Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Canada has not performed a proper study for its CF-18 replacement

Stories like this almost write themselves for their hop-scotch display of illogic.

It seems Canadian Defence is so de-skilled that they are unable to properly evaluate current and fantasy (F-35) fighter aircraft.

They use the term "interoperability" but don't grasp its operational significance.

But the same report notes “interoperability is a key concern for Canada,” referring to the Typhoon’s ability to fly alongside U.S. and allied aircraft without any problems.

Similar concerns were raised with Sweden’s Gripen and France’s Rafale.

The Typhoon can do ROVER with a LITENING pod. Old, outdated "studies" from the senior Canadian Defence crew appear worthless. ROVER is something the F-35 may never see until (if) the troubled program figures out other problems. Point: Typhoon. The Typhoon is also the only Western aircraft that can come close to defeating the F-22. Important as now, the F-22 is a reference threat for growing Pacific Rim threats. Point: Typhoon.

But in addition to the aforementioned interoperability concerns, officials noted the Gripen uses a system for emergency landings and landings on short airfields different from Canada, which would require changes.

Good point. This negates the F-35. Full-stop. Some deployed fields that Canada uses are around the 6000ft region. Not something to toy with when doing F-105-like approaches (even on perfect runways) with no drag chute (fantasy or otherwise). Good luck with that. Point: Gripen. Big-time.

Not only does the F-35 have more software than the space shuttle, which will cost a lot to maintain, the concluding report reads, but security upgrades at Canadian military bases “will likely be very expensive.”

Well, a lot of things have more software than the space-shuttle. What is the point? Think about sortie-rates and cost per flying hour too. Point: Everything else but the F-35.

Despite the pros and cons of each option, the concluding report repeatedly notes the F-35 is the only “fifth-generation” fighter aircraft, which it characterizes as having “low observable technology and the enormous tactical advantage stealth confers.”

"Fifth-generation-fighter": an LM-created meme on its best day. Otherwise known as a fraud of a claim. Got an F-22? No. What "enormous tactical advantage" when you can be detected, run down, and killed, and those are the days that the F-35 is not sitting in maintenance. Point: Typhoon. Then there is the risk of being blocked out of whole regions against high-tech threats.  Point: F-22 (not under consideration of course).

The above is just more proof of why the CF-18 replacement was taken away from military senior leadership. They are unable to come up with a reasonable solution because they do not possess the skill to do so.


Doug Allen said...

Makes you wonder how many of those DND higher-ups were looking forward to cushy, high paying jobs at LockMart after they retired from the service.

I hope they've made alternate retirement plans.

NGF said...

Good points Eric.

The idea the that the Typhoon is not inter-operable with with the USAF is very strange. Last I heard the US and those countries which are the primary operators of the Typhoon - UK, Germany, Italy and Spain - were all members of NATO - an alliance which depends on inter-operability.

In fact the RAF has a Typhoon squadron training in the US right now with the specific task of exercising with the F-22:


Will Leach said...

The F-35 cant manuever in dog fights ,ight? And with the helmet and software problems, as well as internal weapons carriage, HOBS missles arent going to be up and running any time soon, right? So doesnt that mean that any LO charachteristics possessed by the F-35 are only good for BVR combat?

Now I have my doubts about BVR combat, especially in any conflict where electronic warfare plays a real role, as FOF signals could be tampered with or detected. But I could be wrong. If BVR combat does play a huge role, the Russian approach, as described at APA, seems to have merit. More missles means more kills. Stealth will help, but sooner or later you have to turn or fire, and sooner or later sensor tech will catch up. When that happens, just from a BVR perspecfove, wouldnt it be better to have a plane with a big weapons payload? Wouldnt it be better to have more planes, flying more sorties, each carrying more weapons?

Superrhinoceront said...

If Canada chooses the F-35, in the near future won't be able to operate as part of coalition force of 4+ Generation fighters like the Supuer Duper Hornets, attacking with advanced decoys, much more effective than the Stealth technology from the 80'



Another Peter said...

To Superrhinoceront

Are you sure that the F/A-18E/F is a Supuer Duper fighter? The aircraft has a missing sting in its tail.


You can also read my comments about the damning report I've found about the Super Hornet's characteristics. Search the article "Government plays chicken with legacy Hornet replacement", then scroll down until you see "Another Peter" January 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM.

I also agree that the F-35 in the near future won't be able to operate as part of coalition force of other 4+ Generation fighters.

Will Leach said...

Hey, I just had an idea, probably a bad one, but if you all dont mind indulging me...

The F-18 is related to the F-5 seriers isnt it? Well didnt that series end in the F-20, which was supposed to be one of the great unbought fighters? What im wondering is thier any way that some of the improvements made in the F-20 (that made it better than the rest of its relatives) can be done to the F-18 cheaply and without causing major problems? Or are thier any improvements that can be made to the super bugs that havent been power pointed to an illusion of perfection?

I know putting in a single, larger engine would be cost prohibitive if done to older aircraft, and if done to newer ones the logistical headache such a change would entail would be doubled so long as operators used teo engine
Hornets. Wing redesigns were a headache last time around, or at least I think so.

As Im writing this is sounding like a worse and worse idea. Yet Im a firm believer in the growth potemtial of the other teen series legacy fighters, although I never "got" the hornet, short of it being cool when Will Smith flew it. I like that the Navy went outside the box by going for an evolutionary uprgade with the super, but they seemingly blew it with business as usual. Still, if there is untapped growth potential that we just havent thought of, a better hornet might solve a lot of problems.

Lighter, stronger (and cheaper if at all possible) materials could help, but all the RnD seems to be sucked up in IT and fantasy these last many years. Same with better engine tech, which would make things harder on China. But other than those likely dead ends, all I can think of is stripping of any "gold plating" while thinking "weight, weight, weight!" Again Im thinking single engine, but wait theres the salt water, hypothermia, drowning issue rearingn its ugly head.

I really dont think there is a chance the Hornet growing a stinger, and I know not many here are fans, but that makes you the guys to ask. Any ideas?

NGF said...

To Superrhinoceront,

You should be aware that Another Peter's post in this blog under "Government plays chicken with legacy Hornet" replacement" was based substantially on a report that is now 13 years old.

The report was by Peter Coyle, who was the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, and delivered to the US Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2000.

Coyle's report was on the Block I Super Hornet. He made a list of eight recommendations ALL of which were incorporated in the Block II Super Hornet.

For some reason Another Peter repeatedly understates the significance these major upgrades, such as AESA radar, the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X AAM.

Another Peter also points to Air Power Australia's website as if it condemns the Super. But once again he does not present the whole story. On APA's site have a read of Dr Carlo Kopp's article "Flying the Super Hornet". Kopp actually flew the Super. Here are a couple of quotes:

"The Super Hornet is a fighter with exceptional handling qualities, even by modern fighter standards, which even a novice can handle comfortably and with confidence at the edge of the low speed manoeuvre envelope."

“In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30.”

And in the last few days an article in Flight Global quoted a Super Hornet test pilot on the Super’s manoeuvrability:

‘The Super Hornet has always been extremely capable at high angles of attack right from the outset. "We have no angle of attack limits in any symmetric configuration, and we can maneuver without any lateral stick or pedal input limitations at any angle of attack. The Super Hornet still has complete roll control at 50° AOA and has demonstrated this many times while flying at low altitude with a full combat load because there is no departure issue," the Super Hornet pilot says.’

Another Peter repeatedly describes the Super Hornet as a “Super Dog”. I’d prefer to believe pilots who have actually flown the aircraft.

Canuck Fighter said...

Canada can't even buy a decent naval helicopter despite many being available.


Why is there any surprise that there is no proper CF-18 replacement study. The CDN DND needs a clean out just like the Aus DND.

Superrhinoceront said...

Aparently the apocaliptic prophecy about the air dominanceof Sukhoys was wrong.



This is what I think about the Sukhoys and Super Hornets once you put 8 air to air missiles on them.


Anonymous said...

The problem with the Super Hornet's High AoA and ACM maneuvering is that the ship has one good reversal, and then maybe a 2nd reversal in the bag left if starting speed was high enough, until significant speed is bled off and effective sustained maneuvering is lost.

Forget an attempted climb with a Super Hornet (either in offensive or defensive) during any sustained fight.

High AoA is thus good, but ability for sustained turns, climbs in addition to 'effective AoA' is most likely the superior mix of performance.

For example, performance along the lines of an EF Typhoon.

Super Hornet's best attributes would probably be found in a configuration to include the proposed CFT, coupled with the F414 EDE engine upgrade. Such an enhanced Super Hornet block could exploit a higher-altitude cruising (eg 37,000') envelope as a high sub-sonic launch platform for next-gen BVR A2A munitions. Strike role could be accomplished as a suitable Stand-off strike-truck.

Another Peter said...


Even though the damning report of the Super Hornet is 13 years old, it's still relevent today.

I didn't understate the significance of these major upgrades, such as AESA radar, the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X AAM.

While the F/A-18E/F is equipped with the APG-79 AESA in the Block II version, it does use newer transmitter and packaging technology than the Russian Irbis E radar in the Su-35S [NB zipped 20MB PDF], it still uses similar receiver and processor technology.

More importantly, it has only one half the antenna size and less peak power compared to the Russian radar. As a result the Russian Irbis E radar outperforms the APG-79 on all cardinal parameters, including radar range, but excluding the somewhat academic measure of clean radar signature – academic since in combat external stores must be carried by both fighters.

The Super Hornet pilots quoted. "The Super Hornet has always been extremely capable at high angles of attack right from the outset. "We have no angle of attack limits in any symmetric configuration, and we can maneuver without any lateral stick or pedal input limitations at any angle of attack. The Super Hornet still has complete roll control at 50° AOA and has demonstrated this many times while flying at low altitude with a full combat load because there is no departure issue".

You'd prefer to believe pilots who have actually flown the aircraft. Well I found that the former Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): "The (F/A-18E/F) aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s." A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them".

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the Super Hornet (in an Associated Press article in late 2001): "Its the same old Hornet shit, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."

Read more on Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability - On the Record" http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-051107-1.html.


Another Peter said...


Read more on http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm


There are also some criticisms about the Super Hornet is no better than the Tomcat in alot of respects. The Navy didn't want the F/A-18E/F program at the first place back in 1984.

Again NGF, the problem with the Super Hornet's High AoA and ACM manoeuvring is that the ship has one good reversal, and then maybe a 2nd reversal in the bag left if starting speed was high enough, until significant speed is bled off and effective sustained manoeuvring is lost.

Another Peter said...


I think you misread what Peter Goon (Horde)stated "Australia was already outmatched in the region on air combat". "If you send out Super Hornets against the Sukhoi Su-35s, few if any of them will come back."

You should be aware that the Su-30 series are equipped with 2D thrust vectoring nozzles and even the Su-35S is also equipped with the 3D ones, because they'll be able to run rings around the Super Hornet is WVR as well as BVR.

Superrhinoceront said...

Forguet about Tomcats with its huge radar cross section and expensive mantainence cost as the Flankers.The classic Hornets are the most maneauveravle dogfighters in the US arsenal, with out complicated 2D or 3D directional engines that make the figthers plunge after each radical maneauver.

www.youtube.com/watch? v=oPVOwBiZMv8&feature=youtube_gda ta_player

Russian engines are powerful but not reliable enough to change from minimal to maximal instantly as the actual Hornets and Super Hornets do. That's why you see flankers loosing so.much altitude after each radical maneuver good for demos but not for combat and it takes them so much time to recover, that's why there are so many demos where they crash after simple loops.

The Hornets and Super Horners can climb, dive and stabilize instantly with out any problem even fully loadeds with weapons thanks to their reliable engines and superb flying contol systems.

Just imagine if you put the EPE engines to the SH.

www.youtube.com/watch? v=uNyNg0Wrbgg&feature=youtube_gda ta_player


Superrhinoceront said...

For some reason I did'nt put the link correctly.

This is the one I wanted to show about the SH engine


Now look the russian 3D engine



Superrhinoceront said...

Now Compare how the Super Hornet applies full power instantly for a very short take off, instead of doing it gradually as the Pakfas or Suckois


For that lack of reliability the Indians ask the Americans to take off their Su-30 every minute, instead of one after another as the US fighters at Red Flag.

The Americans allowed them to take off separately from the rest.



NGF said...

Great videos Superrhinoceront, especially:


My final comment on this topic:

I have defended the Block II Super Hornet against what I believe is over-hyped criticism. The Block II is a mature platform that is highly regarded by its pilots – as illustrated in the above video. It has achieved real world FOC in the RAAF in a relatively short time period and introduced new technologies that will help take the force into the future.

In addition, smaller air forces such as the RAAF need to be very sure that, if a conflict does break out, the supply chain for their combat aircraft will remain open. With some 500 Super Hornets produced, and our alliance arrangements with the US, the RAAF can be confident that the spares and munitions will keep flowing.

Remember the RAAF bought its Supers to replace the long-gone F-111. Selecting an aircraft to replace the Classic Hornets is the next step. As I have said before, the RAAF should replace its Classics through a rigorous tender process - bearing in mind the wide range of tasks the aircraft has had to perform - A2A, SEAD, maritime strike, close air support etc.

No doubt the Super Hornet (probably with further upgrades) would be in the mix, along with other contenders including: F-15E, F-15SE, F-16 Viper, Typhoon, Raphale, Gripen – and the F-35.

Let the best strike fighter – or the best combination of aircraft - win.

Anonymous said...

Super rhino.

The F-18EF is a transonic and preferably subsonic strike fighter -- being that a loaded F-18EF will hit transonic drag sooner than possibly wished.

It can (and should) be updated and configured to best exploit it's own best design attributes however, no doubt. It could for example, be employed as a capable and cost-effective stand-off strike-truck and 'next-gen' extend-range BVR missile truck platform.

But make no mistake.

The Super Hornet cannot climb as you say! Sure, it can perform an instantaneous, pretty-looking, albeit short-lasted climb while at slow-speed. But a high speed offensive or defensive 'climb' will bleed energy faster than will most, if not all other modern fighters the SH might face.

Also, if engaged in an actual sustained turning envelope, the Super would not wish to 'climb' as it would likely defeat the purpose and kill off any last remaining effective energy it might wish to utilize.

In that latter case, the Super would best be able to employ it's strengths by starting at a higher starting point in said hypothetical maneuvering-demanded scenario...say at around 35,000'...and then attempt to use that altitude advantage (hopefully advantage) to maintain maximal speed via gravity-fall, as it maneuvers in an offensive mode and/or evades.

Other than that, sure, a potential future F18E/F customer would likely find slightly superior (and worthwhile) performance vs standard block II Super, if opting for an eventually mature F414 EDE or EPE engine derivative.

Anonymous said...

Can we get some informed comment?This is starting to sound like an argument on climate change.

Will Leach said...

Wasnt there a report last year about the US Navy was having trouble keeping its fighters fully operational at the current operating tempo? If thats the case it makes me think we should be cautious about putting on too many gadgets. Such tools may be useful, IF they are working.

New features could really affect weight/ drag. Im not convinced the Supers have the thrust, range, or lift to spare, not against a peer. The Hornet has kept up high tempos and safety. With this in mind, increase thrust and decrease weight. First, get the more thrust engine upgrades. The safety record suggest the engines can keep working even at higher tempos.

Then they should try and increase modularity, making the extrs easily swappable. Whatt Im thinking is that not every hornet needs every feafure at all times, especially not if there not all working. This might lead to planes more customized for eaxh mission, or even each pilot. Plus, it could really help keep the weight down. A good fly by wire control could help the plane adapt to the changes, and a good data link could help planes complement one another.

For one example, will every hornet need the range of shoulder tanks? Wont some non stealthy hornets distract attention for enemies and make opportunities for a stealthy one or two? All of these add ons just dont make things better, they involve tradeoffs. Whether they affect payload, weight, drag, cost, maintainance, or an unknown, we shouldnt just look at thoese things in one overly optimistic direction.

Which is why Im not as optimistic about the Supers as some commentators. Some of the analysis just reeks of Hubris. It assumes the worst of thier planes, and assumes the best of ours. I just dont see how thats the right attitude for military affairs. For one, the Hornets were origionally procurred to compliment planes like the Tomcat and the F-111. While not perfect themselves, or at least not in my opinion, not at all, there might have been something to thise mixes. I worry about adding more and more stuff to a plane built off a LWF contender. Im all for evolutionary design, but contradictory design worriea me.

Also. can we please stop pretending that the Russians build thier planes exclusively for airshows? Im not one who thinks that a plane with TVC is automatically better than one without, but even if you raise serious concerns about the Su-10 series its important not to dismiss things out of hubris. Russians design, build, and fight different than us. Relying on TVC can make you loose a lot of energy, as some Typhoon pilots just taught some Raptor pilots, but the Flanker series was remarkably agile before that, and before they got canards.

While bigger and more featured than the Boyd and Sprey Ideals, the people at Sukhoi seem to be very concerned with energy manuverability, not slacking off in wing and even body lift, or pure raw power. The Flanker series had dog fighter written all over it before some of the new control options. Sure some of the moves it can do might have downsides, but they are options not neccessities, and they have the thrust to regain energy. The Hornets can run out of energy too, of course. For all the hyping of good control at high AOA, doesnt that ability still lower lift while raising drag?

At the end of the day, this is all somewhat academic, the plane and its gadgets arentbas important as the ideas for using that hardware, and nothing makes a big of a differerance as a good pilot. If a government cant afford planes for its pilots, or to train them, or to put and keep the planes in the air. then hardware becomes a major issue. Thats why Im sympathetic to the Super, but Im just not conviced a better plane iant out thier, or couldnt be. If Russian designs can get to where they are, going from Soviet, to turmoil, to thier current corrupted political economy, I dont see why we cant do better. Well, I do see, its assumption, hubris, corruption, and unaccountability. Fix that, fix the fighters.

Superrhinoceront said...

Of course SH is optimized for transonic dogfights and strikes as always happens in real combat.

Super sonic speed with bombs and missiles ? Just Raptors with its limited internal weapons load capacity.

The Super Hornet after release its long range missiles, remaining with 6 or 4 missiles and half of its internal gas at the moment of dogfight can turn sustained and climb as good as any other fighter, with even better maneuverability, having then a positive T/W ratio.




Eric Palmer said...

..."of dogfight can turn sustained and climb as good as any other fighter, with even better maneuverability, having then a positive T/W ratio."...


-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-

-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-

-The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-

-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.

Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-

Superrhinoceront said...

Interesting points, but if we see its specifications, we can confirm what I just said

Max Thrust with A/B +44.000 lb
Empty weight -32,081 lb
Half/internal fuel -7,200 lb
2 Amraams - 670 lb
2 Aimx9 - 376 lb

Resulting in an excess of +3673 lb or plus/minus 1.10 T/W ratio.

If you use the EPE engines with 20% more Thrust the ratio will be even more 1.30 T/W for the same scenario.

Eric Palmer said...

Have to be careful with thrust numbers with that engine/airframe combo. Early tests and later OPEVAL showed that with those intakes, the engine doesn't pushout anything like 22k of thrust. Much less.
It is a compromise aircraft that does many things well. Just that it is no EF, F-15C or F-16, when combined with drag. What makes the Navy happy is a post-Cold War Excel Spreadsheet that shows less different kinds of aircraft on the deck making logistics easier. It also has one of the best safety records around carrier launch and recovery. And so-on...and so-on.... It is not a super-duper fighter and the Navy never meant it to be.

Superrhinoceront said...

That's true, that's a plus for any professional air force with good logistics and good training/mant.ratio.

But is more than just its decent T/W in the situation I just mentioned, it's also it's low observability, good maneuverability and electronic/sensor fusion that makes the difference.Also don't forget the price for countries like Canada or Australia that's even more important. That's why I think is a great airplane over all.

Superrhinoceront said...

Hi Eric, have you seen this interview?

No mention to the word Super or Hornet...hehehe


dayat said...

nice post, thanks.

Anonymous said...


With all due respect, you're confusing too separate issues.

1) Yes, Da Super Hornet is in fact a viable cost-effective transonic strike-fighter option for follow-on customers and potential new customers seeking a 'good enough' solution to requirements.

2) No, Da Super Hornet CANNOT climb, nor sustain air combat maneuvering, nor accelerate on par with most if not all other modern day fighters!

But forget the decent max potential T/W figure listed on paper. The actual T/W is restricted below max potential and more important to that, the significant drag factor involved with the SH's unique design kills and bleeds substantial performance characteristics of SH's true T/W!

Accept the Super as a valid, cost-effective, modern, transonic strike-fighter truck with potential to further upgrade systems and launch platform potency... and leave it at that!


Superrhinoceront said...

Ok, the numbers I just gave it to you about the positive T/W ratio of the Super Hornet with half/internal fuel are not convincing for you.

So, if it's such a handicap fighter, why the Super Hornet is able to climb and maneuver in combat almost like the powerful Raptor, with two pilots and even without 3D engines, and there is even a picture of the Raptor on the Super Hornet HUD?

I won't continue with this explanation about the capacity of the SH in combat and dogfight,I think the 600 Super Hornet built for the US Navy and Australia are enough testimony of it's value, to defend the fleet and your country.

Also the link I posted above mention clearly how the Super Hornet did against the most "powerful" Su-30 in combat.





Will Leach said...


So what your saying is that the super hornets purchased prove thier good? This is nothing but an appeal to authority, ignoring human error or politics. Yet you also say that its nearly if not as good as the raptor in dogfoghting (and as good overall if your as faithfull in the Supers LO potential as you seem). So if authority kbows best, and the Super is good because authoroty says so, AND the super is as good as the Raptor, then why did authority buy the Raptor?

Im not even a raptor fan, but your last post spun me in circles. Maybe its the disorientating effects of its most ardent supporters' arguments that makes it a superior weapon system.

Im not saying you dont have points to make, but by completely ignoring any real or potential downsides and shortcomings that the Super may have undermines your position by making it seem based in optomism and arrogance. I certaintly dont blame you for falling in love with an airplane, it happens, but acknowledging doubts, pessimistic analysis, and worst case scenarios is important. Its one thing to accept risk, but blindspots can get people blindsided.

Superrhinoceront said...

As Jhon Lennon says once...Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.

One thing is what the USAF wanted, but now they only have few super expensive Raptors and no F-35 in service. For me that's a human error. The US Navy didn't make the same mistake and now they have more/less 600 4.5+ generation fighters, 90% as capable of the Raptors and way more cheaper. That's a true success.

Dont forget Raptors don't have Aimx-9x, HMD or IR sensors, all they have is questionable stealth that can be defeat by growlers or infrared seekers.



Anonymous said...

Again, Superrhino,

Forget the Max 'potential' engine-rated T/W for a second.

It's the 'effective' T/W (Da max total thrust which is actually shooting out back of da tail end when in full blower) spec which is relevant.

And as was said, the significant drag effects from da Super's unique design characteristics substantially degrade the actual effective T/W produced.

For example, can the Super's effective T/W, combined with it's wing-lift properties, allow pretty impressive nose up AoA at slow speed? You bet.

Yet, At higher speeds, can the Super SUSTAIN turns and sustain high energy and effective AoA maneuvering on par with most modern multi-role and air superiority fighters? Can it perform rates of climb and time to altitude on par with most modern fighters??

No, the Super cannot sustain or match such performance.

Flat out, the reason for Super Hornet's successful sales to date is not due to high performance and combat maneuvering ability.