The F-18s are to supplement the frontline Su-30 MKIs.
Posted on 05/08/2008 11:59:14 PM PDT by Arjun
LEMOORE NAVAL AIR STATION (CALIFORNIA): The race for a $10 billion Indian order for 126 fighters just got hotter with the US Navy enthusiastically batting for the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, saying it was best suited for an Indian Air Force (IAF) requirement for a multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA).
Such was the spirit with which UN Navy pilots put the jet through its paces at this sprawling air base in central California that it left no doubt it was making a strong pitch for the fighter that it assisted Boeing in developing.
"The F/A-18 has delivered on all that it promised to do - and more. We are sure it will do the same for you," Captain Hal Murdoch, commander of the Strike Fighter Wing of the US Pacific Fleet, told a group of visiting Indian journalists here Thursday.
He spoke after pilots of the US Navy's VFA 122 "Screaming Eagles" squadron performed a series of intricate manoeuvres in the sky and displayed the quick reaction ability of the F/A-18 to get airborne after a threat was detected.
"Your air force operates the (Sukhoi) SU-30 and this is a formidable aircraft. Without meaning any disrespect, I submit to you that the F/A-18 is ahead in its ability to manoeuvre," added Commander Greg Harris, the squadron's commanding officer.
Harris first flew on the Super Hornet as a navigator during the first Gulf War. He thereafter trained as a pilot and has flown the aircraft on three tours of duty in the ongoing US-led operations in Iraq.
The F/A-18 is one of the six jets in the fray for the IAF order, which is likely to go up to 200 aircraft. The bids submitted by the six manufacturers were submitted last week and these will now be evaluated over the next three years before the winner is selected.
The US Lockheed Martin F-16, the French Rafale, the Swedish Grippen, the Russian MiG-23 and the Eurofighter Typhoon that is manufactured by a four-nation European conglomerate are the other aircraft in the fray.
Harris was very forthcoming in response to a question on the advantages the F/A-18 enjoyed over the F-16.
"For one, the Super Hornet is a twin-engine aircraft against the single engine of the competitor. This increases its survivability factor over the F-16," he pointed out.
"Besides, the extensive use of composite materials makes the Super Hornet corrosion resistant and gives it a long structural life.
This apart, the Super Hornet's cutting-edge technology AESA (advanced electronically scanned array) radar that enables it to seamlessly switch to an AWACS (airborne warning and control system) mode even while flying a combat mission gave it a distinct advantage over all its rivals.
"The F-16 does have an AESA-type radar but not of the capability of the Super Hornet," Harris maintained.
"The US Navy's support to the Super Hornet has been demonstrated successfully and can be tailored specifically for India," he added.
Should the Super Hornet be selected, Harris said, the initial batch of IAF pilots and technicians would be trained on the US Navy's simulators at Lemoore and brought up to levels that would enable them train their colleagues in India.
"This training would be jointly conducted by Boeing and the US Navy and the cost of this had been factored into the tender that had been submitted by the manufacturer in response to the IAF's request for proposal," Harris added.
He also pointed to the safety record of the Super Hornet, saying that only four crashes had occurred during the half a million hours the aircraft had flown since it entered service in 2001.
"These crashes involved two mid-air collisions with human error as the cause. There has been no mechanical failure so far that has resulted in a crash," he added.
The IAF desperately needs new aircraft to replace it fast depleting fleet of Soviet-era MiG jets of various variants, principally the MiG-21. This has seen IAF force levels plummeting to an alarming 30 squadrons from a peak of 39 1/2 - against a sanctioned strength of 45 squadrons.
At one time, it was thought that the indigenously developed Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) would fill the void. However, time and cost overruns in this project had prompted the IAF to issue a request for information (RFI) in 2003 for the MRCAs.
The Tejas is likely to be inducted into squadron service only around 2012 - around the time the MRCAs that win the IAF order are likely to start arriving. At the same time, there are indications that the IAF is not too happy with the Tejas and may induct only two squadrons of the aircraft.
I want one.
“The US Lockheed Martin F-16, the French Rafale, the Swedish Grippen, the Russian MiG-23 and the Eurofighter Typhoon that is manufactured by a four-nation European conglomerate are the other aircraft in the fray”
I don’t claim to be an expert, but the Mig-23 seems like an odd bird in that crowd. Even with upgrades, I would think it would not be competitive with the other entries (except in price).
I could be wrong, though - like I said, I’m no expert here.
Actually its the mig-35 and I think the Super hornet and the Mig are the 2 main contenders. The IAF is actually happy with the performance of the Mig and it has the benefit of years of experience with the mig.
Superhornet lacks range but otherwise is really the best of the lot.
That’s most likely a type.
The plane on offer is the MiG 35.
Thanks! :) That (the MiG-35 being the actual plane) makes a lot more sense.
“Superhornet lacks range but otherwise is really the best of the lot.”
Range is not a matter because India is such a small country with short borders to Pakistan or India. Maybe for two F-18 India gets one KC-767 for free.
You're kidding, right? The F-18 will probably need to refuel more than twice to cover India's north-south extent.
As for a more realistic situation, say the planes needing to cross the Himalayas into China, the thinner and colder air will further reduce efficiency. Complicating that even more is China's geography- all their major cities are on the opposite end of the Indo-Chinese border.
The Indian Air Force wants to replace some MIG-21.
They already have some MIG-29.
I’m not quite sure what India wants?
Even a F-18 has a greater range than a MIG-21.
The F-18s are to supplement the frontline Su-30 MKIs.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
“Range is not a matter because India is such a small country “
Well No. India has a long border with China and so any MRCA has to be able to fly longer missions should a skirmish arise. MRCA cant be seen as Pak-centric.
That would have been difficult considering the Super Hornet didn't achieve IOC until November 1999.
>>the thinner and colder air will further reduce efficiency.
Wrong on several counts.
The MiG-23 is definately out of place. It wasn’t a good fighter when it was brand new.
The author is an idiot...since when does the UN have a navy? And the MIG-23 is an old aircraft introduced in the early 70s and retired in the 90s.
The higher the altitude (up to 40,000 ft), the more efficient a jet engine is. They are least efficient at sea level.
We're talking about the Superhornet here, not the original F-18. It has a much greater range than its younger sibling.
Older that is....
Yup, India is a small country, about 1/3rd the size of the US, with some of the highest mountain ranges
Higher = more efficient.
Ad far as I’m aware, and I’ll have to check again, what you both imply, regarding jet engines getting more efficient with altitude, is not the complete picture. On normal terrain, there is a “sweet spot” principally involving lower drag from the thinner air, and the ability of the compressor to run at faster RPMs, as a result.
Beyond that “sweet spot” things start to get worse again. In India’s case, the Himalayas further exacerbates the phenomenon. Oxygen content would be a prime factor.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I’ve got over 2000 hrs in Navy jets and higher altitude always equates to better range.
No. Its like buying a 4X4 but never leaving the interstate. Most of the USN's flight hours occur from land bases as well. They are only operating at sea about 25% of the time.
Yes, but certainly there’s a limit to that relation. Otherwise jet engines could take the craft to space, couldn’t it?
I’d like to know exactly how mountains affect the relation, in the sense that if India were to use these planes against China, it would involve flying for long durations over the Himalayas, with all its chaotic wind patterns (for which the aircraft will have to waste resources to maintain linear flight) and mountain altitude- average 20,000+ feet, peaking to over 25,000 feet.
Since you’ve had practical experience, you will obviously know better: how does your equation change for extended flights over high-altitude mountanous terrain?
Jet engine fuel mix is such that it won't dump more fuel into the combustion chamber than can be burned. Thus, you will continue to get higher efficiency out of the fuel used, even as maximum available power falls off. Does that make sense? Thus. Engine tolerance and thus wear are a factor, so that differing aircraft of the same type will attain slightly different maximum altitudes.
I was once in a T-2 at over 40k. The instructor had never seen fuel flow that low. It is still the case with the U-2 at 70,000 feet.
I’d like to know exactly how mountains affect the relation, in the sense that if India were to use these planes against China, it would involve flying for long durations over the Himalayas, with all its chaotic wind patterns (for which the aircraft will have to waste resources to maintain linear flight) and mountain altitude- average 20,000+ feet, peaking to over 25,000 feet.
25,000 ft is low altitude for a jet. F/A aircraft cruise at the highest altitutde they can to save fuel. Local winds and weather are not a factor above 40k, they are far above it. Keep in mind that they can fly over a hurricane or thunderstorm with no problem (excepting some anvil heads).
Since you’ve had practical experience, you will obviously know better: how does your equation change for extended flights over high-altitude mountanous terrain?
Again, 25k isn't high altitude for a jet. Keep in mind that the lowest jet routes start at 18k and top out at 60k, and no one wants to fly that low unless they are making a very short hop where the climb to altitude wouldn't be worth it. Jet stream airflow is an effect, which is taken into account by changing altitude.
If our Hornets had to wait more than a half hour to trap, they would pop up to above 30k, sip fuel and then drop down outside the pattern and reenter for the break.
No Mig-23 has been produced since 1984, and the IAF is phasing them out of service.
Read MiG-29 instead.
Not unless Boeing has fixed the hose pod problem.
And India already uses the Illyushin Il-78MKI tanker 
Which mwans refuelling compatibility probably rules out the Lockheed-Martin F-16, because it needs a boom, and all the other contenders like existing IAF aircraft connect to hoses.
Ah, thanks for the reply! That makes a lot of sense!
BTW, I was referring to the high-altitute in terms of the mountain surface with respect to the sea-level, and not that of the craft alone, on flat terrain.
And to further expand on SampleMan’s reply, Mt. Everest is only 29,000 feet. That’s not a particularly high altitude for a military fighter aircraft. It’s likely below the optimal cruise altitude for an F/A-18. Per the FAS, max speed is achieved at 36,000 feet, and the service ceiling is 45,000-50,000 feet.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
After Boeing outsourced some production of the Super Hornet to India, I’m going to be pissed if they don’t end up buying it.
“I’ve got over 2000 hrs in Navy jets and higher altitude always equates to better range.”
Hell, that’s a basic principle of aviation. I’m not a pilot, but I’ve worked in aviation all my adult life (starting with duty on USS Enterprise), and I work in civil aviation now, specific at airports. Any airline pilot will tell you that your altitude throughout a trip helps determine your fuel usage. The reason why we still have turboprobs in regional airlines is that, despite some cost savings that regional jets bring, on short trips, they don’t reach altitudes high enough to be as fuel efficient as the props. Generally, any regional airline route under 30 minutes is still performed by turboprops because of the time-in-altitude issues.
I understand, its just that 45k feet is really the same to an aircraft no matter what the topography is below.
Like swimming, the water can be 8 ft deep or 5,000 ft deep. It doesn't make a difference.
As far as I can remember, they just refer to it as a high AOA (angle of attack) profile.
I know the altitudes of the mountains are less than what the aircraft can take.
I was of the belief that a plane flying at 45,000 ft, with land 20,000 ft below it, will experience conditions vastly different from a plane flying at 45,000 ft, with land 45,000 ft below it- the thickness of the atmosphere below the plane, if you will.
Ah, thanks for that!
A half-hearted Pugachev Cobra? 
Much greater? Better check the source of your gouge.
Get another map. India is a large country. Also, it face CHINA too.
Impressive, but an F22 can pull up and just sit on its tail. Then it will zoom off, straight up. Just awesome!
Can’t wait for the airshow this summer, the F22 are stationed here so we get to see the home players this year.
My tax dollars at work in the US and super entertainment!
Oooorah, go Air Force!
"Question: Obviously the F-18 was built for carriers. But we sell some to nations which don't operate carriers. So we build a land base only model?"
“’Your air force operates the (Sukhoi) SU-30 and this is a formidable aircraft. Without meaning any disrespect, I submit to you that the F/A-18 is ahead in its ability to manoeuvre,’ added Commander Greg Harris, the squadron’s commanding officer.”
Does anyone actually know whether this is a valid statement? Both the Su-30 and the Super Hornet’s MCRA rival the MiG 35 have very strong reputations for maneuverability. In any event, I always thought of the Flankers as analogous to the F-15 and the Fulcrums as analogous to the F-16 and the Hornet. I know the Super Hornet’s much larger than its predecessor, but I still don’t think it would be expected to match up with a Su-30. I would think that the Su-30 MKI with its Israeli avionics would come off pretty well compared to the F-18E/F.
However, I do think that the F-18 does have a slight edge over the MiG-35 which I think is a closer competitor. I think the F-35 (and F-22 although it is a U.S. only plane thus far) will be similar to the introduction of dreadnoughts and will largely render other aircraft obsolete. Admittedly, countries choose their weapons to deal with likely opponents—most of whom won’t be tangling with first-rate countries, so I’m sure there’ll be a market for economy aircraft.
If the Indians choose to go with the F-18, would they be modified to take AA-11s, AA-12s, and the like (and air-to-ground ordnance)? Or would the Indians be expected to adopt the various U.S. weapons?
All right, I’m done rambling. :)
Nevermind, I just read the MiG-35 will be able to adopt foreign weapon systems, so I suspect the Super Hornet can do so as well.
” I would think that the Su-30 MKI with its Israeli avionics would come off pretty well compared to the F-18E/F.”
With respect to manoeuvrability, I would think the Su-30 has the edge but the CO here is probably talking about the ease of handling and better FCS etc rather than ability to perform acrobatics. The sheer power of the Su-30 makes it more manoeurvable. Even the Mig-35 would have thrust vecturing so the f-18E/F probably lags in that area.
The big difference to my mind is the APG-79 and the lower RCS. The Mig-35 will also have Israeli and Indian avionics. But the MIG’s aesa radar will probably be a generation behind the APG-79.
The other critirion is cost. If the F-18E/F is too expensive then IAF cant afford it. Remember they want 126 aircraft and probably cannot afford to pay more than 100 Mil per asset. So cost will be a big factor.
IAF also wants to reduce the number of different aircraft in its inventory. Migs are already flying with the IAF and the familiarity exists even with the assembly of the Mig but with the F-18 everything is new and will add to the already complicated inventory. IAF flys Migs, Su-30, Mirage 2000 & Jaguars and some of the Mig-29s will continue flying for a long time with the recent upgrade. So adding F-18 will definitely make MRO very difficult.
I would expect India to initially go with AMRAAM and other US weapons but eventually want to customize.
Better range than the Hornet,yes-but mediocre when compared to the F-15E,SU-30 or even new versions of the F-16.Its a fine aircraft,but its not for no reason why it has only won one export order so far.
I think the issue at high altitudes in mountainous regions would be of the accuracy of munitions. US forces faced the same problem in Afghanistan which Indian aircraft faced in Kargil in 1999.
The level of compatibility with foreign systems is almost always a political decision and one which the US wont easily give away for Russian toys.It might be a wholly different story for Israeli or European systems in the Indian airforce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.