F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

[BON PLAN]

Fact is Rafale has no HMD while the SH's JHMCS is undergoing upgrades already. So from BVR to WVR Rafale will be toasted against the SH.

Maybe to day.

But not soon : First Qatar Rafale rolled out factory next week. It will be charged of integrating the new helmet. Just wait 2 years max and this advantage will vanished.

 

[BON PLAN]

Rafale is lucky if it can aim its MICA at the SH before it is blasted out of the sky by AMRAAMM shot. And if the fight reaches WVR, the partnership of the JHMCS and AIM 9x is far superior to MICA without HMCS.

It's so strange.... Why do you speak of AIM9X when you and the US propaganda say dogfight will never more happend ?

But just imagine how will work a MICA IR with a HMCS .....

And Meteor is more ranged than every model of AMRAAM. "D" included.

 

[asianobserve]

Just have a look : 4 mica on external points and wing tip of each wing.
View attachment 8678
And a tri station for 3 meteor on each of the four hard points under wings (where you can see on this picture : 2 x 2000L tanks and 2 x tri station for AASM bombs).

Here's Rafale's weapons load configurations:

Where's the 14 Meteor? In fact it can only carry up to 5 AMRAAM (and AMRAAM is smaller than Meteor).

 

[asianobserve]

Maybe when 1 euro = 1.4 USD, 2 years ago.
Now 1 euro = 1.1 USD....

No matter what math you use Rafale is vastly more expensive than SH for no substantial advantage.

 

[asianobserve]

It's so strange.... Why do you speak of AIM9X when you and the US propaganda say dogfight will never more happend ?

But just imagine how will work a MICA IR with a HMCS .....

And Meteor is more ranged than every model of AMRAAM. "D" included.

It's a study on all air-to-air combat engagements since the advent of A2A missiles, it's not propaganda. and it does not say that WVR will not happen. What it is saying that based on historical data (trend) WVR combat is very unlikely to happen in modern A2A fights since the combat will be decided in BVR (as in fact the vast majority of A2A kills using missiles by fighters have been done in the BVR). But I cannot convince you to look at facts if you are more inclined to outdated notions.

 

[BON PLAN]

Google is your friend:

1. Rafale - 1970's design, first flight 1986;
2. SH - 1990s design, first flight 1995.

And don't say that the SH is merely an evolution of the legacy Hornet for it is not. The only thing it shares with the legacy Hornet is its general external layout (which was done for marketing purposes so that the US Congress will not balk at the prospect of designing an "all-new" Navy fighter (which actually that's what they got in the SH).

The problem is you don't know the Rafale program.

Rafale A was only a flight test bed, without weapon system and proper engines. It was used to demonstrate how the closed delta wings was mastered by Dassault in the eve of the futur european fighter. And it smashed the EFA of BAe during Farnborough.

Rafale C has even not a bolt in common with Rafale A. And this one fly in 1991. It is 1 ton lighter than Rafale A.
The weapon system was developped during all the 90's.

 

[BON PLAN]

Please review the studies on air-to-air combats for friendly fire between Western fighters is very low. In fact you will be surprised to know that there was actually no coalition aircraft fratricide during the 1991 Gulf War despite the fact that the air campaign generated the most number of air combat sorties since the Korean War. During the first day alone there were 1,300 coalition sorties into Iraqi airspace versus only 100 Iraqi combat sorties.

Tellingly, almost all air kills (against competing fighters as versus helicopters or transport aircrafts) during Gulf War were done BVR. This alone should tell you that more than 20 years ago dogfighting was already passe. Now technology in air combat has moved in leaps and bounds already making it even more difficult for opposing fighters to reach WVR combat.

So please google "Trend in Air-to-Air Combat" so that you can read an in dept academic study on this topic.

Bro,
Gulf War was not a high intensity AtoA war. No opponent ! No real electronics counter measures. Main planes were destroyed on the ground by ALCM. The rest were olf Mirage F1, old Mig, even the Mig 25 were an export derated and quite old variant.
Same pb with T72 iraki tanks : they don't have the russian bullet, the IR equipment, the russian multi layered armor.

Just imagine a NATO vs Russia war , or a China vs USA war... even an India vs China war. Totally different. With qty of SAM and a lot of planes with high skill pilots.

 

[BON PLAN]

No matter what math you use Rafale is vastly more expensive than SH for no substantial advantage.

A little bit short that explanation.

Excuse me, I'm not convinced !

 

[BON PLAN]

It's a study on all air-to-air combat engagements since the advent of A2A missiles, it's not propaganda. and it does not say that WVR will not happen. What it is saying that based on historical data (trend) WVR combat is very unlikely to happen in modern A2A fights since the combat will be decided in BVR (as in fact the vast majority of A2A kills using missiles by fighters have been done in the BVR). But I cannot convince you to look at facts if you are more inclined to outdated notions.

And US are developping a short range dog fight missile : AIM9X..... integrated on F22 and F35 .....

 

[asianobserve]

The problem is you don't know the Rafale program.

Rafale A was only a flight test bed, without weapon system and proper engines. It was used to demonstrate how the closed delta wings was mastered by Dassault in the eve of the futur european fighter. And it smashed the EFA of BAe during Farnborough.

Rafale C has even not a bolt in common with Rafale A. And this one fly in 1991. It is 1 ton lighter than Rafale A.
The weapon system was developped during all the 90's.

It is like the development of the F-35. It started out as a contestant of the JSF fly-off competition. But don't tell me that the prototype that the current F-35 has nothing to do with the X-35 that was entered in the JSF fly-off? The same with Rafale. It first flew in 1986, so it's an old duck already.

 

[asianobserve]

A little bit short that explanation.

Excuse me, I'm not convinced !

take fly-away cost, in 2013 exchange rate a Rafale would cost $101M. Under current exchange the Rafale would be lesser but still around $90M. The SH on the other hand is only $60M.

Math is actually simple you are the one trying to make it complex especially so if you consider economies of scale where Boeing has already produced around 600 units of SHs while Dassault has only produced around 140.

 

[asianobserve]

And US are developping a short range dog fight missile : AIM9X..... integrated on F22 and F35 .....

Just in case. all threat scenarios should be covered don't you think? In fact it is very unlikely that Rafale will drop a nuclear bomb on any country and yet France continue to maintain nuclear bombs.

 

[Sam Biswas]

F/A-18 is the long term solution for India and IAF. Modiji appears to be heading in that direction. It is very likely that his June trip will settle the deal with US.

 

[WolfPack86]

I am also expecting that Prime Minister Modi will seal F-18 Advance Super Hornet deal in June. Rafale deal becoming controversial day by day. PM Modi should cancel Rafale deal and go for F-18 Advance Super Hornet.

 

[ezsasa]

I am also expecting that Prime Minister Modi will seal F-18 Advance Super Hornet deal in June. Rafale deal becoming controversial day by day. PM Modi should cancel Rafale deal and go for F-18 Advance Super Hornet.

This may not happen because F-18 failed technical evaluation. If deal is being done without passing TE then modi govt is same as Congi govt isn't it.

 

[Sam Biswas]

This may not happen because F-18 failed technical evaluation. If deal is being done without passing TE then modi govt is same as Congi govt isn't it.

It failed nothing. Originally Rafale deal by Sonia and Antony was probably plagued with bribes with no intention to go through with the deal. In addition, relation with US was quite bitter. Modiji managed to change all that. He developed a superb relation with US and US congress is ready to make a deal with India. Boeing has the capability to make all the changes that IAF wants. It will be manufactured in India and thus, India will have great deal of supervision over the manufacturing. Thus, F/A-18 for India is a definite winner.

 

[asianobserve]

Bro,
Gulf War was not a high intensity AtoA war. No opponent ! No real electronics counter measures. Main planes were destroyed on the ground by ALCM. The rest were olf Mirage F1, old Mig, even the Mig 25 were an export derated and quite old variant.
Same pb with T72 iraki tanks : they don't have the russian bullet, the IR equipment, the russian multi layered armor.

The usual excuses. No doubt the coalition air assets was a giant compared to Iraq's but it must be pointed out that in 1990 had the biggest air force in the Middle east and one of the biggest in the World. It had a potent mix of Western and Soviet weapons. It has a sophisticated air defense system. It had also a very experienced air force due to 10 years of war with Iran. theoretically it could have shot down more coalition aircraft but it did not.

In fact to destroy your lingering misconception of air combat as primarily dogfights, the lone Iraqi shot down of coalition fighter (Mig-25 versus F-18) was done BVR.

Just imagine a NATO vs Russia war , or a China vs USA war... even an India vs China war. Totally different. With qty of SAM and a lot of planes with high skill pilots.

War at present would be markedly more different in a sense that technology has progressed a lot since 1991. But the trend is clear, an air war now between the major powers would be waged mainly in BVR.

 

[asianobserve]

F/A-18 is the long term solution for India and IAF. Modiji appears to be heading in that direction. It is very likely that his June trip will settle the deal with US.

For me F-35 would be a better long term solution for India than the SH. But between the SH and Rafale the SH is definitely the better choice.

 

[su35]

The usual excuses. No doubt the coalition air assets was a giant compared to Iraq's but it must be pointed out that in 1990 had the biggest air force in the Middle east and one of the biggest in the World. It had a potent mix of Western and Soviet weapons. It has a sophisticated air defense system. It had also a very experienced air force due to 10 years of war with Iran. theoretically it could have shot down more coalition aircraft but it did not.

Having biggest airforce with obselate aircrafts will not make you win any war. If read their history you can clearly notic that after IRan Iraq war Iraq airforce was plunged with inter rivalary and pliots flying mission are extremely low. This was the more bigger cause force for defeat of Iraq air force then obselate euipment and aircraft. IF there os no prefect cordination between aircraft defeat is bound to happen. Only buying technology will not make you win the war. Pilot training and skill is must.

 

[asianobserve]

Having biggest airforce with obselate aircrafts will not make you win any war. If read their history you can clearly notic that after IRan Iraq war Iraq airforce was plunged with inter rivalary and pliots flying mission are extremely low. This was the more bigger cause force for defeat of Iraq air force then obselate euipment and aircraft. IF there os no prefect cordination between aircraft defeat is bound to happen. Only buying technology will not make you win the war. Pilot training and skill is must.

I do not postulate that Iraq should have won the Gulf War. I am only saying that with the size and experience of its air force it should have downed more coalition aircraft than the unbelievable sole F18 it shot down. That should tell you the quality of the western air assets (mainly American).