No one is trying to catch up with the F/A-18 E/F yes it may have one of the first AESA radar sets along with the F-15 however it has none of the other sensors that the IAF has been used to since the 1990’s.

Like what exactly? Fighter control radar? ESM? Radar/laser warning receivers and missile approach warning systems? IRST? Helmet mounted sighting systems? You will find that ALL of these capabilities have been included in both the F/A-18E/F and F-16IN proposals and all of these capabilities are in-service, bar an IRST capability on the Super Hornet and the IRST is currently undergoing real time testing. I will bet any amount of cash you wish, that IRST is in-service with the US Navy on the Super Hornet, before India even makes her decision on the winner of this competition, let alone has an MMRCA aircraft delivered. 🙂

Simple fact is that the F/A-18E/F is trying to catch up with the real world in its upgraded form of block II++ upgrades.

Nonsense. There is not one capability that any MMRCA entrant possesses in terms of weapon, sensor or avionics capability that the Super Hornet Block II+ doesn’t possess and in most cases overmatches those capabilities offered by other entrants. As mentioned, the only sensor capability not operational on the Super is an IRST sensor and this is already being addressed. The IRST to be added to the Super is an upgraded version of the AN/AAS-42 IRST that was operational on the F-14 Tomcat 15 years ago, so it’s development is not in question, merely the integration into the Super Hornet weapon system.

Secondly although I agree and would not argue that the IRAQ and AFGHAN wars are very reall for the ground forces of all the countries involved I would agree to the same for the Airforces.

What the US and Allies faced in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN is nothing compared to what India would face from the Chinese let alone a Pakistan.

And I never suggested it would. It is incorrect however to state that they have NO combat experience. That is all I was addressing.

Short legged as in even US think tanks are agonising of the short range the F/A-18 E/F offers to the US NAVY.

Well whatever YOU and these “think-tanks” may think, the IAF has received Boeing’s proposal and therefore the Super Hornet MUST meet their range requirements, right? Otherwise why would IAF short-list the proposal?

It can fly straight carry lots of bombs but put it in front of Chinese armada of J-11’s and J-10’s and Su-30MKK and India is basically stuffed, an singularly good thing like an AESA is not going to save the IAF.

Firstly, let us get one thing out of the way.

The Super Hornet is the US Navy’s frontline fighter aircraft. Though it is a superlative strike aircraft, it is also a fighter. It has been demonstrated time and time again to be an excellent “turning” aircraft when engaged in the merge and the only criticism levelled against it, is it is on the slower side in terms of acceleration and top speed. It’s roll rate is excellent and it is a singularly excellent “handling” aircraft.

IN terms of “equipment” it possesses the superb APG-79 AESA radar system. It also possesses a superb electronic warfare system, including an active jamming fibre optic towed decoy, which most participants in the MMRCA do not and it’s missiles (AIM-9XI/II and AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM) and helmet mounted sighting system are as good as it gets in current generation systems.

In real terms and bearing in mind that India will not have the luxury that allied forces have had over the past 2 decades of being able to freely bomb any place they bomb there are no aircraft that are currently flying that have proven themselves in real combat!

Both the F-16 and earlier generation F/A-18 aircraft have REAL air to air combat successes. Not only by the USA, but by Israel, Canada and other Countries. Not one of the competing aircraft can boast as much, so why you would consider this a “negative” against the F-16 or F/A-18 astounds me…

Considering the above and the fact that since none of the aircraft has faced real combat you might as well pick one which has got all the bells and whistles.. Typhoon!!!!! only thing going against it is that it has been sold to the middle east.

India might indeed do that, but Typhoon has more than a few issues of it’s own and the lack of an AESA radar and significantly less air to ground capability than most of the other contestants are not the least of these issues.

On top of which, Typhoon has never actually won a fighter aircraft competition. It has been selected by 2 export nations yes, as well as the original partner nations, but in the complete absence of a proper “flyoff”.

Identical to Rafale (still) and the Super Hornet in this respect…

None of the aircraft in the competition have actually seen combat apart from the F-16 and that too the older varients that are flying in the greek and turkish airforce. Interesting how lockeheed is scarpering ADA’s chances of navalising the LCA.

The Super Hornet has seen combat in Iraq both before (No fly zone enforcement) and Operation Iraqi Freedom and has also seen service in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The earlier Hornet models have had extensive combat roles, with a number of different users (USN, USMC, Canada and Australia).

The F-16 has had an extensive combat role with an enormous number of different users, including Israel, USA, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium.

Rafale also has operational deployments to it’s credit, with Rafale managing several deployments to Afghanistan so far.

But with congress in power and showing the old taints I would not be suprised if the incapable, ill equiped short legged, aerodynamically poor F/A-18 or F-16 win. I am sure TATA are putting a lot of pressure on the babus.

Ill-equipped?

Short-legged?

Name the only 2 aircraft in MMRCA that ARE in-service, HAVE completed development, HAVE seen combat service and DO meet IAF requirements, including an Active Scanned Array radar?

F-16.

F/A-18 Super Hornet.

All the others are STILL trying to catch up…

Ill-equipped indeed! What does that say of the rest of the competition if those two are “ill-equipped”???

Raytheon Delivers First Joint Standoff Weapon C to Australia

TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 28, 2009 /PRNewswire/ — Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) delivered the first Joint Standoff Weapon C to Australia in July for the Royal Australian Air Force’s new F/A-18F Hornet fighter aircraft.

In addition to the JSOW C, the RAAF has placed an order for the JSOW C-1, which is currently in production; deliveries will begin in 2010. The JSOW C-1 maintains the land attack capability of JSOW C and adds a moving maritime target capability by incorporating a datalink. This enables the JSOW to receive target updates as it flies to its objective.

“We’re thrilled that Australia is a member of the growing JSOW family,” said Phyllis McEnroe, Raytheon’s JSOW program director. “The on-time delivery of the JSOW C positions Australia well for its 2010 JSOW C-1 deliveries.”

The combat-proven JSOW is a family of low-cost, air-to-ground glide weapons with a range of 70 nautical miles (80.5 statute miles). It employs an integrated GPS-inertial navigation system and terminal uncooled infrared seeker that guides the weapon to the target. JSOW is integrated on all variants of the F/A-18, F-15, and on several variants of the F-16, B-2 and B-52 aircraft. The weapon is currently being integrated on the Joint Strike Fighter.

Eurofighter insists the range of mechanically scanned (M‑Scan) Selex Captor radar rivals any AESA. “There are benefits in maintenance because it has no moving parts,” says an official.

Any AESA???

No moving parts? How does CAPTOR Mechanically Scan then?

There’s no mention of Carlo Kopp in the two paragraphs, I’ve pointed out, or directly related text?!
The thing is author’s overall assessment of F-35 given at page 62, which relates to overall F-35’s position and function in the USAF. The trouble with his assessment is that he thinks the plane has inherent shortcomings, being too expensive for low-profile wars and not enough of a performer for high-profile ones and you can’t redesign or adapt those.
Normally, everybody is entitled to his opinion, but the trouble is it seems he wrote this article, after being enlisted to Schwartz’s staff, so it has somewhat different weight…

Are you sure?

Lacking access to classified Air Force plans, it is impossible to assess them

Why would he say that?

There’s one thing I don’t understand: I was under the impression that the FAB was looking more for a twin-engined aircraft, because of the long flying duration over the Amazon, and the need for better safety in case of engine failure…

So, I’m a bit surprised the single-engine Gripen is still considered. Can somebody enlight me, please ? :confused:

Funny how the less reliable Mirage III, Mirage 2000 and AMX are considered safe enough to fly over the Amazon on only 1 engine…

So you can give us the unit price of such RAAF example, which is the same as for the USAF in 2013 as someone did claim here. 😉

It is about Block 4 examples and the related capabilities.

The ones I had in mind were Block 6 examples.

I have no idea, personally and I doubt any really will, until they can tell what the particular configuration of the aircraft is that has been ordered. Do you know for instance that the A model has weight and space for a hose and drogue air refuelling system and same could quite easily be included if a country wished (and was prepared to pay for it)?

Other modifications exist that would change the specification of the aircraft ordered from the nominal “standard” A model, so arguing that “one cost” applies to an F-35A aircraft seems a bit hard to swallow to me.

I am aware that Dr Stephen Gumley (Head of Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation) testified to an Australian Senate Committee, towards the end of 2008, I think, that they expected F-35A’s in Block 3 condition to cost Australia, about USD$70m a piece in of themselves. Again configuration, weapons integration issues etc will determine the exact price, so it’s pointless getting too carried away with this figure.

However, as seen with the Australian Super Hornet acquisition, TLS infrastructure, weapons etc blows these figures out so much that it’s almost pointless discussing the “flyaway” cost of the aircraft itself, except for fanboy comparisons against their preferred fighters.

Smart buyers aren’t buying aircraft, they are buying a capability and there is a LOT more to air combat capability than just the delivery platform…

When you do order a F-35 now, what will you have to pay, when the still to built hardware will be delivered in 2015?!
Are that fly-away prices for the US forces or for other buyers too?
As Rogerout did claim, will you get all features related to that?

Er, Australia hasn’t placed an order yet, but her first aircraft are scheduled to be delivered from LRIP and will be delivered in 2013.

Damn, those bits of “reality”…