India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6930
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Dec 2017, 10:57

Here's an interesting account on the Rafale operating from the Charles de Gaulle during the Libyan conflict.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-libyan-air-o ... rspective/

Lt. Gen. Desclaux: Basically, in the AOR, whether the Rafale was air or navy, it was conducting the same type of mission; 70 percent dynamic targeting, and 30 percent deliberate targeting. Obviously the advantage of being on an aircraft carrier is you’re closer from the theater of operation. The disadvantage when you take off from a French carrier is that your Rafale brings less ammunition than when taking off from a runway.

For example, with the Rafale from land, you can take off with two cruise missiles, as from the carrier it’s only one. The air force Rafale can take off from the land with six 250 kilos bombs – from the carrier, it only was four. You’re closer but you bring less ammunitions and you need gas anyway because in the dynamic targeting operation loiter time is important to mission success.



The Rafale is significantly handicapped even when catapulted from a nuke-powered carrier. Performance would likely be worse using a ramp. I'd expect similar degradation for a Super Hornet using the ramp.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1675
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post04 Dec 2017, 15:32

I rather doubt they'll spring for the SH. They already selected the Rafale for their LWF and the navalised version would lend itself to commonality, pilot training, logistics, weapons etc.

Purchasing SH's or ASH's would be pricey, add yet another type to India's logistical nighmare and it won't buy any game changing capability (especially for the $ they'll be charged). Plus, I want to see that SH line shuttered as fast as possible. So tired of Hornets, Super Hornets and Super Duper Hornets. The last airshow I went to, it seemed there were Hornets everywhere. Legacy Navy Hornet demo, two SH's on static, plus an EA-18G and 2 more Canadian Hornets.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll have the Blue Angels headlining the show in their..... Hornets. :bang:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5161
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2017, 16:49

mixelflick wrote:I rather doubt they'll spring for the SH. They already selected the Rafale for their LWF and the navalised version would lend itself to commonality, pilot training, logistics, weapons etc.

Purchasing SH's or ASH's would be pricey, add yet another type to India's logistical nighmare and it won't buy any game changing capability (especially for the $ they'll be charged). Plus, I want to see that SH line shuttered as fast as possible. So tired of Hornets, Super Hornets and Super Duper Hornets. The last airshow I went to, it seemed there were Hornets everywhere. Legacy Navy Hornet demo, two SH's on static, plus an EA-18G and 2 more Canadian Hornets.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll have the Blue Angels headlining the show in their..... Hornets. :bang:



As if India was logical?
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1675
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post04 Dec 2017, 20:26

Good point.

Who's acquisition process is more of a cluster f*** ?

First up is India: They're co-funding a stinker with the Russians (SU-57). That's going nowhere fast. Next, they commit to buying the Rafale (yet only 36 examples), not enough to fulfill requirements. Rumors abound of sending their SU-30MKI's back to Russia for all the latest bells and whistles. Then of course they're trying to fund an indigenous design (Tejas). Finally, they're shopping for a new carrier born fighter but it has to be produced in India with technology transfers.

By contrast, the Canadians just keep changing their minds. F-35? 2nd hand legacy Hornets? "interim". Super Hornets? Gripen E?

It's all very entertaining, but for sheer money wasted I'd have to give it to the Indians.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 01:22

Only thing India is interested in is how to "Fill the pockets" of the happy few.

They don't care, it is "only" taxpayers money.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 02:02

My hunch is that doodles that Mixel covers his trapper keeper with between classes aren't F/A-18s.
Last edited by pmi on 05 Dec 2017, 02:08, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

white_lightning35

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 02:08

What is he incorrect in saying?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3793
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 05:53

The US and China will both be operating 5th Generation Fighters from their decks in the coming decade. So, again why would India want the Super Hornet or any other 4.5 Generation Naval Fighter???? :?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5161
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 23:58

pmi wrote:My hunch is that doodles that Mixel covers his trapper keeper with between classes aren't F/A-18s.



They don't make trapper keepers anymore BTW
Choose Crews
Offline

jakobs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 11:38

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 00:29

mixelflick wrote:Plus, I want to see that SH line shuttered as fast as possible. So tired of Hornets, Super Hornets and Super Duper Hornets. The last airshow I went to, it seemed there were Hornets everywhere. Legacy Navy Hornet demo, two SH's on static, plus an EA-18G and 2 more Canadian Hornets.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll have the Blue Angels headlining the show in their..... Hornets. :bang:


Oh boy, aren't you just gotta love future air shows with the F-35...
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 617
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 07:00

jakobs wrote:Oh boy, aren't you just gotta love future air shows with the F-35...


:lmao:

I keep imagining Mixel being one of those guys arguing that if you just added X, Y & Z then the Super-amazing-OVer power-hardcore- MeGa tomcat would dominate the skys in 2100.

I get that Boeing does a bit of the same but there goal is a bit less ambitious (2030) and starting with a better platform survivability wise.


As far as India goes I really see the rafale not only being the smart choice here but having the leg up in negotiations and manufacturing.
Online

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1679
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 07:07

XanderCrews wrote:
pmi wrote:My hunch is that doodles that Mixel covers his trapper keeper with between classes aren't F/A-18s.

They don't make trapper keepers anymore BTW


The hell they don't.
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 671
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 01:46

For example, with the Rafale from land, you can take off with two cruise missiles, as from the carrier it’s only one. The air force Rafale can take off from the land with six 250 kilos bombs – from the carrier, it only was four. You’re closer but you bring less ammunitions and you need gas anyway because in the dynamic targeting operation loiter time is important to mission success.[/i]
[/b]


Four 551lbs bombs? Not very impressive at all. Even six isn't anything to write home about. An F6F-5 in WWII could carry a 1,000lbs bomb under each wing, six 5" rockets, and a 150 gallon drop tank on the centerline station. It could carry a torpedo centerline. With a straight bomb load it could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. If that's the best the Rafale can do maybe the French Navy should dig up, and rebuild their old A-1 Skyraiders. they were beasts compared to this kind of light combat load.

Hay gums what kinds of loads were you hauling in Vietnam? these French planes need to really eat their Wheaties.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 617
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 04:16

tincansailor wrote:Four 551lbs bombs? Not very impressive at all. Even six isn't anything to write home about. An F6F-5 in WWII could carry a 1,000lbs bomb under each wing, six 5" rockets, and a 150 gallon drop tank on the centerline station. It could carry a torpedo centerline. With a straight bomb load it could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. If that's the best the Rafale can do maybe the French Navy should dig up, and rebuild their old A-1 Skyraiders. they were beasts compared to this kind of light combat load.

Hay gums what kinds of loads were you hauling in Vietnam? these French planes need to really eat their Wheaties.


I think they were trading fuel for weapons, they were prob taking off with 2 gas bags (400 gallon tanks if I remember right) and then 4 x 500 lbs bombs. That's not really that far off from what a we see legacy hornets flying with over iraq and syria.


something like this
rafale-3.jpg

libye-poursuite-des-operations-2.jpg
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3793
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 05:25

geforcerfx wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Four 551lbs bombs? Not very impressive at all. Even six isn't anything to write home about. An F6F-5 in WWII could carry a 1,000lbs bomb under each wing, six 5" rockets, and a 150 gallon drop tank on the centerline station. It could carry a torpedo centerline. With a straight bomb load it could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. If that's the best the Rafale can do maybe the French Navy should dig up, and rebuild their old A-1 Skyraiders. they were beasts compared to this kind of light combat load.

Hay gums what kinds of loads were you hauling in Vietnam? these French planes need to really eat their Wheaties.


I think they were trading fuel for weapons, they were prob taking off with 2 gas bags (400 gallon tanks if I remember right) and then 4 x 500 lbs bombs. That's not really that far off from what a we see legacy hornets flying with over iraq and syria.




The innermost pylons on your average 4/4.5 Generation Fighter. Will be used to carry external fuel on the vast majority of the strike missions. Which, means they have little additional capacity for weapons stores. This is why the F-35 with it's vast amounts of internal fuel. Just crush them in Payload vs Range. Something the F-35 critics conveniently overlook!
:nono:

f-35-and-current-weapons-3-728.jpg
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hythelday and 5 guests