F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

[smestarz]

India has now habit of getting products modded and which has buyers.
Take example of Su-30 MKI, do you know its origins? IAF wanted a twin engine plane, and Su-27 had no twin seat (Tandem seat) Su-27, the only one was trainer. So IAF used the Su-27 trainer as the base and then suggested all the various additions that then transformed a basic Su-27 trainer into world class air dominance fighter and just to put the point, India ordered more than 200 of those. This became so successful that the Russians themselves ordered for their own use called as Su-30 SM which the Turkish air force pilots are scared to face.
Another plane is MiG-29K. RAC MiG was a dying company after China selected Su-33 for its aircraft carrier, India having worked with RAC MIG and also used MiG-29, purchased MiG-29K for its carrier fleet after suggesting few upgrades. This is such a wonderful plane that the Russians just stopped their support for Su-33 and started to buy MG-29K for themselves also. If India wants then its own purchase can create a market for the product. The French apparently know it, but still their arrogance and greed does not help their cause. Russia need not afford it, we alone can buy and use enough to make the project worthwhile

I'm afraid you will only look at PAKFA. And for a very very long time ! Russia simply can't afford it.

 

[WolfPack86]

F-18 Super Hornet

 

[WolfPack86]

F-18 Super Hornet Radar

 

[WolfPack86]

F-18 Advance Super Hornet

 

[WolfPack86]

F-18 Super Hornet Engine

 

[BON PLAN]

SH-18 is a good plane importantly, it gets the job done,
Prime plane of US Navy and Marines and they are still upgrading it to be better

So nice that it was selled only to Australia (one of the strongest ally of USA. Unable to protect themselves alone).
just 24 planes.... what a huge success.
F18 was a potent plane. SH18 is in some area just slighly better (range) and in some others under it's father (manoeuvrability)

 

[BON PLAN]

F-16 is plane of past and so is Rafale, we are looking at the future.. PAKFA and Super Sukhoi

You are pulling my leg Bro.

 

[BON PLAN]

F-18 Advance Super Hornet

IRST on a pod ? And why not an engine in a pod?

 

[smestarz]

What was sold to Australia is export customer. and well Australia has received all those
How many exactly have Dassault delivered yet? I mean produced and delivered?
Look the total production of F/A-18
F/A-18 A B C D versions 1480 units
F/A-18 E/F.. 500 inits,

Thats almost close to 2000 planes , how much is Rafale? produced? orderes, numbers? 500 ????
It would be miracle if they manage to produce and sale 200 that is why the French are trying to beg india to purchase.,

So nice that it was selled only to Australia (one of the strongest ally of USA. Unable to protect themselves alone).
just 24 planes.... what a huge success.
F18 was a potent plane. SH18 is in some area just slighly better (range) and in some others under it's father (manoeuvrability)

 

[BON PLAN]

What was sold to Australia is export customer. and well Australia has received all those
How many exactly have Dassault delivered yet? I mean produced and delivered?
Look the total production of F/A-18
F/A-18 A B C D versions 1480 units
F/A-18 E/F.. 500 inits,

Thats almost close to 2000 planes , how much is Rafale? produced? orderes, numbers? 500 ????
It would be miracle if they manage to produce and sale 200 that is why the French are trying to beg india to purchase.,

FA 18 is a plane. (Delivered to Spain, Koweit, Finland, Swiss, Austalia, Canada. A real export success)
SH18 is another one. (Delivered to Ausatralia, and Australia, and Australia and.... huuu... Australia !)

As Mirage 3 is a plane, Mirage 2000 another one and Super Mirage 4000 another also. same wingform, but no common component except front wheel ???

 

[smestarz]

F/A-18 E/F is evolution of F/A-18 A/B very similar to how Rafale is evolution of Mirage III to Mirage 2000 to rejected Mirage 4000 to Rafale.. just the same template.. and why not Dassault felt that if that one template works, why not use it till a century. After all Mirage 2000 is related development of Mirage iii and not a new design

Mirage III = 1422 units
Mirage 5 = 582
Mirage 2000 = 601
Rafale = 141
Total= 2726 bravo !!!

sold more than F/A-18 family !!!

FA 18 is a plane. (Delivered to Spain, Koweit, Finland, Swiss, Austalia, Canada. A real export success)
SH18 is another one. (Delivered to Ausatralia, and Australia, and Australia and.... huuu... Australia !)

As Mirage 3 is a plane, Mirage 2000 another one and Super Mirage 4000 another also. same wingform, but no common component except front wheel ???

 

[BON PLAN]

After all Mirage 2000 is related development of Mirage iii and not a new design

It's only YOUR opinion.
No common part between the two, except maybe the 2x30mm gun.

 

[smestarz]

It's only YOUR opinion.
No common part between the two, except maybe the 2x30mm gun.

It is opinion of many.. including Dasault.

 

[WolfPack86]

India keen to buy F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jets for IAF - F/A 18 super hornet make in India

 

[BON PLAN]

It is opinion of many.. including Dasault.

A source for the Dassault supposed opinion please?

I'm sure I will wait a while.... as you never have source;

 

[smestarz]

Can you understand designs? If yu can then does look very obvious.. right from Mirage III as a template to Rafale
its just development of one template.

A source for the Dassault supposed opinion please?

I'm sure I will wait a while.... as you never have source;

 

[smestarz]

A source for the Dassault supposed opinion please?

I'm sure I will wait a while.... as you never have source;

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=232
Try to see if this article makes sense ..

 

[Gessler]

Do you actually see your own hippocracy? AMRAAM is 1990s missile yet, but the model that you are talking is AIM-120A which is no longer in use. Present production is AIM-120D, MICA tech is not very modern either.

Incidentally Rafale was designed in Mid 80s so technically it is 80s tech,, so 90s tech is surely better than 80s tech.. So why should India go for the outdated 80s design Rafale when we have the 21st century PAKFA to look at ? Actually your argument does actually makes one wonder why should india go for an 80s tech plane which costs more than 21st century plane.

An aircraft, by it's very nature, is a platform. Not a tech.

The same platform can incorporate technology from various generations. That is why and how fighter planes usually stay in service relevantly for 30-40 years without any problem. Aviation expert Bill Sweetman had prepared a point-to-point slideshow about fighter aircraft just so that simpletons like yourself can understand it without getting into the technicalities.

http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/AeroIndiaSweetman-0209.pdf

Quoting him...

" ... Why do aircraft last 30-plus years?
• Upgradable
• Technology insertion through electronics
• Technology insertion through weapons
• Mobile – don’t have to be deployed/moving at all times ... "

The only part of an aircraft that's not completely upgradable is the airframe. You can change the material composition of it over many production batches (introduce more composites in place of metal-alloys, etc.) but you can't always change the basic shape of an aircraft. But such change only happens between early 4th gen aircraft and new 5th gen ones. In-between, you can easily make do with the same airframe....while introducing the 5th gen electronics and new weapons onto your older airframes.

Please educate me if I'm wrong but, I didn't know that all this was 80s tech...

> GaN-based Active transmitters (soon to come, radar)
> Supercruising engines
> Less than 1 sqm RCS with clean load
> One of the best EW suites in the world today
> Ability to utilize most modern Western BVR weapon (far better missile than what's on F-22/35)

...and so many more features & capabilities that I've detailed in the most elaborate fashion countless times in this forum alone, and certainly need not repeat myself just because 1 or 2 retarded kids in the class did not understand the first time. In comparison, what particular whole technology/capability does this "21st century" PAK-FA provide that the "80s" Rafale does not? A faceted airframe?

(cough)...(cough)...1960s tech...(cough)...

The bottom-line is that IAF is not about "4th gen" and "5th gen". From a tactical perspective, those terms are next to meaningless. It's about role and capability. Otherwise, IAF would have cancelled Tejas procurement atleast 10 years ago.

We need the Tejas.
We need the Rafale.
We need the MKI.
We need the FGFA/PAK-FA.

...I sit here waiting for your next dumb reply...

 

[Jangaruda]

This ques may hav been asked already bt wat is the diff btw super hornet nd adv super hornet???

 

[charlie]

An aircraft, by it's very nature, is a platform. Not a tech.

The same platform can incorporate technology from various generations. That is why and how fighter planes usually stay in service relevantly for 30-40 years without any problem. Aviation expert Bill Sweetman had prepared a point-to-point slideshow about fighter aircraft just so that simpletons like yourself can understand it without getting into the technicalities.

http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/AeroIndiaSweetman-0209.pdf

Quoting him...

" ... Why do aircraft last 30-plus years?
• Upgradable
• Technology insertion through electronics
• Technology insertion through weapons
• Mobile – don’t have to be deployed/moving at all times ... "

The only part of an aircraft that's not completely upgradable is the airframe. You can change the material composition of it over many production batches (introduce more composites in place of metal-alloys, etc.) but you can't always change the basic shape of an aircraft. But such change only happens between early 4th gen aircraft and new 5th gen ones. In-between, you can easily make do with the same airframe....while introducing the 5th gen electronics and new weapons onto your older airframes.

Please educate me if I'm wrong but, I didn't know that all this was 80s tech...

> GaN-based Active transmitters (soon to come, radar)
> Supercruising engines
> Less than 1 sqm RCS with clean load
> One of the best EW suites in the world today
> Ability to utilize most modern Western BVR weapon (far better missile than what's on F-22/35)

...and so many more features & capabilities that I've detailed in the most elaborate fashion countless times in this forum alone, and certainly need not repeat myself just because 1 or 2 retarded kids in the class did not understand the first time. In comparison, what particular whole technology/capability does this "21st century" PAK-FA provide that the "80s" Rafale does not? A faceted airframe?

(cough)...(cough)...1960s tech...(cough)...

The bottom-line is that IAF is not about "4th gen" and "5th gen". From a tactical perspective, those terms are next to meaningless. It's about role and capability. Otherwise, IAF would have cancelled Tejas procurement atleast 10 years ago.

We need the Tejas.
We need the Rafale.
We need the MKI.
We need the FGFA/PAK-FA.

...I sit here waiting for your next dumb reply...

Well it's little off from your discussion. I don't know about other industry around the world but in US, you don't want to get stuck with a platform which is outgoing and new platform is just launched or about to be launched (F35)

well it will depend on a lot of factors like how many SH 18 will be sold, how many super hornet will be sold to India, how much better relation US will have with India and I can go on and on.........

But what I was trying to point out is F18 will have limited upgrades, I assume may be 20 years or more depend upon fesiblity that how many F18's needs to be upgraded as far I can guess 150 is not a big figure for a major upgraded and you have to take in account that Boeing might come up with a new aircraft in next 20 years and end of support for F18 will end in may be 30 to 40 years.

10 years or more it will take India to induct all those aircrafts I assume.

I have often seen some helpless client when they bought the product too late and after 10 years some company decide to end of support for their product, I hope it won't end up like our sea Harrier jets.

I didn't put much effort in explaining it properly but I hope you get a general Idea of what I am trying to say.

Just as an example old first-generation FLARM devices for F4 & F5
https://flarm.com/end-of-support-for-old-f4-and-f5-devices-obstacle-data-at-cost-2/