What exactly is the sh better at?? F-15 I can understand f-18 is just an inferior airframe. It can't carry as much as the Rafale. It can supercruise. It's slower. The Rafale has the spectra while the superhornets use traditional jamming. The radar tech is of similar generations. And nobody is dying to buy superhornets while you have most of middle east and SEA getting their hands on the Rafale. If the super hornet was better. UAE would have bought 80 superhornets instead.
I'm not prepared to try and convince you otherwise. I hope the details of the recent comps are leaked. I'm sure you think CAATSA had nothing to do with the rafale sales. Your opinion on US and UAE also shows you are clueless of what is happening and why.
I still think that India should buy the rafale for their carrier.
You don't really understand why we bought the Rafale. The IAF had its eyes on it since the early 2000's. In my opinion there's a low-key hate of american fighters in the IAF although I have read an IAF pilot admiring the f-15's.
Indian defence procurement torments the souls. The reasoning of buying certain things are atleast a decade old unlike most other nations.
CAATSA was made to stop the sale of the Russians s-400's not Russian fighters. The su-35 doesn't offer much over the su-30. The su-57 is a 4.75 fighter at worst.
The entire reason we bought the Rafale was to start ditching legacy Soviet aircrafts like the mig 21, mig 23 and mig 27.
Most people atleast in defence circles and thinktanks already know that the Russian fighters have become inferior to their western counterparts by quite a margin. A decade ago this would still be debatable.
UAE wanted to buy the f-35 they were denied because of the Israelis and settled for the second best thing in the market.
They should but the carrier won't allow it. It's most probably the super hornet that wins because it fits in the lift. The naval tender has focus a lot less in performance and more in usability.
Not only raw performance but also in avionics and EW/ECM. Rafale doesn't come close to the F-15EX.
You really are Dim. Rafale and F-18E have the same top speed of mach 1.8, darling. Rafale did its supercruise in its prototype days using F-18 engines. Even Dassault doesn't promote SP this is only a fanboy requirement and belief that a Rafale F3 that hasn't gotten a thrust upgrade but has gotten much heavier can SP with weapons.
F-18E carries the Aim-120D that has a range of 130-150 miles. USAF proved the aim-120d has that kind of range.
With the exception of combat radius, due to smaller drop tanks the F-18E carries, the F-18E is more capable multirole fighter than the Rafale. F-18E has offensive EW capability that Rafale doesn't have.
That's the only way to stand a chance at winning. You wanna win the tender, not put the most expensive jet you have just for the sake of it. You need the cheapest jet you have that can meet requirements, enough to get shortlisted. The F-15 has been chosen by Boeing because they are quite confident they stand no chance with the SH. Hell, if they didn't stand a chance the first time round, it's not gonna happen 10 years later, when the jet is even older. It's a good example of that quote about insanity.
If Rafale M wins the IN tender, it's gonna be a huge upset for you. 'Cause Rafale is the underdog in MRCBF.
5th gen is not ready for combat. It's not an objective for the tender anyway. The IAF only wants operational aircraft to participate.
The only thing better on the SH B3 today is the GaN based EW suite. It was introduced in 2016, so it was ahead of the F3R's hardware at the time. Possibly the radar also has equivalent or slightly better hardware than the F3R. It's behind everywhere else, like MAWS, IRST, other electronics, sensor fusion etc. Naturally, the F4.2 will more than make up for the difference with its own GaN tech, including radar.
If MRCBF is operationalized on Vikrant by around 2025, those jets will serve till 2060 easily. Both Rafale & SH aiframes are long-lasting and platform obsolesence in terms of avionics, propulsion & weapons will be mitigated through continuing upgrade programs as neither US nor France plan to retire the respective jets before that time anyway.
Vikrant doesn't need a new airwing before 2060 minimum. That is 40 years away - 6th & 7th gen unmanned fighters will be ruling the skies, TEDBF will be a hopelessly outmatched liability.
It would be like inducting a MiG-21FL in 2022.
MRCBF's replacement will need to be far more advanced than the TEDBF concept. Possibly an unmanned 6th gen at the very least...but hard to say as its too far into the future. We've no idea how warfare will be conducted at that point.
Rh
The Rafale can go 9g+ while the superhornet is limited to 8g. Rafale has superior turn rates too. In wvr engagement Rafale will dominate. And meteor is the superior missile out of the two.Not only raw performance but also in avionics and EW/ECM. Rafale doesn't come close to the F-15EX.
You really are Dim. Rafale and F-18E have the same top speed of mach 1.8, darling. Rafale did its supercruise in its prototype days using F-18 engines. Even Dassault doesn't promote SP this is only a fanboy requirement and belief that a Rafale F3 that hasn't gotten a thrust upgrade but has gotten much heavier can SP with weapons.
F-18E carries the Aim-120D that has a range of 130-150 miles. USAF proved the aim-120d has that kind of range.
With the exception of combat radius, due to smaller drop tanks the F-18E carries, the F-18E is more capable multirole fighter than the Rafale. F-18E has offensive EW capability that Rafale doesn't have.
As per the USN, they plan to replace all their SHs and Growlers by 2050-55 with at least the IN using the SH until 2060. So I'm expecting at least one last SH upgrade by 2040-45.
Yep, this is my argument too.
F/A-XX program - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
C/D models of F18 had like 8000 hours. E/F have 10,000-12,000 depending upon the stress faced and conditions of the airframes. So F18 is not going out so soon from USN service actually. 2040 is the minimum.'The F/A-XX is being pursued as F/A-18 Super Hornets will reach the end of their 9,000 hours of service life by the early 2030s. Aside from the option of buying more F-35Cs, the F/A-XX is seeking to create a new aircraft to replace the Super Hornet's capability and mission set. Just as the F-35C will replace aging hornets and complement Super Hornets, the F/A-XX will replace aging Super Hornets in the 2030s and complement the F-35C'F/A-XX program - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
'The F/A-XX is being pursued as F/A-18 Super Hornets will reach the end of their 9,000 hours of service life by the early 2030s. Aside from the option of buying more F-35Cs, the F/A-XX is seeking to create a new aircraft to replace the Super Hornet's capability and mission set. Just as the F-35C will replace aging hornets and complement Super Hornets, the F/A-XX will replace aging Super Hornets in the 2030s and complement the F-35C'F/A-XX program - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
USN is receiving new-build Block-3 SH as we speak. The current order will continue deliveries to USN till 2024.
The F/A-18C/Ds served for nearly 40 years before retirement. The older Block-2 SHs will retire but the Block-3s will serve into 2050s minimum. By that time, there could be upgrade packages that convert them into unmanned aircraft.
Australia is retiring its Block-2 SHs early due to the RAAF fighter fleet not being built around a hi-lo force fix, so a single type (F35) suffices. US does not operate in this way.
Come to think of it, given how relatively new the RAAF SH airframes are and the fact they will be retired in the next few years, they could become an option to increase IN's numbers from the initial 26 in the future at a fraction of the cost of new-build airframes (if we buy SH, that is). They can be refurbished, zero-life the airframe and upgraded to Block-3 standard avionics. This could be an option if SH production line closes after 2024.
But the requirement in that case cannot be met by TEDBF.
Only carrier that has a reasonable excuse to operate TEDBF is the Vikramaditya due to obsolescence of MiG-29K platform, and it being seemingly impossible to operate Rafale from it due to the size of the aircraft elevators, and the inability to make modifications due to their location in the middle of the flight deck instead of to the side as on Vikrant (making SH a single-vendor choice). IN appears to have 'relaxed' looking for a new jet for Vikky as is evident from the requirement dropping to 26 - just sufficient for Vikrant.
However IN itself has spoken about retiring Vikky by 2040 - a service life of less than 30 years is an indication of a lack of confidence in the ship's ability to perform beyond that. As doing so would lead to grief of a similar nature as being experienced by the Russians with their Kuznetsov, which shares a largely similar propulsion complex as Vikky.
So it could actually be relegated to role of a training-only carrier much earlier than that - flying only two seat NLCAs or F/A-18Fs to keep the pilot training & flight hours up even while Vikrant is in dock.
Such a carrier will not require its own air wing of spanking new jets, much less justifying the development of a whole new platform (TEDBF) which in fact could enter service only a few years before Vikky itself retires.
If you actually used your braincells you would know we are talking about the superhornet not the vanilla hornet. And the Malaysians aren't really knwom to be goodt at anything military when they get their *censored* handed by the Singaporeans.
Lets not forget mein favorite pics of F-18 with two drop tanks taking on Rafale.
View attachment 23963
View attachment 23964
SH are more capable in performance over the "vanilla" F-18 and that "vanilla" with two drop tanks was able out turn a clean Rafale. Use those braincells of yours and ponder that.
Racist much? You of all people shouldn't say Malaysians "aren't really known to be good at anything" when IAF is best known for crashing jets.
Indeed this is true, but you can't tell the French this. They don't like it. I was just banned from airdefense for posting this in reply to their claim of SC with tanks and weapons to M1.4'You really are Dim. Rafale and F-18E have the same top speed of mach 1.8, darling. Rafale did its supercruise in its prototype days using F-18 engines. Even Dassault doesn't promote SP this is only a fanboy requirement and belief that a Rafale F3 that hasn't gotten a thrust upgrade but has gotten much heavier can SP with weapons.
"Of course, you can't quote a Dassault statement that says that. Myths start from many places. A pilot in a Fox article, that's all I've seen. You realize that no other aircraft can do this. I would even say that even the F-22 with its external tanks and armaments cannot do M1.4. In straight and level flight, an important point to add.
Indeed, I am in awe of this powerful Rafale. Only God knows why the UAE wanted a more powerful engine in the Rafale, because they didn't want to lose the specs they had with their F-16," a French general said."
Rafale News IX
Perhaps a bit too early after the lock of the other one? Anyway I'll give it a shot:
Last edited:
Australia is upgrading their SH to block lll and at this stage, still intends to retire them midlife. What I can assure you is that regardless of the hours left. The USN will not run 3 platforms on a carrier, the SH-III. F-35 and FA-xx. Pick 2.
Last edited:
The news is a bit off. By 2035, only the first of the upgraded SH B3s will be ready for retirement. The upgrade program will go on until 2032 and see service well into the 2040s. But most of the fleet will be gone by mid 2040s. The 78 new B3s will see operation until 2055.
Vikrant will perform secondary roles by then. It will still be able to perform peacetime duties anywhere, especially so in the IOR and South Atlantic.
And we are talking about time periods when IAC-4/5 will be operating alongside Vikrant. So, even during wartime, we could see Vikrant operating alongside a flattop. Plus there's nothing stopping the operation of a more advanced jet alongside TEDBF. With 24 jets on board, it's already half as powerful as a peacetime Nimitz air wing of 48 jets. There's no point in discounting it.
In any case, carrier jets, with limited space available, are going to be simpler cousins of their land-based counterparts. The airframe is less important, the more important criterias will still be range and payload, alongside weapons and networking. And TEDBF will provide enough of both.
For example, SH provides up to 600nmi of capability. Rafale provides up to 750nmi. TEDBF could easily provide up to 850nmi. F/A-XX is expected to go up to 1000nmi or beyond. And even in 2060+, these jets will be expected to fire SOMs from beyond horizon. Stealth will be of limited use to the navy.
Plus, by then, the air force will be able to get the kind of jets capable of supporting naval operations anywhere on the planet.
Lastly Vikrant and its air wing will be cheap to operate.
Vikramaditya's future depends on IAC-3. The IN will time its decommissioning based on that. They can easily extend life by 10-15 years with significant rebuilds. Viraat spent 30 years in service in India, but nobody talks about the 25 years it spent in Britain's service before that. Vikram's time in Russia was 9 years, and saw very little deployment.
