-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Aussies: Not over the moon about Super Hornet
- Thread starter Pitchlock
- Start date
according to the article they aren't looking at it to replace their current fleet, rather just a stopgap measure till they can get the JSF...they should be asking the question, Is the Super Hornet more capable then what they have now? and What is the realistic timeline to get the JSF?
Why doesn't the US just acquire the SU-27 and have a fly off?
The US isn't in the market so what would be the point? Perhaps you mean the Aussies????
I think he meant so that if the Super Hornet were to defeat one of the Flankers, we could market it with that angle. Of course, it could just as easily be looked at as being staged, so I agree, the Aussies would have to be the neutral testing ground...
Just a joke. To convince others to buy it.
hornets-are-sitting-ducks-defence-experts-warn
""If there is a strike target defended with an Su-30 (Sukhoi), the F-22 will get it for sure, the F-15 Eagle has an even chance, while the Super Hornet probably has a less than even chance," he said."
All the fuss could be posturing for negotiation purposes....
Well, the Rhino is a good all around fighter, and they will get at least 25 years out of it. I have flown a lot of the lot 29 supers and I would be happy to take it toe to toe with anyone else out there.
Why doesn't the US just acquire the SU-27 and have a fly off?
Because the SU-27 would probably win, based soley on numbers.
Sorry, Huggy. While I love my platform, I'm also a realist. I know the biggest advantage I've got if I find myself in a merge with a Flanker, is that I've probably got a lot more BFM experience than that guy.
Will there be a Merge?
We had a thread aways back on whether there would be a merge at all. Won't rehash that, but many of these out of context quotes like the Aussie retired Air Vice Marshal (if my memory serves me correctly) don't define the conditions. The F-22, F-15 and F/A-18E/F have the same air-to-air weapons and the Super Hornet has reaped the benefit of the USAF lead on AMRAAM derivatives so premerge, it's not the BFM characteristics of the platfrom, it boils down to the "system" contained in the platform primarily the radar that has to support the weapons to get first shot off (with reasonable Pk). The signature of the platform plays into how vulnerable the launch platform will be in a force on force encounter (like knights jousting with long lances). In that scenario, the F-22 reigns supreme being ahead of the F-15 and F/A-18E/F in stealth characteristics. But stealth isn't the only "defensive" or counter measure at play so I wouldn't put the Eagle necessarily ahead of the Super Hornet in a BVR encounter. There are a lot of variables and it may even boil down to BFM proficiency once the merge occurs given both opponents throwing out their best counter and counter-counter measures to the point that it's like a butterfly start. Even then, Super Hornets are sporting AIM-9X now with their JHMCS, which is superior to what the Su-27/30/33/35 etc. and MiG-29 carry so if the Aussies really want strike performance and loiter capability with 11 stations, the Super Hornet isn't a bad choice (remember the infamous VFA-11 Super Hornet snapshot guns video of the Raptor; in the hands of decent stick, the "big Bug" can take care of itself reasonably well).
Who said anything about letting them get to the merge?
We had a thread aways back on whether there would be a merge at all. Won't rehash that, but many of these out of context quotes like the Aussie retired Air Vice Marshal (if my memory serves me correctly) don't define the conditions. The F-22, F-15 and F/A-18E/F have the same air-to-air weapons and the Super Hornet has reaped the benefit of the USAF lead on AMRAAM derivatives so premerge, it's not the BFM characteristics of the platfrom, it boils down to the "system" contained in the platform primarily the radar that has to support the weapons to get first shot off (with reasonable Pk). The signature of the platform plays into how vulnerable the launch platform will be in a force on force encounter (like knights jousting with long lances). In that scenario, the F-22 reigns supreme being ahead of the F-15 and F/A-18E/F in stealth characteristics. But stealth isn't the only "defensive" or counter measure at play so I wouldn't put the Eagle necessarily ahead of the Super Hornet in a BVR encounter. There are a lot of variables and it may even boil down to BFM proficiency once the merge occurs given both opponents throwing out their best counter and counter-counter measures to the point that it's like a butterfly start. Even then, Super Hornets are sporting AIM-9X now with their JHMCS, which is superior to what the Su-27/30/33/35 etc. and MiG-29 carry so if the Aussies really want strike performance and loiter capability with 11 stations, the Super Hornet isn't a bad choice (remember the infamous VFA-11 Super Hornet snapshot guns video of the Raptor; in the hands of decent stick, the "big Bug" can take care of itself reasonably well).
That is the problem with guys like physicists who talk about such things solely in numbers.
I think everyone here can agree that it is the pilot and not the plane that is going to win the battle. All of the countries that Australia might face in combat and fly Flankers have much less well trained pilots than the Aussies, and would likely get their a$$es handed to them in a fight, Flanker or not. One of the funniest reports I read was about one of the aforementioned countires and their pilots.
Anothher thing to consider is the maintenance of the aircraft. We like to complain about our planes but when you find out the reality about other countries (ie. not our allies) and their aircraft reliabilty, sortie rate and just how many they have that can actually fly, I wonder why I ever complained about our maintenance (that is, until the next '1 hour fix' from maintenance takes 6 hours......
). And one thing that is widely known is that the Russians are the worst when it comes to supplying parts and knowledge about maintaining their aircraft. These aircraft are usually supplied to thrid world countries where being a fighter pilot is prestigous and attracts 'quality' personnel, but their maintenance personnel are treated like dirt and have only a fraction of the training that ours do. If you have any experience with a third-world country and their enlisted folks, you will know what I mean. An exception to this rule is India, and they only have so much sucess with Russian equipment, just check out their MiG-21 crash and reliabilty rate:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1911/19110550.htm
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2367
So, I think Australia would be more than fine with either the JSF or the Super Hornet (only two squadrons would replace just the F-111). Especially against a country that has 20 Flankers (but really only 6 flyable, three radars working between them, with only 7 trained pilots, only two of which have fired actual weapons in practice, on average who have only flown 3 times at night or in IMC in the last year and have 34 hours total on average in the past 8 months).
But let me tell you about what those Flankers could do........boy they sure look pretty on the flight line there........
