GeorgeWelch wrote:Such games are nice on paper, but in the real world, such situations never occur. Amateurs get blinded by the shiny stats, professionals look at the total system.
Do you know what Indradhanush was? Its as close as it gets to "real world" short of a war. There is no question of shiny stats here.
The F-14 had superior stats to the SH in every aspect, yet the USN still couldn't dump the F-14 fast enough.
IIRC, the F-14 was a ***** to maintain and in terms of uptimes. That is where the shornet trounced it. As far as the performance was concerned, we all remember the hoopla created by navy flyboys when they flew the superbug (ugh!). Point is, the F-18E/F might be eminently suitable for USN needs, the IAF and its needs are totally different. Peculiarities of a carrier based a/c are not applicable here.
You are Understand why that was and you will understand why kinetics don't matter.
Yes and that is precisely why the F-22, typhoon, rafale etc all have superior kinematics than their predecessors (F-15, Tornado, Mirage 2000). Guess the guys building 'em need to talk to you.
And the subsonic Harrier shot down 11 and a half Mach 2.2 jets without a loss. And lets just say the kinetic gap between the Harrier and the Mirage III is far, far greater than the gap between the SH and any of the other contenders in the MRCA.
The harrier is superb at low altitude. It would not have lasted a minute higher up. The Mirages were also v.low on fuel considering they took off from the argentine mainland. Btw, what AAMs did the mirages use against the late blk shar sidewinders? Not to mention the GCI support the shars got. The difference between the mirage and the harrier under those peculiar circumstances are hardly an indicator of your point. The superhornet is no harrier at its prime, and the other MRCA birds are not mirage IIIs with pitiful SA, AAMs and bingo fuel.
I'll take the plane with more advanced sensors and weapons everyday.
Me too, but the difference in sensors is hardly enough to warrant a flying brick. A2A, the shornet and fat viper are at the bottom of the totem pole (as in the dutch evals).
This attitude of treating sensors as an afterthought is exactly what gets you into trouble. Sure, they COULD be integrated, but who is going to do it? And when? It takes time and money, and by the time you realize you need that capability right NOW and not 2 years from now, it's too late.
Who said anything about "afterthoughts"? Sensors are cosntantly evolving and blk upgrades ala MKI program will be fine. They have done it for ages and know how to make it happen again.
It appears that the Eurocanards are always going to lag behind the SH in this regard and thus always be at a disadvantage.
A big and arrogant claim with zilch to back it up. The eurocanards are in many ways ahead of the shornet and so is the MiG.
Cain Marko wrote:And the shornet turned out to be a dud (at least airframe wise). It carries more fuel, but burns a lot more too, especially with its draggy weapons carriage end result is poor range for such a large bird
People use these talking points, but the truth is that the situation is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. The range is fine. The endurance is fine. The maneuverability is excellent. The top end speed is fine.
Yeah its all fine esp. when the opposition is pathetic, rag-tag talibunnies with no real airforce to talk about. But the moment it faces anything other than ragged militia, it'll get its tail in a royal crack.
I should also point out that the US is a lot more open about problems with its planes than other countries. Thus you hear all the bad things about the SH, but you never hear the 'quirks' of the other planes. That doesn't mean they don't have them of course . . .
Sorry, but all the other programs have suffered their share of criticism. take a look at the tiffy for example. The idea that the U.S. is far more "open" is a joke; the brits are no less. Ditto with the others and we all know how the indian media works. Scandalous is the only word applicable.
Avionics and sensors are in a state of constant evolution. You catch up to the AESA the US had 5 years ago, and they've already moved on to the next latest and greatest thing. The goalposts are always moving.
All well and good for the USN. The $$$s required to keep a brick in action against a superior a/c based on its sensors is something uniquely USN. The U.S. does it cause it spends zillions more than india. But it is a terribly inefficient way of doing things in india's case.
The SH is fully functional and fully operational. If India wants to add some other stuff, well at least they will be able to focus solely on that instead of trying to bring the plane up to spec first.
And the Rafale, tiffy, gripen, mig-29 are not fully operational? Fact is the IAF MRCA avatar is not operational in case of any MRCA contender.
In case you haven't noticed, the trend has been to place less and less emphasis on airplane kinetics as missiles improve with longer range and more HOBS capability. No matter how fast you run or how sharp you turn, you can't outrun a missile.
Yes yes, we have heard all this before. Wonder why the IAF has TVC on its MKI or the F-22 emphasizes aerodynamics and speed/altitude. Strangely enough the top eurocanards don't even have HMS as of now but rely heavily on airframe performance. Must be idiots.
It's actually funny because in reality ALL the MRCA competitors are ALREADY OBSOLETE because they aren't stealth. Forget 30 years, within 15 years, they will all be relegated to utility/low-threat roles because sending a non-stealth airplane into heavily defended airspace will be suicide.
Perhaps but I'd rather send the best possible non-stealthy bird under the circumstances than sending one that has inherent limitations.
There is a world of difference between bolting on a few Indian addons and integrating something like AESA.
The other mrca contenders have not exactly been sitting idle all this while. Why do you thing they have a numerous prototypes being tested out. BTw, they all will offer fully operational radars to the IAF.
Which will be addressed in the contract or India won't sign.
Lets hope so.
Like supplying tires for the Sukhois?
No. More like building an aircraft entirely according to IAF/IN specs (MKI and K), Plus integrating anything india wants on it. Something the americans have never done.
They also have a solid amount of experience raking India over the coals and going back on contracts when they feel like it.
Yeah, but it all amounts to a few piddling dollars. Nothing close to how the iranians got shafted on their tomcats or the pakis on their falcons or INdia wrt the LCA. Tough, but when it comes to shafting customers, no one does it better than uncle sam.
Would you feel confident entrusting so much of your airforce to a single supplier like that?
Its been done for the last 3 decades with very few headaches. Far more preferable than entrusting my spinal cord to a supplier who may decide to pull the plug for having a bad hairday.
You act like this is a one shot deal. It is not. You get them to integrate the Israeli AESA and then what? Who is going to continue to develop updates for the MiG-35? Certainly not Russia . . .
Who is developing the upgrades for the MKI? Or for the MiG-29K? Get the picture?
The great thing about the SH is that you can piggyback on the constant stream of updates the USN is adding.
POint is the USN can afford them, can the IAF?
The MiG-35 is strictly a go it alone proposition.
[/quote]
LIke the MKI, which is the poster child of the IAF today.
Btw, you are not Scooter from AFM are you? Sound very familiar.
CM.
, all the evidence says you are wrong about their future in the USN.
)
.