F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

[Sancho]

Australia is a non-NATO country and operates F-18G

Nope, they are above standard NATO countries, with their strategic alliance to the US or the five eyes partnerships. So they get advantages not even most NATO countries get, let alone non NATO countries.

 

[Immanuel]

Flight performance was a key problem in MMRCA, because the SH fell short to IAF requirements. For IN it's even more critical, because it needs to prove enough performance to take off from the carrier with a useful load.
The EPE is an option, which however is neither developed yet, nor cheap. If that needs to be added to make the SH useful, the cost-effectivity advantage is gone.

EPE will be ready for testing for USN in Feb 2019 as it was ordered last year as upgrades for a bunch of Growlers and block-2s, so funding is not an issue, I am confident it will be available in timelines for any IN related testing.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/03/30/us-navy-awards-114m-order-for-new-hornet-engines/

Besides will IN trials the Rafale and SH on the Vikky or the INS Vikrant which is still not ready. As for cost advantage, I am also confident a Block-3 SH will be cheaper overall than the Rafale.

 

[Wisemarko]

Nope, they are above standard NATO countries, with their strategic alliance to the US or the five eyes partnerships. So they get advantages not even most NATO countries get, let alone non NATO countries.

So are you saying that Australia is not a "non-NATO" country? Read what exactly I said- "Australia is a non-NATO country". Or you just come to blabber on this forum?

 

[Sancho]

EPE will be ready for testing for USN in Feb 2019 as it was ordered last year as upgrades for a bunch of Growlers and block-2s, so funding is not an issue...

You are mistaken, the EPE is not funded nor is the USN really interested in it. They wanted the EDE with lower life cycle costs, but the Block 3 upgrade doesn't include funds for engine upgrades.
The article you posted, talks about the 414 with 22000lb / 98kN thrust, compared to the older 404.

So are you saying that Australia is not a "non-NATO" country? Read what exactly I said- "Australia is a non-NATO country". Or you just come to blabber on this forum?

Lol is it so tough for you to understand? Again, their status is above standard NATO countries, that's why they get US approvals other countries don't get.

 

[asianobserve]

Flight performance was a key problem in MMRCA, because the SH fell short to IAF requirements. For IN it's even more critical, because it needs to prove enough performance to take off from the carrier with a useful load.
The EPE is an option, which however is neither developed yet, nor cheap. If that needs to be added to make the SH useful, the cost-effectivity advantage is gone.

It only goes to show that the Indian Navy desperately needs EM catapult. No jet can conventionally take off from a ship without catapult and still have useful loads in it. They need assisted take off.

 

[Sancho]

It only goes to show that the Indian Navy desperately needs EM catapult. No jet can conventionally take off from a ship without catapult and still have useful loads in it. They need assisted take off.

Well you can, if you have a large enough carrier, but IN have rather small once and with China now pushing ahead with 2 or 3 larger carriers, most likely their own EMALS catapults and sooner than we like with naval stealth fighters, there is no way around CATOBAR carriers anymore, even if it means to take a F18SH.

 

[asianobserve]

Well you can, if you have a large enough carrier, but IN have rather small once and with China now pushing ahead with 2 or 3 larger carriers, most likely their own EMALS catapults and sooner than we like with naval stealth fighters, there is no way around CATOBAR carriers anymore, even if it means to take a F18SH.

No you cannot. Unless you have a carrier with a runway half the length of ordinary land-based runway. If it were so America which operates 10 carriers at least would have done away already with complex, expensive and space-hugging steam catapult.

The SH is not underpowered. It's just that as a carrier fighter it had to make compromises with its wing design. You see carrier ops is not the same as land-based ops. It is exponentially more demanding on aircraft and pilot.

 

[Kshithij]

It is better to procure F-18 advanced super hornet rather than buying 70's F-16 fighter. Buy buying F-18 advanced super hornet we can please US with out risking Russian relationship. And also HAL will get to build F-18 advanced super hornet in new facility in Banglore. since they lost chance in building Rafale.

Transfer all MiG29Ks to the IAF and let the IN switch over to F-18 ASH completely.

F/A-18 or F-18 is not suitable for Indian carriers. They need runway length of 350m for take off with minimum weight. With load, things will be even worse. Our IAC-1 itself is about 260 metres in length. Even Vishal may have slightly longer length than 300m. Considering that 10-20% of length is reserved as margins, the F/A-18 will be way short on runway and may end up nose diving into the sea.

India has little choice except to go with MiG29k for both Vikramaditya and Vikrant carrier. Vishal will have EMALS and hence things may be different, but that is an issue for 2025

 

[asianobserve]

F/A-18 or F-18 is not suitable for Indian carriers. They need runway length of 350m for take off with minimum weight. With load, things will be even worse. Our IAC-1 itself is about 260 metres in length. Even Vishal may have slightly longer length than 300m. Considering that 10-20% of length is reserved as margins, the F/A-18 will be way short on runway and may end up nose diving into the sea.

India has little choice except to go with MiG29k for both Vikramaditya and Vikrant carrier. Vishal will have EMALS and hence things may be different, but that is an issue for 2025

The runway length of Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is only 195 meters and yet it can handle Super Hornets and legacy Hornets:

I believe INS Vishal is longer than CDG carrier.

 

[Kshithij]

The runway length of Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is only 195 meters and yet it can handle Super Hornets:

That is because it uses steam catapult. Indian carriers have stobar skijump. That is why I spoke of EMALS in my previous post. Even steam catapult can be used in place of EMALS.

 

[asianobserve]

That is because it uses steam catapult. Indian carriers have stobar skijump. That is why I spoke of EMALS in my previous post. Even steam catapult can be used in place of EMALS.

I thought INS Vishal is going to have catapult... If there's no catapult then there's certainly no way Legacy or Super Hornets or even Rafale Ms can fly from these carriers.

 

[Kshithij]

I thought INS Vishal is going to have catapult... If there's no catapult then there's certainly no way Legacy or Super Hornets or even Rafale Ms can fly from these carriers.

INS Vishal is for 2024-25. Why would anyone buy these planes now and get them delivered by 2021 and then just keep them in storage foe 4 years?

IAC-1 is Vikrant. The planes being bought are for these. Vikrant is being commissioned on 2020. We don't have enough planes for both Vikramaditya and Vikrant together.

 

[asianobserve]

Although I just came across this article that claims that according to Boeing executives the SH can actually fly from ski jump carriers with useful loads:

Confirmation that the Super Hornet could operate with a relevant weapons loads from short-takeoff but arrested recovery (STOBAR) aircraft carriers came following a big Super Hornet pitch meeting in New Delhi put on by Boeing, after which Indian defense page Livefist interviewed Dan Gillian, VP of the Super Hornet program.

During the interview, Gillian stated:

"We've done a lot of simulation work with the Indian Navy to better understand their requirements and we feel comfortable that the Super Hornet can operate from all their carriers, both the ones fielded today and the ones in the future... We think we can move around the deck, be very mission capable with a relevant weapons load-out and fuel load-out to give the Navy what they need... The Super Hornet as built today can operate from Indian carriers."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...compatible-with-indian-navy-ski-jump-carriers

Just how much useful loads the SH can take with it on a ski jump is not known based on the story. Interestingly, the article also says that Boeing has been consulting with the IN on this matter.

 

[Immanuel]

You are mistaken, the EPE is not funded nor is the USN really interested in it. They wanted the EDE with lower life cycle costs, but the Block 3 upgrade doesn't include funds for engine upgrades.
The article you posted, talks about the 414 with 22000lb / 98kN thrust, compared to the older 404.



Lol is it so tough for you to understand? Again, their status is above standard NATO countries, that's why they get US approvals other countries don't get.

My bad, indeed the new USN orders are for existing F414, EPE's ground and rig tests have been long completed, it becomes rather easy for this variant to be fitted on the Block-3 test aircraft flying about for trials in the IN

https://www.geaviation.com/press-re...ine-selected-power-south-korea’s-kf-x-fighter

GE is pursuing development of the F414 Enhanced Engine variant, which incorporates an increased flow, all-blisk fan, new 6-stage high-pressure compressor and improved turbine capability. With the support of the United States Navy, multiple rig and ground engine tests have been completed. Benefits of the Enhanced Engine include: 20% thrust growth, reduced fuel burn and increased bleed and horsepower extraction to support additional aircraft requirements.

 

[sthf]

Is there anything SH offers that Rafales doesn't?

On the other hand, IN selecting Rafale could finally pave the way for local assembly with substantial TOT.

 

[Immanuel]

We will have 45 Mig-29K aircraft which are enough for both the carriers, though they can each carry upto 30 aircraft. Actually IN shouldn't be wasting more time for IAC-1, adding another 20 Mig-29K with updates such a AESA, new OLS would solve the problem for Vikrama and IAC-1 quite easily and at a much lower cost. Ordered today, they could begin deliveries as early as late 2020, early 2021. Total Mig-29K fleet of 65 is ideal with 30 split on each carrier and 5 as reserves.

Splitting 21 fighters on each Carrier for now (Vikrama & Vikra) allows for 42 which can be deployed while 3 are kept in reserve while more Mig-29s can be added. If IN can have a peace time availability of 16 to 18 aircraft out of 21 on the deck during deployments that's good enough. The Mig-29Ks especially when upgraded with AESA are more the capable enough to challenge all comers in IN's AOR.

 

[Sancho]

No you cannot. Unless you have a carrier with a runway half the length of ordinary land-based runway.

Of course you can, as Russian, Chinese and Indian carrier fighters already have proven. The catch however is, that you can't take off with maximum fuel or maximum weapon load and have to refuel after take off.
The benefit if catapults are, that fighters can take off with higher loads, but most importantly, that you can operate larger aircrafts like E-2s or C-2s as force multipliers. So when China builds a 3rd carrier but this time with catapults, they might use J15s with higher loads than before, but then also can use their AWACS aircrafts and as it gets evident now, also stealth UCAVs too.

The SH is not underpowered.

It's TWR is very low and when you have to take off with AB thrust, not enough power leads to lower loads. Only trials will show if the current thrust is enough.

 

[Sancho]

My bad, indeed the new USN orders are for existing F414, EPE's ground and rig tests have been long completed, it becomes rather easy for this variant to be fitted on the Block-3 test aircraft flying about for trials in the IN

Last time I checked for infos, there were only ground demonstrators available and the full development required funding. GE also proposes the engine to Saab and Gripen E customers, but there again, the funding doesn't seem to make it attractive enough.
For India it would be a great engine and if we would get a useful deal with ToT and licence production, it would solve a lot of problems. But then again, ToT is an issue with the US government.

 

[Sancho]

Is there anything SH offers that Rafales doesn't?

EMALS / E-2D for IAC2
Folding wings
Advanced wide area display
CFTs
Reasonable costs

On the other hand, IN selecting Rafale could finally pave the way for local assembly with substantial TOT.

Exactly, any licence products hope for Rafale is dependent now on IN selecting Rafale, which would open the way for IAF to add some orders too. But IN has to look at it's own benefits and the F18SH is more suitable to our carriers, comes at lower costs and offers the clearly more important strategic advantage, with EMALS and coops with USN.

 

[Kshithij]

No you cannot. Unless you have a carrier with a runway half the length of ordinary land-based runway. If it were so America which operates 10 carriers at least would have done away already with complex, expensive and space-hugging steam catapult.

The SH is not underpowered. It's just that as a carrier fighter it had to make compromises with its wing design. You see carrier ops is not the same as land-based ops. It is exponentially more demanding on aircraft and pilot.

USA won't replace steam catapult as it is also a workable alternative. In EMALS, energy is stored in alternators which take up space while in steam catapult, it is in steam. The difference is not in space but in quality of acceleration. That is a minor difference and doesn't warrant replacement. Mreover, lot of infrastructure on a carrier is dependent on the catapult and runway system. The entire carrier will have to be refurbished which will be unnecessarily expensive and time consuming