This paper,plus the comments and feedback from the author,
are
a must read for fighters frens...
U will finish them all before u sleep tonite,i gurantee...
The generation gap: Australia and the Super Hornet
by Andrew Davies
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
This paper takes a critical look at Australia's future combat
aircraft plans and questions the wisdom of a rushed acquisition of
the Super Hornet. It is written by Andrew Davies, ASPI's Operations
and Capability Program Director.
...The rationale for the JSF decision was the need to move to a
fifth generation aircraft in order to have a superior capability to
the high-end fourth generation threats we were likely to encounter
from 2015 on. But the Super Hornet is not even the best fourth
generation option.
Other than the US Navy (who had the aircraft designed specifically
to operate off aircraft carriers), no one has opted to buy it so
far, despite serious marketing efforts. Plusses include a powerful
radar, good networking abilities and stealth design features not
available when the classic Hornet was designed (though the latter
will be of little benefit when non-stealthy external strike weapons
are carried).
On the downside, its design for operations from aircraft carriers
means that it has structural strengthening in the undercarriage and
other parts that lead to extra weight, and a wing design optimised
for low rather than high speeds. It is therefore behind the
performance curve from the beginning when compared to land-based
aircraft.
Other nations shopping for Western fourth generation aircraft have
selected designs like the European Typhoon or the American F-15.
Buyers of the latter include South Korea, Singapore and Israel -
all canny purchasers of military hardware.
Many nations around the Indian and Pacific Ocean rims have opted
for Russian designs like the formidable Sukhoi Su-27/30 Flanker
family of fighter aircraft. Large, agile, fitted with a powerful
radar and heavily armed, these aircraft present a significant
challenge to Western fourth generation fighters.
By far the best placed fourth-generation aircraft to counter them
is the F-15. Critically, the performance of the Super Hornet means
that it cannot realistically be expected to defeat well-flown
Flankers in combat.....
--
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=115
2.Very interesting comments/feedback on the link
above:
Andrew Davies Thursday, 8 March 2007 1:41 PM
Response to AGRA
Your comment about Korea and Singapore is extraordinary. Both
have very robust selection processes for their military equipment.
To suggest that they were convinced to buy an aircraft (F15)that
was second best in order to boost Boeings bottom line is to do
them a great disservice. Before Singapore made its decision many
commentators saw it as a good litmus test of the world
market.
As you say, range and payload considerations are indeed critical
for strike missions, but survivability must play a major role as
well. The kinematic performance of the F-15 is better than the
Super Hornet in all important parameters, giving it a clear edge in
air to air encounters with members of the Flanker family. I had
discussions with current fighter pilots who confirmed this
assessment which, together with consideration of the capability of
the long-burn Russian BVR missiles, provided the basis for my
statement that the Super Hornet cannot be expected to defeat a
well-flown Flanker.
The sensor and networking fit of the Super Hornet is very good, as
you suggest. I have said as much in media interviews and, indeed,
wrote:
Plusses include a powerful radar, good networking abilities and
stealth design features not available when the classic Hornet was
designed (though the latter will be of little benefit when
non-stealthy external strike weapons are carried).
The range issues you raise are true enough, especially in the
context of coalition operations. However, they carry much less
weight in defence of Australia roles. Draw some circles on maps and
it becomes clear that any forward positioning of our strike
aircraft would bring air to air refuelling aircraft uncomfortably
close to the range of Flanker family adversaries.
As a general comment, there seems to have been a covert effort on
both sides of the Super Hornet versus F-22 debate to tacitly argue
about mission profiles that suit the aircraft being discussed. The
Super Hornet corner is thinking in terms of strike packages in a
coalition context, where it is well-suited. The must have the F-22
at all costs crowd (of which I am not one) frame their arguments
in terms of air to air. In fact, I think we need both capabilities
in some measure. That is why, incidentally, commentators like
Stratfor came down on the side of the F-15.
