“Neuron”, “NeuroN”, “nEuron” are wrong spellings.

It’s “nEUROn”.

The whole mixed-case name business has gotten out of hand. (Thank you Apple.)

I am happy to capitalize the first letter as a proper noun, “Neuron.”

I am also happy to capitalize the entire word as an acronym, “NEURON.”

…but I am not going to start memorizing every sequence of upper and lowercase letters that someone dreams up and attaches to a product, especially when they break other rules in the language.

The reason some subsonic UAV will be VLO is they have no other ace up their sleeve, while hypersonic vehicles havnt got any use of stealth.

Mach 6 with a 9,000 mile combat radius, it can kill any target, anywhere,
using conventional warhead PGMs within 2 hours of the command to “GO”.
It employs conventional takeoff and landing from a runway within the US
(forward deployment is unnecessary). Its flight path follows multiple waypoints
and can be altered enroute, making interception impossible with today’s weaponry.
It is as more of a game-changer than F-22’s stealth/supercruise. All it takes is money and time.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm

ps, your ‘again be serious’ argument do you no good

Hypersonics have a long long way to go.

They may eventually prove feasible, but as of currently they are not close to being operational.

You’re only about 30 years late there.

Lets try to keep this serious huh?

Playing with models and simulations is all well and good but building and flying an actual LO aircraft is a completely different level of commitment.

Neuron will be a big step forward for its participants and provides a key opportunity for them to close some of the gap that has opened between Europe and Russia/China/USA in stealth aircraft design.

Of course a serious ongoing commitment will be necessary, but this is at least a step in the right direction and perhaps equally importantly a demonstration that behind closed doors European design shops understand that stealth is the future of combat aviation.

You have asked why the SH got the grief it did. I have provided you an explanation. Whether you like or not is entirely your problem.

Oh it isn’t about whether or not I “like” the explanation.

As I have already said I am well aware of why people here bash the SH.

It is a combination of a misunderstanding of how air combat works, and just general anti-American sentiment.

People see a hugely successful design that has won over its critics and performed well in both war and peacetime… but instead of talking about actual performance, they focus on imaginary shortcomings.

Plane X is very slightly faster. Plane Y can do the dreaded corkscrew flip, when its AoA limiter is disabled and its fuel load is less than 20% !

Or the always popular, “my plane is prettier, yours is a brick with wings.”

It fair to say there is a lot of dick waving going on here. In 1982 a lot of people said the Harrier FRS1 would be no mach for the Mirage 3 but as proved better training and tactics won the day and so it goes on. Wg Cdr Jones RAAF said after exercise pitch black 2012 we have assessed the SH as having held their own against international combatants (SU27-SU30)

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The SH has had more than ample time to demonstrate its capabilities in both peace and wartime and the US Navy is more than happy with its performance. It has gone from being the plane they never wanted to the plane they can’t imagine letting go of.

To say SH is as good as Typhoon in the air to air game is a little hopeful as Typhoon was built for this first and air to ground second to say that SH is better than Typhoon and Rafale as a overall platform at this time I feel would be right it is ahead in development.

See, there you go trying to be reasonable. That simply isn’t acceptable here. 😉

The Typhoon was built as an air-to-air platform. It excels there as one might expect. Once it is fully matured with an AESA and Meteor it will be a fearsome adversary.

…but it can’t land on carrier. In a discussion of carrier aircraft it simply never comes up. That isn’t a flaw in the Typhoon, it wasn’t designed for a carrier.

If it had been designed for carrier operations changes would have been required that would have impacted its performance when operating from land. That is just reality.

As for the Mig 29K the fist two Indian carriers are for air defence and I feel the once the Indian navy start to operate the type we will see more clearly its performance. It will also be interesting to see what they buy for the third and largest carrier around 2017 as this is to have CATOBAR system fitted will they go for SH or Rafale more likely Rafale as they should be operating the type from land by then.Also if sea Gripen was to ever get off the drawing board at the right price could it be a contender.

It will be interesting to see where the Indian Navy goes moving forward. At the time India began negotiations for the Mig-29Ks a US purchase wasn’t possible and the Rafale just wasn’t ready.

That depends on the philosophy of the comparison. You are obviously concentrating on the question ”if a today’s configured SuperHornet met a today’s MiG-29K who would beat the sh!t out of whom”?

Actually, this whole thing started with JSR’s assertion that:

[Mig-29K] is still far more advanced design for carrier aircraft than Rafale/Su-33/F-18.

A simply absurd assertion that has now been thoroughly debunked.

That is far too hypothetical for my taste. I am more focused on a question ”if Brazil launched a competition on a completely equipped aircraft carrier for its Navy to be comissioned in 2018, what type of aircraft would most likely win?”

That is of course a completely different question than anyone here has been discussing.

Why F-35?

Because you said :

Today’s aircraft are most likely to meet in sales competitions. For that the comparison of planes which will be available in desired configurations in few years to come is much more vital.

If you turn this into a discussion of hypothetical future aircraft then there is no realistic comparison between today’s 4th generation designs and the F-35, particularly if you are planning to operate from a carrier.

What else do you want to do? Talk ten pages of trash about who would win if Indian Navy launched a surprise attack on Melbourne and Sydney on morning 27-06-2013? And you are calling me silly? 😎

That is called a strawman argument, and yes, I think you are silly for trying such an approach.

It has very good prospects, agree. It is a solid striker packed with sophisticated blings, has strong political leverage and very promising price tag. But.. somehow it still does not work right..

Um, doesn’t work right? Compared to its contemporaries it has done wonderfully. It is the most mature, combat proven, and least expensive of the three. It has been a simply smashing success, and yet messageboard experts think it “does not work right.” :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Even from an export standpoint the Typhoon and Rafale have performed similarly.

Typhoon has two deals, both tainted by bribery. (Saudi and Austria)

Rafale has one win pending but not yet finalized.

The SH has one win with Australia.

I am not sure if RAAF even considered other design than the SH due to their legacy Bugs, so that is not exactly ‘win’ but OK, it has one point thus far.

It is absolutely a win. You need to get past the whole “it looks like an F-18” thing. There is essentially nothing common between the two aircraft anymore. Not only that, but the Super Hornets were purchased to replace F-111s, not original hornets.

Yeah, I concur, it is better than nothing. Although I find it strange that they don’t find enough space for an IRST in such massive aircraft as the SH. If I look at the IRSTed competitors, MiG-29, Gripen, Rafale, they all are visibly smaller. :confused:

Again, there is space and that option is available if someone wants it. The US Navy preferred the podded option.

It’s not a joke, it’s called business. The notion of the comparison in style right-here/right-now well applies for an incoming military conflict. For that, unfortunately, you lack a scenario. I do not see Russian or Indian Navy engaging with US NAVY or RAAF anytime soon. Therefore, the whole my-SH-can-do-what-your-MiG-cannot reasoning becomes a moot point.

LOL, oh I get it. So we aren’t talking about capabilities. When someone says the Mig-29K is a better carrier aircraft than the SH what they really mean is “ignore capabilities, I just want to pound on my chest.”

Today’s aircraft are most likely to meet in sales competitions. For that the comparison of planes which will be available in desired configurations in few years to come is much more vital.

That is, again quite unimportant. No export Hornet was ever operated from a carrier.. and the same will most likely apply for all export Super Hornets, as well.

Ok, so the F-35 wins. End of discussion, right?

But this is a very valid point for discussion. If the SH requires a 100,000t CATOBAR carrier to be operated properly while the other design can live with a 55,000t STOBAR, then you cannot ignore this additional invest your customer needs to make. This single argument will most likely have written off the SH from all future naval export acquisitions. In that way, the MiG-29 is greatly superior to SH, even if inferior in other aspects.

The SH was designed to operate from a carrier with catapults because that is what the US Navy operates. It wasn’t designed as an export product.

Again, if you want to talk about comparing the SH to the Mig-29K as export products this is going to be a fairly lame discussion.

One has one sale to Australia, where there is no carrier.

The other has one sale to India, made on the basis of the Indians receiving a suitable carrier practically for free. (Again, lol)

What is the point of that? If you want to talk about potential future sales the situation doesn’t really get any better. There aren’t a lot of carriers out there.

If you want to talk about land-based exports then we aren’t really comparing carrier aircraft anymore. In any case the SH has very good prospects remaining to pick up some international orders.

Yes, but it will have to carry the wet bag all the time. Too bad they did not integrate it into the airframe, that would be a much nicer option.

I don’t quite understand the thing with the pod now. What prevents the user from integrating one?

The reason the US Navy chose that approach is because in real world ops you are always carrying that centerline tank and this way you can buy no more IRSTs than you need. (Not all planes need them on every mission, and a podded approach does have some maintenance advantages.)

In an air-to-air scenario you might end up dropping the tank, but at that point you are already talking about firing millions of dollars of missiles at the badguys so the added cost of an IRST or two doesn’t really make much of a difference.

There is an internal version available for export if anyone wants it.

targeting pod is irrelevant when your going to use 200 to 300km ARM/Ashm.

Um… it is pretty relevant if you want to do anything else. That is the whole point, there are a handful of things that a Mig-29K can do, but there are tons of things it can not. Without a targeting pod it is next to useless in the large majority of air to ground scenarios. :p

Besides, as I already explained above it is hardly as if the SH lacks a suitable anti-radiation missile… :diablo:

MIG-29K has done 100 take off and landings. with full configurations.

Is that supposed to be impressive? 100? Really? 😮

Let me repeat. With no carrier to practice on, India’s pilots are not carrier qualified. Even if the pilots themselves were qualified, the crew for the carrier are not.

The Mig-29k is not operational as a carrier based fighter, period. Trying to compare a plane that won’t even be operational in its designed mission for years to the SH is a joke. :rolleyes:

Even trials in less light.. There is also advanced simulators that cut down training time. It is not 1970s or 1980s.

Trials in less light? Are you joking? 😀

Are you really highlighting the fact that the Mig-29k is going to be capable of flying at night? And you are telling -me- that this isn’t the 1970s or 1980s? :confused:

Even in the 1970s night operations were old news.

…and yes, the SH has simulators as well. Simulators are no substitute for practice on a real carrier. 😉

They wont be sitting home. There is air refuelling option. MIG-29K has 5 wet stations and buddy refueling.

No carrier. The Mig-29k is not operational on a carrier and is thus just another warmed over Mig. Yes refueling in air can extend its range, but that is hardly the same thing as having a carrier.

Rafale is obsolete from the start. Even the hyper Sarkozy could not sell anywhere. They will only sell it if there is offsets. and that will take time. Rafale Naval variant currently dont have AESA and even if there is AESA. its weak engines and small nose ensure that it will always remain a subpar aircraft. Russia bought Mistral (without offsets) and buys 1.2m Auto equivalent vehicles per year from France. that is huge favor that current supposed customers of Rafale like Brazil/UAE/India cannot afford.

Please, the only reason the Indians even bought the Mig-29k was because they thought they were getting a good deal on the carrier. (lol) If it were opened up to a real competition the same thing would have happened as happened in the MRCA competition, only in this case the finalists could only have been the SH and Rafale. 🙂

SH is over 15tons aircaft. Not suitable for high speed interception. It also lacks IRST. SH is not a big export success. despite being much longer continuous production.

lol, aircraft over 15 tons aren’t suitable for high speed interception? Did you really just say that? 😀

As for the IRST, the SH will be operational with an advanced long-wave IRST shortly.

Smart bombs means your close to target. which is not an easy thing to do against welll defended sophisticated rival that are likely to using decoys. See Libya example where there is call for low cost aircraft as those smart bombs are not needed once cruise missile and ARM do the job.

Oh yeah, much better to be reduced to dive bombing, strafing and firing unguided rockets because you don’t even have a targeting pod. That is clearly a much much better option. :D:rolleyes::confused: