I’d much rather see them market the new version (is it F/A-18H, F/A-18J, or F/A-18SE?) using an F135 engine rather than EPE’s. You cut the maintenance costs down and you simplify the future supply chain.

Sounds like a good argument a decade back for fitting F-35 with dual F414s instead.

In any case these F414 growth proposals are clearly long-term and dependent on Super Hornet securing a major customer who is interested in further developing it. Brazil, Japan and India would all qualify. And the US Navy in the event that F-35C is cancelled as Boeing no doubt plans to ask of Santa this Christmas.

EDIT: Just occurs to me that between KF-X, LCA Mk. 2, future UCAV development and potentially Gripen NG and whatever follows it that the fate of the engine might not be tied so much to the F/A-18E/F/G after all…

Why push a new engine variant that costs so much when they can use a super one that’s already OTS?

Why push a major aircraft redesign to fit an engine that costs more, weighs more and delivers less thrust than the existing set?

An earlier presentation claimed that there was no net increase in drag from the CFTs. The question I guess is ‘relative to what?’

It was my understanding that the ‘International’ Super Hornet roadmap was so-named because the US Navy had ruled out further investment in the platform on account of all its funds going to the F-35C instead. Naming it the ‘International’ roadmap seemed a premature admission of defeat from Boeing to me in that respect given the still shaky status of the F-35 program; the alternative explanation that the proposed developments would compromise the carrier operability of the platform has some appeal.

It seems to me that the CFTs are the baseline improvement here upon which everything else is built. Could those CFTs compromise take-off/landing performance e.g. by increasing minimum approach speed?

The way it is going now, the LCA,MKI,PAKFA,MRCA,MCA and maybe F-35….Thats way too many fighter platforms….

There is no ‘and maybe F-35’ for the IAF. The only way it could possibly happen is if MMRCA was cancelled outright, and even then it’d still be a silly idea. I think one can argue that the IAF has too much on its plate on without inventing programs that don’t exist.

Nice write-up, thanks!

My challenge/question to the payload/range thing; what’s the reasoning behind that?

My liberal arts degree is showing here, but I guess my intuitive chain of reasoning runs something like:

Ability to get aircraft off a short deck under own power depends largely on thrust:weight.

The Flanker has something like 7 tons more aircraft to haul around, requiring more thrust to achieve same thrust:weight ratio.

To produce that greater thrust the AL-31 engines are necessarily thirstier (in absolute fuel consumption, not necessarily relative efficiency) than the RD-33 engines, requiring more fuel to be carried to achieve a given range, which means more weight which necessarily comes off either payload capacity or compromising on that range off deck.

So I guess that the end hypothesis of my layman’s reasoning here is that MiG-29K should be able to offer better range off deck for any given payload (that it’s capable of carrying at all).

Refueling after take-off could re-dress the balance in favour of the Flanker, but are tankers or buddy tankers routinely available to India and Russia? Expensive business in any case, and necessarily cutting into an airwing of already limited size.

Again I am not claiming any expertise here, just attempting to understand. I think it’s clear that Russia would’ve gone for MiG-29K the second time around regardless of performance comparison due to it having an active production line, question is why India did…

From the above logic you have to question the MRCA deal as well. Look MRCA is behind Schedule and set to be over budget because of the choice of finalists. Why not get a next gen platform for nearly the same price, yes we may have to wait a year or two more but it would stay relevant for a longer period of time as well.

From an operational standpoint MMRCA is a pretty dicey proposition. But that’s less than half the story. MMRCA is chiefly about securing all the delicious western tech to (1) further India’s indigenous capabilities and (2) reduce India’s reliance on Russia. That the air force gets shiny new aircraft to play with is almost incidental except insofar as the IAF needs MOAR NEW AIRFRAMES NOW PLZ.

Tech transfer was already a question mark over the F-16 and Super Hornet (and Gripen on account of its US F414 engine) bids for MMRCA. What sort of tech transfer do you think America is going to offer for the F-35? For the F135 engine?

If I were looking to consolidate India’s various programs (and I do think there’s too much stuff going on) I would be looking at evolving AMCA from whichever MMRCA candidate emerges victorious and cross-decking the result to the Navy as well. Obviously Rafale would be the easier candidate in that respect as it is already navalised and France will likely tag along with such a deep development as will Brazil if they select the Rafale (they want a new carrier in mid-2020s recall). Driving the Eurofighter consortium bus in a direction amenable to India is likely to prove more difficult.

In general I think it’s more useful to think of MMRCA as a generational strategic investment rather than a mid-teens IAF acquisition project.

I read something a couple days ago (dunno where) about Turkey being interested in AH-64s. What’s up with that? :confused: