By: Ja Worsley
- 9th January 2002 at 01:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
New Naval Fighter.
This question is really not a viable one and here are the reasons;
The F/A-18E/F is not really a fighter, it's being procured as a replacement for the A-6 Intruderand the A-7 Corsair II, but has the abilities of a fighter, thus I would view this as an attack plane similar to the A-10 in the thought behind it.
The Mig-29K is out simply because it is not in production and has not been ordered as such. In light of a navalised LCA as seen at the last AeroIndia Expo, I don't think that it will ever be ordered.
Thus leaves the Rafael, now this is the only one of the three that is a fighter as designed from the outset, so the question should be more like "What do people think of the Rafael M?"
Success comes to those who earn it, revenge to those who take it and death to anyone who tries to cheat the system. Welcome to Threapy!
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 9th January 2002 at 01:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
Actually, the F/A-18E/F is being procured as a replacement for the F-14 (and A-6 and A-7 which the "normal" Hornet never replaced in capability), and will have to undertake fleet defence as a primary task! Now don't you wish it actually _was_ a fighter ;-).
By: Ja Worsley
- 9th January 2002 at 05:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
Not really, the F/A-18 has never grabed me, I can't understand why the RAAF bought it. Did you know that when the pilots first got in them, the very first thing they did was disable "Bitching Betty" the system vocal computer? When I heard this, I just laughed
Success comes to those who earn it, revenge to those who take it and death to anyone who tries to cheat the system. Welcome to Threapy!
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 9th January 2002 at 05:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
Our RAAF made a sound decision in buying the Hornet. The A-10 was a pretty silly contender for a multirole fighter (for obvious reasons). The Viggen would have been VERY nice, but was WVR only, expensive, not multirole, and not American. The F-15A was simply too expensive, and not multirole. The Jag was WVR only, was a little too small. The F-16A was WVR only. The Hornet was the standout candidate for the money we had the criteria recquired of it. Now the Super Hornet for AIR6000 would be an entirely _different_ story...
MinMiester
New
By: Anonymous
- 9th January 2002 at 13:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
After reading all those comments. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? You've must of read something between the lines that I missed????
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 9th January 2002 at 17:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
1) the choice of the f-18 for the RAAF was logical when min lays it out like that.
2) in the USN in the late 80's looked like this.
##################
the f-18 a/b/c/d was replacing the remaing f-4s and a-7s. this represented 2 or 3 squadrons per carrier air wing. on top of this there should have been 1 or 2 sqn of f-14 and a bomber sqn of a-6. plus es-3, s-3, c-2, e-2c, ka-6, ea-6, etc.
of course the the f-18 didn't turn out so great, but it was ok. it didn't have the range or bombload of the a-7 but air to air was ok. IMHO on land it was OK.
the f-14a was temporary but got permenant. the f-14D should have gone fleet wide.
there should have been the a-12 (i doubt it would have worked) or new a-6s -i liked this idea.
##################
IMHO the usn needs range as afganistan proves as wel as decent internal tanker suport.
therfore the SH is really a complete waste of money }>, but a quickly arriving JSF offers hope.
rabie :9
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 9th January 2002 at 18:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
we came to the conclusion i thought that
for the french the rafel was much better than the super etendard and f-8
for the indians the mig29K (+ whatever extra letters) is better than the harrier.
now the SH }> - it is much worse than its predesosor like f-18 and especailly the f-14. the other 2 countries made massive improvments while the us could be siad to have gone backwards.
rabie :9
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 9th January 2002 at 18:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale M, what the E/F was meant to be!
Well, the Super Hornet certainly takes the '80 nostalgia and best F-4J remake catagories, hands down.
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 9th January 2002 at 21:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
I want to dedicate the following to all those who have made lame :+ comments about the Super Hornet:
"The Lord your God will send the Hornet among them until those who are left, who hide themselves from you, are destroyed."
Deuteronomy 7:20
I stole this but I think its appropriate here.
Regards
New
By: Anonymous
- 9th January 2002 at 21:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
In your case. So, are the instructions for a Microwave Oven? Either way they still won't help you win your case. Thought, I am glad you took up religion!
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 9th January 2002 at 22:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CAG's Hornet prayer...
I pray thee O Lord that you extend your wings of protect over the the battlegroup in these dangerous inshore waters, that you also provide us with an abundance of refuelling tankers, that you grant the foe possess naught but the most tired of MiG-21s.
By: Ja Worsley
- 10th January 2002 at 01:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hornet's decission for Australia
What Min has forgotten is that, of the types mentioned in his last post on this subject, two weren't even looked at (the A-10 and the Jaguar). The original choice was from the F-15A, the F-16C, the Mirage 2000, the Vigen and the F/A-18A.
Of these each plane was eliminated for the following reasons;
F-15A, at the time of the competition it was already old and the US was refusing to sell the F-15C's, add to this the asking price for the F-15A's on offer would have ment that we could only buy 44 which was absurd.
The Mirage 2000 was eliminated due to having the contract previously, no other reason.
The Vigen would have been really nice, and the RAAF was interested, but the US blocked it's sale due to the engine which is an afterburning version of the 737's engine. SAAB could have tried to fit another engine in, but the cost would have been driven up and so retired from the competition.
The F-16C, which was only new to the US inventory, made it to the fly off stage, but lost out on one major factor. The RAAF really wanted a twin engined fighter, they'd lost a few Mirage III's over water coming back for rotation at RAAF Butterworth in Malaysia. Despite the RAAF pulling out of Butterworth, it increased it's opperations over water and all four squadrons (3, 75, 77 and 2OCU) were taught maritime strike tactics, thus when the AGM-84 came into service, the Hornets were ready for them. F-16's having only one engine were envisioned as a danger to pilots on a maritime strike opperation. Co-inceddently the number of flameouts the RAAF has experienced has never been publicly addressed, on average one engine flameouts usually occure on a ratio of 1:5, that's every fifth mission an engine will flame out. This is why "Bitching Betty" was disabled.
Success comes to those who earn it, revenge to those who take it and death to anyone who tries to cheat the system. Welcome to Therapy!
New
By: Anonymous
- 10th January 2002 at 12:33Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: CAG's Hornet prayer...
Hehehehehe... Very Good Rosco. ;-)
BTW Sauron as a Non US citizen I have not problems with them introducing the F-18E/F into carrier service. I know the US's track record of only picking on the little guys (Though sometimes that doesn't even work), and this means they'll never take on anyone likely to be competitive. If they continue this way then the only problem caused by the introduction of the SH will be the wearing out of tankers and slightly increased risk due to the availability of more and more weapons and aircraft that will be more capable than the aircraft on US carriers.
I only have a problem when someone pipes up and says it s the best carrier aircraft in the world. For many years that position and most of the positions below it have been held by US aircraft. When the F-14 goes and the F-18E/F is your top fighter/strike aircraft it will descend the list quite a bit. (By the time the F-14s are with drawn the Su-33s might have had their upgrades for land attack and they too will be higher on the list, probably topped by the Rafale.)
New
By: Anonymous
- 10th January 2002 at 14:07Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: interesting story.
++++++++++
Vortex
"you've forgotten that not once in the history of warfare was single or double digit casualties would become the end of an military campaign."
Jonesy
Nope, I'm very aware of that.
++++++++++
Thanks to Bill "want a cigar" Clinton it could be argued that the loss of 18 soldiers in Mogadishu removed the US from that campaign.
By: Jonesy
- 10th January 2002 at 14:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CAG's Hornet prayer...
I dont think things are all that bleak for the USN yet. One of the few things I agree with Kurt Plummer on is his sentiment that "better bullets win".
Until the R-77 is in regular service and has shown itself to be everything advertised the Su-33 is a handicapped weapon. Operating against an E-2/SHornet/AIM-120 combo the Russian plane is at a critical disdvantage.
This of course says little for the Stupor Hornet though and if all the Su33 requires to counter the USN's outer air defence envelope is an active radar missile and the SH to be at the fringes of or outside Hawkeye control then the situation is in serious need of attention.
What plans exist in the USN for a longer-ranged BVRAAM? I've heard of interest in the UK's Meteor programme and I'd imagine that this sort of weapon would be a must for the safety of USN CVBG's in future?
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 10th January 2002 at 14:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Seahawk
Please explain it to everyone here again how the Su-33 as you call it, is going to be deployed at sea. Same question about the Mig-29. That's the one question we all want answered. Lets face it, neither one is going to be a threat to the USN if they are shorebound. Its one thing to practice carrier ops on lines painted on a runway somewhere, its another thing to get these things operational.
Surely among the Su-27 and Mig-29 fans here, someone can come up with some facts that we can then have a serious debate about. Are we looking out 5 years? 10? 15?
By: Jonesy
- 10th January 2002 at 15:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Sauron,
First image below is of Su-33's operating, at sea, from the RNS Kusnetsov. The aircraft is fully operational albeit lacking in certain multirole capabilities.
The second image is the never completed sistership of Kusnetsov, the Varyag, on her way to her new owners in China. They, the Russians, have the plans and capabilities to build more...they just dont have the need or the resources. Were someone to come along with those two missing ingredients and a willingness to wait a few years for the ship to be built........!
(Photo credit to Serhat Guvenc from WarshipsIFR magazine for the Varyag shot)
Attachments:
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 10th January 2002 at 17:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Jonesy.
Thanks for the pictures. They are very interesting. I imagine they were taken sometime during the 80's. It would be interesting to know what the actual capabilities of the SU-33 are rather than having to assume that because the Su-27 was OK as a land based system, it would automatically be wonderfull as a carrier based system, given the rather obvious limitations dictated by the design of the Russian carrier.
As you point out there are a few missing ingredients here, even if we give the jet the benefit of the doubt about a number of technical as well as practical issues. All those items I might add, that get looked at in fine detail when we talk about 'operational aircraft' but are avoided whenever a Russian design is debated.
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 9th January 2002 at 01:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
New Naval Fighter.
This question is really not a viable one and here are the reasons;
The F/A-18E/F is not really a fighter, it's being procured as a replacement for the A-6 Intruderand the A-7 Corsair II, but has the abilities of a fighter, thus I would view this as an attack plane similar to the A-10 in the thought behind it.
The Mig-29K is out simply because it is not in production and has not been ordered as such. In light of a navalised LCA as seen at the last AeroIndia Expo, I don't think that it will ever be ordered.
Thus leaves the Rafael, now this is the only one of the three that is a fighter as designed from the outset, so the question should be more like "What do people think of the Rafael M?"
Success comes to those who earn it, revenge to those who take it and death to anyone who tries to cheat the system. Welcome to Threapy!
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 9th January 2002 at 01:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
Actually, the F/A-18E/F is being procured as a replacement for the F-14 (and A-6 and A-7 which the "normal" Hornet never replaced in capability), and will have to undertake fleet defence as a primary task! Now don't you wish it actually _was_ a fighter ;-).
MinMiester
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 9th January 2002 at 05:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
Not really, the F/A-18 has never grabed me, I can't understand why the RAAF bought it. Did you know that when the pilots first got in them, the very first thing they did was disable "Bitching Betty" the system vocal computer? When I heard this, I just laughed
Success comes to those who earn it, revenge to those who take it and death to anyone who tries to cheat the system. Welcome to Threapy!
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 9th January 2002 at 05:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
Our RAAF made a sound decision in buying the Hornet. The A-10 was a pretty silly contender for a multirole fighter (for obvious reasons). The Viggen would have been VERY nice, but was WVR only, expensive, not multirole, and not American. The F-15A was simply too expensive, and not multirole. The Jag was WVR only, was a little too small. The F-16A was WVR only. The Hornet was the standout candidate for the money we had the criteria recquired of it. Now the Super Hornet for AIR6000 would be an entirely _different_ story...
MinMiester
By: Anonymous - 9th January 2002 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
After reading all those comments. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? You've must of read something between the lines that I missed????
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 9th January 2002 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: New Naval Fighter.
1) the choice of the f-18 for the RAAF was logical when min lays it out like that.
2) in the USN in the late 80's looked like this.
##################
the f-18 a/b/c/d was replacing the remaing f-4s and a-7s. this represented 2 or 3 squadrons per carrier air wing. on top of this there should have been 1 or 2 sqn of f-14 and a bomber sqn of a-6. plus es-3, s-3, c-2, e-2c, ka-6, ea-6, etc.
of course the the f-18 didn't turn out so great, but it was ok. it didn't have the range or bombload of the a-7 but air to air was ok. IMHO on land it was OK.
the f-14a was temporary but got permenant. the f-14D should have gone fleet wide.
there should have been the a-12 (i doubt it would have worked) or new a-6s -i liked this idea.
##################
IMHO the usn needs range as afganistan proves as wel as decent internal tanker suport.
therfore the SH is really a complete waste of money }>, but a quickly arriving JSF offers hope.
rabie :9
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 9th January 2002 at 18:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
we came to the conclusion i thought that
for the french the rafel was much better than the super etendard and f-8
for the indians the mig29K (+ whatever extra letters) is better than the harrier.
now the SH }> - it is much worse than its predesosor like f-18 and especailly the f-14. the other 2 countries made massive improvments while the us could be siad to have gone backwards.
rabie :9
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 9th January 2002 at 18:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale M, what the E/F was meant to be!
Well, the Super Hornet certainly takes the '80 nostalgia and best F-4J remake catagories, hands down.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 9th January 2002 at 21:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
I want to dedicate the following to all those who have made lame :+ comments about the Super Hornet:
"The Lord your God will send the Hornet among them until those who are left, who hide themselves from you, are destroyed."
Deuteronomy 7:20
I stole this but I think its appropriate here.
Regards
By: Anonymous - 9th January 2002 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
In your case. So, are the instructions for a Microwave Oven? Either way they still won't help you win your case. Thought, I am glad you took up religion!
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 9th January 2002 at 22:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CAG's Hornet prayer...
I pray thee O Lord that you extend your wings of protect over the the battlegroup in these dangerous inshore waters, that you also provide us with an abundance of refuelling tankers, that you grant the foe possess naught but the most tired of MiG-21s.
Amen :P
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 10th January 2002 at 01:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hornet's decission for Australia
What Min has forgotten is that, of the types mentioned in his last post on this subject, two weren't even looked at (the A-10 and the Jaguar). The original choice was from the F-15A, the F-16C, the Mirage 2000, the Vigen and the F/A-18A.
Of these each plane was eliminated for the following reasons;
F-15A, at the time of the competition it was already old and the US was refusing to sell the F-15C's, add to this the asking price for the F-15A's on offer would have ment that we could only buy 44 which was absurd.
The Mirage 2000 was eliminated due to having the contract previously, no other reason.
The Vigen would have been really nice, and the RAAF was interested, but the US blocked it's sale due to the engine which is an afterburning version of the 737's engine. SAAB could have tried to fit another engine in, but the cost would have been driven up and so retired from the competition.
The F-16C, which was only new to the US inventory, made it to the fly off stage, but lost out on one major factor. The RAAF really wanted a twin engined fighter, they'd lost a few Mirage III's over water coming back for rotation at RAAF Butterworth in Malaysia. Despite the RAAF pulling out of Butterworth, it increased it's opperations over water and all four squadrons (3, 75, 77 and 2OCU) were taught maritime strike tactics, thus when the AGM-84 came into service, the Hornets were ready for them. F-16's having only one engine were envisioned as a danger to pilots on a maritime strike opperation. Co-inceddently the number of flameouts the RAAF has experienced has never been publicly addressed, on average one engine flameouts usually occure on a ratio of 1:5, that's every fifth mission an engine will flame out. This is why "Bitching Betty" was disabled.
Success comes to those who earn it, revenge to those who take it and death to anyone who tries to cheat the system. Welcome to Therapy!
By: Anonymous - 10th January 2002 at 12:33 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: CAG's Hornet prayer...
Hehehehehe... Very Good Rosco. ;-)
BTW Sauron as a Non US citizen I have not problems with them introducing the F-18E/F into carrier service. I know the US's track record of only picking on the little guys (Though sometimes that doesn't even work), and this means they'll never take on anyone likely to be competitive. If they continue this way then the only problem caused by the introduction of the SH will be the wearing out of tankers and slightly increased risk due to the availability of more and more weapons and aircraft that will be more capable than the aircraft on US carriers.
I only have a problem when someone pipes up and says it s the best carrier aircraft in the world. For many years that position and most of the positions below it have been held by US aircraft. When the F-14 goes and the F-18E/F is your top fighter/strike aircraft it will descend the list quite a bit. (By the time the F-14s are with drawn the Su-33s might have had their upgrades for land attack and they too will be higher on the list, probably topped by the Rafale.)
By: Anonymous - 10th January 2002 at 14:07 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: interesting story.
++++++++++
Vortex
"you've forgotten that not once in the history of warfare was single or double digit casualties would become the end of an military campaign."
Jonesy
Nope, I'm very aware of that.
++++++++++
Thanks to Bill "want a cigar" Clinton it could be argued that the loss of 18 soldiers in Mogadishu removed the US from that campaign.
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 10th January 2002 at 14:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CAG's Hornet prayer...
The Su33 will be top-notch if it is fully ready. No doubt about this. It will trash the F-18 E/F if it ever encounters one.
Posts: 50
By: finger4 - 10th January 2002 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Does anyone know anything about the exact version of the KC-130
that crashed yesterday in western Pakistan (T,R Or J )?
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 10th January 2002 at 14:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CAG's Hornet prayer...
I dont think things are all that bleak for the USN yet. One of the few things I agree with Kurt Plummer on is his sentiment that "better bullets win".
Until the R-77 is in regular service and has shown itself to be everything advertised the Su-33 is a handicapped weapon. Operating against an E-2/SHornet/AIM-120 combo the Russian plane is at a critical disdvantage.
This of course says little for the Stupor Hornet though and if all the Su33 requires to counter the USN's outer air defence envelope is an active radar missile and the SH to be at the fringes of or outside Hawkeye control then the situation is in serious need of attention.
What plans exist in the USN for a longer-ranged BVRAAM? I've heard of interest in the UK's Meteor programme and I'd imagine that this sort of weapon would be a must for the safety of USN CVBG's in future?
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 10th January 2002 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Seahawk
Please explain it to everyone here again how the Su-33 as you call it, is going to be deployed at sea. Same question about the Mig-29. That's the one question we all want answered. Lets face it, neither one is going to be a threat to the USN if they are shorebound. Its one thing to practice carrier ops on lines painted on a runway somewhere, its another thing to get these things operational.
Surely among the Su-27 and Mig-29 fans here, someone can come up with some facts that we can then have a serious debate about. Are we looking out 5 years? 10? 15?
Regards
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 10th January 2002 at 15:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Sauron,
First image below is of Su-33's operating, at sea, from the RNS Kusnetsov. The aircraft is fully operational albeit lacking in certain multirole capabilities.
The second image is the never completed sistership of Kusnetsov, the Varyag, on her way to her new owners in China. They, the Russians, have the plans and capabilities to build more...they just dont have the need or the resources. Were someone to come along with those two missing ingredients and a willingness to wait a few years for the ship to be built........!
(Photo credit to Serhat Guvenc from WarshipsIFR magazine for the Varyag shot)
Attachments:
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 10th January 2002 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Jonesy.
Thanks for the pictures. They are very interesting. I imagine they were taken sometime during the 80's. It would be interesting to know what the actual capabilities of the SU-33 are rather than having to assume that because the Su-27 was OK as a land based system, it would automatically be wonderfull as a carrier based system, given the rather obvious limitations dictated by the design of the Russian carrier.
As you point out there are a few missing ingredients here, even if we give the jet the benefit of the doubt about a number of technical as well as practical issues. All those items I might add, that get looked at in fine detail when we talk about 'operational aircraft' but are avoided whenever a Russian design is debated.
Regards