What to read next

23 Comments

  1. 1

    Anonymous

    The "Super" Hornet is more like a Super Slug, this jet has badly evolved from the Hornet : it is a reject.

    And the tot will be minimal with American jets.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Nikhil

    Shiv,

    A advantage of F/A-18 IN that you haven't mentioned is that Boeing has confirmed that India's newest aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (ex-Gorkshov) would be capable of launching the aircraft. Boeing conducted extensive simulations of the scenario and came out with the assessment. In my opinion, it would give India a significant strategic capability through the Indian Navy.
    Could you comment on whether the indigenous IAC-1 being built at CSL, Cochin would have the capability to support this bird? I know its a longshot.

    Cheers,
    Nikhil

    Reply
  3. 3

    AK

    The problem with SuperBug is it's similarity with Su30MKI that we already have. Choosing a plane just because it has an AESA (a very good one at that) will be unwise decision.Just think about the logistical nightmare IAF will have to face. IAF already has a circus to manage and to get one more joker into it will be unwise. With FA18 IAF will probably be the only air force in the world that operates planes from almost all the continents. Basically US is selling it's junk to India before it moves to the F-35.

    Reply
  4. 4

    Anonymous

    The F-18 is a pure bomb truck plain and simple. It would boost India inadequate A2G forces. Mig-27's and Jaguars won't cut it against Chinese SAM sites. Plus its a proven aircraft. Also India would have the option for the Growler Lite. Its also one of the cheapest aircraft in the competition at 50+ million. The Super Hornet would allow the Su-30MKI to focus on the Air-superiority role instead of having to do A2G duties aswell

    Reply
  5. 5

    Payeng

    @ Nikhil: procuring Navy aircraft is totally a different process that that of Air force, don't expect the MRCA to have any effect on IN's aircraft procurement, that's totally a different game.

    @ Shiv: Among advantages you explained that it can take off in a very short distance with a full weapon load, but I think that is because of catapult assist, can it do the same without a catapult?

    Reply
  6. 7

    Navir

    Shiv,
    you've completely missed the 'flapping wings' and 'pylons facing outward' band-aid fixes that that the aircraft is known for. Do you have any information on these, or on the IAF's views on the loss of aerodynamic performance?

    Reply
  7. 8

    Anonymous

    Most important is that US itself will replace F-18 with more advance F-35 JSF (Both Air and Maritime operations).
    So why to purchase the US F-18?
    Boeing F-18 continuous improvement till 2040 is doubtfull.

    Reply
  8. 9

    Anonymous

    where is the lca update
    is the under posted all that u had to post

    Reply
  9. 10

    Anonymous

    SH is in the weight class of Mig-29 and not Su-30. it is said to have the best RCS reduction for any fourth gen fighter, some argue even better than EF. It is the most advanced, integrated, cost effective and readily available solution. Additional features like thrust vectoring and perhaps F-15 like add on stealth weapon bays can be asked for. If anything can go against it, its the cumbersome US process of tech transfer. Rest assured SH is a winner.

    Reply
  10. 11

    Anonymous

    > The F-18 is a pure bomb truck plain and simple.

    which explains why the USN relies solely on it for fleet defense

    and why it has a couple F-22 'kills'

    > but I think that is because of catapult assist, can it do the same without a catapult?

    boeing has confirmed it can take off from the ski-jump on the Gorshkov with a 'substantial' payload

    > Most important is that US itself will replace F-18 with more advance F-35 JSF (Both Air and Maritime operations).

    the F-35C is replacing the legacy hornet, not the SH

    even after F-35 procurement has completed in the 2030s, the SH and F-35 are expected to serve side-by-side until the SH wears out and is replaced by the next generation and/or ucav

    with SHs still being procured for a few more years, you can expect a long and fruitful service in the USN

    Reply
  11. 12

    Anonymous

    those who say f18e is bomb truck so are other fighters huh…

    f18e can fly from groky but if we have to buy f18e than its better buy rafale

    for carrier operations a fighter has to be small cuz it occupies less space and light enough to manouver it easily,

    rafale is smaller,lighter for carrier operations and equally capable in carrying paylaod compred to f18e

    Reply
  12. 13

    Anonymous

    Out of all, my vote goes to Super Hornet… MiG and Rafale are also good though

    Reply
  13. 14

    Anonymous

    In spite of the talk about JSF as a possible replacement for Super Hornet, demand and popularity of F/A-18 seems to be increasing. Going by an international report, Super Hornet is competing for orders as Brazil, Denmark, and Greece and not to forget India look to strengthen their air power. Other countries, including Japan, Qatar, Kuwait and Canada, also have expressed interest in the Super Hornet.

    Drawing a parallel: The three-way contest for Brazilian Air Force order – with same set of competitors as MMRCA – is now between the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Dassault Rafale and Saab's JAS 39 Gripen. Will a similar thing happen in India? Only time will tell !!

    Reply
  14. 15

    Anonymous

    This aircraft is righly called SubPar Hornet. Yes, it has brilliant AESA radar, but then you can fit AESA radar into different airframes as well.

    SubPar Hornet is not built for the role IAF needs filling. Mig 35 and Gripen MKI are better suited.

    Reply
  15. 16

    Anonymous

    SubPar Hornet is not built for the role IAF needs filling. Mig 35 and Gripen MKI are better suited.
    ——————————–
    A lot of people talk about how expensive the Rafale and EF are but how much money will it cost to MKIize the Mig-35 or the Gripen. The Mig-35 doesn't even have most of the avionics describe installed and tested. India would have to wait longer for the Mig-35 to arrive than most of the other aircraft. Not to mention the money INDIA would have to pay for the integration of the avionics, ECM, and indigenous weapons.

    Reply
  16. 17

    Anonymous

    Hey there! Sorry to go off topic, but today I saw a C-130 over HAL airport bangalore. Can anyone else confirm this? Initially I thought it might be one of the HS-748s which they usually test over there, but then I saw the trademark tire 'bulge' on both sides. Could it be the C-130Js which we'd ordered?

    Reply
  17. 18

    Anonymous

    The Mig-35 doesn't even have most of the avionics describe installed and tested
    ————————————
    go and wash your face with chilled water and then think again

    Reply
  18. 19

    Anonymous

    Guys this deal is a bit political if india gets US aircrafts that means a death blow to both pakis and chinese;which means we wil get US tech in future who knows in future we may even get f-35!. This deal wil increase indo-us ties. moreover india has never been exposed US aircraft manufacturing techs. In that way f18 is the one for MRCA.

    Reply
  19. 20

    Anonymous

    to anon at 12:24 PM

    whats special in f35 which carry only 4 bvr in internal bays,no supercruise,everyone wants f22

    pak fa going to be cheaper and better than f35

    Reply
  20. 21

    anthony

    The Superbug may be an OK choice for the Indian Air Force if it wants to diversify its fighter fleet, what about its overall performance.

    Surely they would want a lighter fighter with less wing loading but sufficiently advanced avionics.

    Reply
  21. 22

    NJS

    The radar seems to be superior (APG-79 radar) next best to F-22's Radar.
    Its not clear F-18 IN version is offered with Nuclear capable & AIM 120D BVR AAm .we need to have edge with china/pak in AAm , only AIM 120D will give the edge as per F-18 E/F IN . India should go in Fastrack in MMRCA

    Reply
  22. 23

    Abhijeet Singh

    well first it is very unlikely that USA will offer their latest technology …and then there are so many obligations and many end user agreements…so buying american weapon is being on a slipery surface…if we buy weapons from them and not support then in international politics they may withdraw their support and possibly not even supple spare parts or upgrades

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.