Talk:Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle

	Aviation portal This redirect is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
	This redirect is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Saudi Arabian version

The Saudi version is likely to NOT be the Silent Eagle, but my current sourcing is just a hair under the limit. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/11/saudi-f-15-deal-update/ Hcobb (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5th generation?

On a technicality, would the F-15SE be considered 5th gen? It has all the hallmarks of a 4++ gen but with better frontal aspect stealth than others (F/A-18E/F, Su-35BM) and features internal weapons bays. It is also being marketed against the 5th gen F-35 (export version). Zuranamee (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The F-15SE's airframe is not a full stealth design to be 5th gen. It's still 4.5/4.5+ gen. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it lacks all around stealth and hence the situational awareness domination of the 5th gens. Also the Silent Eagle is still a group of systems rather than being a software defined aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. But note that 5th gen is not a mature field. There are plenty of bones to pick with all three aircraft that are generally agreed as being 5th gen (F-22,F-35,T-50), but the 4.75thers (ugh to the term), may be opening up. Hcobb (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I saw that the Su-35BM was quoted as not being 5th gen in its article simply due to it lacking AESA, so I figured the silent eagle might qualify. Zuranamee (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SU-35BM should be categorized as 4.5 or 4++ whatever, like F/A-18E/F. The sentence stating the lack of AESA as the reason for classifying it as a 4.5 and not as a 5th gen fighter is a bit misleading, since it too doesn't feature all around stealth. TheCorruptedOne (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PAK-FA also lacks all around stealth against all systems, but at least it is a software defined jet fighter. As long as the F-15SE is simply a F-15E with stealth painted on it hasn't crossed into the fifth generation. Hcobb (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F-15E1 unmasked

This flying "Silent Eagle", the F-15E1, is not just any Strike Eagle, but a somewhat famous one.

First click on the Boeing press release notes from this article to see the pics of it in flight.

Note down the tail number.

Now look for the string "86-0183" on this page: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle

Worth a mention here? Hcobb (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting find, could use a mention somewhere. Zuranamee (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

Based on attempted edits by some users, I'm opening up this section to discuss what is and what is not comparable to the F-15SE. Zuranamee (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other dead things?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/113_103458.html Industry insiders raised questions Wednesday about whether U.S. aerospace giant Boeing will fulfill its pledge to offer F-15 Silent Eagles (F-15 SEs) with an internal weapons bay and twin canted tails, two of the core technologies for stealth jets, to Seoul. Hcobb (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Silent Eagle

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cutaway-technical-description-how-boeing-developed-the-f-15-silent-eagle-367978/

Lots of stuff here, so will take a while to mine for data. Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrades

This is looking more and more like a R and D program to develop upgrades for existing F-15s rather than a new model.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q4/081029a_nr.html Boeing Selects BAE Systems to Provide Digital Electronic Warfare Suite for International F-15s

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/25/usaf-seeks-afterlife-for-f15s.html With DEWS, there is no need for a waveguide or nitrogen pressurization, Boeing says, and the digital system provides more than 200% throughput and memory growth reserve as well as better operation with wideband agile radars and other RF systems.

So add a section for that here, or back in the main F-15 page? Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe F-15 Silent Eagle....

Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have interest to purchase F-15 Silent Eagle... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.151.153.124 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential operator?

F-15SE potential operator?222.181.100.101 (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversectioning?

What is wrong with splitting out Export bids into Potential operators and Failed bids as has been done for Dassault Rafale and numerous others? Yes the plane is only under development, but it has been entered in 2 competitions and failed and offered to Saudi and not accepted and so why shouldn't that be quickly and easily reflected in the headings? Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121023070837/http://www.boeing.com:80/advertising/bma/strike/strike_06.html to http://www.boeing.com/advertising/bma/strike/strike_06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation

Should the article be updated to reflect the Air Force's decision to cancel the F-15SE? Jak474 (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for this? To my knowledge, the Air Force has never ordered the F-15SE, so how exactly could they cancel it? - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation of Silent Eagle

I think The Air Forces Might be Cancelled the F-15SE But Not the Export. I Notice the IDF Request a Squadron of Silent Eagle which means it is not cancalled and Non of the Source says that.124.82.18.223 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New News For Silent Eagle. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=844.124.82.18.223 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the latest info there from Oct 2015 says it appears dead. -Finlayson (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ok Then, The Case Is Solved.124.82.18.223 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back in black? https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-looks-at-massive-military-aircraft-purchase-from-us-firm-boeing/ Nwilde (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]