Here is the Aviation Week writeup on it.

 

I particularly like the internal carriage of ordnance inside the CFTs:

 

Hmmm.... Seems that external mounted weapons and pods generate a big radar return.  Gee, seems just like yesterday I was arguing with BW about the external pods on Rafale show it to be a big candidate for an S-300.

 

Nice redesign of the tail fins to a V but still, the biggest problem with the Eagle might be its air intakes - those big square babies are going light up the sky in radar terms.  I wonder if anything was done there to reduce the signature.

 

Apparently not yet, though the Boeing rep stated that they could go with an approach similar to that used on the Super Hornet (inlet geometry shaping and signature blockers in front of the fan blades).  However the Eagle has variable geometry inlets, which would certainly complicate any kind of inlet reshaping and/or affect performance.

Tha's what I figured ... The biggest problem would be the variable inlet but maybe there are ways. 

I am sure the South Koreans, Japanese and Saudis are interested.

Boeing State that the Radar return for ground based radar will be pretty much unaffected by the changes anyway. Radar reduction air-air will be similar to that of export versions of 5th gen fighters, (what that says is revealing for both projects).

As for the price? $100Million.

I note :

""The new design includes a digital electronic warfare system (DEWS), made by BAE Systems, that can operate simultaneously with the aircraft's Raytheon active electronically scanned array radar.""

Excellent . I wish that the Rafale would have it by 2015 .

Cheers .

Keep your idiocy in the thread we made for that purpose bluewings.

 

 

???

 

Cheers .

It's an interesting concept certainly. The internal munitions storage at the price of range, well, if it is for the middle eastern and asian markets then that is not a massive trade off.

 

I am however, skeptical about the clame that radar absorbant coating could give the F-15 as small a frontal RCS as the F-35. The F-35 of course already ahs access to RAMs as well as having an airframe that is shaped towards reducing the RCS, the idea that the F-15s old cylindrical frontal body form could match the angled surfaces of the F-35 just doesn't sit with me too well.

 

Also, given the already massive order book for the LM/BAE/NG F-35, won't that keep unit cost of the F-35 low enough to seriously trouble any attempt by Boeing to market the F-15 effectively? Not to mention other aircraft types like the Typhoon which could conceivably put dents in Boeing's proposed market before the F-15 SE is in full scale production.

 

It's a hell of a nice concept and is a very, very good looking plane though.

 

(I can't help but think of the Macross anime fighters when I look at it)

A number of people seem to be suggesting it is aimed squarly at Japan, who have been turned down on the F-22.

I too am skeptical it is anywhere where near the RCS of the f-35, (export or otherwise), for the very reasons you point out.

How many past discussions have stipulated on just such a platform: a reduced-signature Eagle airframe

with F-22/F-35-ish techno-enhancements rather than an outright totally new design?

Looking at the conformal storage,

it seems to me it's hinting more of a first-few-days-of-war aircraft configuration (SEAD/DEAD with JDAMs or SDBs, etc), where reduced signatures means increased survival.

Past the first week of hostilities, when all that's needed are excellent bomb trucks, the stealthier conformal carriage isn't a necessity (bring back the old-school, multi-pylon FAST packs).

 

Certainly it's aimed at current Eagle customers who don't want the logistics burden of totally converting to Super Hornet types (F-15E-types still enjoy a payload-to-range advantage where inflight refueling isn't available).

 

Perhaps,

there could be an ulterior motive here we're not seeing: even a reduced signature Eagle that's still no dedicated F-35 or F-22,

where after those first few important shock-and-awe days of a conflict, stealth (at least by US experience) isn't a necessary rerquirement when bomb trucks are,

could be an effective trump card for LM and company to keep the F-35 costs under control....

At $100M, this Silent Eagle becoming air-to-grounders offers far more payload to surface targets than any F-22 can be quickly converted to now, and surely offers superior air-to-air over any F-35 variant (the Eagle does have that large radome),

and certainly might influence the more prominent penny-pinchers among US Congressmen/women who sign off on this stuff.

 

...and as was mentioned, it's a very attractive solution to current Eagle operators who don't want a totally new log chain (possibly costing well into the billions to totally convert to Super Hornets, the only obvious next-closest-in-capability design...also a Boeing plane), can't get F-22s, and aren't necessarily asking for F-35s (the twin-seat, twin-engine safety advantage of the F-15 airframe is obvious, especially for anyone of a maritime environment).

Who will be desperate soon to get any kind of new airframe to replace their aging F-15-C Eagles.

 

Japan is the other customer as well as an outside shot Boeing customer, India. Never forget the political when you factor in aircraft development!

Herald

Agreed, Herald.  Both Boeing and the USAF figures the Raptor's going to get massive cuts or outright cancellation, so this at least gives them some options.

 

I think it's a great idea.  And I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking Macross.  We need some VF-19s, dammit!