Compared to our closest neighbours the Gripen is more than a match for them. A couple of guys in North Africa have Flankers and Fulcrums but neither they nor us have the capability to conduct sustained off base operations for any useful length of time. The Gripens are gonna be armed mainly with South African munitions made by Denel (go to their website to learn more) such as the A-Darter and U-Darter as well as A2G munitions. The Cheetah C is a local development with covert Israeli help – it’s pretty much the ultimate Kfir, with a good radar, a glass cockpit and aerodynamic improvements but retaining the od SNECMA Atar engine. We were able to participate in DACT excercises with Russian Flankers, Belgian or Dutch F-16s, Indian Mirage 2000 and USAF F-15Es over the past 12 years. The Cheetah Cs didn’t fare to badly either. As for F-16s, over government knows about the strings attached when purchasing American equipment and as a result has shyed away from any U.S equipment.

If you do come over I suggest you get used to the word “Howzit!”

BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: The Super Hornet, the Block 2, the most advanced version of it, is a very capable, very stealthy aircraft.

BRENDAN NELSON: The F-22, whilst it is a brilliant air to air combat capability is not the correct aircraft for Australia, would lose stealth capability once we put bombs on it.

Judging by those 2 quotes this guy clearly missed his calling as a comedian!
I suppose we can expect a huge order for tankers as well from the RAAF or is the Super Hornet going to be used as a ‘Strike Tanker’ as well.:D

So Boeing finally found a government stupid enough to buy the flying airbrake. Must of been hard work. Varks Rule!:dev2:

Basically, what Grumman gave the Navy was a very good starting point with F-14A. True the aircraft was expensive but then again the F-22 and the Super Hornet are also more expensive aircraft today. I think there was a 10 million dollar difference between the F-15 and the F-14 back then. Unfortunately Grumman and the F-14 never had the political clout that other companies had and as a result whilst alot was envisioned for the Tomcat when it started service little was accomplished. I mean the Basic F-14A was the main variant and served until 2003 without major modification – name another U.S aircraft that has been so neglected. To say the F-14 was a single role aircraft is in no way true Grumman had originally designed the aircraft as an air superiority fighter and then to screw six Phoenix on it without messing it up, they also designed plenty of growth potential into the aircraft and envisioned a ground attack role as well. However that was the job of the A-6 and A-7 and would have intruded on their territory. Furthermore Navy fighter jocks in those days saw dropping bombs as unglamorous. Had Grumman been able to sell the F-14 to the USAF over the F-15 – yet another Sparrow armed fighter – (which seemed likely at one stage) then we would have had commonality, a lower unit cost and the clout that USAF brings to a program. This would have resulted in continued devlopement of the F-14 instead of stagnation allowing the aicraft to be at the cutting edge right up to now. The F-14 really could have been as widely used as the F-4 was. Indead in the ACEVAL/AIMVAL simultation the F-14 on average achieved two times the kill ratio of the F-15. But this did not happen and the F-14A stayed as the main variant instead of the F-14B with the F-401 engine and even worse the F-14C (envisioned to enter service in the mid-80s didn’t happen). The Navy wanted a single seat version of the F-14 to replace the A-7/F-4 but this was not to be and the Navy was told to look at one of the LWF contenders ie the YF-17, developed into the F/A-18. Basically the USN wanted this jet at all costs as the A-7 and F-4 were aging rapidly even though one of the F/A-18 test pilots (Brian Fitzpatrick) testified that the USN should not procure this machine. Therein lies the thorn in the F-14s side – the Hornet – which took away most of the Navy’s meagre budget to make a half decent aircraft out of this machine. This combined with the money used for the A-12 and A-6F and NATF left nothing for the F-14. After the Tailhook 91′ fiasco several F-14 supporters were forced into premature retirment which allowed some pro-Hornet mafia into power – one was notably a buddy of Dick Cheney. The infamous Dick Cheney’s move to get rid of the F-14 and handicap the USN with Hornet 2000 closed the door not only F-14D production (a program fought very hard for and also already paid for) but also on further F-14 development and even production of F-14 spares! This despite lobbying by Grumman and a letter written by senior naval aviators read in congress by the Hon. Randy ‘Duke Cunningham to keep the F-14 in production. It’s a testiment to the capability of the F-14 that a ground attack capability was able to be added to the aircraft on a shoe-string budget and indeed making the aircraft the prefered striker over the Hornet. The F-14D is no slouch in air to air either and with thrust vectoring as proposed on the ST21 it could have been in the league of the Rafale and other 4.5 gen aircraft. Many say the F-14 is too big and heavy, remember the aircraft is of similar size to the F-15 and smaller and lighter than the SU-27 – the present standard to be measured against pending major F-22 production. Also the swing wing is not obsolete either as the envisioned F-22N (NATF) was also to have swing wings. Remember the Hornet did not take over any fighter capability from the F-14, it was a point defence aircraft meant to deal with any leakers that got past the initial F-14 BARCAP. The USN of today is not exactly replacing the F-14, it is merely surrending the role of the F-14 and resigned itself to rely on USAF support for all future activities – even so far as changing its doctrine to littoral operations and therefore not requiring a long range machine like the F-14 simply because admitting that they are operating at a disadvantage is not an option and would be highly scandalous. All in all the F-14 served well but could have still been serving probably at the same level of the F-15 had there not been so many obstacles, mainly political in it’s path. Unfortunately politics count more in military aquisition than actual capability – until a proper war starts and hard lessons are learned!

I don’t think the J-10 would fair as badly as some would think against the SH. Right here and now though I personally believe that the late model Flankers are the best fighters in the world (not counting the F-22 or F-35 until they are in full service) and a SH would be hard-pressed to beat it. Aside from the advanced avionics the jet is totally outclassed and whatever lower RCS it has is negated by the need to hang a forest of weaponry and fuel tanks under the jet. With it being so draggy – basically an aerodynamic brick with wings – I doubt the jet will ever get big enough engines to super-cruise. Here’s a quote that applied to the F-111B but I think describes the SH quite accurately, “All the thrust in the christendom wouldn’t make a fighter out of that airplane.” – RADM Thomas Connolly

And yet they still only managed to produce an aircraft that was equal to if not slightly inferior to the F-14. Same old eagle propaganda.

More Super Hornet junk from the Boeing boys! :diablo:

Finally its clear in black and white that the lame, great SH is junk. Yet the USN still continues to proclaim that this dog is greatest thing since sliced bread, “speed is not not the defining factor as it used to be,” what a load of BS, every other new fighter still has performance. What can you expect from the USN who have managed to bungle or cancel every major aircraft program since the legacy hornet. Now they are left with an aircraft thats a jack of all trades and useless at all of them too. I know am rambling but my blood pressure rises as we get closer and closer to the Tomcats Retirement. 😡