Since when all the Block II Rhinos are twin seaters?! You are aware that a big part of the US Navy Block II Rhinos are “E”´s, right?

And you have the RCS of these two particular aircrafts?
How well the radar blockers on the SH compare with the S ducted intakes of the Typhoon at supersonic speeds when the blocker vanes are entirely open?
How well compares the FSS materials in their respective radar redomes?
Etc, etc, etc… Without RCS charts you are just speculating.

Regarding the twin seats:

This was how it was planned: “Most of the Block 2 Super Hornets will be two-seaters, reflecting Navy doctrine for “net-centric” warfare, in which weapons platforms are “nodes” in a network where volumes of tactical data are transferred back and forth. In net-centric warfare, two crew are needed because the back-seater has to track the network activity; make the appropriate decisions based on that data; and control the aircraft’s systems accordingly, while the front-seater actually flies the aircraft. This means the back-seater is more a peer to the front-seater than ever before — and in fact, in the Block 2 Super Hornet, the back-seater can actually perform weapons release.” From http://www.vectorsite.net/avhorn_2.html

This was how it turned out: “The F/A-18E is a single-seat Super Hornet. The 2-seat F/A-18F sacrifices some range, carrying only 13,350 pounds of fuel – 900 fewer pounds than the F/A-18E. In exchange for this reduced range, it adds a 2nd crewman with an advanced attack station cockpit to assist in strike roles.
The F/A-18F Block II adds a number of enhancements, but all are electronic rather than aerodynamic. The most significant improvement is its AN/APG-79 AESA radar that enables simultaneous air and surface scans and is likely to offer improved reconnaissance, jamming, and even communications capabilities. Plus other capabilities the government may wish to add.” from http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Super-Hornet-Fighter-Family-MYP-III-2010-2013-Contracts-06392/

But as this was about the RAAF context, all RAAF Super Hornets are F-18F block II.

There is more to the superbug’s LO treatment than the radar blockers in the inlet ducts. For example: (i) The inlets themselves incorporate elements such as edge alignment with the wings and (canted) vertical surfaces. (ii) Edge serration has been used on larger items like undercarriage and engine access doors. (iii) And of course the APG-79, being a L(er)PI design. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/40385576/Detection-and-Jamming-Low-Probability-of-Intercept-Radar

So, the RAF pilot I mentioned earlier, the one that has been to war in both the Harrier and F-16, and stated he’d rather go to war in the Typhoon anyday of the week, is his statement insane, too?

Are you talking about a Typhoon of today or a Typhoon with further weapons integrated? If it’s the latter, then yes, give me the Tiffy. Everytime.

By the sounds of things, him and his F/A-18 colleagues were easy prey for the RAF Typhoons during their time in Malaysia. So no surprise he stated what he did. It’s quite possible he was talking about going to war in terms of A/A, as their deployment in Malaysia was heavily weighted towards A/A as far as I’m aware.

Anyone preffering to go to war in A/A against the Typhoon (even with Captor-M) in an F/A-18, “Super” or not, might want to spend a little extra time in the pre-flight medical centre for an head examination.

“Inane” not “insane”

The “alleged” statement was supposedly made by a RAAF pilot on exchange with the RAF. As the RAAF are still working towards operational capability with the Supers, it’s unlikely any such RAAF pilot would have operational up close and hands on knowledge of the F-18Fs, or indeed what the RAAF was actually trying to get out of Bersama Shield: air to ground, maritime strike, something less such as systems familiarization in a complex environment, or tactics development.

Surely the aircraft as they are today must be the benchmark? In five years time the Eurofighter may have more weapons and systems integrated, but the Supers will too eg new AMRAAM variants, JASSM-ER, and long range IRST. And in five years time the RAAFs classics will have started to be replaced by the F-35.

I’d hope that the Typhoon is better in air to air than the classics Hornets; they are multirole aircraft from the 1970’s in the last few years of their service lives after all. I wouldn’t write off the F-18Fs though. With AIM-120 models becoming longer ranged and the APG-79 maturing, technology is pushing in a direction that suits it’s style of air to air ie strike first from longer distances, taking advantage of its use of LO techologies. And have there been many (any) publicized, analyzed encounters between block 2 Supers armed for air to air, backed up by AEW ( the likely operational scenario) and the Eurofighter?

Here is an article from the recent deployment of the No.6 sqn to Malaysia.

The comment of an Australian exchange pilot:

It was also the first time that the new Striker helmet has been used during a deployment.

http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/05/typhoon-malaysia/

Despite the reference to RAAF F-18Cs and F-18Fs only six RAAF F-18Fs took part. It was part of the RAAF’s efforts to achieve final operating capability with the type in 2012. Also, the RAAF’s classic Hornets are upgraded As and Bs.

I suppose the beauty of reporting an “alleged” comment is that you don’t really have to offer any proof or backup.

If the Hornet had looked like a shrunken Tomcat nobody would probably be too concerned about the change to SH. The Hornet looked cool. The SH looked hacked.

Yep. I blame Top Gun for all these pointless anti superbug rants….. 😉

Looks like the MRH90 has been added to the projects of concern list:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/delays-mechanical-problems-put-defence-chopper-project-on-concern-list/story-e6frg8yo-1226208312583

Why? Because it uses ESSM? Because it embarks an SH 60? The ship was deigned in Europe and produced in Australia. It has an Australian combat system, Australian ECM equipment, European torpedoes, Australian 3D radar and illuminator (Perth ATM).

My point was that there is a limit to the European content in both the ANZAC and the Hobart classes. They are a far cry from the Type 45, Horizon, or La Fayette in that context.

For the ANZACs there is also SPS-49(V)8, Mark 41 VLS, Mark 45, RGM-84, LM2500 (to be used in the Hobarts as well), and RAST (Canadian I know).

As for the Evolved Burkes, they existed only in a hard drive and CAD/CAM program at Gibbs and Cox. I’m not surprised they weren’t bought.

As for PzH2000 and K-9, time will tell if either one is actually selected and procured. The DoD and DMO seems to be able to move quickly when they want to (C-17, F-18F and M777). Then there are acquisitions like the battlefield airlifters.

Japan went to war with the USA & UK when it was barred from buying raw materials from them & the territories they controlled, which at that time included all its possible sources of oil, iron, rubber & some other materials.

China isn’t in that situation, nor likely to be.

Check your history books. What was true in the 1930s had ceased to be true by 1941. Japan was under embargo by the USA, British Empire & Commonwealth (including Australia), & the Netherlands government in exile (i.e. Netherlands East Indies), from July 26th 1941.

But Japan was at war with its neighbours long before any western embargo, occupying large tracts of China from the early 1930s. It also formally allied itself with Nazi Germany in 1940. To say the Pacific war started due to a western of Japan embargo in 1941 (following the invasion of French IndoChina in 1940) is stretching it more than a little. By that time, Japan’s military expansionist plans were well underway.

Agreed! Good relations now doesn’t mean things won’t change in the future, especially considering India and China will become ever more determined to obtain resources, and Australia has lots of natural resources.

+1

People seem to forget that there was no “logical” reason for Japan to invade a host of countries in the 1930s and 40s either. Australia, for example, was more than happy to sell resources to Japan in the 1930s, but that didn’t stop them from invading Australian Territories (PNG) and bombing mainland Australia in possible preparation for an invasion.