F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

[Sancho]

Well, Rafale has been available for export since well before 2008, no body bought it for so long...

Which was and remains a matter of cost! But the higher costs also provided a clearly more capable fighter, at least during MMRCA.
The block 3 upgrade certainly added some advantages to the F18, but there are still some weak points too!
US legacy fighters are outclassed by European fighters in terms of EW, passive sensors, AAMs (even legacy fighter customers integrate more and more European missiles, instead of AIM 9 or AIM 120), RCS or even basic flight performance. During MMRCA, a desperate Boeing offered the F18 road map options to India to fund to meet the requirements (just as Dassault did in the UAE) and the Block 3 upgrade only covers the IRST issue, but the US solution is just a compromise not a good system (included in the centerline fuel tank).

So you pay less for the F18, but also get less in return, but if you are ok with the shortfalls and put higher priorities on costs and political advantages, it's certainly a viable choice, especially for IN.

 

[BON PLAN]

Which was and remains a matter of cost! But the higher costs also provided a clearly more capable fighter, at least during MMRCA.
The block 3 upgrade certainly added some advantages to the F18, but there are still some weak points too!
US legacy fighters are outclassed by European fighters in terms of EW, passive sensors, AAMs (even legacy fighter customers integrate more and more European missiles, instead of AIM 9 or AIM 120), RCS or even basic flight performance. During MMRCA, a desperate Boeing offered the F18 road map options to India to fund to meet the requirements (just as Dassault did in the UAE) and the Block 3 upgrade only covers the IRST issue, but the US solution is just a compromise not a good system (included in the centerline fuel tank).

So you pay less for the F18, but also get less in return, but if you are ok with the shortfalls and put higher priorities on costs and political advantages, it's certainly a viable choice, especially for IN.

There was so many false data about Rafale cost during years....
Now the indian price is clear : 90 to 95 € million.

Far from the 200+ €million some said.... @Emmanuel, @smestarz, @BMD, @average american


About UAE Rafale : They wanted a super Rafale ! with huge modifications on the frame for 9T engine : it costs a lot and Dassault didn't want to made it for free.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Which was and remains a matter of cost! But the higher costs also provided a clearly more capable fighter, at least during MMRCA.
The block 3 upgrade certainly added some advantages to the F18, but there are still some weak points too!
US legacy fighters are outclassed by European fighters in terms of EW, passive sensors, AAMs (even legacy fighter customers integrate more and more European missiles, instead of AIM 9 or AIM 120), RCS or even basic flight performance. During MMRCA, a desperate Boeing offered the F18 road map options to India to fund to meet the requirements (just as Dassault did in the UAE) and the Block 3 upgrade only covers the IRST issue, but the US solution is just a compromise not a good system (included in the centerline fuel tank).

So you pay less for the F18, but also get less in return, but if you are ok with the shortfalls and put higher priorities on costs and political advantages, it's certainly a viable choice, especially for IN.

Very correct. That is why Rafale is in and F 16 and F 18 are out. Euroepean planes are significantly better in terms of RCS, Payload, Weapon and electronics. I remember a statement of an Indian Airforce officer at the time of MMRCA that F 16 and F18 has no future. They only flip side of Rafale which I can see is that its engines are not much powerful. If the thrust is increased by say 15%, It shall be a complete plane.

 

[BON PLAN]

They only flip side of Rafale which I can see is that its engines are not much powerful. If the thrust is increased by say 15%, It shall be a complete plane

More thrust = less range.
Every pilot will love to have one or two moren tons of thrust.

Don't forget that Rafale C is only a 9.5 tons empty plane ! EF is more than 11.5 tons.
In WVR, Rafale always take the lead on EF and all the others, and is nearly on par with F22. So 2x7.5T don't seems too light.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

More thrust = less range.
Every pilot will love to have one or two moren tons of thrust.

This depends. If more thrust comes from better metallurgy and high compression ration than it will have better range and higher thrust.

 

[BON PLAN]

This depends. If more thrust comes from better metallurgy and high compression ration than it will have better range and higher thrust.

YES, but the same is to be applied to a same thrust engine : with time and newer technology the engine become lighter and lighter and use less fuel.

French and now egyptian pilots praise the range of the Rafale. All progress in this field is highly appreciate.

 

[Kshithij]

Not a given, if IN wanted Rafale, it would have merely asked for G2G deal much like for the IAF, it's clear MOD is trying to get IN & IAF to buy the same aircraft, this would mean if IAF were to trial the Block 3 SH, the Rafale is vulnerable since Block 3 comes with proven and far better AESA, CFTs, Large Panel Displays, uprated F414 engines (huge commonality boost with LCA MK-2 for which 99 are already ordered and first few engines already delivered) and comes ready capable of deploying a host of US weapons already in service such as Paveways, Harpoons, CBU-105SFW (with more to be ordered). From day 1 the SH can do more missions with a far wider set of weapons. The SH with over 600 already operational has a far better and well funded road map. It's flyaway and operational costs are lower too.

This scenario makes 3 aircraft plausible Rafale, SH Block-3 and F-35 if LM/ US Govt. decide to up the ante by offering it.

As far as political risk of the fighter being a US product, it's very low since IAF/IN would have to choose the best aircraft based on trials, we could end with a split if IAF sticks to buying the Rafale and if IN finds the SH more suitable. This doesn't mean Rafale doesn't have an advantage but to declare it winner already is silly while I think IAF should buy another 36 Rafale anyways outside this competition for 114 fighters for IAF and 57 for IN.

What were the poltical risks of buying the 12 P-8I with 24 to be ordered during the next decade? What are the risks the Govt. faced for order the very expensive C-17s, 28 Apaches, 15 Chinooks, 140+ M777 (with MII order of over 1000 expected), LM2500 engines for IAC-1. The armed forces IN, IA and IAF do consider risks but it didn't stop them from ordering these without any major hiccups.

Any news that said IAF would buy the F-16 was fake news.

F18 has these problems which make it impossible to be selected:
1) F18 can't take off from short distance and Indian Aircraft Carriers are STOBAR. CATOBAR/EMALS will be used in the third carrier which is 7 years away. So, as of now, F18 can't be used even if Navy wanted to
2) F18 is an old plane and has fully metallic airframe This increases RCS, despite any RAM coating.
3) India has Su30 for IAF which is cheaper and better than F18 in all manners. Also, Su30 is made in India including engine from raw material stage (except Radar, IRST and few electronics, which can be replaced by India eventually)
4) F18 will require CISMOA or BECA agreement to be signed for providing advanced technology. That will make these planes subjected to USA command.

Of course you are not convinced, because you prefer to ignore facts (US government flyaway costs of F18 and Indian government flyaway costs for Rafale), but 20 the 30 million less per fighter in flyaway condition is a big point and when you add the lower operational costs, which were confirmed in the Brazilian evaluation as well, there is no denying (for non biased people), that the F18 is the clearly more cost-effective choice, of the twin seat MMRCAs and costs will play a more important role now, than it did under the former government and the MMRCA tender.

If cost was the only factor, why not buy JF17? F18 is unable to take off from STOBAR. This factor itself rules out F18

True, which is why it's crucial that IN goes for F18s, as a give away to the US to get EMALS, E-2D, S70 licence production, or drones...
...while the IAF should get a European MMRCA in larger numbers and more industrial and technical benefits.

The F16 is a dead end for IAF and all it offers, is the F35 in the long term, but I still think, the US government will provide it with the naval deals too.

IN can't use F18 for STOBAR. The IAC-2 is still 6-7 years away. There is no need for buying F18 by 2020 and then storing them away. I don't understand how do you want IN to use F18 at all. The naval base also would prefer to use the same aircrafts as the carrier so that in case some aircrafts in carriers are lost, the ground base aircraft can replace it. The aircrafts on carriers are critical requirement and extra planes to maintain full fleet strebgth on the carrier is a norm

No country gives 100% of the whole fighter, that's just a myth, so getting 2 x 50% would still be more beneficial for India and we have seen the reluctance of Dassault on ToT as well.

Why would you want the same technology over and over again? How is it reasonable to get the same technology from 2 different companies?

Also, Russia did give almost full ToT for Su30 MKI. Even Al31FP engine was given as ToT and HAL makes it from raw material stage. It is a myth that no one gives 100%

The most funny thing would be, if HAL selects RBE 2 AESA for LCA MK1A, then they will produce Kaveri with Safran core, as well as Thales radar and EW parts without a Rafale production line. :biggrin2:

How is selection of RBE2 related to Kaveri engine with Safran core? M88 is much smaller engine and the core can not fit into Kaveri in the first place. Also, the correlation you are trying to get about RBE-2 purchase leading to Safran core Kaveri is puzzling.

 

[Sancho]

There was so many false data about Rafale cost during years....
Now the indian price is clear : 90 to 95 € million.

Not really, since we always had the French Senat figures as the Base for the flyaway cost and the F3R had to be costlier.
In fact we always had better info's on Rafale costs, than on other fighters and it was clear that it was one of the costliest fighters, partially because it was much more capable than legacy US fighters for example.
But that was then and this is now and for the current government, costs play a larger role.

 

[Sancho]

Very correct. That is why Rafale is in and F 16 and F 18 are out. Euroepean planes are significantly better in terms of RCS, Payload, Weapon and electronics. I remember a statement of an Indian Airforce officer at the time of MMRCA that F 16 and F18 has no future. They only flip side of Rafale which I can see is that its engines are not much powerful. If the thrust is increased by say 15%, It shall be a complete plane.

Rafale was in and US fighters out during MMRCA, but times have changed frim no political deals and focus on capability, to political deals and costs. That's why F16s and F18s have much higher chances now. However, for the navy the main advantage starts with suitability to the carriers, which is where Rafale already offers a major limitation, the high costs will be added on top.

 

[Kshithij]

Rafale was in and US fighters out during MMRCA, but times have changed frim no political deals and focus on capability, to political deals and costs. That's why F16s and F18s have much higher chances now. However, for the navy the main advantage starts with suitability to the carriers, which is where Rafale already offers a major limitation, the high costs will be added on top.

Who told you that capability/technology transfer isn't important anymore? What has happened that made things change this way? Also, what is political in the F16/F18 deal? What political advantage will that offer and why is that advantage required?

I have also told you repeatedly that F18 can't take off from a STOBAR of 200m. I have never seen Boeing claim otherwise. If you have source that says F18 can fly with STOBAR, please provide. Till then, F18 flying from STOBAR is a fake news

 

[Sancho]

Who told you that capability/technology transfer isn't important anymore? What has happened that made things change this way?

Inform yourself about the NDAs SPM policy.

I have also told you repeatedly that F18 can't take off from a STOBAR of 200m.

And since that's nothing but a claim, it doesn't mean much. Boeing needs to prove that they can do it during trials. Just as Dassault has to prove that they can fit the M on our carriers.

 

[Kshithij]

Inform yourself about the NDAs SPM policy.

Give me source for it. As far as I see it is your imagination

And since that's nothing but a claim, it doesn't mean much. Boeing needs to prove that they can do it during trials. Just as Dassault has to prove that they can fit the M on our carriers.

Till it is proven, don't bring that topic up.

 

[Sancho]

Give me source for it. As far as I see it is your imagination

Lol because you have no clue about it and get to conclusions without any base, it's my imagination? Go inform yourself for once and not just claim things.

 

[WolfPack86]

F-18 Advanced Super Hornet three way partnership.

 

[WolfPack86]

Big on Day 2 @ #DefExpo18: @Boeing_In to announce major public-private partnership for its Block III Super Hornet build proposal to India. Expected to be a three-way pact with HAL & a private player.

 

[Kshithij]

Big on Day 2 @ #DefExpo18: @Boeing_In to announce major public-private partnership for its Block III Super Hornet build proposal to India. Expected to be a three-way pact with HAL & a private player.

USA can make F18 in India for exports but should not expect India to buy it. India does not need any of their vintage 30-40 year old designs

 

[Immanuel]

USA can make F18 in India for exports but should not expect India to buy it. India does not need any of their vintage 30-40 year old designs

Rafale's first flight was in 1986 that put's it in the 30+ year old design category, I guess we don't need it either. Funnily the SH's first flight was in 1995, if my math is right that's 23 years. This should then suffice no?

 

[F-14B]

USA can make F18 in India for exports but should not expect India to buy it. India does not need any of their vintage 30-40-year-old designs

every plane or anything that is made takes time to mature such is the case with the rhino as well the SH is descended from the YF -17 Cobra that lost to the F-16 in the USAF LWF competition in the 1970's
Designed by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) and Northrop The super hornet, on the other hand, The Super Hornet is an evolutionary redesign of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. The Super Hornet's unique wing and tail configuration can be traced back to an internal Northrop project P-530,
the only thing common here is the outward appearance and the F-18 designation other then that the Rhino is a new plane through and through if I was in a position to chose between the viper and the Rhino I would sign on the rhino over the Viper any day as it will give us a massive capabilities boost in the air over the PAF

 

[Kshithij]

Rafale's first flight was in 1986 that put's it in the 30+ year old design category, I guess we don't need it either. Funnily the SH's first flight was in 1995, if my math is right that's 23 years. This should then suffice no?

F18 hornet first flight was in 1978. The super hornet first flight was in 1995. But, the design and airframe was of 1970s itself. The airframe is metallic. The plane is a contemporary of F16 and F15 in terms of design generation.

It is better to use Su30 MKI than F18SH. The F18 is anyways incapable of taking flight from a STOBAR carrier of India. There is no point using it as IAF plane when we have Su30MKI which is made in India

 

[Kshithij]

every plane or anything that is made takes time to mature such is the case with the rhino as well the SH is descended from the YF -17 Cobra that lost to the F-16 in the USAF LWF competition in the 1970's
Designed by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) and Northrop The super hornet, on the other hand, The Super Hornet is an evolutionary redesign of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. The Super Hornet's unique wing and tail configuration can be traced back to an internal Northrop project P-530,
the only thing common here is the outward appearance and the F-18 designation other then that the Rhino is a new plane through and through if I was in a position to chose between the viper and the Rhino I would sign on the rhino over the Viper any day as it will give us a massive capabilities boost in the air over the PAF

WHy would you choose between F16 and F18? Aren't you supposed to choose between F18 and Su30 MKI? F18 has MToW of 30-31T whereas F16 has MToW of 19T. Su30 has MToW of 38T. Also, F18 is not suitable for STOBAR carrier. For India, choice is between Su30 MKI which is made in India and F18 which is made in India with an assembly offer