i guess like roll deg per sec and sustained turn rate, aoa is another of those useless things
some planes use hms and hobs, some planes dont is what arthur could be getting at

i guess the indians dont know the rcs of their own planes

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-russia-close-to-pactnext-generation-fighter/381718/
Sukhoi’s FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”
That means that while a Su-30MKI would be as visible to enemy radar as a metal object 5 metres X 4 metres in dimension, the FGFA’s radar signature would be just 1/40th of that.

so do you have a creditable link for operational 45 deg ‘sustained’ AOA ?
i found 70 deg for noseup, much better than i think you are trying show which is actually an optical illusion of your claimed angle because it is not measured on the same level, eg high plane taken photo from ground

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH9905/FR9905c.htm
The Chief Test Pilot informs us that,
“At the end of the test program, we will operate at an angle of attack of over 30 degrees. However, the deciding factor is not the exact number of degrees, but that it is still possible to manoeuvre under these conditions.

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/development.html
Mai made a cautious approach to a few low-speed recovery corner points. Having rapidly gained confidence in the system he was able to enter the extreme low-speed recovery set-up with 70 degrees nose-up [AOA] attitude and power idle.

i know he’s fool and he is anti fa-18 for australia, thats why i found his post funny and worth posting
he would of choked on every word writing it

i think you are on shaky ground, when even the anti-fa18 kopp and co say different
http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters. Since every deciBel of RCS reduction counts until you get into the range of weapon payload RCS, the F/A-18E/F represents the reasonable limit of what is worth doing on a fighter carrying external stores.

None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types.

and then there is this to take into account BW
the sh does not normally fly with all it’s low rcs covers fitted and i havent seen pics of them

the sh was probably the worse one for you to pick out of the group
why dont you get a picture of the super hornet and we can compere the rcs treatment of both planes to see where they differ
there are some very obvious ones

The F/A-18E/F’s radar cross section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear. The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft’s frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.

The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities.
Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used.
Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter traveling waves away from the aircraft.

It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35.
While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.

thats ok its cool, you dont post too wild claims, as opposed to BW who is googling up something that he thinks proves the rafale uses the same composites as the f-22 and f-35

from airframer, indeed rafale and super hornet use similar composites
fa-18sh the rafale is above
Hexcel Composites Carbon Fibre: Carbon fibers, structural adhesives, honeycombs, prepregs, sandwich panels and reinforcement fabrics
Magnolia Plastics, Inc. Syntactic Composites: Adhesives, coatings and syntactics