than the F-15 is at the cone connection frame which has an eliptical shape. I'll have to chop the kit's nose off before I can take a photo of it. I'll try to do that later today or tomorrow.
-
Decided to take some pics while I'm thinking about it.
The panel line near the round end of the cone is where I'll sand the part down too.
-
I see what you mean! Working in 3D can be "fun" LOL
-
Regarding engine nozzles, only the F-15's for Korea and Singapore have the F110, everything else has F100's of various marks. For the RAF, I can easily see RR/Allison working with SNECMA on a nozzle for an afterburning TF41 based on SNECMA's experience with the TF105 and TF306 derivatives of the TF30. The nozzles on these look very similar to M53 nozzles.
-
Regarding engine nozzles, only the F-15's for Korea and Singapore have the F110, everything else has F100's of various marks.
Errr...I understood Saudi Arabia was re-engining some of theirs with GE110s
Edit: these photos would see to confirm it:
(http://photorecon.net/wp-content/gallery/rsaf-rf10-4/img_6962.jpg)
(http://photorecon.net/wp-content/gallery/rsaf-rf10-4/img_7356.jpg)
-
Yes, those are definitely F110 nozzles. Good on them.
-
The F110 nozzle look a little like the M53 nozzles Evan, but I'm working towards something like those Saudi ones
-
Not sure if this has been asked before, but can the Sparrow be mounted on the two rails off the main pylon ? I've seen photos of an AIM-120 in that position.
-
I see that the US is poised to sell Poland JASSMs to be carried by their F-16s. Going to the scenario of Larry Bond's "Cauldron" with Poland operating F-15s, I could just see Polish F-15s carrying a pair of air-launched TSSAMs for use against Confederation forces.
-
Stealth F-15 as posted by pedrospe over on Secret Projects:
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/260_129555_187693.jpg)
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/260_129553_372841.jpg)
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/260_129552_214197.jpg)
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/260_129554_866528.jpg)
-
I read a few years back that modernised, surplus F-15A/B/C/Ds, taken from desert storage, would be both cheaper and significantly more capable than new build F-16s or F/A-18s, no one ever took up the option though. This was actually pre Silent Eagle and AESA considering those mods are for the most part suitable to retrofit to refurbished older airframes it would make this proposition even more attractive.
-
I'd probably leave the F-15A and F-15B models there for last choice. The F-15C/D models have the "common engine bays" that allow installation of either F100s or F110s. If memory serves me correctly, their structure was also redesigned and strengthened relative to that of the F-15A/B. Too, the F-15C/D can accept FASTPACs, I'm not sure stock F-15A/Bs can.
-
Thats a nice looking model :-*
-
I'd probably leave the F-15A and F-15B models there for last choice. The F-15C/D models have the "common engine bays" that allow installation of either F100s or F110s. If memory serves me correctly, their structure was also redesigned and strengthened relative to that of the F-15A/B. Too, the F-15C/D can accept FASTPACs, I'm not sure stock F-15A/Bs can.
Stronger airframes would be desired if someone was looking to use it in a strike role with low level flying. Take a D model and make a low budget Strike Eagle.
-
Didn't Israel use C/Ds for their raid against Tunisia before they got their Es?
-
Didn't Israel use C/Ds for their raid against Tunisia before they got their Es?
Yes - although a one-off mission is different from prolonged, dedicated use.
-
Didn't Israel use C/Ds for their raid against Tunisia before they got their Es?
Yes - although a one-off mission is different from prolonged, dedicated use.
And the F-15E has an even more beefed up airframe from the F-15C/D.
-
Not to mention all the F-15s built with 'under-spec' longerons by the boys at Mc-D in St. Louis, anbd wouldn't ya know that
one of the people involved in that "accidental" use of out-of spec parts ended up as an exec in post-merger McD controlled
Boeing, and one of the 'leading' lights in the fucked up mess that was the 787. Whatta surprise.
C:-)
-
No to mention all the F-15s built with 'under-spec' longerons by the boys at Mc-D in St. Louis, anbd wouldn't ya know that
one of the people involved in that "accidental" use of out-of spec parts ended up as an exec in post-merger McD controlled
Boeing, and one of the 'leading' lights in the fucked up mess that was the 787. Whatta surprise.
C:-)
Fine example of the "Peter Principle" Cock up and Move up the corporate ladder... :)
-
Sometimes it's the quickest and easiest way to get rid of them, it would take dynamite to move, sack or demote them so the quickest way is to promote. Always thought it was bs but have actually seen it happen twice now, the aim being to get them away from where they are doing damage then helping them find "the perfect role" hopefully with a competitor or another industry. The same has happened for years with pedophile teachers and priests.
-
Ok folks - back on topic!
Discuss:
(http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/400796-bigthumbnail.jpg)
-
Random Idea: Indian Air Force F-15
-
Ok folks - back on topic!
Discuss:
([url]http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/400796-bigthumbnail.jpg[/url])
As I understand it on the real thing, the canards were really F-18 tailplanes, is that correct
-
Ok folks - back on topic!
Discuss:
([url]http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/400796-bigthumbnail.jpg[/url])
As I understand it on the real thing, the canards were really F-18 tailplanes, is that correct
That's also my understanding.
-
Random Idea: Indian Air Force F-15
instead of their Su-27s and other Flanker variants or in addition to? I wonder if "in addition to" would see a F-15 airframe trialed with AL-31F engines?
-
I was thinking instead of…though both could be interesting...
-
Imagine an F-15 in this scheme:
(http://www.aircraftrecognition.co.uk/images/Aircraft/Fast%20Jet/Su-30/Su-30-MKI-Nasik.jpg)
or this:
(http://www.indiastrategic.in/image/SU30_in_formation.jpg)
Or just this:
(http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_SU-30MKIs_lg.jpg)
-
There is a full page ad on the back cover of a Fine Scale Modeller magazine I have in the mag / book rack on my bed side table for the new tool Academy F-15B/C in IDF markings. Where it sitting I see it every night and every morning so can't help but think about two seat F-15s and in particular the not often realised, let alone discussed, strike capability of the A/B/C/D models F-15s, brought to mind by the IDFs strike against the PLO in Tunis.
I never used to be a fan of the F-15 but it has grown on me, especially having Singaporean Strike Eagles flying over my home and slowly coming into land over the road I drive the kids home alone during exercises and this ad, burnt into my mind, have me recalling discussions else where on the multi-role capability of the type even in its original A and B models in the 70s. Yes it was employed almost exclusively as an air superiority type until the advent of the E, but contrary to popular belief it was designed to do everything the USAF F-4 (C, D, E) Phantom could do but better.
So after two paragraphs of rambling my point is I keep thinking about how the RAAF would have been much better off retaining and buying additional Phantoms in the 70s, after the F-111 was delivered, at the expense of some of the Mirages and the remaining Canberras and that the remaining two or three squadrons of Mirage IIIs could / should have been replaced with locally manufactured F-15C/D in the mid to late 80s.
The F/A-18 A/B had a number of advantages (apart from lower cost and a perceived better fit with existing RAAF CONOPS) which got me thinking arrogant and ambitious Australia of the early 80s could well have specified a bespoke Eagle, incorporating many of the new technologies on offer in the Hornet. The glass cockpit, the multi-role with the flick of a switch, the diagnostic tools and maintenance systems, early adoption of the F-401 instead of the F-100, to take advantage of F-404 technologies, resulting enhanced performance, easier, cheaper maintenance, easier, more flexible operation, basically it would have been to the USAF fighter (as opposed to strike) Eagles, what the Avon Sabre was to the F-86F, same base aircraft but half a generation ahead.
What would it be called? Well there wasn't an E-7 at that point, so Wedgetail, as in Wedgetail Eagle and maybe F/A-15A/B for the Mirage replacement, F/A-15C/D for the Phantom replacement and an F-15E derived FB-15A to replace the F-111C. Or maybe FA-15, FRS-15 (R for recce) and FB-15 to replace the Mirage III, Phantom and F-111 respectively. So as replacements and supplements were delayed and cancelled across the west with the end of the cold war MD would have this Australian developed 4.5 Gen family of Eagles that they could offer instead of the ever popular Su27s, Eagles, Typhoons and even their own F/A-18C/D. Something other than the F-15E for Saudi, Singapore, South Korea, Israel etc.
-
Err, I think you mean F110, originally F101DFE, rather than F401. The F401 was killed in 1974 by a stupid Congresscritter, who later became SecDef, and the real replacement for it, the F101DFE/F110, wasn't started until 1978 or so.
The rest of your concept seems feasible, though I could see them driving the F-15C/D change with beefed-up structure and the common engine bay and this carrying over. I suspect they might also look at an alternative probe and drogue refueling set-up instead of flying boom.
One thought, if they did go with F110-powered F-15 variants, they could then re-engine their F-111C's for gains across the board.
Additional Note: The F110 drew a lot on the work done on the F404, the nozzle is scaled up directly from the F404's (as a reasonable approximation, a 1/48 F404 nozzle will work as a 1/72 F110 nozzle). As a on-going development, the B-2's F118 borrowed hardware from the F101, F110, and CFM56 where appropriate and mated a fan that was resistant to very high levels of inlet flow distortion.
-
yep sorry, brain fart F110
-
Inspiration to further fuel your idea:
(http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/fantasy_5/F498_F15C_Australia.jpg)
(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAAFF-15DEagle01.jpg)
(http://aussiex.org/forum/uploads/gallery/album_139/med_gallery_546_139_215485.png)
-
I've got a thread going on this forum, but I've been putting together an RAF Eagle F.1. I'll post a pic here as it seems an appropriate place to put one. I made some F110 engine nozzles for it too
-
Very nice and pretty much what I was thinking. It would have been more expensive upfront and would have had higher operating costs but on the flipside there would have been no need for HUG, centre barrel replacement, F-111AUP, or Super Hornet. Further savings could have been realised through simplified logistics and training as the F-15 replaced every other combat type, or as elmayerle suggested the F-111 being re-engine with F-110 (before replacing then with Strike Eagles instead of Super Hornets), as, even though its a bespoke version, it would have had mostly FMS supported systems.
I am really liking this, especially the low vis scheme in the third image, but the only problem is I only have F-15Es in the stash.... ;)
-
Very nice and pretty much what I was thinking.
Thanks
but the only problem is I only have F-15Es in the stash.... ;)
Mine is an F-15E (actually all the 1/72 models are of the F-15B that was converted to the F-15E prototype), there was a real world plan to equip the RAF with the F-15 (and some other European countries if they came on board) but the RAF wanted a two-seater like the F-4's that the F-15 would have replaced but more likely to have equipment that eventually appeared in the Tornado F.3. There was some concern that having the back-seater would lessen the fuel load, but they didn't wait to see what (or how) the conformal tanks worked. Mine has the conformal tanks plus the extra pylons under the outer wings
-
there would have been no need for HUG, centre barrel replacement, F-111AUP, or Super Hornet.
Why would you say any of that?
-
Because we are talking an enhanced Eagle, probably with the strengthened F-15E airframe that would have been a generation ahead of the F/A-18A/B, courtesy of the F-4 purchase pushing out the required in-service date. Also suggested replacement of the F-111 with F-15E in the 90s. End result, structurally stronger, younger, newer better radars and the F-111 is replaced earlier.
-
I wouldn't simply assume that the F-15 would avoid the need for fatigue recovery work or something akin to a HUG...
-
Its a hindsight thing but it comes down to timing, basically HUG was needed to keep the Classics useful through to F-35 IOC as AUP was needed for the F-111 when it was decided to keep them in service rather than replacing them. Eventually the SH was needed when a capability gap emerged between the F-111 out of service date and three capabilities that were meant to tide the RAAF over until the F-35, HUG, KC-30 and AGM-158, which were all delayed.
Early F-15s suffered fatigue issues due to manufacturing issues with some airframes but this was not the case with the Es, so a later common airframe should also have been ok. Late model F-15Cs were equipped with APG-70 instead of APG-63 and there are a number of USAF upgrades the RAAF could have adopted instead of having to go it alone on HUG.
Like I said, hindsight, when the Hornet was selected the Phantoms had been returned, the Mirage was on its last legs and the F-111 had yet to prove its self, there was a very real need for an affordable, modern, multi role combat aircraft asap and the state or the art Hornet fit the bill while the more expensive F-15 looked to be coming to the end of its production run (F-15E did not exist at that point). For the F-15 to have worked the selection would either have had to have been made earlier, before the Hornet was available, or later, once the Strike Eagle had been selected by the USAF, perhaps combined with an increased threat level (real or perceived). Also the 23 remaining Phantoms being retained and perhaps some additional aircraft for tactical reconnaissance, or maybe even a Jaguar or AV-8B buy, would have helped by covering off a range of tactical strike and support missions the F-111 may not have been suited to.
All very what if, but if it did happen the F-15 would likely not have required anything as extensive as HUG or CBR to keep it relevant into the 2020s.
-
the F-15 would likely not have required anything as extensive as HUG or CBR to keep it relevant into the 2020s.
I suggest you read about what the F/A-18 HUG actually involved. It was only HUG Phase 3 that involved any structural work. The vast majority of the HUG phases were concerned with replacing/upgrading electronics (EW, Communications, Radar, Link 16, better targeting systems etc) All of the same things would have been necessary for a RAAF F-15 - some probably more so!
-
My understanding is that APG-73 was the cornerstone of HUG and that this radar was an upgrade of the original APG-65 design that incorporated back end elements lifted directly from the more advanced and maintainable AGP-70. My thinking was that if the F-15 already had the APG-70 then there would be no need to replace it.
My thinking, and I realise I am most definitely an amateur in this field, is that the enhanced Eagle, which is what I am assuming these RAAF aircraft would have been based, would have had many of the systems desired for HUG as built. They would also have had all of the MSIP (Multi Stage Improvement Program) features as well as ALR-56C and ALQ-135.
Like I said I am no expert and I admit I am just going off public domain stuff and the indicated dates but to me as a layman it appears that a further improved F-15 built in Australia in the late 80s through to the mid to late 90s would have already had many of the key features incorporated into the Classic under HUG.
To me it seems to have been a case of moving goal posts, the Classics were perfectly good enough when acquired but the appearance of MIG 29, SU-27, F-16 and more advanced F/A-18s in our region from the late 90s eroded the RAAFs lead and forced either an upgrade or replacement of the Hornet. It is my belief that an enhanced Eagle would have retained its edge over these types although I acknowledge I could be wrong.
-
My post was specifically suggesting that had Australia built a version of the Enhanced Eagle there may not have been a need for the $3.6 billion HUG project. The Hornet was selected for a lot of good reasons and continues to serve Australia well but the proliferation of advanced types that were measurably superior to the Hornet meant that upgrade or replacement was a requirement of the Australian government. Remember Australian Hornets were deployed to the ME in 2003 and SHs are currently flying missions against Islamic State. This is illustrated well in:
http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2012-2013/F18/Audit-brochure (http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2012-2013/F18/Audit-brochure)
Specifically:
Australian National Audit Office
Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet Fleet Upgrades and Sustainment
Specifically:
Chapter 2—F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet capability upgrades
27. The RAAF’s fleet of F/A-18A/B Hornet combat aircraft, delivered in the late 1980s, could not be expected to retain its original relative capability over three decades without significant weapons and systems upgrades. The Hornet fleet has therefore received upgrades of both its weapons and mission systems since the mid-1990s. These upgrades were intended to maintain the fleet’s effectiveness until a replacement was available that could provide a ‘quantum leap’ in capability.
No racism, no lack of understanding of Australia's strategic needs, rather a pretty good understanding of major ADF projects over the last couple of decades. When an ally demonstrates just how much better their new aircraft are than yours, that you intended to serve for another two decades plus, and those same aircraft (as well as even more advanced types) are in use all over, including by nations that we could reasonably expect to be invited to go to war against in coalition operations, then it is perfectly reasonable to do something to remedy the situation.
Realistically, when the Hornet was selected in the early 80s, it would have been quite reasonable to expect that a replacement program would have been kicked off by the mid to late 90s. The end of the cold war changed this and retaining the Classics through to 2015 became a viable option, selection of the F-35A pushed this date out to 2020. These are facts, black and white, all I have done is suggest that had the Phantoms been retained the Mirage replacement could have been put back a couple of years and if the Enhanced Eagle had been selected at this point it may not have required the extensive upgrades the Hornet has to maintain its "relative capability". Furthermore, had the F-15E gone on to be selected to replace the F-111 instead of it being upgraded as well as the F-4Es, then there would have been no AUP or SH either as the Eagles would likely have been able to serve through until 2020 and F-35A IOC quite easily.
How any of this could be read as racist jingoism in need of a wake up call is completely beyond me and I would suggest the real issue is flying off the handle without actually reading the full post.
-
just a thought, a JASDF F-15EJ with five ASM-3s plus defensive missiles on the side rails of the main wing pylons and on the outboard hardpoints; perhaps sharing technology with the F-15K and F-15SG, including engines (perhaps stepping up the 32,000 lit F110 variant as installed in the F-16E/F). Bet they could get a good deal right now if they bought direct from St. Louis.
-
Need I say more?
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F15_Fish_Alaska_zpstiiqmkyq.jpg)
-
Need I say more?
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F15_Fish_Alaska_zpstiiqmkyq.jpg[/url])
Don't let anyone in Congress see this, they'll think its real and throw a hissy fit!
-
Need I say more?
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F15_Fish_Alaska_zpstiiqmkyq.jpg[/url])
Hmm, now that's an idea that's going to stay lodged in my mind 'til I can figure out a way to do it. I'm thinking retractable floats, but with a different mounting scheme than depicted here (engineer's mind already trying to sort it out :( - don't need this on a weekend when I want to relax :) )
Oh, that's a nice touch with the tail code, changing "AK" to "AX" and doing it cleanly.
-
Maybe have the floats retract into the same position as the FAST packs:
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/FAST-packs.jpg)
And perhaps use something similar to the Tigerish concepts:
(http://www.tigerfishaviation.net/dash8-floats-deployed-3.jpg)
Not saying it is totally practice...but we're talking about something akin to that image so practicality went out the window ages ago... ;)
-
There is a full page ad on the back cover of a Fine Scale Modeller magazine I have in the mag / book rack on my bed side table for the new tool Academy F-15B/C in IDF markings. Where it sitting I see it every night and every morning so can't help but think about two seat F-15s and in particular the not often realised, let alone discussed, strike capability of the A/B/C/D models F-15s, brought to mind by the IDFs strike against the PLO in Tunis.
I only just rediscovered this thread, but in light of this particular comment, I share the following link:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-saga-of-how-israel-turned-its-f-15s-into-mu-1701606283 (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-saga-of-how-israel-turned-its-f-15s-into-mu-1701606283)
-
Thanks for that, a very interesting read.
-
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/2015.56.20%20F-15%20Project_zps1rirrqkq.jpg)
-
And perhaps use something similar to the Tigerish concepts:
([url]http://www.tigerfishaviation.net/dash8-floats-deployed-3.jpg[/url])
Hey, where did that idea come from
-
When does your kit date from?
-
When does your kit date from?
About 2004, although my floats don't fold away
-
Satellite launcher:
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ALASA_Concept_1021-700x398.jpg)
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ALASA_Concept_725.jpg)
https://youtu.be/bYadw4kxti4 (https://youtu.be/bYadw4kxti4)
-
New missile-toting configurations!
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333 (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333)
-
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F4-F15.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F4-F15.jpeg.html)
-
This looks so good :) Gives me first thought styrene idea.
1/72 F-80, F-86, F-97, or such with 1/100 F-15 wing.
Have to check sizing for plausibility.
-
Yeah, I began my drawings as a way to probe my ideas and plausibility before cuting styrene.
-
Thought, Italy replaces their F-104's earlier and want something more capable, so they purchase F-15C's (if still in production, if not, essentially single-seat F-15E airframes). Initial version armed with Aspide and Sidewinder missiles and MLU-version with Meteors, IRIS-Ts, and Fastpacs plus internal equipment updates (possibly including cockpit displays).
-
Thought, Italy replaces their F-104's earlier and want something more capable, so they purchase F-15C's (if still in production, if not, essentially single-seat F-15E airframes). Initial version armed with Aspide and Sidewinder missiles and MLU-version with Meteors, IRIS-Ts, and Fastpacs plus internal equipment updates (possibly including cockpit displays).
As done by Moritz:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/F-15A-Italian-1-Ultima-Diana-1.jpg)
-
Thought, Italy replaces their F-104's earlier and want something more capable, so they purchase F-15C's (if still in production, if not, essentially single-seat F-15E airframes). Initial version armed with Aspide and Sidewinder missiles and MLU-version with Meteors, IRIS-Ts, and Fastpacs plus internal equipment updates (possibly including cockpit displays).
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/008d/wr6eq8s6u217c9lzg.jpg)
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/5277/12m2l2hthhxh1ha6g.jpg)
;)
-
How about something happens to derail the Air Combat Fighter Competition as far as the USAF is concerned, i.e. F-1E or JA37E wins or operational requirements see a more attack, less fighter oriented type procured, meaning there is no F-16 and, more importantly, F/A-18 in the late 70s early 80s. End result the US has to buy more F-15 and F-14 variants, as do other air forces that would otherwise have gone for the Hornet in particular.
Very simplistic I know.
Edit: Actually. more specifically the NACF falls over so no F-18 or A-18 with the USN and maybe going for F-15N and A-15N instead, ending up with the F/A-15 incorporating all the good stuff the Hornet had in reality, including the glass cockpit, computerised maintenance and diagnostic system etc. a land based F/A-15 is developed as an export model instead of the F/A-18.
-
F-15J Silent Eagle: Do you know a model of this marvel? The pics in this article are of a model, I think.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/the-concept-of-stealth-fighter-f-15j-for-the-japanese-air-force.70661/ (http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/the-concept-of-stealth-fighter-f-15j-for-the-japanese-air-force.70661/)
-
No model and unlikely to be one - you would need to do it yourself.
-
New missile-toting configurations!
[url]http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333[/url] ([url]http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333[/url])
I wonder if the two versions could be combined to give a 20-missile carrying aircraft, though I could see that you might need to upgrade the engine to the equivalent of the F110-GE-132 in the F-16E/F. It could make an excellent "arsenal ship" for more stealthy aircraft when provided with the equivalent of the F-35's MADL to transfer data while still able to fight its way out of trouble. Be interesting to figure out where the F-15 could install the MADL antennae and boxes.
-
What if a 3 engines Strike Eagle?
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/mdd_f-15exx.png) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/mdd_f-15exx.png.html)
-
Colonial Viper style? :)
-
Something different:
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/24a659f5-e46c-46f2-bc07-61112319e690.jpg)
-
The US Air Force is currently saddled with a quandary plaguing its air superiority capabilities. With fighter platforms aging rapidly without suitable replacements available, and with foreign nations quickly closing the technology gap which was once the biggest advantage the United States possessed over other countries (at least militarily-so), the USAF needs a fix, fast. Congress has even gone as far as to order the Air Force to explore the possibility of restarting the production line for the F-22, which ended in 2012 with only 187 units produced overall, a mere fraction of what the Air Force originally intended to buy to replace their F-15 Eagles en masse. Boeing says that it has a cheaper and more effective solution, in the form of a major fleet-wide overhaul of all combat coded F-15Cs.
This upgrade, called 2040C or Advanced F-15, will incorporate technology from Boeing’s older Silent Eagle program, along with a few new gadgets, in order to give the USAF’s F-15Cs a brand new lease on life, turning it into an even deadlier air-to-air fighter than ever before. To help market their product, Boeing just released this awesome video of Eagles with 2040C upgrades.
http://youtu.be/xGY2JBuSCU0 (http://youtu.be/xGY2JBuSCU0)
(https://milaviate.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/payload-advance-eagle.jpg?w=620)
A screen grab from the commercial, with the 2040C’s proposed weapon stations upgrades.
Full article, The Tactical Air Network, is here (https://tacairnet.com/2016/05/23/boeings-new-2040c-eagle-commercial-is-incredibly-badass/).
-
Ah, Boeing trying to breath new life into an old product...again. Stand by for nothing to result from this.
-
Ah, Boeing trying to breath new life into an old product...again. Stand by for nothing to result from this.
To be more accurate BDS-St. Louis (aka McDonnell >:( ) trying to breathe life into a legacy program.
F-15Cs, eh? So a matter of "well seeing as we have them in for repairs anyhow because we built them
with under-sized and non-spec longerons, why don't we go ahead and do total rebuild? You know to the
standard you originally paid Mac-Dac for back in the '80s, but didn't receive."
>:D
-
"Quad-packs", heh. All I'm seeing is the usual shoulder rails and the already existing twin rail mounted to the "main" pylon (as well as the activated outer stations). Sure, they have now mounted the missile rails also to the tangential pylons on CFT's, not just the long underbelly pylon - all C's can already carry the CFT's (and when stationed in Iceland, did carry the older, pre-Strike Eagle variant). And wasn't the C fleet supposed to get AESA anyway?
Cockpit upgrade and data link to F-22's, allowing the F-15 to act as the arsenal ship are something new. Also, an engine upgrade in the pipeline too, seeing as how the animation highlighted them?
-
Ah, Boeing trying to breath new life into an old product...again. Stand by for nothing to result from this.
Oh something will happen, a percentage of fanbois will latch onto it as evidence why the F-35 is a waste of money and start annoying reasonable people on defence sites, media sites, facebook etc.
-
that delta looks amazing
-
hmm! CF-105 leading edges perhaps -----
-
Ah, Boeing trying to breath new life into an old product...again. Stand by for nothing to result from this.
The Marketing, CGI, and Fiber Glass mock up divisions are never short of work ;D
It certainly looks cool, though I don't know how much will come of it. I think the USAF would probably be happy with the Golden Eagle upgrade and just trying to keep everything serviceable. I don't know how much you can throw onto an airframe that old as an "upgrade" without some pretty extensive replacement. However that is as JMN as I am going to get on the subject, and I will just say it really looks cool :)
-
A search on "F-15 Delta Wing" found this:
(https://timesymmetry.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/f-16_scamp_size.jpg?w=550&h=309)
And this:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-AZnGeVBvxDQ/UEWFrjwiN4I/AAAAAAAABmc/-MDJgQapHzc/s800/mdconcept.jpg)
-
Hmmm...a VG F-15
-
F-15 turns 44 today.
Also don't know how rare this is, but not used to seeing F-15Is without the conformal tanks:
(http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/141/141662_800.jpg)
(http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/131/131236_big.jpg)
-
Looks like Japan is considering the quad pack for their F-15s along with upgraded radar etc. to keep them viable. So who knows these super duper Eagle mods may find a home.
-
Pretty awesome video of Saudi's new F-15SAs.
https://youtu.be/Z83WLAQujgo (https://youtu.be/Z83WLAQujgo)
Cheers,
Logan
-
Scale-o-rama idea: a 1/100 F-15 has about the same length and wingspan as a 1/72 F-16.
Take a Revell 1/100 easykit F-15 for the basic airframe and graft on suitable 1/72 parts from an F-16 or F/A-18.
Maybe in the promo livery of the early Vipers?
One or two engines? There were all sorts of interesting proposals (some more wild than others) for what would later be the "Teen Series".
Add an arrestor hook and a launch bar for a carrier-borne variant? Export carrier-borne multi-role fighter? Not as capable as Tomcats and Hornets, but more modern than Crusaders and Skyhawks and able to use smaller carriers, (such as those of France, the UK or Australia)?
-
Scale-o-rama idea: a 1/100 F-15 has about the same length and wingspan as a 1/72 F-16.
Take a Revell 1/100 easykit F-15 for the basic airframe and graft on suitable 1/72 parts from an F-16 or F/A-18.
Pretty much what I did here, 1/100 F-15 wings and 1/72 F-18, F-15 and AV-8B bits. Got myself a Super Harrier AV-19 out of it. There's also a little bit of Panavia Tornado in there too.
The build is here:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=286.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=286.0)
-
The F-15C had two 24,000 lbt engines so for my Super Harrier below, I reasoned that if it had a 45,000 lbt engine, then the standard engine air intakes of an F-15 would be about the right size (I did slightly reduce the intake area). The F-35 has one 43,000 lbt engine, so what if you put the fixed air intakes of the F-35 onto an F-15 ???
-
Hi I am thinking of doing an RAF strike eagle and putting brimstone and gbu12's on the cft stations, would it be one weapon system on one side or one weapon system on the front and the other on the back stations. Thanks
-
So after looking through all 18 pages to see if anyone else had thought of this how does this sound?
Say for some reason that the USAF decides that it really should have had a replacement for the EF-111 available instead of depending on the Navy's EA-6 and EA-18 for the electronic warfare role. The proof of concept is made on an F-15E frame. After it is determined that it will work it is decided to build a limited run, say 24 to 36, with the frame and specs up to the F-15SA standard. The CFTs are for fuel only to extend loiter time. The Vulcan and attendant ammo equipment is deleted to make room for extra internal EW equipment. The two outer hardpoints are activated to carry either missiles or mission specific EW pods. The engines are the F110-GE-132s for some extra thrust.
What do you think?
-
EF-111A-syle "canoe" on the aircraft centerline? Both vertical tails having the large EPAWSS pods on the tip?
For a stretch, return to the original wing planform, originally flown on the prototypes, and put EA-18G wingtip pods on the wingtips.
-
The CFTs are for fuel only to extend loiter time.
I honestly think, the FAST packs would be used as per the ECM option shown below. This would still allow additional fuel but would put the EW package into a more streamlined package.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/FAST-packs.jpg)
Agree removing cannon. Maybe put an additional AN/ALQ-99 on each wing station and put either an additional pod or a fuel pod on the centreline. One could also add HARM missiles on the FAST pack racks.
I would also look at maybe modifying the wingtips to add in the AN/ALQ-218 wideband receivers as used on the Growlers.
Finally, the Radar itself could be given a part to play in the Jamming role.
-
I like the sounds of those suggestions.
"EF-111A-syle "canoe" on the aircraft centerline? Both vertical tails having the large EPAWSS pods on the tip?" I think that both of these would be great for added ability.
I also did not realize how much fuel was still present in the ECM Fast Packs. Agreed about the HARMS. I figure that they would be a nice addition to Strike Eagle squadrons.
-
I would also look at maybe modifying the wingtips to add in the AN/ALQ-218 wideband receivers as used on the Growlers.
That's pretty much what I meant be returning to the original wing planform, originally flown on the prototypes, and putting EA-18G wingtip pods on the wingtips. In 1/72nd scale, easy to model if you can get the original Hasegawa kit of the F-15 prototypes. I am planning something similar for navalized F-15s with Sidewinder rails on the wing tips.
-
How about a BMD variant of the F-15 with a couple air-launched versions of the Sm-3 or SM-6 under wing?
-
How about a BMD variant of the F-15 with a couple air-launched versions of the Sm-3 or SM-6 under wing?
Would be a bit like this proposed F-15 carrying air launched PAC-3 Patriots:
(http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=16126)
-
Speaking of F-15s and missiles, does this count as a "Missileer"?
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZmrSVoL6--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1427441622857100359.jpg)
-
What happens when you run out of Sidewinders:
(http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/AIM-4_launch_zps66fc93d2.jpg~original)
-
These sensor pods are getting out of control!
(http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/1512_zpsb0d4152e.jpg~original)
(http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/1511_zps1939518a.jpg~original)
-
Looks to be a different approach to an RF-15E. Is that trialing the "Gorgon's Stare" sensor suite?
-
If someone was interested in building a what-if/alt-history F-15 as an ABM platform, you can realize that now with a THAAD in three scales from from the Bill Chapman through his Shapeways shop Bill's Models (https://www.shapeways.com/shops/bill-s-models):
1:72nd scale THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) Missile (http://shpws.me/MTXr)
1:48th scale THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) Missile (http://shpws.me/OIFx)
1:35th scale THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) Missile (http://shpws.me/MY6S)
Mounting the THAAD directly to the stores pylon or placing it inside of a protective pod attached to the stores pylon under the wings works for me.
-
Or one could simply use a pencil... ;)
-
Looks to be a different approach to an RF-15E. Is that trialing the "Gorgon's Stare" sensor suite?
At least one pod is the Airborne Turret Infra-red Measurement System (ATIMS) III used for assessing IR countermeasures etc. I presume the other is also similar.
-
Some more interesting loads:
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/AdvInt.jpg)
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/DefenceSuppression.jpg)
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/SeaStrike.jpg)
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/StandoffStrike.jpg)
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/AdvStrikeAS.jpg)
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/Julhelm/AdvStrikeAA.jpg)
Note the sensor ball in the last two.
-
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/WRK/F-15A_proto.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/WRK/F-15A_proto.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/WRK/F-15XX_01.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/WRK/F-15XX_01.jpeg.html)
Any of you know why the change in wing tips?
Thanks.
-
IIRC the straight wingtip caused turbulent airflow, cutting it improved stability but did not result in any significant loss of lift.
-
F-15E with Phantom wings
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-15downgrad.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-15downgrad.jpg.html)
-
WOW :smiley: --- does it fly as good as it looks ?
-
F-15E with Phantom wings
([url]http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-15downgrad.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-15downgrad.jpg.html[/url])
Interesting ysi_maniac, also noticed you canted the tail fins outward - MiG-25-style! Nice!!
M.A.D
-
Believe is correct size in drawing. Front wheel-tire looks to small to support F-15. Looks that way in RW photos.
-
Believe is correct size in drawing. Front wheel-tire looks to small to support F-15. Looks that way in RW photos.
You know finsrin, in 'real-world' terms, I've always cringed at the seemingly lightness/delicacy/flimsiness of the F-15's nose landing gear, what with the size and weight of the Eagle's design.
Would be fascinated to learn how many, if any nose wheel collapses might have occurred over the operational life of the mighty Eagle?
P.S. does anyone know if the F-15A/B's landing gear was beefed up, as it weight grew in terms of these F-15E/F-15I/F-15S etc...?
M.A.D
-
Timing of posting is uncanny. Right now am working on redo of Saucer Jet landing gear cuz thought it looked to tall and light duty.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7514.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7514.0)
It aint much different than F-15. Had on high side for quick loading of 25mm ammo drums into belly. Might leave highish and up tire and strut size. Hmmm.... :-\
Maybe 5ft belly to pavement is plenty. 4ft okay to trundle under loading dolly for exchange of ammo drums ?
Have insights about this ?
Thanks.
-
F-15E with Phantom wings
Very nice! :smiley:
Idea: set Phantom wings low on the Eagle fuselage (like on the actual Phantom) and add F-15 ACTIVE-style canards.
-
F-15E with Phantom wings
... - MiG-25-style! Nice!!
M.A.D
F-15 Silent Eagle in fact.
-
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-15_XKai01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-15_XKai01.jpg.html)
For navalization I used F-18 undercarriage. BTW: MiG-29 tail fin is a perfect fit for Eagle :icon_surprised:
But we need a modern Japanese Aircraft Carrier :P :P
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawShips/jmsdf_carrier.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawShips/jmsdf_carrier.jpg.html)
Hehehehe :P :P !!!
-
But we need a modern Japanese Aircraft Carrier :P :P
([url]http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawShips/jmsdf_carrier.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawShips/jmsdf_carrier.jpg.html[/url])
:-* Oh, Oh, Oh Yes. Brilliant rendering. :-*
Imagine whirled peas. Then imagine multi-carrier, multi-scale optional, kit-bash. Cool 8)
Can be its own thread or even special subject GB.
-
Getting an early start are we?
-
They could also use a F-15EJ-Kai with F110-GE-132 engines and the improvements of the F-15J MSIP.
-
Getting an early start are we?
In a platonic level. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
-
Getting an early start are we?
In a platonic level. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Yes..... Have numerous carrier kit-bash concepts and numerous carrier kits in numerous scales. Only don't have the time.
Being able to multi-task at multi-locations at the same time would help !
-
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-15_XKai01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-15_XKai01.jpg.html)
-
Sure wears that tail with style. :smiley:
-
^^^^
Thank you!
-
MDD Goshawk II
IMO maybe downgraded in performance, but upgraded in coolness!!!
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/MDD_Goshawk-II.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/MDD_Goshawk-II.jpg.html)
-
Random idea (which I may have already shared...): Royal Malaysian Air Force F-15E in the scheme of their Su-30MKMs:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force_Sukhoi_Su-30MKM_over_the_South_China_Sea_in_May_2015.JPG/1200px-Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force_Sukhoi_Su-30MKM_over_the_South_China_Sea_in_May_2015.JPG)
-
Random idea (which I may have already shared...): Royal Malaysian Air Force F-15E in the scheme of their Su-30MKMs:
I decided ages ago I wanted to do the reverse - Su-30MKI or MKM in F-15E colors. Then again, I like simple paint schemes, they're hard to get seriously wrong.. :)
-
Found on Twitter.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjCgszlUUAErD3I.jpg:large)
-
I remember that story - probably still have the original magazine in storage too.
-
Add AVEN (Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle) and LOAN (Low Observables Axisymmetric Nozzle) elements to the exhaust nozzles to reduce observables and improve handling. Then go to a composite intake structure with built-in RAM, as developed by Northrop and add a radar blocker, as proposed by Boeing for the X-32 production development.
Late 7/27/18 Correction: corrected ADEN to AVEN and corrected full name; ADEN was a vectoring 2D nozzle developed by GE and proposed for a X-29B rebuild of an X-29A; it only deflected in one plane.
-
Odd thought: EF-15F based on late-model F-15E or later, upgraded export versions (F-15QA for example) with EA-18G avionics fit, perhaps even the faired in HARM targeting model they did aero testing of on a F-15 prototype. You would have both a hunter and a shooter.
-
F-15 Super Weasel?
-
F-15 Super Weasel?
Precisely. A super Weasel with full Growler capabilities.
-
Super Weasel + Eagle = Super Weagle? :o
By the way the backdoor was unlocked again so I let myself in.
-
Has anyone done a swing-wing/variable geometry F-15?
-
Has anyone done a swing-wing/variable geometry F-15?
Yes, it has been done here as a F-15N and armed with AIM-152 air-launched versions of the RIM-152 ESSM.
-
Here's a nutty idea I've been kicking around lately. Take an F-15E and add a fuselage spine like the F-16I Sufa with all the other lumps and bumps. It would already have conformal fuel tanks so it wouldn't need the F-16 type. Add a butt kickn' paint job and a wagon load of weapons and it might just look pretty cool. Granted that some of the overseas versions of the Eagle might actually mirror this capability but hey, this is whiff world, why not....
-
Sticking with upgrading the AIM-4 missiles for the Eagle?
-
Probably the latest sidewinders and a few JDAMs. Haven’t thought that part out completely.
-
Ranom idea: F-15 FSW demonstrator
-
Here's a nutty idea I've been kicking around lately. Take an F-15E and add a fuselage spine like the F-16I Sufa with all the other lumps and bumps. It would already have conformal fuel tanks so it wouldn't need the F-16 type. Add a butt kickn' paint job and a wagon load of weapons and it might just look pretty cool. Granted that some of the overseas versions of the Eagle might actually mirror this capability but hey, this is whiff world, why not....
Spine would be a pain to add to the F-15 since that would run right over the large airbrake up there. I could see a conformal pallet on, or surrounding, the centerline hard point of more volume was needed for equipment.
-
Sticking with upgrading the AIM-4 missiles for the Eagle?
F-15s never carried AIM-4 missiles. JASDF ones carry AAM-4s along with AAM-3s. I'd like to see F-15s carrying Meteor and IRIS-T missiles.
-
<...>
Spine would be a pain to add to the F-15 since that would run right over the large airbrake up there. <...>
Would differential deflection of the flying surfaces akin to the Super Hornets be enough? I believe I read the Eagle did get a larger airbrake quite early as they found the one it had was a tad on the small side and didn't slow the Eagle down quite quickly enough.
F-15s never carried AIM-4 missiles. JASDF ones carry AAM-4s along with AAM-3s. I'd like to see F-15s carrying Meteor and IRIS-T missiles.
Never is a very dangerous word. ;)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0015_F-15_AIM4/AIM-4_launch.jpg)
HERE'S (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0015_F-15_AIM4/story0015.htm) the backgorund.
Hearin' ja on the Meteors and IRIS-Ts. :smiley: Would look killer.
-
Okay, "never operationally" work better? Though I believe that's an AIM-26, not an AIM-4. Since the F-15 does not have all-moving tail surfaces, I believe it would still need the airbrake. The first 12 prototypes had the small airbrake, all production F-15s have the large one.
-
Does anyone know of a 1/48 kit or conversion for the F-15STOL/MTD, or S/MTD?
(https://external-preview.redd.it/X0MXHuNN6yepN7wfZ6o4K1vk38qz14X6mOJj1xzmJFc.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=2cf82d4929c7fd05caaac3d78fe1109b24fd2b8e)
-
"Spined" F-15s. Did these for the Soviet GB a while back, but - apparently - never posted them in this thread.
MiG-29SMT-style hump:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7834/46464497015_88c249d825_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dMUGav)F-15_SMT (https://flic.kr/p/2dMUGav) by Motschke (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/), on Flickr
Quoting myself from the original thread (Taaidantomcat's F-15ski - LINK (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7114.0))
"Taking kerick's idea of modified stabs and adding some further MiG-29 doodads:
The stabs are from a MiG-25 and are to scale. I tried MiG-29 stabs, but they're either too small (same scale) or too big (MiG-29 in a bigger scale than the F-15). Personally, I'd try to mod the F-15 stabs to a more Fulcrum-ish look (add fin fillet and flare launchers, angled cut-off at the top).
Depending on the version of R-27 used, it may be impossible to get a pair in tandem on the flanks."
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7874/32437954547_e7b8a66e4f_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RqqZLp)F-15_SMT_2 (https://flic.kr/p/RqqZLp) by Motschke (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/), on Flickr
F-15 "Foxhound". Not sure I like the look. Originally wanted to put AA-9/R-33s on it, but... well... didn't.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7833/32437955197_7c138d2996_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RqqZXB)F-15_Foxhound (https://flic.kr/p/RqqZXB) by Motschke (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/), on Flickr
Okay, "never operationally" work better?
Sure. ;)
The background information states it's an AIM-4.
-
I don't know of a 1/48 F-15SMTD and even the 1/72 one by Hasegawa does not have the 2-D engine nozzles. OTOH, the canards are F-18 horizontals so that gives you a start.
-
Has anyone done a swing-wing/variable geometry F-15?
Yes, it has been done here as a F-15N and armed with AIM-152 air-launched versions of the RIM-152 ESSM.
Forgive me, but I'm unable to find it on the thread, unless the image has been deleted.
-
IIRC, there was a whole thread on a swing-wing naval F-15 by crossing a F-111 kit with an F-15. Anyone else remember this one?
Addendum: I was in error, the thread was on the What-If Forum and was a 2006 build by anthonyP,
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,12610.msg173290.html#msg173290 (http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,12610.msg173290.html#msg173290)
There may be a problem as the pictures do not appear available any more.
-
Yeah, they're all gone now. Shame. :(
-
"Spined" F-15s. Did these for the Soviet GB a while back, but - apparently - never posted them in this thread.
MiG-29SMT-style hump:
([url]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7834/46464497015_88c249d825_k.jpg[/url]) ([url]https://flic.kr/p/2dMUGav[/url])F-15_SMT ([url]https://flic.kr/p/2dMUGav[/url]) by Motschke ([url]https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/[/url]), on Flickr
Quoting myself from the original thread (Taaidantomcat's F-15ski - LINK ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7114.0[/url]))
"Taking kerick's idea of modified stabs and adding some further MiG-29 doodads:
The stabs are from a MiG-25 and are to scale. I tried MiG-29 stabs, but they're either too small (same scale) or too big (MiG-29 in a bigger scale than the F-15). Personally, I'd try to mod the F-15 stabs to a more Fulcrum-ish look (add fin fillet and flare launchers, angled cut-off at the top).
Depending on the version of R-27 used, it may be impossible to get a pair in tandem on the flanks."
([url]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7874/32437954547_e7b8a66e4f_k.jpg[/url]) ([url]https://flic.kr/p/RqqZLp[/url])F-15_SMT_2 ([url]https://flic.kr/p/RqqZLp[/url]) by Motschke ([url]https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/[/url]), on Flickr
F-15 "Foxhound". Not sure I like the look. Originally wanted to put AA-9/R-33s on it, but... well... didn't.
([url]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7833/32437955197_7c138d2996_k.jpg[/url]) ([url]https://flic.kr/p/RqqZXB[/url])F-15_Foxhound ([url]https://flic.kr/p/RqqZXB[/url]) by Motschke ([url]https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/[/url]), on Flickr
Okay, "never operationally" work better?
Sure. ;)
The background information states it's an AIM-4.
I like the Foxhound version a lot! I'm wondering if it would be possible to move the air brake to the top of the hump? Just thinking off the top of my head here. I may have to get out my F-15E kit from the stash and do some comparisons.
-
Moving the airbrake to the top of the spine should be possible, though I think I'd run the spine all the way back and have the slope a bit more gentle. You might need to run it down the sides of the spine and out a bit onto the upper surface to get enough area (neither the standard F-15 nor the SU-27 family have small airbrakes).
-
Though I believe that's an AIM-26, not an AIM-4.
The background information states it's an AIM-4.
I was kinda having the XAIM-4H and its what-if development in mind- I've been under the impression that it would be based on the smaller AIM-4D airframe.
I was aware of the picture but never paid attention to the fact that it was the bigger AIM-4G.
-
Well, the F-15 could have become VG if the early LFAX-4 concept was developed:
(https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-15-lfax.gif)
-
Interesting view for the super detailing crowd:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/M61_Vulcan_Mount_on_F15.jpg)
-
I don't know of a 1/48 F-15SMTD and even the 1/72 one by Hasegawa does not have the 2-D engine nozzles. OTOH, the canards are F-18 horizontals so that gives you a start.
You are right re the canards. Does anyone have good drawings of the 2D nozzle?
-
IIRC, there was a whole thread on a swing-wing naval F-15 by crossing a F-111 kit with an F-15. Anyone else remember this one?
Addendum: I was in error, the thread was on the What-If Forum and was a 2006 build by anthonyP,
[url]http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,12610.msg173290.html#msg173290[/url] ([url]http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,12610.msg173290.html#msg173290[/url])
There may be a problem as the pictures do not appear available any more.
Here you go - some of the images from that thread:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/almosta_zpsltpxc1eb.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-15N_07_zpsadaneb5m.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-15N_08_zpshegbfhlc.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/f-15n-6_zps12nlycws.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/f-15n-1_zpsidgzbyfm.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/f-15n-7_zpsfl6iyvi2.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/f-15n-9_zpsygu2yt55.jpg)
-
Interesting view for the super detailing crowd:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/M61_Vulcan_Mount_on_F15.jpg)
Lots of empty space around that gun! Hmmmm, pack it full of six packs, fly a quick mission, come back with cold beer.....
-
Lots of empty space around that gun! Hmmmm, pack it full of six packs, fly a quick mission, come back with cold beer.....
That'll only work as long as you don't fire the gun. The Vulcan generates a lot of heat...
-
Lots of empty space around that gun! Hmmmm, pack it full of six packs, fly a quick mission, come back with cold beer.....
That'll only work as long as you don't fire the gun. The Vulcan generates a lot of heat...
Yes, I'm afraid there would be a lot of broken glass too!
-
Just a thought for a couple reduced observables tweaks to the F-15. In the intakes, install vaned radar absorbers as proposed for the production X-32 variant. Update the exhaust nozzles with production versions combining the LOAN (Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle) and AVEN (Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle) test programs; you could probably use a pair of F135 nozzles from the F-35A. Looking at the pictures above, I could also see a rotating cover on the M61 barrels to hide them when not firing (much as the output end of the F-35A's gun has a cover when not firing).
Addendum: The thought occurs to me that these same approaches could also be applied to updated F-14 variants, too.
-
the output end of the F-35A's gun
;D That's one way of describing it.
-
Just a thought for a couple reduced observables tweaks to the F-15. In the intakes, install vaned radar absorbers as proposed for the production X-32 variant. Update the exhaust nozzles with production versions combining the LOAN (Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle) and AVEN (Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle) test programs; you could probably use a pair of F135 nozzles from the F-35A. Looking at the pictures above, I could also see a rotating cover on the M61 barrels to hide them when not firing (much as the output end of the F-35A's gun has a cover when not firing).
Addendum: The thought occurs to me that these same approaches could also be applied to updated F-14 variants, too.
Maybe call it a F-15 Super Silent Eagle.
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/cbb/bandicam%202018-11-18%2011-57-58-076.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/d58/bandicam%202018-11-18%2011-58-09-384.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/f1f/1.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/383/2.jpg)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/559/Tbird%20Flight%203%28s%29.png)
-
What if a F-15/79? ... by the same reasons as F-16/79
(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-15-79_top.jpg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-15-79_top.jpg.html)
-
Interesting idea. Maybe give it Taiwanese markings.
-
Way ahead of you there Carlos
-
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
The first @USAirForce #F15EX is coming soon! This fighter will:
Have the fastest mission computer
Use open systems architecture for maximum interoperability
Be one of the most reliable, affordable fighters
and
Guy Plopsky @GuyPlopsky
Great new #F15EX illustration showing what appears to be a #hypersonic weapon ascending shortly following release from the fighter's centerline weapons station.
Quote Tweet
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eh376QUXYAIn6V1?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
-
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2014/post-23484-0-11145000-1391577035_thumb.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2014/post-23484-0-05462700-1391578339_thumb.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2014/post-23484-0-30736400-1391743713_thumb.jpg)
-
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2014/post-23484-0-11145000-1391577035_thumb.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2014/post-23484-0-05462700-1391578339_thumb.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2014/post-23484-0-30736400-1391743713_thumb.jpg)
ISTR that the navalized F-15 proposals returned to the squared-off wingtips of the prototypes and placed Sidewinder rails there. Still, these look very, very tempting to model.
-
How about USN F-15EXN....
-
How about USN F-15EXN....
With wingtip missile rails as well as the full selection the F-15EX can carry.
-
What if RAF replaced their Tornados...
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_03/large.img00741.JPG.149f8c7e3db62363724b2c6d971006dc.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_03/large.img00726.JPG.be33e017e58d37f2bf45e5d2e8d2a217.JPG)
-
Just as there was the F-16/79 with J79 instead of F100 (see below), what about a F-15/79?
(https://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/f-16-photos/album11/album22/aaa.jpg?m=1371897383)
-
Anyone after a F-15 STOL/MTD full conversion set:
(https://bam-models.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/wiki1_reduced.jpg)
https://bam-models.com/product/48024-f-15-stol-mtd-full-conversion-set/
-
AFLCMC History Office @AFLCMCHO
#OTD 1969 AF announced McDonnell-Douglas won the F-X contract, aka F-15 Eagle, the Air Force’s first dedicated air superiority fighter since the F-86 Sabre of the Korean War era. Now @AFLCMCofficial continues w/F-15EX @BoeingDefense
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHEiIDOXEAAtMRf?format=png)
-
Let's hope Boeing doesn't screw up this program too.
-
SuperEagle along with standard Strike Eagle.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/SuperEagle.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/ad564ba0-7c40-47b7-80ec-ff469b1ec2ef)
-
Nice . . . :D
But needs a Su-17 style VG wing . . . ;)
cheers,
Robin.
-
should this be in the Naval section ;D
found on Britmodeller - F-15 pods -> water-racer.
-
I'm sure I've seen that somewhere else, but can't, for the life of me, remember where. :-\
Very cool, though! 8)
-
Wicked! :-*
-
I'm sure I've seen that somewhere else, but can't, for the life of me, remember where. :-\
Right here! It's the Waterstrider Speedboat - 1/72 mostly Matchbox, with a hint of Airfix (https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9390) by Antonio Sobral, who hasn't posted in a little over a year. I miss his work!
-
Conbination of bits from F-15E and F-18F to produce another elegant design (IMHO)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CoolFB_USA.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/7f26249f-dff5-44c3-ba08-a307afcd87ae)
-
This is my view of a Cool F-15. :smiley:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CoolF-15(1).jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/700ac409-a348-41b6-ab2c-d7159a867929)
-
Coming soon:
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e7b/z3wfezjo68iahtv8wto9j9qctfb72ey0/155.png)
Or at least something like it: https://www.reuters.com/world/washington-provide-egypt-with-f-15-jets-us-general-says-2022-03-15/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/washington-provide-egypt-with-f-15-jets-us-general-says-2022-03-15/)
-
(https://cdn.flightsim.to/images/20/mcdonnell-douglas-f-15e-french-air-force-8Iq9w.jpg?width=1400&auto_optimize=medium)
(https://cdn.flightsim.to/images/09/9tg7FKEQ.jpg?width=1400&auto_optimize=medium)
-
F-15S/MTD with no V-stabs:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU-OjKXWYAEC1Hk?format=jpg&name=large)
F-15S/MTD with canted nozzles:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU-OjKVXEAEkSJ5?format=jpg&name=large)
F-15 with chin pods:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU-OjKWX0AAGz3a?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
F-15S/MTD with no V-stabs:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU-OjKXWYAEC1Hk?format=jpg&name=large)
Oooooh, now that is sexy! :-*
Additional idea: YF-23-style butterfly tail?
-
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/0246dd0e-5d49-4d08-a8ae-daa09f0b309f/dd99wxh-c1621657-899d-499f-9de5-bf996f127b03.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzAyNDZkZDBlLTVkNDktNGQwOC1hOGFlLWRhYTA5ZjBiMzA5ZlwvZGQ5OXd4aC1jMTYyMTY1Ny04OTlkLTQ5OWYtOWRlNS1iZjk5NmYxMjdiMDMuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.tYIvyIiUuxoGouHG_IUG5QGBV9bMY54Jm3GUDOLe3_M)
CFBV
-
Via Twitter
Raw URL: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fbm7PNfXwAM6jYz?format=jpg&name=medium
Text: Little known fact, Boeing later proposed the F-15 Global Strike Eagle that would have put small payloads in orbit via an ICBM motor mounted on its back. If it had come to fruition, the F-15 would be the only jet that could launch satellites and then also shoot them down.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fbm7PNfXwAM6jYz?format=jpg&name=medium)
More information can be found in the original Technical White Paper here: Responsive Air Launch Using F-15 Global Strike Eagle (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.560.4885&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
-
I would not want to be the pilot when that rocket ignited!
There must have been a way for the rocket to separate from the aircraft and ignite at a safe distance, I hope!
-
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/0246dd0e-5d49-4d08-a8ae-daa09f0b309f/dd99wxh-c1621657-899d-499f-9de5-bf996f127b03.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzAyNDZkZDBlLTVkNDktNGQwOC1hOGFlLWRhYTA5ZjBiMzA5ZlwvZGQ5OXd4aC1jMTYyMTY1Ny04OTlkLTQ5OWYtOWRlNS1iZjk5NmYxMjdiMDMuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.tYIvyIiUuxoGouHG_IUG5QGBV9bMY54Jm3GUDOLe3_M)
CFBV
Beautiful artwork Clave 😍
By all accounts, the McDD F-15 Eagle was the RAAF's prefered choice of the Tactical Fighter Project...
MAD
-
By all accounts, the McDD F-15 Eagle was the RAAF's prefered choice of the Tactical Fighter Project...
Actually not - it was removed from consideration in 1978 along with the Panavia Tornado.
-
Interesting high viz roundels/markings on RSAF F-15SGs - I wonder if anyone has or will release them as decals:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Fbian7laAAAO8rz.jpeg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Fbian7lagAArUO0.jpeg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Fbian7kaIAAVT8-.jpeg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds)
And for comparison, here are the usual markings:
(https://defence-point.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/F-15SG-RSAF-SINGAPORE.jpg)
-
By all accounts, the McDD F-15 Eagle was the RAAF's prefered choice of the Tactical Fighter Project...
Actually not - it was removed from consideration in 1978 along with the Panavia Tornado.
Further to this, the following book is a good read on the history:
(http://misc.kitreview.com/bookreviews/images/hornetsdureviewkb_cover.jpg)
-
Holy Thread Revival!!
How about a F-15EXJ "Eagle-Kai" for the JASDF to expand their offensive capabilities? Using the same F110-GE-132 engine for the proposed F-2-Kai and with some other "plug and play" Japan-specific equipment fits.
-
Beautiful (IMO) Strike Eagle :-*
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-15E_beauty.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-15E_beauty.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
-
Random thought: if the F-15N had been adopted instead of the F-14, would a later F-15E derived version have made a good replacement for the A-6s and possibly the EA-6s as well?
-
F-15 with chin pods:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU-OjKWX0AAGz3a?format=jpg&name=medium)
If I remember correctly, the chin pod disturbed the airflow enough that McDD did not pursue the concept further. It is attractive, though.
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Fbian7lagAArUO0.jpeg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds)
Lionel Light and Ng Tian Lai are probably the least Arabic sounding aircrew names... does the RSAF have a practice of head-hunting other AF pilots?
-
Lionel Light and Ng Tian Lai are probably the least Arabic sounding aircrew names... does the RSAF have a practice of head-hunting other AF pilots?
But they are Singaporean names on a Republic of Singapore Air Force F-15... ;)
-
SMH! hhaha! :-[
S for Singapore, not Saudi!
-
S for Singapore, not Saudi!
and R for Republic not Royal
-
Just a few thoughts for modelling the F-15EX in 1/48. Use the lower port wing from a Mongram F-15A or F-15C kit as a drill guide for locating the outboard pylons since that kit has one on the port side carrying an ECM pod. For F110 exhaust nozzles, usa a F-15K (Block 1) conversion set. FUrther experience shows that the Tamiya F-15C. and presu,ably their F-15A, too, have outboard ECM pods, on pylons, on the outboard wing hardpoints. Yet another source for locating the F-15EX outboard pylons.
In 1/72, hasegawa prodcued an early Strike Eagle kit that included the outboard wing pylons and 1/72 F110 exhaust nozzles are readily available.
-
F-15 with chin pods:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU-OjKWX0AAGz3a?format=jpg&name=medium)
If I remember correctly, the chin pod disturbed the airflow enough that McDD did not pursue the concept further. It is attractive, though.
IIRC, this was for part of of Wild Wesel F-15 porposal. Since the chin pod didn't work, how about mounting an HTP (HARM Targeting Pod) from a wil Weasel F-16 under the TFR pod on an F-15E?