This is a discussion on New Indian Air Force Fighter competition within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Thumper
Well the SH does not share the bsic aerodynamics as the legacy Hornet (note not a ...
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.
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:
Quote:
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.
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?
Quote:
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.
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
________________
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
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.
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...
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...
I think you've summed up the arguments well AD.
As you say, 'Horses for courses'. Consequently, as both seem to have some advantages and disadvantages it will come down to which one (if it comes down to a competition between these two) has the specific characteristics that best meet India's needs and which manufacturer can offer the best overall package.
BTW. thanks Thumper for the Aviation Week link, which Had a lot of interesting and up to date information about the SH.
so, basically you listed a bunch of technology that SH piggy-banked off other fighters
Actually much of this technology flew for the first time on the SH.
Quote:
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.
The facts do not support that conclusion. In fact it is a combination of the new airframe, new engines, and new fire control/defensive countermeasures (none of which the legacy hornet posses) that make the Rhino a great 4.5 gen AC that is in fact one of the newest designs in production today.
Quote:
As for stuff like reduced RCS measure, current generation avionics and improved AAM, do you really think the Eurocanards are missing that?
In most cases either they have much less of it, they do not have it, use an older less capable version, are still developing it.
Quote:
so you are basically disregarding the importance of greater supersonic flight performance?
No what I am saying is that if your opponent sees you first and takes the first shot chances are you are dead and all the speed and manueverability in the world will not help. Fact is the Rhino is fast enough and is in fact pretty much the most manueverable ac in production. This is especially true at low speed.
Quote:
Also, btw, cut with those lol type of smilies, that's really disrespectful.
it has been setup to be independant of outside influence.
By whom I wonder?
Quote:
Typhoon - slightly better BVR fighter.
How so? Equal (sometimes) weapons (same model slammer), SH better radar and FCS. I would more likely tend to agree close in but not beyond visual range.
Quote:
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...
On top of it's superiority in the A2A area the SH is fully carrier capable, is clearly a superior attack package, can act as a tanker, and can be modified for EW. The only reason why India will not buy it is the sanctions red herring and the fact that their support infrastructure screams Russian.
Well..... me for one! , feel free to ask questions
Cheers
Good one! I'm starting to find it never pays to take people's opinions lightly in this forum, especially when they are members of the blue group.
Thanks the comment about the independence of the link - another excellent source of information, the second good aviation one I've learned about today. Hmm... That's one each from Falstaff and Thumper!
Well summoned, AD. Thanks for that. I rellay hope that the RFP will be issued soon and we'll be able to see some preferences.
Good work, JWCook. I really enjoyed reading this website.
Thumper, discussing with you is like riding through the bible belt with a pink beetle.
Quote:
Falstaf try to read what is being said. From your replies it is obvious that you often do not. Just a couple of nuggets:
Quote:
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.
Now if you'd be so kind and read my posting you'd notice I didn't say it wasn't a different airframe, I said it shares the same aerodynamic layout, which even you can't deny.
Well hello Mr. navy-spokesman. Thank you for the link, interesting read indeed. It shows me what is said by people who chose the SH and have to live with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumper
Fact is the Rhino is fast enough and is in fact pretty much the most manueverable ac in production. This is especially true at low speed.
Would you be so kind and prove this in any way? Give some sources or anything? It's not exactly that the SH is widely recognised as the hottest dogfighter around.
The only time I heard this before was from a navy pilot at the 2001 paris air show and he isn't supposed to say anything else, is he?
Apart from this discussion it seems to me the Typhoon and the SH represent two different kinds of approaches:
Start with an airframe with weaker performance and aerodynamic flaws* but state of the art avionics and then evolve the airframe.
Or
Start with an superb airframe and then mess it up by applying not yet developed electronics and then evolve the elctronic gadgets.
*
Quote:
The General Accounting Office, watchdog of the US Congress, has at any rate never felt any inhibitions in its criticism of the programme in all its test reports. Although many problems such as the ìwing dropî (unpredictable dipping of the wing at intermediate angles of attack) were fixed during the tests, according to the GAO the pilots were unimpressed by the aircraft during field trials. The performance requirements were of course achieved, but all in all the operational effectiveness of the E/F was essentially the same as for the F/A-18C.
Remarks:
Some rules here how not to make a convincing argument:
1. Leave out the topics you don't have an answer for
2. Discredit the other guy buy saying he doesn't do enough research
3. Discredit the other guy's sources
4. Claim several times you know everything and most important:
5. Subtly make the other guy think that you somehow have secret knowledge and that you are somehow involved
6. Don't ever quote sources because then the other guy might want to look it all up Am I doing alright?
Last edited by Falstaff; February 27th, 2007 at 04:10 AM.
Reason: spelling
How so? Equal (sometimes) weapons (same model slammer), SH better radar and FCS. I would more likely tend to agree close in but not beyond visual range.
On top of it's superiority in the A2A area the SH is fully carrier capable, is clearly a superior attack package, can act as a tanker, and can be modified for EW. The only reason why India will not buy it is the sanctions red herring and the fact that their support infrastructure screams Russian.
Except for their Jaguar and Mirage fighters of course, a considerable portion of their force...
As you said weapons are virtually equal, but this will not be the case once Meteor is introduced. The US, apart from perhaps the F-22A will need to introduce a significantly upgraded AMRAAM variant to continue to compete in this arena at the "leading edge".
The "C" variants will of course remain capable weapons, but the planned "D" variant will be required as an absolute minimum I should think.
The only significant advantage the SH has over the Typhoon in the BVR role is the APG-79 AESA radar system. The performance of the Typhoon as I opined earlier is probably superior to that of the SH, and this extends to BVR combat just as it does with WVR combat. It might not be quite as decisive an advantage, but it surely doesn't hurt.
I probably should have said "interceptor" rather than BVR fighter, as that was my intent...
Well..... me for one! , feel free to ask questions
Who funds the website? Why isn't there an "about us" link. Frankly it looks like a site for Eurofighter cheerleaders. Not much dissent/discussion.
Quote:
It's not exactly that the SH is widely recognised as the hottest dogfighter around.
So how come it's the only AC to have recorded (albeit under unusual circumstances) a "kill" on the Raptor at close range?
Quote:
It shows me what is said by people who chose the SH and have to live with it.
Yeah and now after extensive operational combat experience they want to buy even more of them.
Quote:
I said it shares the same aerodynamic layout, which even you can't deny.
Yup, twin tails, swept wings two engines. Same as about a dozen other AC. So what was your point?
Quote:
Thumper, discussing with you is like riding through the bible belt with a pink beetle.
Well Falstaf I could say that discussing this with you is like having a discussion with a rock but I won't stoop to your level, instead I will reply- My Grandma always drove her pink beetle to church on Sundays.
Quote:
but the planned "D" variant will be required as an absolute minimum I should think.
Agree and planned to be in the fleet by 2010. Unlike many trench options on the tiffy AMRAAM D is funded.
Quote:
The only significant advantage the SH has over the Typhoon in the BVR role is the APG-79 AESA radar system.
Very significant. Dont forget to add likely better overall RCS and you have a system that see first and shoots first.
Quote:
and this extends to BVR combat just as it does with WVR combat.
BVR see above. WVR, helmet mounted sight ASRAAM/AIM9-x, its generally a tossup but SH has better low speed handling and pointing ability.
Quote:
I probably should have said "interceptor" rather than BVR fighter, as that was my intent
Yes Tiffy with Meteor or AMRAMM D it makes a fine interceptor. It still would not be what I would base my airforce on. Hell I would even argue the Rafael is better for that role since it can be used at sea.
all in all,and in fact despite of,thumpers ever more desperate crys in favour of the 'super' hornet(which i actually admire in terms of his loyalty to his countrys purchase of f18's)this has been an excellent discussion which i have really enjoyed with some brilliant insight contributed by all.
my overall conclusions havent changed a great deal however.the iaf will purchase the best and most capable fighter for both now and in the future(30yrs +) and the cost will be relatively unimportant in comparison to the performance of the aircraft,particularly in the air to air role.in my view the f18 offers an insufficient improvement in performance over pakistans f16's and there is a serious clash of interests with both airforces purchasing and flying us aircraft.the us state dept cannot be on both countries side in the event of a conflict and someone will end up with no support or spares for their planes!
i also dont believe that the indians want another russian aircraft at this time.they could already of obtained new aircraft at a good price from the russians without this tendering process.i think they definetly want a split fleet......and that leaves the rafale,typhoon with the gripen as an outside bet.......right?
As with most things in life you run in to people who either do "get it" or "don't". This also holds true for fighter AC. This post if for Jaffo and all the others who don't "get it".
Thirty years ago the US had the technology to have fielded a Mach 3 AC with thrust vectoring that would outperform anything in the sky by a wide margin. They did not pursue it and built the Eagle instead which was a compromise between the avionics/weapons system people who said there is much more to air combat than turns and burns and the fighter mafia that said numbers and raw performance is what counts. Now here we are 30 years later. The US has not lost that capability (just look at what the Raptor can do), but they instead decided with both the JSF and Superhornet to save the money and invest it in that which over 40 years of real life combat experience has proven - it is the weapon system and training and not the performance of the fighter which determines the outcome of the vast majority of dogfights.
The Indians may or may not buy the Rhino, but you can bet that there is going to be many more airforces/Navies that do. While politics and the red herring of sanctions may come in to play with the Indians, there are other airforces that do understand that air combat in the 21st century is about far more than just turns and burns.
Sure the less you have of better FCS, better EW, better LO, better net awareness, better weapons then you need performance. But if you have all of the above then Mach 1.8 and mediocre acceleration is good enough many more times than not.
I'm so glad that at least you are in possesion of the truth. But please, master, enlighten us, give us sources for your claim and we shall be silent forever.
, feel free to ask questions
