F-15 Eagle

[GTX]

I don't know why this came to me, but what about a dedicated Anti-shipping version of the F-15 (either single or twin seat, though I think the latter is more plausible) loaded up with at least 4 AGM-84 Harpoons?  I know the ROFAF F-15Ks can supposedly carry this weapon, though I believe a typical load is only two:



Regards.

Greg

[Blacklion213]

i got a question, do F-15E's ever fly with out the CFT's

[Shasper]

Blacklion: No, I dont thing the Beagles ever fly w/o the CFTs.

I find it extremely hilarious that I've been givin' credit for starting this topic, given my lack of fondness for the Ego, but since I'm here now. . . Whenever I get around to building it, my rendition of the F-15F Cheetah (from Dale Brown's Day of the Cheetah) will feature a revised gun layout, with the housing moved to the lower fuselage around the starboard intake, if its feasible.

Shas

*You got your wish, thread has been cleaned up and you are no longer the originator.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

I was thinking about more SEAD aircrafts, and imagined a EF-15G dedicate to this mission as a EF-111 late replacement.

As on the EA-18G, the gun could be removed in oder to increase internal electronic systems. The LANTIRN system could be replace by ECM/jammers pods too, and some additional jammers could be places internally in the fixed CFTs (wasn't they FAST - Fuel And Sensor Tactical - after all?).
I imagined some wing tip pods, just like the EA-18's, but I don't know if it's aerodynamically plausible. Whatdo you think?

The other problem I had was with the HARM carriage. Is it possible (with specific pylons) to carry 4 HARM at the same position than the 4 AMRAAM (I so several pictures of AMRAAM being carried under the CFTs)? I have no F-15 kit under my hand to watch if the missiles could fit or no.

And what about the other 2 underwing pylons on the F-15?? I saw several pictures of model kits with 4 underwing pylons for the F-15. Why the 2 external are not used in real life? Is their any problem with them?

I imagined that they could be fitted with ALQ pods under the EF-15, that could allowed 3 external tanks under the other pylons.

4 air-air missiles (or 2 air-air and 2 light anti-radar AMRAAM derivative) could be carry as usual under the wings.

[nev]

Browsing an article recently, Japan plans to re-role some F-15s to replace their aging RF-4Es and RF-4EJs, using the recon pods that the EJ's currently carry.

[dy031101]

As on the EA-18G, the gun could be removed in oder to increase internal electronic systems. The LANTIRN system could be replace by ECM/jammers pods too, and some additional jammers could be places internally in the fixed CFTs (wasn't they FAST - Fuel And Sensor Tactical - after all?).

I'd replace the LANTIRN with a HTS pod or a HTS-SNIPER combo.

Since F-15E has tailor-made bombs-carrying CFT, certainly EF-15 could get a tailor-made pair that could in total carry up to four HARMs?

I imagined some wing tip pods, just like the EA-18's, but I don't know if it's aerodynamically plausible. Whatdo you think?

I heard that what is now carried in the EA-18G's wingtip pods was originally intended to be integrated in the wings.  Could be tried for the EF-15 if it was true.

[Shasper]

Not sure about the CFT/HARM combo, you'll have to start looking at the ground clearance for the missiles.

Shas

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

I heard that what is now carried in the EA-18G's wingtip pods was originally intended to be integrated in the wings.  Could be tried for the EF-15 if it was true.

Great idea!!
Now you said that, I remember that I red an article saying that this solution was under studies for an hypothetical Mirage 2000 SEAD (detection and jamming antennas being "build in" some parts of the wings and tail.
For the Eagle, that's a better solution, as I always liked its wing tips

Not sure about the CFT/HARM combo, you'll have to start looking at the ground clearance for the missiles.

Well, it could carry Sparrows:

The Harm's "wings" will only be 7cm lower than the Sparrow's one, so I figure it could work, especially with adapted pylons.

The main problem I could find is that each missile is 50cm longer than a Sparrow.

But I also imagine a Evolved Harm with smaller control surface, like on the AIM-120C, in order to fit in a EF-117 (yes, another SEAD aircraft!) bomb bays. With reduced control surface, their will be less problems to fit 4 or maybe up to 8 E-HARM on the CFT.

[Shasper]

But my dear PD7, you must remember that the HARM is a much different animal when put next to the AIM-7, as shown here:

AIM-7 Sparrow
Length    12 feet (3.64 meters)
Diameter   8 inches (0.20 meters)
Wingspan   3 feet, 4 inches (1 meter)

AGM-88 HARM
Length:    13 feet, 8 inches (4.14 meters)
Diameter:   10 inches (25.40 centimeters)
Wingspan:   3 feet, 8 inches (101.60 centimeters)

(All data is according to Globalsecurity.org)

Now if you notice that the HARM is one foot longer & the wingspan (the big forbody fins) is 4 more inches longer. *If* the CFTs could handle 4 HARMs in a similar fashion lengthwise as in you picture, the increase wingspan may cause clearance issues with the main l/g & ground clearance on the rear pair of missiles.

Now if you choose to use the AGM-88E AARGM thats in R&D at the moment, you could modify some aspects of the standard HARM to fit the F-15E, or use your/my ideas of a "ARMraam" or a similar sized missile to allow for more carriage of other weapons.


Sorry if I restated some obvious facts,

Shas

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

For the ground clearance, I won't be so worry. I made some calculation based on the wingspan I could find on Wikipedia, and the wing tip of the HARM if placed in the same position than this Sparrow will only be 7 to 10cm closer to the ground than Sparrow's.
And as I imagine that I could redraw the pylons themself and their location, I think that I could keep the same ground clearance.

And in worth case, I could use my E-HARM project (Harm with smaller wing in order to be carry by F-117), so the clearance is definitely not my present problem with this idea.
The length of the missile is probably much more complicated to deal with. Maybe I will be able to put only to of them on the front Sparrow position after all. The back positions could be use to carry the ALQ pods, and eventually two additional HARM could be carry under the wing.
I could reduce my ambitions, after all it will still be better than the 2 X HARM and 2 X Maverick payload of the F-4G.


Hey! While I talk about Maverick, I read in some Tom Clancy's book about the 366th Wing that F-15E could carry many Maverick. I admit that I never saw any of them with this missile!
Is it an operationnal configuration? How many of them could be carry and where? Instead of the GBU-12 for example?

[anthonyp]

I was thinking about more SEAD aircrafts, and imagined a EF-15G dedicate to this mission as a EF-111 late replacement.

You mean like this:





Search for me and Michigan, and you'll find the write-up.

As for F-15E's flying sans fast packs, they do, but only on builder's trials from Boeing.  I've got a pic somewhere in my hard drive of one of South Korea's Slam Eagles flitting about buck nekkid (no LANTIRN pods either)!  I've never heard of them flying around without them operationally.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Anthony, is there any good idea you didn't already had! 

Nice Wild Weasel F-15!!

[GTX]

Here's an idea - what if during the Iran-Iraq war, the USA had decided to support Iraq a little more physically (i.e actually supply significant hardware).  To counter the Iranian F-14s, the Iraqis might have been supplied F-15s.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Iran
Well... We all know they chose F-14, but the F-15 was evaluated and it is still a good source of possible whiffs!!
There are probably only few things to say. After all, Iranian F-15 will probably have the same carrier than the F-14, with few exceptions:
-Weapons: will they carry only Sidewinder and Sparrow or could they be fitted with AIM-54 Phoenix? It is technically possible (and somehow planned by MDD engineers), and the Iranian had the found for that, but would USA authorized such a modification while the already done Tomcat is able to do the same?
-Life time: even if the F-15 is not a worldwide commercial success (not like the F-16 or F-4), it is much more common than the F-14 (moreover in an alternate universe with a dozen of customers). Maybe it oculd help the Iranian to find parts for repairs in the black market, no?

An Iranian F-15 in the same colour scheme as their F-14s would be cool.

Regards,

Greg

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Here's an idea - what if during the Iran-Iraq war, the USA had decided to support Iraq a little more physically (i.e actually supply significant hardware).  To counter the Iranian F-14s, the Iraqis might have been supplied F-15s.

Actually France did try to sell them some Mirage 4000, but Iraq had definitively no more money for western weapons in mid-80's. I'm even not sure that they totaly paid their Mirage F1 and Mig-29.

The idea is good, and if it happened earlier (at the war begining for example), such deliveries could have change the shape of the war (and that wasn't the man purpose of the US policy at this time).
In order to make this more credible, we could imagine, like gunfighter did, what would have happened if the islamic revolution (and eventually the iran-iraq) war happened only few years later? At this time, the IIAF would probably have at least 70-80 more Tomcat (for a total above 150) and at least 150 F-16.

With such a superirority, and as the main of the US and European countries was to have no real winner in this Iran-Iraq war, it is probable that some heavy fighters could have been delivered to Iraq after the Islamic Revolution (and probably before the war actually started). Due to the hurry, the already operationnal F-15 would have had good chance against the Mirage 4000.