… says someone who uses Code One as an impartial source.. :confused:

Is it really worth the effort to sign in just to lie?

RBE2-AA is nearly a decade newer, it would be reasonable to assume the UMS T/R modules offer some improvements in sensitivity than those in the APG-79.

That assumes equivalent technology bases, architectural refinement, etc. Newer doesn’t automatically equal better, if it did that would have the LCA ahead of the Rafale just because it was delayed again and again, just like the Rafale’s AESA…

The APG-79, as a clean slate design, is newer than the RBE-2, which even with an AESA front end retains it’s original backend. It is also quite simply a larger radar with all the advantages that go with that.

This whole discussion is a waste of time because as usual the fanboy that kicked it off didn’t present a shred of evidence in the first place.

Evidence Nic? US defence procurement is under significant scrutiny so I fail to see how your statement that Boeing is somehow habitually milking the US tax payer is accurate.

$4billion for two replacement Air Force 1 seems a pretty fair estimate and actually in the grand scheme of the US defence budget small all things considered.

$4 billion is a heck of a lot of money. It is hard to say what is or isn’t too much without knowing the details of what goes into creating a new “Air Force 1,” but you could easily buy a whole squadron of modern fighters for that amount.

In any case this is just more politics as usual. Beating up the DoD for high costs is a bipartisan sport.

I do not really care about “conventinal wisdom”. Some modes are still lacking on RBE2 AESA (will come with F3R standard, but pilots and Thalès ppl are adamant about it. They expected similar performances, but in the end (due to UMS modules) performances are way above apg79 (sensitivity etc.)

LRU modules. And autodiagnostic of modules btw. So no MTBF… No ground retest after dismounting engine and changing one module. Much simpler maintenance.

Even if we could take you at your word on the technical characturistics of the modules, and lets face it your track record here is not good, that still wouldn’t account for the fact that the Super Hornet has a substantially larger radar array in the first place that conveys significant advantages. (Plus, even if we pretended for a moment that you had access to good info on the French radar, you aren’t going to have it on the APG-79…)

Dassault claim that the passive and active arrays “are thus totally interchangeable, so that all French Rafales will have the capability to be equipped with an AESA”. Because there was no plan to increase the Rafale’s nose diameter, the new radar will occupy much the same volume as the present set, though some equipment will have to be removed or relocated. Some believe that the opportunity should have been taken to increase the diameter of Rafale’s nose to allow a larger diameter array to be fitted, and that the present 55-cm diameter array will be deficient in range compared to the AESA arrays in, or planned for the F-15, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Typhoon.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafale-first-with-thales-active-radar-214851/

(For comparison the APG-79 has an antenna of ~710mm diameter)

“Take-off launch” with arresting hook lowered and not using ski-jump but angled landing area instead??

Perhaps he meant “touch and go.”

Does that mean you think the USN would only be buying Super Hornets as a short term way of boosting their fighter force until they can get their hands on enough F-35’s? After which, what do they do with the low hours Super Hornets? Fly them as much as possible to put hours on them and so avoid putting hours on the F-35’s?

The USN never stopped buying Super Hornets. Continuing the purchases for another year or two is not a big deal one way or the other. The newest jets will have slightly fewer hours than the jets that came off the line a year before them… and so on. This is hardly a new fleet management issue.

Of all the US services the USN’s fleet of aircraft is in the best overall shape because unlike the USAF and USMC, they continued buying jets all through the 90s and 2000s. Before the first F-35B squadron went operational the newest fighters in the USMC inventory were decades old.

What the lefties in Canada “promised” in their elect campaign.. well its not that politicians backtrack on their promises is it? Only in Canada.

So basically you have no problem with politicians lying then… I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

And about CF-18. Even if they see service past 2020, it most likely wont the with the whole 70’ish fleet. The Number will drop.

The official air force position was that they could meet their obligations through 2025.

Anyway, lets wait for this SH deal to materilize, i’m very curious about cost and if they will opt for future Growler buy.

Also it looks like St.Lois will stay online for quite some time now:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-fighters-idUSKBN13T05S

The Super Hornet line is safe for the next few years. Canada could opt to buy Super Hornets wired to become Growlers, but to fill what need? Certainly one could argue that an extra squadron of Growlers would be useful for coalition operations etc, but operating/maintaining/training for that mission would entail a significant ongoing devotion of resources. Normally that sort of decision wouldn’t be made in such a hurried manner and with such weak justification.

While its fun to take a dump on the Canadians here, what would be said about the USN procurments plans..? 🙂

Who is taking a dump on the Canadians? The Super Hornet is a very capable aircraft that offers a lot. The issue here is the dishonest and hypocritical manner in which the deal is being pursued.

For the USN to buy a few more squadrons of Super Hornets to add to their existing fleet makes perfect sense until the F-35C is ready to take over… if such a buy materialized however it might actually make things harder for the Canadians. The production line can only serve so many short notice gap-filler buys at a time.