# Israel wants F15SE Silent Eagles in new batch from Boeing



## CougarKing

Perhaps Israel is mulling a repeat of the 1980s Osiraq/Osirak strike, but against Iran? Silent Eagles might just be the kit they need. 

Foxtrot Alpha/Jalopnik



> *Stealthy F-15 Silent Eagle May Get A Reprieve As Israel Requests More Eagles*
> 
> 
> Tyler Rogoway
> Filed to: Eagles11/02/15 9:15pm
> 
> A report from Flightglobal.com states that Israel is requesting a batch of F-15s as part of a compensation program for the U.S. making a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. According to the report, not just any F-15 was requested, but the F-15SE Silent Eagle.
> 
> The F-15SE was Boeing’s attempt to compete internationally with the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, especially for major purchasing competitions like those recently held in Korea and Japan, both of which are F-15 users. These users ended up selecting the F-35, and Israel also opted for the F-35 even though they are among the most prevalent F-15 operators in the world
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Good choice in terms of range, payload and ability to defend itself. When you have to go for Gen 4 or 4.5, it pays to go for the best.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

perhaps these will be put on the table for us as well?


----------



## a_majoor

One can dream  :nod:

From a simple analytical approach, based on the vast distances we have to cover either domestically or to deploy to trouble spots around the world, and the ability to carry a large and varied payload (including sensors, air to air and air to ground munitions), the F15SE would be the obvious second choice to the F-35, but I doubt reality will be allowed to intrude.


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One can dream  :nod:
> 
> From a simple analytical approach, based on the vast distances we have to cover either domestically or to deploy to trouble spots around the world, and the ability to carry a large and varied payload (including sensors, air to air and air to ground munitions), the F15SE would be the obvious second choice to the F-35, but I doubt reality will be allowed to intrude.



I would agree, however if Boeing does put it forward in the competition, I think it would have a very real chance of winning, you would get stealth, two engines, a large payload with a very large amount of ordnance that can be carried. It would be a very good choice for canada I think.


----------



## PuckChaser

I doubt Boeing will. Their goal is to keep the Super Hornet line open.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I doubt Boeing will. Their goal is to keep the Super Hornet line open.



Boeing's goal is to make money. They will sell what ever airplane a customer wants to buy.


----------



## GR66

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I doubt Boeing will. Their goal is to keep the Super Hornet line open.



I'd think that their goal would be to keep ANY fighter aircraft in production in order to maintain the capability to compete against Lockheed Martin in the USAF "F-X" and USN "F/A-XX" programs that will be replacing the F-35 with the next, 6th Generation fighter and fighter-bomber.

A politically expedient solution for Canada might be to purchase a reduced number of Eagles that can adequately fulfull the NORAD role and provide a reasonable expeditionary capability for the mid-term (except against the most advanced opponents) and kick the decision on some F-35s down the road.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The cost per flight hour for F-15's is roughly double the cost of Super Hornets, is it not?

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have fewer F-15SE's than more F-18E/F's, but I'm thinking that might throw a wrench into the optics, especially as Trudeau campaigned specifically on the F-35 being too expensive.


M.


----------



## PuckChaser

It wouldn't be the first or last time the Liberals would be wrong canceling something they think is to expensive, and actually cost us more in the long run.


----------



## MilEME09

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The cost per flight hour for F-15's is roughly double the cost of Super Hornets, is it not?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have fewer F-15SE's than more F-18E/F's, but I'm thinking that might throw a wrench into the optics, especially as Trudeau campaigned specifically on the F-35 being too expensive.
> 
> 
> M.



Estimates I've found from a quick google is the F-15 around 17k per hour and the F-18 at around 11k per hour, That said we don't exactly have accurate numbers on the flight hour costs of a F-15SE vs a F-18 Advanced super hornet (to compare to latest models)


----------



## midget-boyd91

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Estimates I've found from a quick google is the F-15 around 17k per hour and the F-18 at around 11k per hour, That said we don't exactly have accurate numbers on the flight hour costs of a F-15SE vs a F-18 Advanced super hornet (to compare to latest models)



$17 000 an hour?  I don't know what union these aircraft are part of,  but I want in!  For $17 000 an hour I would probably flap my arms hard and fast enough to actually get airborne and drop bombs...


----------



## SupersonicMax

And we would need a second crew for the backseat, which we don't have readily available...  This also brings more costs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Max,

This is all just an ACSO plot to get back into fighters...


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And we would need a second crew for the backseat, which we don't have readily available...  This also brings more costs.



Send new ACSOs from the school to the USAF to train, as we'd presumably do the same for Pilots?  If we went with the F/A-18F we'd have to do the same (USN), at least for the first cadre.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Max,
> 
> This is all just an ACSO plot to get back into fighters...



I think Cold Lake would be a hard sell, cool job or not.


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And we would need a second crew for the backseat, which we don't have readily available...  This also brings more costs.



Is Boeing able to produce more than one version at a time?  We could go for the F-15C 2040 and not have the back seat...


----------



## SupersonicMax

I am pretty sure it would cost a lot more to get a structurally modified variant just for us designed and tested, than it would cost to train and maintain a second crew.

I agree, the Strike Eagle would be the best 4th Gen option (provided we don't cheap out on systems) and could even give the F-35 a good competition for what we, Canada, need.  But it is far more expensive to buy and operate than the F-35 will ever be.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

All true, Max.

But, the narrative has been written. The F35 is "too expensive".

So, we will buy something else that costs even more in the long run.

Pretty much the Canadian way of doing business...


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure it would cost a lot more to get a structurally modified variant just for us designed and tested, than it would cost to train and maintain a second crew.
> 
> I agree, the Strike Eagle would be the best 4th Gen option (provided we don't cheap out on systems) and could even give the F-35 a good competition for what we, Canada, need.  But it is far more expensive to buy and operate than the F-35 will ever be.



The F-15C 2040 is being offered by Boeing as an upgrade package to existing F-15C's in the USAF.  Doesn't sound like any new development costs to be borne by Canada if we went that route.  New F-15C's incorporating already designed upgrades already being offered.


----------



## SupersonicMax

GR66,

My understanding is that the proposed upgrade is of the A/A variant.  In order to be able to carry the same A/G load a Strike Eagle does, it would need some major structural mods.


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> GR66,
> 
> My understanding is that the proposed upgrade is of the A/A variant.  In order to be able to carry the same A/G load a Strike Eagle does, it would need some major structural mods.



You are correct...the 2040 is a version the A/A "C" model.  I'm making an assumption here that the Liberals would be willing to purchase an air-to-air fighter for a purely defensive NORAD role instead of a multi-role variant like the Strike Eagle/Silent Eagle.  Not saying I agree with it, but buying something like 40 x F-15C's would fit the defence of Canada narrative and be cheaper than 65 x F-35s (which they could argue aren't as good for the NORAD role anyway...and have that nasty attack capability that a peace-loving country like Canada doesn't need in their opinion).


----------



## MrWhyt

> Not saying I agree with it, but buying something like 40 x F-15C's


According to Wiki the F-15C has been out of production since 85. Are you proposing we buy second hand or that Boeing re-opens the production line?


----------



## SupersonicMax

MrWhyt,

Boeing is udating its F-15C with the F-15C 2040.  They are opening the production line up.


----------



## a_majoor

Any F-15 variant can be made into a bomb truck with the new "stealth" weapons dispenser that has been demonstrated as part of the "Super-duper" Hornet. This can carry AAM's, small diameter bombs and other ordinance, and the F-15 is a very large aircraft with multiple hard points so could conceivably carry at least 4 (2 under the fuselage and one under each wing).

This configuration would be much faster and stealthier than a regular Eagle with bombs and missiles slung under the hard points.


----------



## tomahawk6

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Any F-15 variant can be made into a bomb truck with the new "stealth" weapons dispenser that has been demonstrated as part of the "Super-duper" Hornet. This can carry AAM's, small diameter bombs and other ordinance, and the F-15 is a very large aircraft with multiple hard points so could conceivably carry at least 4 (2 under the fuselage and one under each wing).
> 
> This configuration would be much faster and stealthier than a regular Eagle with bombs and missiles slung under the hard points.



As the Israelis already have F-15's the logstics are the same.


----------



## MrWhyt

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> MrWhyt,
> 
> Boeing is udating its F-15C with the F-15C 2040.  They are opening the production line up.



Everything I've read says that the 2040C is an upgrade package, not new builds. Boeing is pitching it to the USAF to upgrade their legacy fleet of F-15Cs to supplement the F-22s. The F-22 line is closed and so the USAF is left with a relative handful of 5th gen fighters and the remainder of the air defense fleet is 4th gen F-15s.


----------



## MarkOttawa

On the other hand:

Israel's Angst Over Qatar Sale Could End Boeing’s F-15 Line

Israel’s opposition to Qatar buying F-15SE Silent Eagles could mark the end of Boeing’s venerable F-15 production line in Missouri unless Washington acts against its closest regional ally’s wishes or agrees to billions in more aid, allowing Israel to place its own new orders.

The Israeli Air Force has expressed interest in two additional squadrons of F-15Is equipped with AESA radars, a package estimated at some $10 billion.

But Israel’s ability to sign on to new Boeing jets – and thus prolong the line for another four years – depends on the ultimate size of a new US aid package that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said should be concluded by the two countries “in the coming weeks.”

If the ultimate top line of the package comes in around $40 billion, Israeli sources say they will have to limit fighter procurement to additional squadrons of F-35s. But if that number is closer to $50 billion over a 10-year period starting in 2018, Israel will be able to accommodate new F-15I buys, Israeli military and civilian sources said.

Israeli angst over the potential US deal with Qatar, which is looking to build its fleet up to 72 fighters, has resulted in a two-year delay that has already driven Doha to embrace the French Rafale as an alternative to a portion of the fighters initially planned for purchase from the US.

And if Boeing does not secure firm orders in the coming months, it will begin the process of shutting down its 40-year-old F-15 production line in St. Louis, Missouri, by early summer, government and industry sources say...

...Israel has also registered concern – but not opposition – about selling F/A-18s to Kuwait.

That potential 40-aircraft package has also been delayed by nearly two years and has driven Kuwait to opt for a European alternative – in this case, 28 Eurofighter Typhoons – as a gap-filler pending approval from Washington...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/02/28/israels-angst-over-qatar-sale-could-end-boeings-f-15-line/80895346/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Qatar: one of the sponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt. Perhaps AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobby groups in the US will probably step up their efforts in DC to ensure the two-faced Qataris don't get their latest toys.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And we would need a second crew for the backseat, which we don't have readily available...  This also brings more costs.









Easily put ACSOs in back in the timeline it would take to procure 15SEs, or 18Fs and -18Gs, or anything else with two bio-blob sustainment stations...

G2G


----------



## DonaldMcL

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Easily put ACSOs in back in the timeline it would take to procure 15SEs, or 18Fs and -18Gs, or anything else with two bio-blob sustainment stations...
> 
> G2G



There's already some of us ready to go with Ejection Seat quals... it'd really just be an airframe conversion.


----------



## SupersonicMax

From operating a single A-100 to operating a radar, a targetting pod, jammers, RWR, weapons, stores management systems, fuses, etc etc?  There is more than a simple type conversion. You are now not only part of the crew but also the combat crew.  You'd need to effectively double the size of aircrew.  This comes at significant price.


----------



## DonaldMcL

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> From operating a single A-100 to operating a radar, a targetting pod, jammers, RWR, weapons, stores management systems, fuses, etc etc?  There is more than a simple type conversion. You are now not only part of the crew but also the combat crew.  You'd need to effectively double the size of aircrew.  This comes at significant price.



Oh I'm saying it'd be done overnight, by any means. But definitely more easily done than fresh-off-board ACSOs for sure.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> From operating a single A-100 to operating a radar, a targetting pod, jammers, RWR, weapons, stores management systems, fuses, etc etc?  There is more than a simple type conversion. You are now not only part of the crew but also the combat crew.  You'd need to effectively double the size of aircrew.  This comes at significant price.



Max, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  You appear to give little credit to combat system simplification through leveraged automation and aggrandize the difficulty of fighting a system that has a second seat.  

So as a potential CF-35 pilot in the future, you're okay with sharing your cockpit only with your ego, trusting that the jet's combat system automation will keep you from becoming over-saturated and losing SA.

...but, other aircraft can't provide that, and need a second body in the jet, and...well...it's pretty complicated stuff and ACSO's may not make the cut?

How do you survive when you fly a 900 tail?  ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## DonaldMcL

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Max, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  You appear to give little credit to combat system simplification through leveraged automation and aggrandize the difficulty of fighting a system that has a second seat.
> 
> So as a potential CF-35 pilot in the future, you're okay with sharing your cockpit only with your ego, trusting that the jet's combat system automation will keep you from becoming over-saturated and losing SA.
> 
> ...but, other aircraft can't provide that, and need a second body in the jet, and...well...it's pretty complicated stuff and ACSO's may not make the cut?
> 
> How do you survive when you fly a 900 tail?  ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I dont think that's what he meant.. just that it's not as simple a conversion as I might have eluded to. =P


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Max, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  You appear to give little credit to combat system simplification through leveraged automation and aggrandize the difficulty of fighting a system that has a second seat.



This is a broad generalization that is filled with assumptions.  In order for the second seat to be useful and not detrimental, the person needs to be trained, experienced and competent.  It takes 1.5 years of solid training to bring a winged pilot to the level where he can *learn *to be an effective fighter pilot.  It takes 1 year to make that fighter pilot a competent wingman.  It takes another 1 year to make an effective 2-ship lead/junior 4-ship lead.  It is a complicated business and before we can even start to think about putting a second body in our multi-role aircraft, there needs to be a solid training plan in place as well as a large preemptive exchange program to build the experience and competency in that specific role.  Setting up the training is not the issue.  Building the experience and competence might  would be.  

If you don't have those 3 things, instead of increasing your capacity, you make it half: the pilot not only has to manage the flying and the tactics but also has to manage the backseater.  I happen to work with F/A-18F pilots right now and all of them have flown operationally.  While the second crewmember is sometimes a true enhancer, it is fairly often SA depleting.  To the point that soon after takeoff on operational missions, the pilot knew they were not going to employ that day because of their backseater's lack of competence.  This is an organization that has done this for decades and yet, the 2-crew is not always an enhancer.  Having said that, with the right backseater (and frontseater), you can make you 2 crew the equivalent of 3.

I am not against the idea, just very skeptical, given our (the CAF in general) track record of doing things properly....



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So as a potential CF-35 pilot in the future, you're okay with sharing your cockpit only with your ego, trusting that the jet's combat system automation will keep you from becoming over-saturated and losing SA.



I an absolutely okay relying on automation: there is no second guessing, less likely to deplete my SA (although if not properly integrated, too much information laid out poorly will do that), and this is the way I have been trained, managed to do well by myself, therefore I absolutely have a bias for single-cockpit.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...but, other aircraft can't provide that, and need a second body in the jet, and...well...it's pretty complicated stuff and ACSO's may not make the cut?



They may be able to make the cut, but it's far more complex than a type conversion simply because operating a single system in a training aid is not same as flying as operating (and CRMing) a true combat system.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> How do you survive when you fly a 900 tail?  ???



We don't use the 2-seaters as a 2-crew aircraft per se.  We use it like they use the second seat in the Harvard II:  with an instructor or standards pilot in the back seat providing training or evaluating someone.  The front seater does everything tactically.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> .
> .
> .
> We don't use the 2-seaters as a 2-crew aircraft per se.  We use it like they use the second seat in the Harvard II:  with an instructor or standards pilot in the back seat providing training or evaluating someone.  The front seater does everything tactically.



Ahhhh....and there it is!  

So why not fly a 15SE single pilot?  

Then you wouldn't have to go through all the 'justification' of why having a back-seater is the wrong way to go, be it ACSO, 2P, AWCO, AES Op, whatever. 

If Canada, as part of its upcoming Defence Policy Review, was to re-balance the focus of the fighter force towards Country/continental defence, then a smaller fleet of CF-15SEs would fit the bill quite suitably....and we could just leave the back seat empty. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax

I believe some of the functions are exclusive to the backseat, as it is common practice in multi-crew fighters.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I believe some of the functions are exclusive to the backseat, as it is common practice in multi-crew fighters.



Then F-15 2040C it will have to be...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Max, 

Without pretending to know what it is like to fly a fighter, I am pretty damned certain you do not have the first clue about how ACSOs are either trained or employed.

As it happens, it takes a minimum of 9 months to get us to wings. Then it is more like a year (in the MH world) to learn to direct the crew, plan the tactics, move around in a complex environment full of ships and other aircraft, find the sub, direct my aircraft or others for the kill, and launch a weapon, fully within its design parameters and in due regard to ROE- all while not losing track of your own ship which you need to find at the end of the mission in a pretty big ocean. Then it is more like 24 more months post OTU in a serious crew upgrade package that you actually get to be a good Crew Commander TACCO.

In other words, as amazing as you think you are- you are nothing special, as far as I am concerned. You have been selected for and trained to do a job. So have I. Your job is hard. So is mine. Quit assuming that fighters is some mystical dark art that could never be learned by anyone outside of a select few pilots. I am pretty sure that if our government gives us a multi seat fighter, ACSOs will do just fine running the crew


----------



## Loachman

The Kiowa role was also quite complex and challenging, yet there was no problem integrating a two-man crew extremely effectively. Our Observers were top-notch Combat Arms Sergeants given a very demanding three-month course. Our tactical limits were skids clear of ground and one half rotor diameter from cows and houses, and in Germany we could (and routinely did) fly under wires and bridges. These guys had to navigate accurately in that environment, pay attention to four radios, communicate effectively with the supported ground forces and their Pilot, maintain awareness of friendly and enemy positions, and direct Attack Helicopters, ground attack fighters, and Artillery, look for the enemy with hand-held binoculars of stabilized monoculars, think, and keep an eye out for hazards and obstacles around us. A lot of missions were absolute chaos, but we managed to do them.

We have also managed to effectively operate two-seat fighters in the past. I am reasonably certain that our ACSOs are no dumber today than Navs were back then.


----------



## dapaterson

Maybe it isn't the back seat where the problem is..


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Without pretending to know what it is like to fly a fighter, I am pretty damned certain you do not have the first clue about how ACSOs are either trained or employed.



I have some idea of how ACSOs were trained back in the 2006/2006/2007 era as I was posted to 402 Sqn/CFANS while awaiting for my BFT.  It is, however, besides the point I am trying to make.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In other words, as amazing as you think you are- you are nothing special, as far as I am concerned. You have been selected for and trained to do a job. So have I. Your job is hard. So is mine. Quit assuming that fighters is some mystical dark art that could never be learned by anyone outside of a select few pilots. I am pretty sure that if our government gives us a multi seat fighter, ACSOs will do just fine running the crew



I don't think I even hinted at that in my post. I merely said that I don't believe the RCAF has the capacity nor the will to set up a proper, from the ground up, WSO capacity.  Is it possible?  Probably.  Is the capability it adds relevant?  Sure, in some (but not all) missions we do.  But I do not think we would gain enough in terms of capacity, when compared to what we have now, to justify the money and effort.  We can do the job we are tasked to do very effectively without a second body in the aircraft thanks mostly to automation.  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Maybe it isn't the back seat where the problem is..



Of course not.  There is no backseat at the moment.  There can't be problems in a place that doesn't exist.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I tend to agree with you on this point- if the government gives us a two seat fighter (notice how I keep stressing who gets the final say on what fighter ie not the RCAF), we will likely not run our own WSO program, at least for the first few iterations and maybe not ever, depending on what the fighter is and how many we buy.

You will note that I am not advocating for two seaters over one seaters. Or vice versa. I really don't care. Either way, we will figure a way to make it work.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Of course not.  There is no backseat at the moment.  There can't be problems in a place that doesn't exist.



Slick answer, Mav.


----------

