MRCA News and Discussion

[rakall]

Two F-18 landed @ HAL today , at 11:30 hrs.

Saw both of them take off this afternoon.

Landed at 1622hrs...

[shiv]

Devesh

Hi Devesh this is shiv from CiX. I was on your BBS too before the www killed all. I saw your photo in the paper.

[NRao]

I probably will be very hesitant in choosing an American aircraft , even if they offered a B-2 for free and took care of maintenance , coz I dont know how long the current honeymoon will last.

(Given my pref is Rafale/Gripen.)

It has to last a rather long time.

India has the world's largest middle class: even China is starting to eye it. One of the largest, if not the largest, pool of English speaking educated pool. A country that needs massive assistance in building educational institutions, transportation infrastructureS, health care, etc.

A nation that needs a huge assist to modernize her armed forces. It is not others cannot provide that assist, it is that others cannot do it in the time frame that the US can (please check comments on CNS Mehat's talk in the Indo-China thread) for the quality that India needs ASAP.

Perhaps as a "counter" to China down the line. As I have stated many a times, Pakistan and China will burn their invitations, Pakis have nearly completed their act. China is following it but has a choice.

Lastly, India if she has her say (you can see it to some extent in climate change, Doha talks, etc) she should be able to stand up for her position (not "rights"). There is a underlying fear (understandable) that needs to be removed - for India's sake alone. This fear will have -ve impact on other things and should be removed.

[SanjibGhosh]

Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet kicks off IAF's MMRCA field trials news

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general ... ornet.html

[SanjibGhosh]

It has already started .... here it is ....

Military air traffic controllers said Boeing kicked off the trials with a display of its F-18 'Superhornet' jets in Bangalore, hub of India's aeronautical and space industry.

'Two F-18s carried out two sorties of 45 minutes each,' a controller said as military aviation experts watched the exercise.

India kicks off fighter jet trials
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ials-rs-04

[nachiket]

To offer a bird that as philip points out is virtually 70s tech and flies like a brick is a rip off!

CM.

CM, what exactly in the F/A-18 SH is obsolete? The avionics are top-notch(except for the lack of IRST). Even the airframe has been modified and improved. The engines are new as well.

That apart, you have been arguing that the 'SH cannot be used in the Air-Superiority role and hence is of no use to the IAF' or something along those lines.
Accepting that the SH is useless for achieving air-superiority (although I beg to differ) the question remains whether the IAF really needs another sir-superiority fighter. The IAF will have around 230 Su-30MKIs by 2015 or thereabouts along with a combined strength of about 100 upgraded Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s. That's more than 300 capable air-superiority fighters right there.
The SH is an excellent strike platform, much better than the Jaguars and Mig-27s currently in IAF service and also excels in BVR air-combat(probably even better than the MKI). Now that seems like a perfect addition to the IAF.

Its only drawback is that it is manufactured by the US.

[Cain Marko]

CM, what exactly in the F/A-18 SH is obsolete? The avionics are top-notch(except for the lack of IRST). Even the airframe has been modified and improved. The engines are new as well.

Naah, it didn't come out right, I was too darned sleepy. What I should've written is that the shornet is a rip off because in about a decade or a little more, it'll be struggling to keep up with better flankers and costs a fortune to boot!

That apart, you have been arguing that the 'SH cannot be used in the Air-Superiority role and hence is of no use to the IAF' or something along those lines. Accepting that the SH is useless for achieving air-superiority (although I beg to differ) the question remains whether the IAF really needs another sir-superiority fighter. The IAF will have around 230 Su-30MKIs by 2015 or thereabouts along with a combined strength of about 100 upgraded Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s. That's more than 300 capable air-superiority fighters right there.

Look we are looking at an MRCA that is going to be around for another 40 years, the migo-29s and m2ks will be gone in another 20 and they'll provide a degree of superiority only in the next 10 odd years. Point is, the shornet for a bloody 10-12 billion $ investment needs to be able to stay on top even 20 years later, which the rafale and ef-2000 would manage. Hell even the 35 with decent upgrades will do better imho. The shornet suffers in this dept. because you simply can't make it a zippier bird. Esp. with all sides sporting AWACS a marginal difference in radar is hardly going to cut it, you'll need something that can accelerate real quick, turn and burn plenty so as to position better and get decent mileage out of your missiles. The tiffy is the best here, the rafale and mig aren't bad either. JMT.

The SH is an excellent strike platform, much better than the Jaguars and Mig-27s currently in IAF service and also excels in BVR air-combat(probably even better than the MKI). Now that seems like a perfect addition to the IAF.

If it is mainly a strike orientation that the IAF is looking for, the shornet would be alright and yes a far better replacement than the aging floggers and jags. But I'd rather have a rafale or tiffy, doesn't hurt to be great in the A2A dept. as well.

Its only drawback is that it is manufactured by the US.

And what a drawback! Its not that I am prejudiced against the shornet or something, I did give it a better ranking even than my favorite, the fulcrum. Thing is, this bird has a LOT of baggage attached to it apart from being a heavy slug, that makes one think it is not a worthwhile long term investment.

CM.

[NRao]

you'll need something that can accelerate real quick

There were enough posts to ensure that the SHornet is getting better engines - two type of them.

It will no longer be sluggish - granted it is that right now.

[NRao]

On a slightly off topic. Does the RFP (from reports) require the first 18 MRCAs to be delivered by 2012?

IF SO, what is the read on MiG stating that they will be able to start only in 2013? Tossing in the towel by any chance? Or am I reading too much into that statement?

[KrishG]

On a slightly off topic. Does the RFP (from reports) require the first 18 MRCAs to be delivered by 2012?

IF SO, what is the read on MiG stating that they will be able to start only in 2013? Tossing in the towel by any chance? Or am I reading too much into that statement?

Don't think either CAESAR or RBE2 will be ready and in production by 2012. Saab will have to integrate SELEX AESA. The only aircraft that will be ready for delivery by 2012 would be Super Hornet (and F-16 probably).

[SaiK]

regarding mig-35 news report claim that its rd33-ovt is even more advanced than mki's engine.. care must be taken to read into this.. the TVC may be more advanced but not the ALfp engines, and I do hope we have the SC blades on the mki engines.

i know, the mig-35 is trying hard.. but hey they can't take these kind of reports for granted, and exploit the mindsets.

[Cain Marko]

you'll need something that can accelerate real quick

There were enough posts to ensure that the SHornet is getting better engines - two type of them.

It will no longer be sluggish - granted it is that right now.

Raoji,
Are these engines being offered to India? The current flight tests are without the new engines so I doubt this. More importantly, why would india want to do such a major upgrade in the next 15 years or so on a bird that is relatively new in its inventory? No need na. I can understand minor tweaks to the sensors and electronics, but engines sounds dramatic and expensive that early in its career.

See, the shornet works beautifully for the USN (at least for now) considering it is supported by hordes of assets such as Growlers, AEW, Stealth a/c, y'nameit. In the absence of such backup, even the aussies therefore, call their purchase an "interim" one. No one sir, is thinking of the shornet as a long term 40 year old investment, so why should India?

CM.

[Kartik]

Here is a break up of a/c sorties during GWI: http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/sortie.html

Breakdown of Sorties
Of the total of 109,876 aircraft sorties, the percentages by service broke down like this:
* Air Force 59.3%
* Navy 16.0%
* Allied Forces 15.7%
* Marine Corps 9.0%
While Army aviation certainly played a major role in the Gulf War, the figures I have didnÕt separate out their missions as I think the figures deal only with fixed-wing aircraft
Breaking this down even further, we see something like this:
Air Force Missions
* Combat 45%
* Air Force Support 24%
* Other Support 26%
* Defensive Counterair 5%
Navy Missions
* Strike 36%
* Fleet Defense 30%
* Support 34%
Marine Missions
* Combat 84%
* Support 16%

Truly tells you how much the F-18s did in terms of securing the air from enemy fighters.

Btw, F15C flew about 6000 sorties, F15E about 2200, F-18s about 4500 and the F-16 about 13500! The F-14 flew about 4000 sorties.

And yes, the F-18 by far had more losses than any other U.S. a/c (10/36 total). F-15 had 3/36 losses despite more sorties, F-14/36 had one, and the F-16 had 7/36. just some interesting stats I thought. The tornado seems to have equalled the F-18. interestingly, seems like the ones that fly the worst and are jack of all trades get beat the most.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... paper.html
http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html

CM.

it depends on the mission profile and the way in which the aircraft is exposed to AAA and SAMs..the Tornadoes at least, were susceptible because of the low level penetration tactics that were adopted. going just by figures of how many fighters were shot down is misleading at best. the F-15 was mostly used for air-superiority missions and during the GW-1, the Allies gained it in no time. mud-movers always have a higher attrition rate (and previous IAF wars also attest to this fact), and the lower sortie rate for the F-18s was because they were taking off and landing on carriers, as opposed to fixed runways for the F-15s and F-16s.

using such a line of thinking would mean that the AH-64 Apache is far inferior to the AH-1 Cobra of the US Marine Corps, because the Apache suffered from far higher attrition due to enemy action during and after GW-2. the reasons were actually to do with superior tactics used by the Marine Corps, where they made it clear to the pilots that hovering around battlezones was not a good idea and hit and run tactics were better, thus minimising the time given to an insurgent to fire at them.

[Kartik]

To offer a bird that as philip points out is virtually 70s tech and flies like a brick is a rip off!

CM.

to simply blunt your argument, do you want to discuss the role and the effect of the MiG-29 (which BTW is ALSO developed in the 70s and early 80s, which Philip will always choose to ignore) in the GW-1 or the Baltic conflict ? applying the same line of argument that you're using against the F-18, for the MiG-29, only a moron would support a MiG-29 follow on MiG-35. it didn't fly as much and when it did, it got shot down. pretty ineffective.

the truth is that under different circumstances, against a different enemy, under different SOPs, different leadership and different pilots, the results will be different. and such arguments to mar the reputation of a fighter that has been very reliable and done what it was designed to do, is spurious at best.

[Cain Marko]

to simply blunt your argument, do you want to discuss the role and the effect of the MiG-29 (which BTW is ALSO developed in the 70s and early 80s, which Philip will always choose to ignore) in the GW-1 or the Baltic conflict ?

Did you see my post in reply the natchiket? Guess not.

applying the same line of argument that you're using against the F-18, for the MiG-29, only a moron would support a MiG-29 follow on MiG-35. it didn't fly as much and when it did, it got shot down. pretty ineffective.

Uh sorry, but that is ridiculous and you know it. The fulcrum never flew with the odds favoring it as the hornet did (and what odds!). The hornet always had the might of the USN and even USAF and a bloody coalition that could keep up 160 IFR tankers, RCs and AWACs in the air at any given time.

In the Bosnia war some of the fulcrums did not even have radars working and were faced with AWACS backed eagles. Btw, the f-18 never did face a fulcrum. Shot down two fishbeds, musta been tough!

The only time the fulcrum was used in an equal - equal scenario, it kicked ass.

CM.

[SaiK]

how is one-on-one evaluated? by specs and features or by combat capability (may be based on the features), but the ability of the aircraft, the pilot experience, plus plus.

it is easy to get drifted off track, and get into slingshots rather compare crafts for what they are worth for.

btw, do we all think that we need IAF to have dog fight demonstration between the competitors, and choose out of it? what are the measures ?

[Cain Marko]

and such arguments to mar the reputation of a fighter that has been very reliable and done what it was designed to do, is spurious at best.

What reputation? the superbug is called a rhino with good reason. It never did have a reputation as a topnotch A2A bird, not even in the USN. It was never intended to go against flankers or the like, which it might have to in IAF hands. I've already said a zillion times that it is great in the role that it is intended - strike, cap - providing super uptimes for a carrier operation. The AESA does give in an edge today even A2A, but this will be blunted with flankers and J10s getting AESA upgrades. Even Kopp knows this and thats why screams about it.

t depends on the mission profile and the way in which the aircraft is exposed to AAA and SAMs..the Tornadoes at least, were susceptible because of the low level penetration tactics that were adopted. going just by figures of how many fighters were shot down is misleading at best. the F-15 was mostly used for air-superiority missions and during the GW-1, the Allies Suremud-movers always have a higher attrition rate (and previous IAF wars also attest to this fact), and the lower sortie rate for the F-18s was because they were taking off and landing on carriers, as opposed to fixed runways for the F-15s and F-16s.

I don't deny the general logic here. yes mud movers are more susceptible. But you need to consider this - the strike eagles flew close to 2500 sorties, 2 losses, the f-16 flew a whole bunch of strike sorties (13500 overall), fewer losses proportionally. The F111 flew 8000 sorties, only 3 losses.

MOre importantly, what I am arguing against is the idea the a hornet/superhornet is used to "kick in the door" initially and wrest air superiority. THis is wrong, it has never been intended for that role and doubt it will ever do so.

The USN only flew about 15% of all the combat sorties in the GW. There is reason for this. to think that cbgs are used to win air wars is absurd

CM

[Austin]

CM , I tend to agree with most of your argument against the purchase of F-18 and that too on technical grounds and past records , Good Stuff ,Enjoy reading your post

BTW NRao ji may be I missed it , but I am yet to hear from you on why you think is Russia now "Technically Bankrupt" , may be you could wait till end of MAKS 09 put up your views

[GeorgeWelch]

and such arguments to mar the reputation of a fighter that has been very reliable and done what it was designed to do, is spurious at best.

What reputation? the superbug is called a rhino with good reason. It never did have a reputation as a topnotch A2A bird, not even in the USN.

This is false. It was never as much FUN as a Tomcat, but it is a very deadly bird nonetheless.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ts-f-.html

It was never intended to go against flankers or the like

That is EXACTLY what it is designed to do.

The AESA does give in an edge today even A2A, but this will be blunted with flankers and J10s getting AESA upgrades.

Avionics is always progressing and so far the US is always ahead. By the time flankers and J10s catch up with where the SH was 10 years ago, the SH will have moved on to the next thing. 10 years from now we'll be arguing about the next amazing gizmo that the US has and the rest don't and how when they finally get gizmo X the SH won't have any chance. Repeat ad infinitum. The US is ahead and always will remain ahead simply because they spend so much more than everyone else combined on this.

MOre importantly, what I am arguing against is the idea the a hornet/superhornet is used to "kick in the door" initially and wrest air superiority. THis is wrong, it has never been intended for that role and doubt it will ever do so.

Then please explain the massive expenditure to build and maintain the carrier fleet.

You can't do it because you refuse to acknowledge their primary purpose.

The SH absolutely is designed to "kick down the door" and grab air superiority.

The USN only flew about 15% of all the combat sorties in the GW. There is reason for this.

It made more sense to use the massive air bases in Saudi Arabia?

to think that cbgs are used to win air wars is absurd

Then pray tell, what good are they?

[GeorgeWelch]

needs to be able to stay on top even 20 years later, which the rafale and ef-2000 would manage.

How are they going to do that when their countries refuse to invest in them?

Hell even the 35 with decent upgrades will do better imho.

Where will these upgrades come from?

The shornet suffers in this dept.

On the contrary the SH is the absolute best in this department because it has the full backing of the USN. None of the other competitors have anything to compare.

because you simply can't make it a zippier bird.

I don't understand this complaint. It is the same speed as the Rafale.

Esp. with all sides sporting AWACS a marginal difference in radar is hardly going to cut it, you'll need something that can accelerate real quick, turn and burn plenty so as to position better and get decent mileage out of your missiles.

Regardless, 80% of the time the plane shot down didn't even realize it was under attack. The impact of kinetics is grossly overestimated.

But I'd rather have a rafale or tiffy, doesn't hurt to be great in the A2A dept. as well.

The SH is great in A2A, even if you don't recognize it.

Its only drawback is that it is manufactured by the US.

And what a drawback!

It will be manufactured in India . . .

apart from being a heavy slug

Is the Rafale a slug too?

[GeorgeWelch]

MOre importantly, what I am arguing against is the idea the a hornet/superhornet is used to "kick in the door" initially and wrest air superiority. THis is wrong, it has never been intended for that role and doubt it will ever do so.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/air_wing_11.htm

stated mission "to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft in all weather conditons, establish and maintain air superiority and deliver ordnance on target, on time, first pass,"

[Nihat]

the ability of SH with it's APG79 radar and armament has never been in doubt , the principle reason for Rafale's prefrence has always been the lack of trust quotiont with the United States.

We used the Mirage 2000 to great impact in the Kargil war however the same could not have been done with any American jet in the aftermath of Pokhran 99. Aspects such as Shortage of Spares , delay in upgrades , in-sufficiant armament to begin with and later to supply , restriction of usage against TSP , minimal tech. transfer and annual inspection of our jets are all factors which are a very big turn off.

There is no way we could impose operational restrictions on 7 squadrons of our front line jets , for a country like India which is looking to move to indegenious production but currently depends entrely on foreign suppliers tech. transfer and after sales service are absolute key.

[Cain Marko]

This is false. It was never as much FUN as a Tomcat, but it is a very deadly bird nonetheless. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ts-f-.html

Since when was the growler offered to the IAF?

That is EXACTLY what it is designed to do.

Ya right! Only when the other side has ill maintained birds that can barely takeoff and you have an armada of growlers, hawkeyes, f22s, f-35s, f117s, B2s, B1s backing you up i s'pose.

Avionics is always progressing and so far the US is always ahead. By the time flankers and J10s catch up with where the SH was 10 years ago, the SH will have moved on to the next thing. 10 years from now we'll be arguing about the next amazing gizmo that the US has and the rest don't and how when they finally get gizmo X the SH won't have any chance. Repeat ad infinitum.

The next best thing for the U.S. is called the JSF. IOWs, stealth a/c. I'm afraid india already has 2 programs going there.

Then please explain the massive expenditure to build and maintain the carrier fleet.
You can't do it because you refuse to acknowledge their primary purpose.

Why don't you find out yourself. Why exactly is a CBG required? Hint: what were the CBGs doing in GW?

The SH absolutely is designed to "kick down the door" and grab air superiority.

Which it did so well in the GWI! I suppose against even tougher opponent, it'll do even better.

It made more sense to use the massive air bases in Saudi Arabia?

Rest assured USAF bases in korea, japan and Guam are not going to be idle.

CM

[Cain Marko]

How are they going to do that when their countries refuse to invest in them?

Gee, I wonder how the rafale has an RBE 2 ready.

Where will these upgrades come from?

From india's coffers where else? Or is the Superhornet coming with free upgrades as well?

On the contrary the SH is the absolute best in this department because it has the full backing of the USN. None of the other competitors have anything to compare.

So the USN is going to back up the IAF in case of war against china or pakistan? I love the MRCA deal!

I don't understand this complaint. It is the same speed as the Rafale.

Is the shornet supersonic at all altitudes? what is its ceiling? the rafale can do mach 2.

Regardless, 80% of the time the plane shot down didn't even realize it was under attack. The impact of kinetics is grossly overestimated.

Yes in scenarios where the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of the shornet/US. Doubt this will be the case in an india vs chi+pak scenario.

The SH is great in A2A, even if you don't recognize it.

It will be manufactured in India . . .

We'll see.

Is the Rafale a slug too?

Do me a favor - compare the twr, turn rates, climb rates, roll rates, acceleration of the rafale and the shornet, you will have your answer.

CM.

[nachiket]

The SH absolutely is designed to "kick down the door" and grab air superiority.

Which it did so well in the GWI! I suppose against even tougher opponent, it'll do even better.

CM

The SH did not exist during GW1. The legacy Hornet did. The SH has a modified airframe, more powerful engines, better range, much better radar, new avionics and cockpit systems(JHMCS), new missiles(AIM-9x..) etc. etc.
It looks as if you refuse to accept that its a much better aircraft than the legacy hornet.

[nachiket]

---double post---

[nachiket]

Is the Rafale a slug too?

Do me a favor - compare the twr, turn rates, climb rates, roll rates, acceleration of the rafale and the shornet, you will have your answer.

CM.

The Rafale of course is a superior aircraft and I'll be really happy if the IAF decides on it.
However, I still feel the flyaway cost of the Rafale would be much higher than the SH. I could be wrong though.
My only concern as afar as the rafale is concerned is the shorter range of the MICA missile as compared to the AMRAAM and R-77. Might run into problems against the PAF F-16s armed with AIM-120C5s.

[sanjaychoudhry]

Flight trials of F/A-18 Super Hornet begin
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?a=ji ... rnet_begin

[NRao]

Perhaps a timely set of articles to cool any fears?

Newsweek:

After eons of repetition the statement comes true:

Where The Middle Rules :: India's superrich lose the limelight (US: look West policy)

Refreshing acknowledgment:

We Are All Hindus Now (Rig Veda and all. Must get the F-18.)

A compelling change of climate theory:

‘Chimerica’ is Headed for Divorce (Why fear?)


I think this is syops to buy American F-18/16.

[GeorgeWelch]

This is false. It was never as much FUN as a Tomcat, but it is a very deadly bird nonetheless. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ts-f-.html

Since when was the growler offered to the IAF?

The Growler is no more capable than the regular SH in A2A combat and in some ways is less capable (no internal gun)

But if you insist . . . here's a gun kill (not a Growler) by a SH vs a Raptor

http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-gu ... pdate.html

That is EXACTLY what it is designed to do.

Ya right! Only when the other side has ill maintained birds that can barely takeoff and you have an armada of growlers, hawkeyes, f22s, f-35s, f117s, B2s, B1s backing you up i s'pose.

You're letting your prejudice blind you.

The SH is designed to work independently from F-22s, F-35s, F-117s (which are scrapped anyways), B-2s and B-1s.

They do work with Hawkeyes, but hardly an armada of them. A typical carrier might have 4.

However India also has AWACS.

Avionics is always progressing and so far the US is always ahead. By the time flankers and J10s catch up with where the SH was 10 years ago, the SH will have moved on to the next thing. 10 years from now we'll be arguing about the next amazing gizmo that the US has and the rest don't and how when they finally get gizmo X the SH won't have any chance. Repeat ad infinitum.

The next best thing for the U.S. is called the JSF. IOWs, stealth a/c. I'm afraid india already has 2 programs going there.

If there are avionics that can be retrofitted on non-stealth planes, (ie the kind you are worried about for advanced flankers and J10s), they will go on the SH first.

Then please explain the massive expenditure to build and maintain the carrier fleet.
You can't do it because you refuse to acknowledge their primary purpose.

Why don't you find out yourself. Why exactly is a CBG required?

I already posted their mission statement

Hint: what were the CBGs doing in GW?

You are confusing what they are designed to do with how they get (mis)used.

M1A1 is designed to fight hordes of Soviet tanks. It is currently being used to protect convoys against lightly armed insurgents.

Just because it is currently assigned to convoy duty does not mean it couldn't go out and slaughter a tank column if needed.

Similarly just because CBGs were used for grunt work doesn't mean they can't go kick in the door if they have to.

The SH absolutely is designed to "kick down the door" and grab air superiority.

Which it did so well in the GWI! I suppose against even tougher opponent, it'll do even better.

1. The SH wasn't around during the GW
2. There was no real need for Carriers during the GW because of the massive bases in Saudi Arabia.

It made more sense to use the massive air bases in Saudi Arabia?

Rest assured USAF bases in korea, japan and Guam are not going to be idle.

The problem is that those bases are so far from Taiwan that their sortie generation would be minimal. It's simple geography.

[GeorgeWelch]

How are they going to do that when their countries refuse to invest in them?

Gee, I wonder how the rafale has an RBE 2 ready.

The Rafale won't come with RBE2 until 2012 at the earliest.

Actually the RBE2 is a great example of why you WON'T see any more investment in the Rafale.

It was a struggle to get it funded. The French government wanted no part of it. One of the most obvious, slam-dunk upgrades and they had ZERO INTEREST. That should tell you something. Industry had to beg and plead to get funding to increase their chances of export success. Once the line is closed, that consideration goes away and so does any hope for future Rafale upgrades.

Where will these upgrades come from?

From india's coffers where else? Or is the Superhornet coming with free upgrades as well?

Of course India will have to pay for the upgrades.

But paying for installation is peanuts compared to paying for development.

You also get access to the latest and greatest which simply isn't available on the open market at any price.

On the contrary the SH is the absolute best in this department because it has the full backing of the USN. None of the other competitors have anything to compare.

So the USN is going to back up the IAF in case of war against china or pakistan? I love the MRCA deal!

I was referring to the guarantee of future development/upgrades . . .

I don't understand this complaint. It is the same speed as the Rafale.

Is the shornet supersonic at all altitudes? what is its ceiling? the rafale can do mach 2.

Dassault says Mach 1.8

Regardless, 80% of the time the plane shot down didn't even realize it was under attack. The impact of kinetics is grossly overestimated.

Yes in scenarios where the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of the shornet/US. Doubt this will be the case in an india vs chi+pak scenario.

No, this is across ALL aerial combat. It has nothing to do about which side has the odds in their favor. For instance in Vietnam 80% of the MiGs that were shot down took no evasive maneuver. Similarly 80% of the US pilots who were shot down (and ejected and were recovered) didn't realize they were under attack.

It will be manufactured in India . . .

We'll see.

It's a requirement of the RFP so there is no doubt. If it is selected, it WILL be manufactured in India.

Is the Rafale a slug too?

Do me a favor - compare the twr, turn rates, climb rates, roll rates, acceleration of the rafale and the shornet, you will have your answer.

Feel free to make whatever comparison you desire.

[nachiket]

Interesting discussion on the Rafale Here.

Mods is it halal to link strategypage? If not please delete the link.

[MarcH]

I really hate this hyping of the Super Hornet. It is certainly the best striker of the lot, but not all thrust in the world will turn this pig into a fighter.
It's layout is great for carrier operations, but is that really from any interest for India ? I'm sure the IAF will be mighty impressed by it's bring back capability !
Concerning future upgrades: the lack of a domestic market didn't stop Dassault to develop the Mirage 2000/9. Or for that matter Lockheed Martin to develop the F-16/60.

[putnanja]

Political card in aircraft dogfight - Makers of Eurofighter up the ante on the ground to beat American contenders in the race for $11-billion air force contract

[nachiket]

The cost of the deal keeps steadily creeping up. At the start the figure being talked about was around $8 billion. Then when biggies like F-18 and eurofighter joined it went up to $10 billion. Now some news sources quote 11 billion. I even read 12 billion somewhere.
IMO DDM has no clue about the actual amount of money GOI is willing to shell out. It may be well below these amounts.

[Cain Marko]

The SH did not exist during GW1. The legacy Hornet did. The SH has a modified airframe, more powerful engines, better range, much better radar, new avionics and cockpit systems(JHMCS), new missiles(AIM-9x..) etc. etc.

Don't state the obvious, I know the shornet is different from the hornet, i posted the exact differences in one of my recent posts as well. You don't get the larger context in which that statement was written. In any big war scenario, the U.S. will first use top notch a/c (F-15s, F117s in the 90s - GWI and F-22s today to get the initiative or "break the door down", this will be done with heavy support in the form of cruise missile attacks. The idea is the downgrade enemy AD asap.

It is pretty straightforward - why the heck would you use a sub optimal platform to do the work, when you are sitting on topnotch platforms?

Whether it was the F-18 in the Gulfwar or an F-18e/f in a bigger situation today (china), the CBGs airgroups will start using conventional strike a/c only after they have pounded targets weakening C3 nodes and AD sites to their satisfaction.

Can you imagine a posse of F-18e/f's trying to target a S-300/HQ 9 site with plenty of flanker/j10 cover, backed by GCI and AWACS? esp. when you have access to f-22s and a dozen platforms that can launch TLAMs?

Thing is india does not have such super technology, neither in qualilty nor in quantity. So lets hope they get the best possible MRCA bird in every aspect.

It looks as if you refuse to accept that its a much better aircraft than the legacy hornet.

Obviously not, I put up the differences myself in a recent post.

CM.

[nachiket]

Can you imagine a posse of F-18e/f's trying to target a S-300/HQ 9 site with plenty of flanker/j10 cover, backed by GCI and AWACS? esp. when you have access to f-22s and a dozen platforms that can launch TLAMs?

That point is moot, since none of the MRCA contenders would be able to do what you are saying (least of all the Mig-35). You need something in the class of an F-22/35 to do that.

[/quote]

[GeorgeWelch]

Concerning future upgrades: the lack of a domestic market didn't stop Dassault to develop the Mirage 2000/9. Or for that matter Lockheed Martin to develop the F-16/60.

That's very funny. You know what those two aircraft have in common? They were both funded by the UAE.

[GeorgeWelch]

It is pretty straightforward - why the heck would you use a sub optimal platform to do the work, when you are sitting on topnotch platforms?

What part of 'nearby land bases are unavailable' do you not understand?

Can you imagine a posse of F-18e/f's trying to target a S-300/HQ 9 site with plenty of flanker/j10 cover, backed by GCI and AWACS?

Yes

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 6d649146cd

The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.

U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis.

As I said, if you want the best SAMs, buy Russian.
If you want to beat the best SAMs, buy American.

esp. when you have access to f-22s

SHs have to get the job done even when F-22s aren't available.

Thing is india does not have such super technology, neither in qualilty nor in quantity. So lets hope they get the best possible MRCA bird in every aspect.

Sounds like you need the SH to me. Robust, reliable, and extremely capable in all missions. It just plain works now and has the most clear upgrade path for the future.

[Cain Marko]

The Growler is no more capable than the regular SH in A2A combat and in some ways is less capable (no internal gun). But if you insist . . . here's a gun kill (not a Growler) by a SH vs a Raptor.
http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-gu ... pdate.html

Can you also let us know how many times the F-18 got shot down before it got lucky? THanks.

You're letting your prejudice blind you.

Prejudice eh? Thats probly why I put the 35 down in the bottom half of my chart along with the f-16. And thats also probly why I rated the super hornet higher.

The SH is designed to work independently from F-22s, F-35s, F-117s (which are scrapped anyways), B-2s and B-1s.They do work with Hawkeyes, but hardly an armada of them. A typical carrier might have 4.

In theory against a puny target, why not! No need to bring in the USAF and the big boys against a libyan AF armed to the teeth with floggers. But trying that against a more powerful force is suicide. And whether, in your loyalty to the shornet you can see this or not, it is pretty straightforward that the powers that be in the United States do. Otherwise they'd have had a group of 4 CBGs do the job on their own in GWI.

India also has AWACS

Precisely the reason why a marginally better radar like the APG 79 won't cut it. Also the reason why aircraft kinematics will come into play.

If there are avionics that can be retrofitted on non-stealth planes, (ie the kind you are worried about for advanced flankers and J10s), they will go on the SH first.

They are already on the SH. What do you suppose they'll have next Klingon cloaking devices?

You are confusing what they are designed to do with how they get (mis)used.

So the USA (in one of its most successful campaigns no less) misused its CBGs and didn't use them to full design potential.

Similarly just because CBGs were used for grunt work doesn't mean they can't go kick in the door if they have to.

So you are telling me that a CBG is going to use super hornets at H-Hour when the nation sits on a pile of F-22s, F-15s and what not?

It made more sense to use the massive air bases in Saudi Arabia?

Rest assured USAF bases in korea, japan and Guam are not going to be idle. [/quote]

The problem is that those bases are so far from Taiwan that their sortie generation would be minimal. It's simple geography.

What in the world! Talk about geography. Kadena AFB, home of the 18th fighter wing is about 200 miles from Taiwan as the crow flies. Too much distance for the strike eagle/f-22 eh? Osan to Taiwan is just about the same distance as riyadh to Baghdad, so what is the problem? They were sending bombers from japan to vietnam and they can't do so for taiwan?

Come now George, even if you work for Boeing, lets not make it that obvious.

CM