lol. It was meant to be funny. Just quoting someone.
kk
Agree, but I wasn't comparing the F18 to the F16 in my earlier post.
No, but you were refering to RAAF F18's in a manner which would indicate to the layman that they are basically as capable as they were in the 1980's, with maybe a couple of upgrades, which is clearly not the case. I've got a feeling that was intentional.
I would say all 94. Since that's 2005 imports. Would it take 2 years?
Which, counting training and atrition requirements, would make about 4 regular sized squadrons. Which is what i said.
Are the F5s really "not worth counting"? Grifo-F with avionics upgrade, Link 16 + Python/Amraam JHMCS capability. Its not consistent to make a fuss over the upgrades to the F18A/Bs and not count the upgrade to the F5s either.
I didnt think they were worth counting because i dont think they are combat viable when faceing an opponant as sophistocated as the RAAF. We could count HAWK 127's if you want, but i dont think that would be worth it do you?
Then why would you call a platform that has undergone a extensive block upgrade programe an "A/B"??? Sounds like you were trying to downplay its capability or effectiveness, or you wernet aware of what a block upgrade usually consists of.
The F18's APG-73 is 10kg lighter than APG 68(v) versions and smaller. In the US, the -68 is considered the most reliable radar in the market with a solid mtbf. The (v)9's search range for the 52+ exceeds the -73 in terms of power, processing and capabilities to the APG-73 + additional modes (reaching 296km) and I'm quoting Jane's electronics here. Amazing when I read the specs. Used to think the APG-73 was a better radar before I read Janes.
I'd like to see that article. is it an Emag? So how evactly is an MSA the most reliable radar in the market with PESA's and AESA's floating around, which will pretty much allways have better down time between failure rates??? 296km against what??? I would have thought exact detection ranges are classified?? Prosessing capabilities are subjective bacause AFAIK they are both cosntructed with an open architecture when it comes to prosescors. Anyway the APG 68 may indeed be a slightly better radar, but the two are comperable and this would not be a desisive system.
Sure, the F18s come with ALQ-162s but the F16s are equipped with towed decoys and the israeli ew suite (SPS 3000). Both have JHMCS (dash 3 in RSAF's case) with Amraams though the Aussie bugs could have the later AMRAAM versions (too lazy to check) but that's offset vis a vis the Python. F16s comes with lantern Flir pods too etc.
If the RAAF oes indeed use more advanced variants of AMRAAM this is a real advantage. And how exactly is it offset by Python??? HUG bugs are equiped with AIM 132's (Focal plane Array equiped ASRAAMS) so how exactly does that even things out?? I would argue the Raytheon FPA seeker, 360 degree engagement envilope and significant range advantage means that Python is a liability rather than an advantage in this scenario, i.e. vs AIM 132. Towed decoys are indeed very usefull, but the EWSP upgrade in HUG 2.3 is a very advanced system, specifically designed to cope with ARH missiles. A slight advatage but again not a desisive one. I dont know why you meantioned strike capabilities, HUG hornets use Lightning anyway, in adition to JDAM and if it ever eventuates, JASSM. Then there are some very basic facts, such as range and missile payload, in which the F18 HUG holds the advantage, significantly.
Anyway as it stands today RSAF holds a huge advantage with AEW&C.
On a side note. Why is it when the word Isreali is mentioned people are supposed to go OOOAHHHH??? I mean i'm sure they make good kit but why the mystique???? People should look at the publicly available data rather than the name of the preople who make make it.
Agreed, these export F18s and F16s are not the bomb trucks that the USAF operates (esp when it has the F15Cs and F22s for air sup missions). In the F16s case, these are not upgrades but almost the latest advanced electronics one can put into a fighter.
Are you refering to the ANG's F16 Block 30's??? They are pretty much bomb trucks, and can be covered by F15C's. However in the USN's case they dont have either of those platforms to cover their bugs, they have F18E Block 1's., which are identicle to HUg BUGS in terms of avionics performance. So the backbone of the USN, the good old bug, needs to be a bit more potent than an F16 block 30. I would hardly call USN F18C's "bomb trucks".
I'd sau that pilot skill on a 1-1 will be the difference but its not going to be 1-1 isn't it... its more like 1-0 because both aren't gonna fight each other. The US will just sanction and both F18s and F16s will be relegated into the scrap heap.
This is a hypothetical after all. I think tactical employment would be the desieive factor, not counting AEW&C.
What do you mean by that exactly????
And what a difference that makes right now as you have kindly pointed out with your jibe in terms of operational. All of us can appreciate what awacs can do. The wedgetail is a solid aircraft but makes one wonder why the RSAF went for the G550 when they could have considered the wedgetail too....
This is Tphuang's favorite argument. Why did country A choose platform B then when they could have bought platform C? Implying that this automaticaly sheds light on said platforms capabilities. Whitout knowing the context of the choice, this point is totaly irrelevent. Australia considered Gulfstream AEW and chose Wedgetail, that alone renders your point a moot one. The RAAF downselected E2 out of the competition because of capability, THAT is a relevent point. Why did singapore or isreal for that mater chose gulfstream and phalcon? Probably because of the ballance between size, cost, endurance and capability which they deemed to be more aplicable to their particular needs. I dont think its as simple as we chose this one so it must have more capability than the other one. Just on power output alone, Wedgetail holds a serious advantage, not to mention avionics payload and endurance. And this doesnt delve into the hugely complicated discussion reguarding the details of the phalcon and MESA radar systems. However MESA is described as 'revoloutionary' for a reason.
