i remember hearing some where that if you deployed this manouver in a dogfight, that unless the opponant is directly behind you and very close your as good as dead?? i can imagen for the chasing plane its just a case of nose up, gun burst, bye bye fighter?

Uh-huh.

Impressive looking manoeuvre? Yep…

Any combat worth whatsoever? Nope…

If you read my post you will notice I mention money more than I mention the IRST. I know that Boeing is looking at added a pod to the F/A-18 to give it the IRST however my argument is that for the USN until the JSF comes into service it has no other aircraft with IRST so it has no other more cost effective offers on the table.

Let’s at least be intellectually honest and say that Boeing IS adding IRST to the Super Hornet. Not “looking at it”…

IAF is not in the same situation, IAF can buy not only the 1st gen additional pod that is on the F/A-18 but also IRST’s on the Mig-35 and the Typhoon. Both of which probably offer higher value for money for the IAF than the F/A-18E/F

Ist gen? It is an updated variant of a previously in-service system, the AN/AAS-42 which equipped F-14D fighters. Being a developed version if a generation label has to be added it is at least “2nd generation”…

Simple fact is even if I were to concede that the F/A-18 is fine to fly in the USN I can not for any reason concede that this is true for the IAF as well not for the MMRCA contest, MMRCA is a gap filling multi role medium range combat aircraft, it is not for a bomb truck and an expensive one at that (maybe not for the USN which is funding another white elephone MV-22).

Any aircraft with supersonic dash performance, excellent agility (which is demonstrable even when equipped with 6500lbs of stores, as I proved) and armed with the latest AMRAAM and AIM-9X missiles and equipped with an advanced AESA fire control radar, tactical data-links, advanced EW and JHMCS is hardly deserving the title “bomb truck”.

Any opponent has to hope that they get “first look and first shot” against an adversary so equipped, because if they don’t…

Talking about Shornet A2G capability vs the other MRCA candidates, I think that it seriously needs an equivalent A2G missile, all the eurocanards offer either Scalp or Taurus, the russkis offer the Air launched sizzler – all around 300km range with a hefty war head. Is the SLAM-ER an option? Is it offered to export customers?

This would be v. useful in dealing with S300+ types – my bet is after a pure stealth strike, LRASMs are the v.best option. Perhaps the U.S. does not invest in such missiles because it already has stealth a/c that can take out such threats. Irrespective of Passive detection and targeting, you need something to fire at long ranges.

USS.

Yah, SLAM-ER is available for export (it was offered to Australia for our standoff weapons acquisition program along with TAURAS and AGM-158 JASSM, which won) and I would be astounded if it weren’t offered along with JSOW and possibly JASSM.

USAF uses the AGM-158 JASSM and the AGM-129 as it’s long range standoff weapons. Plus it has the stealths as well…

🙂

You mention that the the PLAAF do not have TVC etc but how is that more important than having good aerodynamics? But then again the hornet does not have IRST, good aerodynamics, TVC. Also just because the F/A-18 is on offer to the IAF does not mean the IAF would be able to afford the complete F/A-18 E/F II++ package.

Also considering that BVR has been touted as the reason for WVR obsolescent once before in history how confident are you that your missiles will hit the target every time and that the enemy would not have put counter measures in place? If it is anything less than 99.9 percent confident remember that you are gambling a nation and its airmen.

The IAF and the Indian air force has had off bore sight capability for some time, the Aim-9x does not offer anything new with this regards.

With JHMCS and AIM-9X (or IRIS-T for that matter), IAF will have a superior high off-boresite capability to that which they currently maintain. There is no doubt about that.

As to your other points:

1. Super Hornet’s have had an IRST system under development since 2007. It has been flight tested and is about to undergo it’s final trials. IRST WILL be in-service with the USN on it’s Supers before India even makes it’s decision on this project.

If you are going to discount capabilities that are not in-service, but are under development, you can kiss goodbye to 3/4’s of the proposals India has received, including your beloved MiG-35, because it ain’t in-service, anywhere… At least with the Super Hornet’s IRST it’s main user has actually ORDERED the capability, which is not the case with the MiG-35…

2. Did you watch the video I posted? Please explain why the Super Hornet doesn’t have “good aerodynamics” in reference to the demonstrable high performance it demonstrates (why these manoeuvres are important are even explained in this video) in this video.

3. TVC? Do you know what that even does? If you do you would know why only one fighter in the MMRCA competition is even bothering with the capability. (It is useful for only one small area of the flight regime, yet carries a significant weight and drag penalty as well as adding significant maintenance complexity). IAF’s main A2A fighter has TVC. A “2nd tier” A2A fighter hardly requires it and your beloved Chinese J-10/J-11’s don’t use it either…

Anyways there are no getting around that the ToT and Price-tag will over rule the pure performance on the Contenders in the MMRCA.
Remember that the growt path are allso important here.
When it adding up Tot, Price & Growt path possibility the Mig-35 will undress the other contenders.. now get over it.:diablo:

We’ll see, but India has a large fleet of Russian provided SU-30 aircraft on order and they have ALWAYS diversified their fighter/striker fleets.

I would not at all be surprised if India chose to go another way then the Russian solution this time…

What is the point of India buying the F/A-18 for its radar now? We know that India will have a AESA radar in a much more capable airframe which is the Su-30MKI. So why spend bucket loads on a aircraft which is aerodynamically and structurally poor?

I do not get it?

F/A-18’s can not cope against PLAAF’s fleet of Su-27’s and J-11’s and J-10’s, not to mention the Su-30MKK etc etc…

Rubbish. Prove it.

Here is a flight demonstration of the Super Hornet, carrying an operationally representative warload. Please explain to me, where and how it is lacking in performance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M

The fact is, unlike fanboys who listen to bits of information such as that provided by APA and their ilk, which seem to support your point of view, the SH is an excellent aircraft that meets the IAF stated requirements.

If greater performance is needed, a growth path in this area exists, with enhanced performance F414 engines (EPE) being developed by General Electric.

Considering it seems perfectly acceptable to include capabilities which are under development in competing aircraft then I can’t see why it isn’t acceptable to include the EPE engine for the Super…

This is a good point, but let’s not forget that it applies equally to any capabilities the Super Hornet’s competitors may currently be lacking (such as A/G weapons integration and an AESA radar on Typhoon). Also, although the AN/AAS-42 is no doubt superbly capable, grafting it onto a fuel tank is a bit of a hackjob 😉

That is a fair point on the surface, but the difference is that the Rhino’s IRST is an existing system, that has a funded integration program that is already well developed and has already completed a significant amount of testing.

AESA radars for all 3 Euro-Canard fighters AND the Russian MiG-35 remain under development and even the most rabid anti-USA poster on this forum would have to admit that integrating an existing system onto an existing airframe is likely to be cheaper, quicker and more definite than the development, integration, testing and release to service of a completely new fire control radar system…

The fuel tank idea, whilst I admit is hardly an ideal situation, is clearly aimed at the quickest, easiest and cheapest introduction to service. The fact that USN is acquiring 150x IRST systems for a fleet of 480 F/A-18E/F aircraft, shows that perhaps only one aircraft per fighter package will actually carry the system.

It is clearly designed to plug a capability gap for USN until the F-35C is available and as such is a viable option as far as I’m concerned. Whether other users, such as Australia or anyone who may decide to purchase the aircraft are interested in it, remains to be seen.

While I’ve seen the SH’s low-speed agility first hand and been very impressed by it, I have also seen numbers for its acceleration – what you say is a bit of an understatement. Compared to the F-16C, Rafale and Su-35S (and probably most of its other MMRCA competitors) it is *decidedly* on the slow side, IIRC!

I doubt many would argue and yet when F-16 pilots speak honestly about going up against the Super Hornet, they discuss how tough it is to actually beat them.

Once again, just like the apparent ” lack of range” issue, despite the common idea that the Super Hornet is “super slow” it’s performance clearly meets the basic parameters required by the Indian Air Force. Unlike the USN who didn’t have a whole lot of choice about acquiring the Super Hornet, no-one has “twisted India’s arm” to choose the Super Hornet and yet it is short-listed and it’s list of features and capabilities stacks it VERY well against ANY other competitor in this competition.

Air to Air combat over the Himalayas is one scenario that might not best suit the Super (though that is brave statement based on entirely open sourced data) but that is only one of many operational roles that the IAF will measure the aircraft compared to the other entrants and in any-case the SU-30 is the “high end” A2A fighter for the most demanding A2A roles in IAF service anyway.

I doubt many on here would criticise the Jaguar for it’s lack of sheer A2A performance, yet it has a fine record of service within IAF….

I could be wrong, but this was confirmed when Gerhart was in New Delhi a month or so ago. The EF that flies for field evals in the MRCA race will carry the Captor M. Things could change of course. Any way, tiffy folks have always said it is equal to most AESAs out there.

USS.

Course it is. Which is why they are trying to build their own AESA array…