New Indian Air Force Fighter competition

[Scorpion82]

Actually, you should check your news sources. :lul
Typhoon and Rafale offer RCS reduction, at comparable levels. And considering EW suite, well, SPECTRA and DASS are not directly bad or old fashioned systems.
Does the Super Bug have a towed decoy ? What about electro optical sensors ? Direct voice input ? Supercruise ?
Sorry for beeing so rude, but I'm somewhat pissed off by the actual hyping of the Hornet by Australian officials. One claim was superior network capabilities compared to Typhoon and F-15. I guess the AN/USQ-140 terminal becomes better if placed into a Super Bug. The only aircraft that offers superior network capabilities in comparison to other western fighters is the Gripen, because it offers Link 16 and TILDS.
Well, the F-18 got its front end upgrade for its radar already, while the AESA antennas for RBE2 and Captor are only prototypes.
But the Bug got a pretty poor flight envelope. Especially at supersonic speeds, the Hornet performs very poor in comparison to Rafale/Typhoon.

I recently learned more about the capabilities of the block II Super Hornet here on the forums. Its EWS seems to be as advanced as that of Rafale or Typhoon including AN/AAR-57 MAW and AN/ALE-50 TRD in addition to AN/ALR-67(V3) RWR and AN/ALE-124 ECM as well as the AN/ALE-47 chaff/flare dispensers with 120 rounds. The Super Hornet will receive a new digital radio data exchange system (JTAR or something like that) which enables superior data transmission rates. It has no internal EO systems, but uses the very advanced ATFLIR which can be used for passive airborne target detection and recognition. Its AN/APG-79 AESA radar is currently defintely superior to the Captor-C or RBE2, though the situation might better in the relevant timeframe when India wants to purchase new fighters as RBE2A and Captor-E should be available there both with AESA. EWS development and EO development is pushed further as well.

 

[Daxar]

Are EADS & Dassault in a position to offer local assembly of EF & Rafale ? If not, they'll be at a big disadvantage to F-18 & Mig/Su. Still think F-18 is very much the front runner. US will be very upset if they don't get this deal considering the effort they've put in to court India lately.

I think that local assembly and co-production of critical components is a requirement of the Indian MRCA deal. So whoever gives generously towards that wish would likely be the winner.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Actually, you should check your news sources. :lul
Typhoon and Rafale offer RCS reduction, at comparable levels. And considering EW suite, well, SPECTRA and DASS are not directly bad or old fashioned systems.
Does the Super Bug have a towed decoy ? What about electro optical sensors ? Direct voice input ? Supercruise ?
Sorry for beeing so rude, but I'm somewhat pissed off by the actual hyping of the Hornet by Australian officials. One claim was superior network capabilities compared to Typhoon and F-15. I guess the AN/USQ-140 terminal becomes better if placed into a Super Bug. The only aircraft that offers superior network capabilities in comparison to other western fighters is the Gripen, because it offers Link 16 and TILDS.
Well, the F-18 got its front end upgrade for its radar already, while the AESA antennas for RBE2 and Captor are only prototypes.
But the Bug got a pretty poor flight envelope. Especially at supersonic speeds, the Hornet performs very poor in comparison to Rafale/Typhoon.

Thanks for the advice mate. Unlike some I DO check my sources.

Yes, the SH DOES have a towed Decoy, it's known as the AN/ALE-55.

Once again mate, I can point to observable LO reduction features on the SH, NONE of which are observable on the Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen. Stating something does not make it observable fact. I suppose some other means of LO reductions might have been found, but I doubt it. Why would the US accept the aerodynamic compromises needed for it's extant LO aircraft if they weren't necessary?

As to EO/IR sensors, F/A-18E/F can use the ATFLIR pod or Litening pods, both of which ARE integrated. Tell me, when does the Typhoon get such a capability, opertionally? It doesn't have it yet. Nor does Rafale.

Considering ALL of these fighters are designed as primarily transonic fighters, I really struggle to understand the relevance of your comment about it's "supersonic" performance. No doubt DarthAmerica or some other knowledgable poster can expand further on this issue, but are you truly trying to convince me that the F-15 or Typhoon are VASTLY superior in the subsonic range?

As to supercruise again you're not really kicking many goals here. Nor do I suspect you have done YOUR research. Typhoon has NOT displayed sustained supercruise in an operational configuration, to the best of my knowledge. If you consider a supercruise capability in a clean configuration as a big advantage, good luck to you. FYI the original English Lightning display an ability to conduct sustained supersonic flight without afterburner too.

Maybe IT had LO reduction features as well...

 

[Aussie Digger]

hm,i suppose if they had kept developing the phantom then that would have had the latest gizmos too but it would still have been originally designed in the fifties!.......in the same way,the latest f18 is principally an 70's design but.....'tuned up'!

seriously though if the usn and marines really thought that they could cope for the next 30 yrs with a 70's design then im sure they would have and wouldnt have bothered with the f35 and all the expense that goes with it.
the f18's a good aircraft but in reality its at the end of its development cycle and not the beginning as per the f22,typhoon,rafale etc.

USMC don't use the Super Hornet, don't know why you thought they did.

As to it's development phase, why don't you inform Boeing of this situation, because they are indeed continuing development of the platform. For one thing the development of the Block II variant has only just been "bedded down" and the USN has yet to complete the conversion of it's existing Block I variants to this standard.

The F-414 engine is having significant development work done on it, with the EDE variant of the engine offering 20% greater thrust or 3x times the lifespan at current thrust levels. Something which the Gripen is expecting to receive at some point to try and boost it's less than stellar performance...

On top of this Boeing is still developing a Block III variant of the Rhino for the USN (and maybe Australia) as the USN at least plans to operate the aircraft until around 2030.

Doesn't seem like it's "ending" anytime soon does it?

 

[aaaditya]

hey guys,interesting news here,it seems that the 30% offset clause is to be more broad based,this seems to be the change that has delayed the issue of request for proposals for the 126 mrca,if so then i believe that this policy change will benefit boeing and eads more.

here check out this link and article:

http://www.idrw.org/index.php?categoryid=1&p2_articleid=695&s=&

The ministry of defence is understood to have given finishing touches to the offset clause in the request for proposal (RFP) for 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) worth $11 billion. It now seems to be racing against time to fulfill the commitment, publicly made by defence minister AK Antony According to highly placed sources, top brass in the Indian air Force headquarters and ministry of defence are frantically trying to tie up loose ends to enable the release of the RFP for 126 MRCA before March 31. At the recently concluded Aero-India 2007 in Bangalore, the defence minister had said that the RFP for the 126 MRCA will be issued shortly. The RFP is in the final stages of (preparation) and it will come at the earliest, he had told the media persons at a press conference. While admitting that the 30% offset clause in the current procurement policy is broader based, the minister had said that the public and private sectors have the opportunity to absorb this offset. Several frontline jets made by global aviation majors including Lockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F-18 super Hornet of the US, Sweden's Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon and Russia's MiG-35 are in the race for the contract. Officials said that the revised RFP is expected to emphasis life cycle costs, air refueling capability and the aircraft's long-range characteristics in its MCRA acquisition.

 

[Scorpion82]

Once again mate, I can point to observable LO reduction features on the SH, NONE of which are observable on the Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen. Stating something does not make it observable fact. I suppose some other means of LO reductions might have been found, but I doubt it. Why would the US accept the aerodynamic compromises needed for it's extant LO aircraft if they weren't necessary?

Maybe you should start looking more carefully at the pictures
The Rafale has a lot saw tooth profiles, goldened canopy etc. The Typhoon has fewer features in that direction at least in terms which can be seen.
Does the stealth features of the SH compromise its aerodynamics? I doubt so. There is a difference between an allround covered LO design and an aircraft with some RCS reducing features.

As to EO/IR sensors, F/A-18E/F can use the ATFLIR pod or Litening pods, both of which ARE integrated. Tell me, when does the Typhoon get such a capability, opertionally? It doesn't have it yet. Nor does Rafale.

Next year both Rafale and Typhoon will be able to use Litening III and Damocles. In contrast to the SH both ECDs have internal EO sensors for passive target detection, identification and tracking. The SH needs to carry a pod at the expense of a hardpoint and it's still unclear how capable the ATFLIR is in the AA role.

Considering ALL of these fighters are designed as primarily transonic fighters, I really struggle to understand the relevance of your comment about it's "supersonic" performance. No doubt DarthAmerica or some other knowledgable poster can expand further on this issue, but are you truly trying to convince me that the F-15 or Typhoon are VASTLY superior in the subsonic range?

Supersonic performance is relevant for BVR combat to boost the range of your missiles. For optimum range of the missile you need to accelerate to higher supersonic speeds. Here the SH lacks behind due to its design. At least the Typhoon is vastly superior in a number of areas in the subsonic regime be it g-loads over the flight envelope, g-onsets, acceleration...

As to supercruise again you're not really kicking many goals here. Nor do I suspect you have done YOUR research. Typhoon has NOT displayed sustained supercruise in an operational configuration, to the best of my knowledge. If you consider a supercruise capability in a clean configuration as a big advantage, good luck to you.

Denying something because you don't know about is not a fact! The Typhoon has demonstrated supercruise with operational load including tanks and the capability with such a load was confirmed. Of course more details are classified but you can recently hear about clean supercruise speeds between mach 1.4 and 1.5 and operational supercruise speeds >1.2 with AAMs and drop tanks.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Maybe you should start looking more carefully at the pictures
The Rafale has a lot saw tooth profiles, goldened canopy etc. The Typhoon has fewer features in that direction at least in terms which can be seen.
Does the stealth features of the SH compromise its aerodynamics? I doubt so. There is a difference between an allround covered LO design and an aircraft with some RCS reducing features

I agree with the last bit, I haven't exactly studied the Rafale in close detail so I'll defer to your comments (you'll notice I never actually referred to Rafale anyway, I was discussing Typhoon and SH), however it is clear that SH goes further than any of the Eurocanards in this field.

Next year both Rafale and Typhoon will be able to use Litening III and Damocles. In contrast to the SH both ECDs have internal EO sensors for passive target detection, identification and tracking. The SH needs to carry a pod at the expense of a hardpoint and it's still unclear how capable the ATFLIR is in the AA role.

Next year eh? Excellent. The ATFLIR seems more than sufficient for the USN, so I guess it can't be too bad. It along with Sniper XR and Litening AT were shortlisted by Australia so it must be a pretty fair capability. Out of interest Australia ended up choosing the Litening AT.

Supersonic performance is relevant for BVR combat to boost the range of your missiles. For optimum range of the missile you need to accelerate to higher supersonic speeds. Here the SH lacks behind due to its design. At least the Typhoon is vastly superior in a number of areas in the subsonic regime be it g-loads over the flight envelope, g-onsets, acceleration...

I am aware of that, but tell me exactly how much BVR combat has occured lately? The Hornet has never been an incapable BVR fighter and the SH thanks to it's AESA radar, better performance and greater range/payload is better. For Australia's needs I have little doubt it will suffice. Typhoon may indeed be somewhat superior. I doubt VERY much that any of us here can quote with authority on the exact difference.

Denying something because you don't know about is not a fact! The Typhoon has demonstrated supercruise with operational load including tanks and the capability with such a load was confirmed. Of course more details are classified but you can recently hear about clean supercruise speeds between mach 1.4 and 1.5 and operational supercruise speeds >1.2 with AAMs and drop tanks.

When did I say it ever was? However I would love to "hear" about the Typhoon's "supercruise" capability. Could you provide a link so I can at least read about it or do you expect me to believe it simply because you say so?

The design brief as I recall never included "supercruise" capability and it only appeared in Typhoon literature AFTER it became public knowledge that the F-22A could do this. Given the weights and thrust available for the Typhoon it seems unlikely that Typhoon can supercruise for any tactically useful time, but I'm more than willing to be corrected on this.

 

[tphuang]

The design brief as I recall never included "supercruise" capability and it only appeared in Typhoon literature AFTER it became public knowledge that the F-22A could do this. Given the weights and thrust available for the Typhoon it seems unlikely that Typhoon can supercruise for any tactically useful time, but I'm more than willing to be corrected on this.

I think it was mentionned on AFM that Typhoon supercruised without afterburners at mach1.4 during the Singapore trials with A2A config. But you know, gf0021-aust is probably the person that we should ask whether it actually happened or not.

 

[robertwest]

Something which the Gripen is expecting to receive at some point to try and boost it's less than stellar performance...

Its "less than stellar performance"? The Gripen does quite well with the current output from the RM12. Climb to 11.000 meters in 2 minutes, acceleration from M 0.5 to M 1.1 in 30 seconds. Supercruise at M 1.2 armed with missiles.

With the F414 EDE it will become a monster.

 

[jaffo4011]

USMC don't use the Super Hornet, don't know why you thought they did.

As to it's development phase, why don't you inform Boeing of this situation, because they are indeed continuing development of the platform. For one thing the development of the Block II variant has only just been "bedded down" and the USN has yet to complete the conversion of it's existing Block I variants to this standard.

The F-414 engine is having significant development work done on it, with the EDE variant of the engine offering 20% greater thrust or 3x times the lifespan at current thrust levels. Something which the Gripen is expecting to receive at some point to try and boost it's less than stellar performance...

On top of this Boeing is still developing a Block III variant of the Rhino for the USN (and maybe Australia) as the USN at least plans to operate the aircraft until around 2030.

Doesn't seem like it's "ending" anytime soon does it?

i dont know why i included the marines either,must be tired!

my point is,that its still an old design intrinsically and will in no way be able to be developed for as long as the latest designs.any country which purchases sh now instead of typhoon or rafale will undoubtedly need to replace them earlier in order to remain competitive.for example would you really like to be a luftwaffe pilot in a phantom,no matter how well its been updated,against a russian su37?.....i hope australia look at the issue in this way before they commit any more funds to sh purchases in the future.

 

[Thumper]

i dont know why i included the marines either,must be tired!

Not only tired but wrong about the Super Hornet.

1. The SH shares very little in terms of airframe and engines with the legacy Hornet. It is a clean sheet 1990's design that used the hornet/f-18 designation to get by congress without being considered a new airplane.

2. Comparing the SH which is in production and flying live combat missions off the decks of carriers today with the SU-37 which is still in prototype form and may never be built in numbers is ridiculous. At least compare it with the Block III SHs due to join the fleet in 2010. While the Block II SH flying today beats the SU-37 in almost every catagory that matters, the BLock III SH will add 20 percent more power, additional stealth and computing power over the Block II.

3. Unlike the Eurocanards the SH is a 1990s design that has greater stealth(even when loaded), a superior radar, greater low speed manueverablity, better ECM, greater reliability and a wider variety of weapons carriage.

4. Other than the Raptor, the Block II SH is the most lethal AC flying today. The Australians have gotten themsleves a wonderful bird that will serve them well for years to come.

 

[swerve]

...
3. Unlike the Eurocanards the SH is a 1990s design ....

Weeellll . . . . not quite. The 1995 Super Hornet prototype bore much the same relationship to the F-18C/D as the 1990s Rafale & Typhoon prototypes bore to the 1980s demonstrators which preceded them.

Compare the Rafale to the 1986 Rafale A demonstrator - it's bigger, it has more powerful engines, the same basic aerodynamics but with significant differences. Compare Typhoon (first flew 1994) to the 1980s EAP, & you discover the same thing, but more so. They're different aircraft, sharing the same basic aerodynamics but not a great deal else.

 

[Rich]

I also am tired of the SH being talked down about in Internet forums. There are a few things the RAAF should really like about it. First off your Hornet pilots can probably land the old ones, and jump into the new ones, because much is similar. Next, the SH can hold an awesome weapons load especially flying them from land bases.

I can go on a but but everything I could say has been said already. The point I want to make is we Yanks are kinda befuddled by the Aussie outlook that the SH is a "stop gap". We see it as a "enhancement".

The F-111 was a one of a kind aircraft that will never be built again. Its almost like we built it first and then tried to find a use for it. The USN didn't really want it. USAF didn't really want it. I guess like the Hustler it served some purpose as a test bed, but I cant help but think we could have put a $3,000 model in a wind tunnel and gotten a better deal out of it. The F-14 would have been built anyway with or without the F-111.

Then low and behold we finally figured our how to fly the thing, and as it turned out, it fit to perfection the needs of the RAAF. BUT, its old news, and as far as I know it never had a great supersonic low level range cause it burned gas like a swine anyhoo. Maybe I'm wrong.

The F-18 SH/ F-35 RAAF of the future is going to be one lethal mother. That I do know!

 

[Thumper]

sharing the same basic aerodynamics but not a great deal else.

Well the SH does not share the bsic aerodynamics as the legacy Hornet (note not a prototype but a production fighter).

Major aerodynamic difference between SH and legacy Hornet
Different more powerful engines.
4 feet longer
2 additional weapons stations per wing
Extensive use of RAM and other LO design techniques
33% more fuel
25% larger wing

The airframe the weapons loadouts the design philosophy is all newer than the Eurocanards which are merely an attempt to outflank the Flanker. Both planes are bacially single mode AC which due to market forces have been forced to evolve into ersatz multi role AC.

 

[Falstaff]

Oh dear, another hardcore Super Hornet Fan.

But as far as stealth is concerned: The Eurofighter wasn't designed to be stealthy in the first place, however, design goal was to have a quarter of the Tornado's RCS. Actual RCS is classified. As is the SH's, I guess.
Later RAM was attached to the wings, canards and air inlet, see attached pictures.
Some say that the supercruise characteristics (which BTW are well proven, >M1.2 with 4 BVR and 2 WVR missiles) and the very capable passive sensor suite contribute to stealth as well.

1. The SH shares very little in terms of airframe and engines with the legacy Hornet. It is a clean sheet 1990's design that used the hornet/f-18 designation to get by congress without being considered a new airplane.

It uses the Hornets aerodynamic layout. How can anybody deny?

From FlugRevue (biggest European aerospace magazine):

The F-18E/F is a completely new design based on the F-18C/D aerodynamic configuration. It features a much larger wing, larger wing extensions, a stretched fuselage, much more powerful engines, new, rectangular intakes and other refinements.

From www.airforce-technology.com:

The aircraft retains the mission software and a high proportion of the avionics found in the C/D models.

the BLock III SH will add 20 percent more power, additional stealth (...)

Both of whitch are desperately needed. Neither speed nor acceleration are that good, aren't they?

From FlugRevue (biggest European aerospace magazine):

Other problems highlighted by the GAO are the low maximum speed and comparatively slow acceleration, especially in the transonic region. According to the GAO, this does not bode well, given the Super Hornetís planned role as fighter-interceptor tasked with the protection of aircraft carriers, and will make it difficult to withdraw rapidly from a combat situation.

Let's see. The Typhoon can do a 6 km turn at M1.5 without losing speed. Can the SH do that? Let me think... I don't think so.
And supercruise... again, zero points for the ugly bug.
And in Australia the SH is under pressure because of its lack of stealth. See DID coverage.

3. Unlike the Eurocanards the SH is a 1990s design that has greater stealth(even when loaded), a superior radar, greater low speed manueverablity, better ECM, greater reliability and a wider variety of weapons carriage.

Oh come on, please. I'll give you the radar and the weapons at this point (we'll see again in the next few years), everything else is pure speculation, you have to admit. Can you prove at least one of your claims?
And the maneuverability claim is simply b***. I'm very much looking forward to seeing you prove this one.

4. Other than the Raptor, the Block II SH is the most lethal AC flying today.

Dream on. Some figures (BVR).

Aircraft A2A combat efficiency win/lose ratio
F/A-22 "Raptor" 0,90 - 0,91 9:1 - 10:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 0,75 - 0,82 3:1 - 4,5:1
F-15 mod. 0,60 1,5:1
F-15E "Strike Eagle" 0,55 1,2:1
Dassault Rafale 0,50 1:1
Sukhoi Su-27 mod. 0,50 1:1
F-18E/F SH 0,25 - 0,45 1:1,2 - 1:3
F-15C "Eagle" 0,43 1:1,3
JAS-39A "Gripen" 0,40 1:1,5
Dassault Mirage 2000 0,35 1:1,8
Tornado F.3 0,30 1:2,3
F-18C "Hornet" 0,21 1:3,8
F-16C "Falcon"(Bl.40) 0,21 1:3,8

Or perhaps see http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.php to read this:

The Eurofighter project has been subject to several operational evaluations. These have been carried out, independently from the Eurofighter consortium, primarily by Britain's DERA, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL). Unlike many previous theoretical operational capability studies, the Eurofighter analysis utilised a true simulation approach. This was achieved through a number of networked battle simulation computers, termed JOUST, each of which can be flown by human pilots.

(...)

These simulations concluded that Eurofighter has a win rating of 82% (100% equals always win, 0% equals always lose, 50% equals parity) against the target aircraft. A more typical way to present this data is as a combat exchange ratio, for the Typhoon this equals 4.5:1. In other words statistically one Eurofighter would be lost for every 4.5 Su-35 fighters shot down. This compares extremely favourably to the other aircraft (see also the BVR Combat Rating table); F-16C Falcon (0.3:1), F-15C Eagle (0.8:1), F-18C Hornet (0.3:1), F-18+ (0.4:1, NB this is not the current F-18E/F which is apparently a downgraded version of the F-18+ used in the studies) and Dassault Rafale (1:1). Only the LM/Boeing F-22 Raptor bettered the Eurofighter's performance with a combat exchange ratio of 10.1:1.

I hereby rest my case. Jeremy Clarkson would go for the Typhoon

 

[swerve]

Well the SH does not share the bsic aerodynamics as the legacy Hornet (note not a prototype but a production fighter).

Major aerodynamic difference between SH and legacy Hornet
Different more powerful engines.
4 feet longer
2 additional weapons stations per wing
Extensive use of RAM and other LO design techniques
33% more fuel
25% larger wing

The airframe the weapons loadouts the design philosophy is all newer than the Eurocanards which are merely an attempt to outflank the Flanker. Both planes are bacially single mode AC which due to market forces have been forced to evolve into ersatz multi role AC.

Oh, bloody hell! It's clear that while you know something about the F-18E, you don't know anything about the design, development, or history of the Rafale or Typhoon, or you wouldn't tout these as somehow making it unique, in its differences from the F-18A/B/C/D. Learn about them, then come back & revise what you've said. Both were designed from the outset as multi-role aircraft. Rafale was intended from the outset to be the sole combat aircraft of the French air force & navy - single role? Typhoon was intended from the outset to replace Jaguar, Tornado ADV, Tornado IDS, F-4 (single-role fighter versions), Mirage F.1 & F-104ASA. Single-role? By saying that, you have proclaimed your ignorance.

And it does share the basic aerodynamics. Different in detail, yes. Significantly different, yes. But more like the basic Hornet than the Typhoon is like the EAP.

Rich,

none of the above is to decry the F-18E. Nowt wrong with it that I know of.

 

[Thumper]

you don't know anything about the design, development, or history of the Rafale or Typhoon, or you wouldn't tout these as somehow making it unique, in its differences from the F-18A/B/C/D. Learn about them, then come back & revise what you've said.

But I do and I won't. I even remember all the debate 80's about the French going their own way with the Rafael. Both are legacy jets conceived in the 80s, using 70s technology that the Europeans can just now manufacture, maintain, and field in sufficent numbers and at aceptable cost. Both jets are fine jets but....

Now for the SH. Not only is it very different aerodynamically from the produced and fielded legacy Hornet it also took advantage of the 90's design philosophy of valueing such non brute force technologies as LO techonology, AESA techonology, NG integrated EWS, NG net-centric warfares, NG cockpit, and AAMs with continuous improvement.

All of these capabilites are in the fleet today. Sure BAE and Dassault talk about these things and maybe in 10 years they will field them, but by then the SH will have eveolved and the Block III version will be in the fleet.

Falstaf try to read what is being said. From your replies it is obvious that you often do not. Just a couple of nuggets:

Different more powerful engines.
4 feet longer
2 additional weapons stations per wing
Extensive use of RAM and other LO design techniques
33% more fuel
25% larger wing

If that is not different airframe then I don't know what is.

Your "simulated" combat efficiency numbers are based on 1994 data.

Next time try quoting
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...New Super Hornet Capabilities&channel=defense
To see what is being said by people in the know.

The Typhoon can do a 6 km turn at M1.5 without losing speed.

And your point is?
Let me ask you something. Can it outrun a slammer? Can it out turn an AIM9-x?

Or perhaps see http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...ghter/tech.php to read this:

Oh thats a real reliable source. What are they going to say? Can I quote the Boeing Website?http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/lol2.gif
nfloorl:

Jeremy Clarkson would go for the Typhoon

And more times than not against the Rhino you would lose.

 

[tphuang]

Now for the SH. Not only is it very different aerodynamically from the produced and fielded legacy Hornet it also took advantage of the 90's design philosophy of valueing such non brute force technologies as LO techonology, AESA techonology, NG integrated EWS, NG net-centric warfares, NG cockpit, and AAMs with continuous improvement.

so, basically you listed a bunch of technology that SH piggy-banked off other fighters. Rather than actually making a case that SH is a great platform, you ended up showing that by putting latest technology on an old fighter, you can make it a really effective fighter. As for stuff like reduced RCS measure, current generation avionics and improved AAM, do you really think the Eurocanards are missing that?

And your point is?
Let me ask you something. Can it outrun a slammer? Can it out turn an AIM9-x?

so you are basically disregarding the importance of greater supersonic flight performance?

Also, btw, cut with those lol type of smilies, that's really disrespectful.

 

[JWCook]

And your point is?
Let me ask you something. Can it outrun a slammer? Can it out turn an AIM9-x?

All aircraft can outrun a slammer, depends on where in the zone it is...
Out turn a 9x... hmmm

Or perhaps see http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...ghter/tech.php to read this:
Oh thats a real reliable source. What are they going to say? Can I quote the Boeing Website?http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/lol2.gif
nfloorl:

Er WWW.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk Is not owned by Eurofighter, or EADS or BAE and is quite independant.. it has been setup to be independant of outside influence.

Thanks

 

[Aussie Digger]

Now for the SH. Not only is it very different aerodynamically from the produced and fielded legacy Hornet it also took advantage of the 90's design philosophy of valueing such non brute force technologies as LO techonology, AESA techonology, NG integrated EWS, NG net-centric warfares, NG cockpit, and AAMs with continuous improvement.

All of these capabilites are in the fleet today. Sure BAE and Dassault talk about these things and maybe in 10 years they will field them, but by then the SH will have eveolved and the Block III version will be in the fleet.

Falstaf try to read what is being said. From your replies it is obvious that you often do not. Just a couple of nuggets:



If that is not different airframe then I don't know what is.

Your "simulated" combat efficiency numbers are based on 1994 data.

Next time try quoting
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...New Super Hornet Capabilities&channel=defense
To see what is being said by people in the know.


And your point is?
Let me ask you something. Can it outrun a slammer? Can it out turn an AIM9-x?



Oh thats a real reliable source. What are they going to say? Can I quote the Boeing Website?http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/lol2.gif
nfloorl:


And more times than not against the Rhino you would lose.

Don't forget the new front fuselage that the Block II SH has to accomodate the AESA radar system also.

The way I see things presently, the differences between SH and Typhoon are primarily:

Typhoon - slightly better BVR fighter.

SH: Better multi-role fighter. certainly at present and likely to continue with the planned and in-development Block III variant.

Both aircraft share a similar range and payload.

Both aircraft use virtually the same A2A weapons.

The Typhoon has arguably better aerodynamic performance.

SH has an arguably better RCS, avionics/sensor system, plus the benefit of a fully integrated weapon system. Typhoon has a number of years to go to achieve this

As always it's a horses for courses issue which aircraft is "better" and as I suggested earlier, it's rare that technical excellence is the ove riding factor in defence acquisition anyway. Getting back to the thread topic,

India is most likely to go with the platform that offers the best industrial package as there is little overall difference in capability that I can see...