-the E/F have greater range and speed, and more carefree handling.
-the E/F have lower RCS than the C/D. the reductions weren’t just to return the RCS to that of the earlier Hornets.
-the KS-172 if and when it ever reaches the market, is an anti-AWACS weapon. It’s not gonna have a 400km range against a fighter, and I’ve yet to hear that it’s designed to counter non-cooperative high manuevering targets.

The F/A-18E has not even the same turn rate of the F-18C, it is not better, and armed with weapons it is not a aircraft that can keep a low RCS since all its weapons are carried externally, they reduced the RCS to increase the weapons carriage capability besides that the aircraft will advertise it self easily, that is the reason it will be replaced by the F-35, they know that fully armed the aircraft is a big billboard in the sky

the E/F’s limited improvement in engine thrust, coupled
with the fact that the E/F is a larger aircraft than the C/D, results
in the E/F having less air-to-air combat capability in sustained turn
rate, maneuvering, and acceleration than the C/D.

See more

Aircraft acceleration affects an aircraft’s combat performance in a
number of ways, ranging from how quickly the aircraft can reach its
area of operation to its ability to close the gap in air-to-air
engagements or to evade air-to-ground missiles. Navy data shows the
following:

— At 5,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.08 Mach7 in 21 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E will
take 52.8 seconds.

— At 20,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 34.6 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes
50.3 seconds.

— At 35,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 55.80 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes
64.85 seconds. The F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.6
Mach in 2 minutes
12 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes 3 minutes and 4 seconds

and that is not the end of the story

Sustained turn rate,4 maneuvering,5 and acceleration contribute to
an aircraft’s combat performance and survivability by increasing its
ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. Navy
data6 comparing the F/A-18C to the F/A-18E shows the following:

— At sea level, the F/A-18C’s sustained turn rate is 19.2 degrees
per second, while the F/A-18E’s sustained rate is 18 degrees per
second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C is 54 knots
per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 65 knots per second in
a turn.

— At 15,000 feet, the F/A-18C’s sustained turn rate is 12.3
degrees per second, while the F/A-18E’s sustained rate is 11.6
degrees per second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C
is 62 knots per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 76 knots
per second in a turn.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns96098.htm

Sorry, while your J-10 maybe more agile in some aspects. It hardly is a Superior Platform to the Super Hornet. (F/A-18E/F) Really, your kidding your self if you believe Chinese Avaionics or Weapons are equal to the US. With all do respect……..

I think you are just belittling an aircraft just without any real base, the J-10 is a very modern platform, true the AIM-120 in latest variants has longer range and the AIM-9X is a better weapon than the PL-9 or R-74.

But your have no base to say the Chinese J-10 and Su-30MKK are inferior.

As an airplane the J-10 is more capable, its avionics are more or less on par to western modern avionics and its weapons are good enough to assure victory if flown well.

You honestly believe the best exchange ratio the SH could manage in BVR is 2:1? Top speeds aren’t relevant in combat. What speed will the J-10 fight at? It’s speed and agility won’t be enough to escape a C7/D.
As for the AIM-9X, not only does it have greater agility, and off boresight capabilities, but it’s also much longer ranged(which also helps mitigate any slight advantages the J-10 might have in turns).

the AIM-9X has not a better range than the R-73 and top speeds are relevant in Combat, since top speeds mean the speed and acceleration you can run away or get in missile range, it means the F-18E pilot has less time to fire the longer range missile and will be in missile range of the enemy in lesser time

So what you’re saying is that the J-10 has comparable avionics to an F-18C, and a less capable BVR weapon than the AIM-120C/D, and less capable WVR missile than the AIM-9X. What airspeed is the J-10 travelling when it’s outturning the Super Hornet(or is it able to do this at any airspeed?) What’s the AoA limitations of the J-10?

The F-18E won`t beat in agility or performance the J-10, that already is a fact, the F-18E is not better in agility to the F-18C and the J-10 is in the class of the JAS-39NG or better in agility so you can expect a turn rate better than a F-16 or marginally better than a MiG-29.

The J-10 is faster and more agile, it is smaller so more difficult to spot visually a crucial element if you use a HMS.

And F-18E only has longer range missiles beyond that the aircraft is not match, since it is not faster, has not better performance and has not better agility and you forget China uses Su-30MKK with longer range AA-10s.

So while the F-18E is fighting at BVR Su-30MKKs it will be fight at WVR by J-10s

I believe the point was the Quality of Equipment? So, plane for plane Australia would do very well. As for numbers the RAAF would operate along side Allied Forces that are Equipped with very similar Hardware. So, India’s or China’s numerical advantage would matter much less.

That is not true quality, China operates more than 130 J-10s which is already as capable as the F-18E, add up training and China will have the advantage since the PL-12 matches the AIM-120 and the J-10 will out turn the F-18E add up numbers the chinese will beat the Australians.

India has the Su-30MKI that will beat easily the F-18C and match the F-18E and in some aspects surpass it.

beyond the sense of superiority Australia is not match, niether in technology neither is superior in training.

besides the possible use of long range surface to surface missiles to destroy air bases is a threat Australia can not repel beyond making other runways but the F-18s are not jump jets so still need long runways..

India and China operate with their own satellites and have their own research in air to surface missiles and fifth generation technology aircraft.

Australia is not match, the only thing you are not understanding is without the US or England, Australia is not match for India or China

I know not everyone on here speaks english as they’re primary language, but look at what I said again and re-think your position please.

I said modern wars between two military giants, not these skirmishes we have been seeing such as the exact cases that you pointed out, thank you very much.

It was not a matter of language but a matter of your intentions, you are implying that all wars are like that and you fail to recognize there are several types of wars, major nuclear powers war in example Russia vs China or US versus Russia; a nuclear power versus non a nuclear power in example US vs Iraq, Russia vs Georgia and non nuclear powers fighting other non nuclear powers wars like the Iran Iraq war or Peru vs Ecuador, in the last two obviously the nation making aircraft will always win and making the best ones will win, nations having fewer and less advanced aircraft or without aircraft manufacturing capability will lose

Wasnt WWIII expected to be a war of attrition and whoever ended up in the best position in three weeks or so would be the victor? (non-nuclear of course)

A modern war, not these skirmishes that we are used to seeing, but a modern war between two military giants will end in both sides being completely depleted unless a truce is called before hand. Modern Industry, at its current size/limitations, can not keep pace with the speed at which a war like this would be fought. Period.

If your statement applies to wars like the invasion of grenada or Panama by the US or even the invasion of Iraq and operation allied force then the US would had lost all its aircraft the US has lost less than 100 aircraft in those wars, Russia did not lose a large amount of aircraft in its recent war with Georgia and the Losses by the Soviet Union versus afghanistan never put in risk the Soviet air force and it was similar in the Iraq-Iran war
however the minor air forces saw themselves defeated and without any chance of winning