hopsalotI really do hope your trolling…..
Is there any doubt?
hopsalotYou have proof to back up all these assertions?
What makes the EW better?
The ALQ-214 is a state of the art EW system, including RWR and onboard jammer. (IOC back in 2005) This is an all around top of the line system on par with anything available anywhere in the world.
In the Super Hornet’s case the ALQ-214 is paired with the AN/ALE-55 fiber optic towed decoy, (IOC 2010) giving it the world’s newest and most capable towed decoy.
Newer Super Hornets(and some upgrades) also feature the APG-79 AESA radar, which is also integrated with the ALQ-214 to offer the ability to do high-power standoff jamming.
Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Block 2 Super Hornet is set to become the first fighter to use its active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for electronic attack, with a planned software upgrade to allow its array of transmit/receive (T/R) modules to be used as a powerful directional jammer.
Under a “sensor integration” plan being drawn up, the Raytheon APG-79 AESA will be linked to the Raytheon ALR-67 radar warning receiver (RWR) via the fighter’s fibre-optic network switch. The radar’s ground mapping capability will then be used to pinpoint emitters detected by the RWR.
“This will allow us to begin single-ship geolocation of emitters,” says Capt BD Gaddis, US Navy F/A-18 programme manager. The F/A-18E/F’s BAE Systems ALQ-214 electronic countermeasures suite will also be integrated so the aircraft can jam emitters. “We will put the -214 jamming signal through the AESA T/R modules to put power on to the emitter,” he says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fa-18ef-to-use-aesa-as-jammer-208213/
What makes its AR missiles the “worlds most advanced”?
The fact that it is made in the US?
No, the fact that it is the newest (operational 2012) and unquestionably the world’s most advanced missile of its type.
AARGM’s multi-sensor system is the backbone of these capabilities. It includes an advanced digital Anti-Radiation Homing (ARH) passive radar receiver and conformal array antenna to help find targets, a tightly coupled GPS/INS system, a Millimeter Wave (MMW) terminal seeker, and more. While ATK did not give details, it’s plausible to assume that once the missile either finds a target radar in “on” mode or heads to an area or specific target coordinates via GPS, it will use its own millimeter-wave radar to pinpoint the vehicle/ radar/ designated target and destroy it. A datalink sends information back at appropriate times, to help commanders keep WIAs up to date.
This is a supersonic missile that can be targeted at either a location, using its GPS/INS, or an emitter, using its next generation anti-radiation seeker. Once in the target vicinity the missile will switch over to its imaging millimeter-wave radar seeker to identify and kill targets even if they have ceased emitting. Throughout that process the missile is communicating with the launch aircraft via a two way datalink, allowing it to be directed as needed by the pilot, and to report on its success or failure in engaging its target via a last moment update, for precise bomb damage assessment.
There is simply no similar missile operational anywhere else in the world.
…but hey, I guess it is just me cheerleading American equipment because it is American. :rolleyes:
Sometimes the fanboys around here forget who the fanboys are.
hopsalotI’d rather take the Rafale over a Superbug anyday. At least we know the Rafale can turn-and-burn or get into a dogfight if it needs to, since its maneouvrability its better than that of a barn with wings.
And I’m guessing you are underestimating the capabilities of the SPECTRA suite.
But then again, you superhornet fanboys have always been weird.:p
LOL, right right. I forgot how the kids around here decided that the SH was a brick with wings, or is it a barn with wings? It can’t go fast, it can’t maneuver, blah blah blah.
If it makes you feel better keep telling yourself that.
Again, you can call me a fanboy if you want, though I should point out that I am the only one here who has actually brought any relevant facts to the discussion, but it isn’t being a fanboy to point out that the SH was designed from the start to be a carrier aircraft and it excels there for good reason.
It absolutely beats the Rafale in sensors, EW, and overall capabilities. Unlike the Rafale, it is fully operational with an AESA, helmet mounted sight, towed decoy, the world’s most advanced anti-radiation missile, and a whole host of other specialized munitions.
The Rafale meanwhile has just a handful of weapons fully qualified with no clear roadmap to reach where the SH is today.
The Rafale really is a good plane, easily the second best carrier capable plane out there, but it is no SH.
hopsalotHow effective and performance wise what would be the advantage offered by the SubParWhoreNet ore even Rafale if they had to take off from a skijump carrier?And will your opinion sir be the same if Su-33 and the 29K were taking of assisted by catapults?
Subparwhorenet?
Please try to keep things on the level of a 15 year old or higher.
The Su-33 and Mig-29K aren’t designed for catapults so there really isn’t much point in getting into this.
If they were, they would presumably carry larger loads, provided a catapult equipped carrier were available.
The Super Hornet could take off using a ski-jump, but would suffer the same sorts of payload restrictions as the Russian jets in that case.
hopsalotNo doubt that is an area the MiG-29K is behind on.
Still, the statement that Russia has no modern weapons aside from AShM is patently false.Then again, the Kuznetsov’s role is still not expeditionary warfare and bombing of some poor country thousands of miles away. Why are you so insistent on pounding your chest about the Superhornet’s A2G performance?
We are talking about carrier aircraft and their capabilities.
Neither the Su-33 nor the Mig-29k approach those offered by the SH. That is just a fact. I get it, everyone likes to play bash America around here, but claiming that the Su-33 and Mig-29K are more advanced carrier aircraft designs than the SH is just comical. One of them(all 20 or so existing examples) is obsolete and about to be retired, the other (all 16 or so existing examples) isn’t even operational on a carrier yet and still lacks capabilities other carrier aircraft had decades ago.
So yes, if you are happy to accept a very limited aircraft with capabilities in a handful of missions for your navy, then great, buy a Mig-29k.
If you want a fully capable multi-role aircraft that can do essentially anything you can ask a fighter to do, and do it well, then you want a SH.
hopsalotThe Su-33 was never designed for A2G role, and neither was Admiral Kuznetsov.
What a pointless comparison.
I suppose that is one way of admitting that it is essentially useless for air-to-ground missions…
hopsalotAnd the F-18 can’t do things the MiG-29 could do 25 years ago.
lol.
Didn’t realize the extensive portfolio of A2G and A2A munitions that Russia exported to other nations are considered brochures, but I guess Americans know better.
Ok, lets talk.
First off, Show me the Mig-29K’s targeting pod.
hopsalotNonsnes to stay polite..
The limitation placed upon the Su-33 comes from the Russian CV and its StoBar launch method.
Hense the fuel and bringback limitation of Su-33.
We are talking about carrier aircraft here. If your plane relies on a more primitive approach to operations, such as STOBAR, then that is a major limitation.
That is what some of the enthusiast types here don’t seem to get. The SH accepted some significant compromises for its carrier capability. Those trade-offs are a liability when you are comparing it to other aircraft in a land-based role, but when you start talking about carrier operations everything is reversed.
The Su-33 offers barely a shadow of the capability that the SH does.
Upgrade of more potent Su-33 would also help, Irbis-E radar and 117S engines.. but Russia has instead aimed for a cheaper solution(Mig-29K), which is ok, consider they only have one mid-size CV.
So basically if a better version of the Su-33 existed it would be better than the actual Su-33. No joke… :rolleyes:
The problem is that you are comparing an imaginary plane to a real plane. The SH has been fully operational for more than a decade now. If you want to play the what-if game and start imagining up upgraded configurations of planes, that is a different discussion.
The real-world Su-33 is an obsolete aircraft and only a nitwit would say it is more capable than the SH of today. It doesn’t even have a modern air-to-ground capability or a targeting pod.
hopsalotOh, well if we’re back to talking about aircraft and not the supporting infrastructure then Rafale is obviously the gold standard, not Super Hornet. And in the long run even J-15 will take the podium ahead of Super Hornet.
The Rafale is a capable plane, no doubt about that, but it isn’t to the level of the SH. For one thing it still lacks the SH’s superior radar and EW system, not to mention the incredible range of weapons integrated onto the SH.
I would slot the Rafale in behind the SH, but that is no slight given the competition.
As for the J-15 :rolleyes: I love how people around here think. OMG, this new plane looks cool! It will be so awesome!
The J-15 is a heck of a long way from being operational. When it becomes operational its capabilities will be tied to its avionics and its weapons, in addition to the airframe itself. These are huge question marks for the Chinese and it is foolish to assume they are going to just race ahead of the US.
…but hey, we agree that it is a cool looking plane and that is what is really important right? 😉
hopsalotYou sound like a Boeing salesman, really.
Indeed, A jack of all trades but master of none. But then again, I’m not into flying bricks with wings.
Yes, it is SOOO much more important to have a pretty plane that can’t do anything useful.
What good is a targeting pod anyway? You can always dive-bomb targets WWII style…
hopsalotAnd what a badge of honour that is. :rolleyes:
AAAA+ GUARANTEED FOR USE AGAINST THIRD-WORLD ADVERSARIES AT COST EXCHANGE RATIO OF 1000:1.
Oh boo hoo
Is that really the best you can come up with?
What top adversaries has your favorite plane gone up against?
It is when you take into account the Nimitz and all supporting assets… but then what does that have to do with SH? Stick a US flag on a MiG-29K and suddenly it’s the gold standard in naval aviation.
lol
The Mig-29 can’t do things original F-18s were doing 20 years ago. This isn’t about nationalism, it is about reality.
The US puts far more time effort and money into naval aviation than anyone else. As a result the US Navy is the only such force of its type in the world. Those are simply facts. You don’t have to like them.
hopsalotFor a few more years, yes.
There is simply no aircraft anywhere else in the world that comes close to offering what the SH does. It is a jack of all trades type design, but an exceptionally modern one with extremely high capabilities in each case.
The worst thing anyone can say about the SH is that it isn’t a spectacularly fast aircraft, but even there it is quite adequate and if additional speed is really a priority then the appropriate upgrades are available. Thus far the US Navy hasn’t seen a need for them.
hopsalotMIG-29K can lunch Antiship, Anti-radar and glonass guided bombs.
Yeah, and what targeting pod do they use? hmmmmmm? :confused:
and they do have data links/HMDs etc. They are not few. all 16 delivered to India. fully operational with simulators.
16 planes and no carrier. :rolleyes:
No carrier.
Think about that.
These pilots aren’t even carrier qualified because they don’t have a carrier to operate from. Even if the platform were competitive with the SH-and it isn’t-it would still take years to train the pilots and crews to operate on a carrier effectively. This isn’t something that happens overnight.
These planes are not operational as carrier aircraft in any sense of the word.
If India needed to operate against a “third world hellhole” as you put it, their Mig-29Ks would be useless because they would be sitting at home on dry land.
and rest of two orders will be completed in less than two years. They are more than Naval Rafale at given point. but not all of them necessary on carriers. so how come so few Rafale on aircraft carrier is even counted as modern aircraft. it has the same obsolete canards fro 1980s.
The Rafale is a far more modern and capable aircraft than any Mig-29 variant… and are you making cracks about 1980’s designs while promoting the Mig-29, seriously? I will take a 1980’s design over a 1970s design. :p
At least the Rafale has an AESA, and a far superior EW system, not to mention a modern targeting pod.
F-18 top speed and G values are below MIG-29K. it wont give the range advantage to a BVR weopons.
Again with the spec-sheet business… The SH is an excellent all around design withe very strong air to air performance. If air to air combat really just came down to measures of top speed and Gs then there would be no need to buy a plane newer than the 1970s. The SH has huge advantages in the areas that matter.
Su-33 are upgraded for air to air role. which they are designed. countless combat against third world dont count with practically no airforce.
.
lol
They can’t even drop a smart bomb. Are you seriously suggesting that a plane that would be flying around looking out the window for targets to shoot rockets at would be competitive with a SH or Rafale in a real world operation? 😀 :rolleyes:
I get it. You think the Russian plane has to be better no matter what. What you have to realize is that the SH is the gold standard of naval aviation. The only thing that comes close is the Rafale. Worn out old Su-33s from the 1980s with no meaningful air to ground capability, due to be retired in the next few years, are a laughable comparison.
hopsalotNeither has even a tenth of the effectiveness of the Rafale, let alone the SH.
The SH is a proven performer that has dropped countless live weapons in combat. It has world class sensors, datalinks and overall integration.
The few remaining Su-33s are relics of the 80s. Unless something has changed very recently their only air to ground weapons are dumb bombs and rockets.
The Mig-29K meanwhile is barely operational and has many years of work ahead of it to reach where the SH was in 2002. (And that assumes Russia is able to come up with some modern weapons to integrate onto them. Outside of anti-ship cruise missiles Russia has nothing but marketing brochures to compete with the comprehensive range of weapons operational on the SH.)
hopsalotThe stand-off munition has made the stealth infiltration irrelevant. Who’s going to get close to a SAM site when glide bombs are available in large quantity? Against whom, North Korea? China?
This must be why everyone has stopped designing/building stealth aircraft… :rolleyes:
Stand-off munitions pre-date stealth aircraft by decades and decades. They are an important part of air power but they are absolutely not a replacement for having an aircraft that can operate in defended airspace.
The ideal combination is a stealth aircraft paired with inexpensive stand-off munitions. JSOW, SDB, Spear, etc. This allows the aircraft to get close enough to identify and track its targets reliably, while staying far enough away to avoid detection.
Sign In
