SecDef to Brazil: Hope you buy some Super Hornets

SecDef to Brazil: Hope you buy some Super Hornets

Secretary Panetta told an audience Wednesday at Brazil’s war college in Rio that he hopes the coming decades bring a close partnership between the U.S. and Brazil, the “B” of the “BRICS” and one of the key “rising powers” you always hear people talk about these days.

“This visit to Brazil is very meaningful to me because, like so many in the United States, I have long felt a special kinship for Brazil,” Panetta said.

“It is a kinship borne out of the common values we share as two nations enriched by abundant natural resources, made strong by vibrant democratic institutions, and guided by a shared dream to forge a better world for our children. Our nations have also been shaped by the common experiences of our diverse people – from our ancient indigenous cultures to the legacy of African slavery and European immigration.”


As such, Brazil and the U.S. should share more science and technology; disaster response lessons; “defense support for civil authority;” and those kinds of things, Panetta said. And y’know what else? The U.S. happens to be the home of a few nice combat aircraft, and if Brazil wanted some, the Foreign Military Sales office is always looking to deal:

Perhaps the most prominent example of our willingness to partner with Brazil on advanced defense technology is the United States government’s offer to provide our Super Hornet fighter aircraft to the Brazilian Air Force. This offer, which has the strong support of the United States Congress, contains an unprecedented advanced technology sharing that is reserved for only our closest allies and partners.

But this offer is about much more than providing Brazil with the best fighter available. With the Super Hornet, Brazil’s defense and aviation industries would be able to transform their partnerships with U.S. companies, and they would have the best opportunity to plug into worldwide markets. We fully understand that Brazil is not looking just to be the purchaser of a fighter aircraft, but rather a full-fledged partner in the development of cutting-edge aviation technology. We share that goal, and I am hopeful that the Brazilian government will ultimately choose to purchase the Super Hornet for its Air Force’s next generation fighter.

We have put forward a very strong offer. It is an offer that reflects how important this partnership is to the United States.

The U.S. has tried this sales pitch before — sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

India’s defense leaders rebuffed the “closer partnership” when they rejected American fighters in their competition last year, opting for France’s Dassault Rafale. Brazil also is eyeing the Rafale (again) along with Saab’s Gripen, and it has been building defense ties with France as part of its submarine program. The winner may be the jet that Brazil feels will best enhance its existing aeronautics industry, as Panetta mentioned, so Boeing and its rivals may continue to elbow each other with offers to shift ever-more work down to South America.

Join the Conversation

The Air Force is trying to bifurcate the market for fighter aircraft by selling “top-tier” allies the F-35 and pushing the “lower-tier” allies to the super hornet. This separating equilibrium may hold until the “top-tier” allies recognize that the F-35 is not sufficiently more capable than the super hornet to justify the cost differential, the risk to the F-35 program become too high, or a third-party seller such as Dassault/Saab/etc. steps in between two US options.

I said that before, if Brazil don’t buy the F-18 directly from Obama when he offered face to face to the Brazilian president; much less now that the offer come from that puppet S of D, they will get the Eurofigther, and French fighters in addition to build their own planes, Brazil isn’t what was 30 yrs ago when USA sold them a bunch of F-5s and A-4s they will becomes a superpower in a near future, so deal for now maybe next administration…cross your fingers.

Sell it to the Philippines. They may need it too.

Obviously Brazil and India aren’t paying attention to who has been shooting down who for the last twenty to thirty years.

That must be a coincidence, the canadian government has made a “typo” with the status of the f-35 purchase.
http://​www​.theglobeandmail​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​s​/​a​ero
“In an “erratum” note, it says the 2011-12 report wrongly described the F-35 purchase as being in “definition” project phase, which generally means an item has already received preliminary approval from Treasury Board, the gatekeeper for federal spending.

Instead the decision to buy a next-generation fighter is being reclassified as being in “option analysis” phase, which means Ottawa is still determining what it needs in terms of a plane. ”

Taiwan could use some F18s…

Obviously you haven’t been paying much attention to what has made all those ‘shoot down’s possible-offensive electronic warfare and AEW, stand-off weaponry, vastly superior training among others. That the Super Hornet is pretty much a brick compared to the Rafale or the Eurofighter is a wellknown fact on sites like these.

The SecDef should tell the Navy and Marines to buy more Super Hornets and not the F-35. Here’s why: http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​8​8​9​4​6​6​6​0​/​W​h​y​-​t​h​e​-​U​S​N​-an

Sell them to Israel for when they decide to go up against Iran.

Since we are recycling…

Read it. You champion Super Hornets instead of F35s. You hit the cost factors pretty hard (and successfuly I think). Not so convinced on the stealth, sensors and performance arguments. You singularly ignore how the Corps uses fighters, why it wants a VTOL aircraft or situations where a VTOL would be uniquely successful. You talk about what F18 pilots say yet ignored Harrier pilots. You mentioned historic examples where the Harrier didn’t excel but ignored ops where it did. The Falklands for one along with its stellar performance in Desert Storm and how the Corps was able to pull it back to serve its purposes when it felt the Air Force wasn’t (again, a unique USMC Air capability). Cost is very important but the three F18 Super Hornet Block IIIs one could buy for one F35 can’t land on an amphib assault ship. Not much good if you’re a ground Marine needing some help and the Navy or Air Force isn’t around. Redesigning the Harrier isn’t cheap or a sure solution while it leaves the USMC uniquely vulnerable should it need conduct local air superiority missions.

The F35 might not be the best solution for the USMC but you clearly don’t understand their doctrine and subsequent requirement.

I have just posted your link in the comment section of the link that I posted above. I believe it contain a lot of argument against those who say that the super hornet is dead, expensive and outdated. :)

http://​www​.theglobeandmail​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​s​/​a​ero

I simply believe that it’s better to let you know. And a super hornet block III have more chance to concretise if other countries like Canada show interest to it.

Super power in near future? Wow. I did not know that. Someone tell China that their push to become a super power may be eclipsed by Brazil. I don’t mean to be too much of a d**k, but super power is a bit of a stretch. Regional economic power and vehicle for spreading real positive growth and change in SA is more like it…a strong Occidental ally to balance the narcissism in Venezuela’s leadership, to counter the drug cartels, to champion environmental conservation and balanced resource exploitation…to show Argentina how to grow up…to some day fly a Super Hornet off the deck of a Brazilian carrier in support of joint American operations to help stabilize the world…these are lofty goals for the rising star that Brazil appears to be.

Go for broke…sell’m to Taiwan.

What’s your point? Warfare is chess, not checkers. Logistical support, parts commonality, training opportunities, shared production…better of with the US than anyone else.

Israel is doing just fine with the F15 and F16.

If you read J.A. Stout’s book he talks about the Harrier and he has talked to pilots that have flown the Harrier and said they would never fly it again. He has spoken to pilots that have been shaken up from flying the Harrier and the Harrier’s accident rate isn’t all too good in terms of speaking for itself.

We’ve been over the Falklands. The British used because it was all they had. If the USN was given a similar task it would be able to complete it with ease since a CVN could arrive and take control of the area in a matter of days. As for Desert Storm, you’ll need to be more specific because as far as I can tell the Marines feeling that the Air Force wasn’t meeting its needs seems to be just an argument that they throw around when they want more aircraft. They’ve said similar things about the Navy not meeting its needs and once they got Hornets the argument died down quite a bit. The STOVL aircraft hasn’t really done much for them that a fixed wing fighter couldn’t do.

As far as taking off of Amphibs, if we are using Amphibs for air superiority then something is seriously screwed up with the doctrine that we have or the situation is so desperate it’s going to require a lot more than an Amphib to get the job done. If the situation is that bad, then a swarm of Super Hornets would be better.

I’m also not going to discount the possibility too much, but if the Marines are forced to make a choice between the F-35B or no STOVL aircraft at all, then it would be better to have no STOVL aircraft at all since the F-35B is simply too expensive. Do you know how many MV-22’s, Super Cobras, Super Hornets, or tanks you could buy the price of 1 F-35B? Right now 4.4 Super Hornets is the same price as 1 F-35B.

I don’t think the Marines subsequent requirement is really a requirement at all. The major fact is that the problem itself can easily be compensated for with long range air refueled strike fighters or a CVN. Not only that, but they have never needed to use the Harrier for what it was bought for: assisting troops with an amphibious assault when naval artillery is not available. This role can and has often been easily taken over by Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from practically anywhere in the world. They also don’t use it for deployments near hot zones too often because modern anti-access weapons such as SAMs and MANPADs have made that mission suicidal.

The possibilities that we would need to absolutely depend on the STOVL fighter are minimal so we shouldn’t be putting obscene amounts of money towards it. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put the RIGHT AMOUNT of money towards it. A “Harrier III” or “Super Harrier” would in fact be much cheaper than the F-35. If the Super Harrier kept some commonality with the current Harriers it would keep costs down since they could share parts while production is ramping up. The major fact is that, as the Super Hornet proved, making a redesign of an older airframe is like making a jet with half of the R&D and half of the airframe testing already done for you. Making a new Harrier would still be cheap and quick. The Super Hornet was funded in 1992 and a prototype went through testing swiftly in 1995. If funding was put towards a Super Harrier right now it’s highly likely that a prototype could be made and near production before the F-35B is fully operational.

Take a look at this concept drawing from the 1990’s: http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​9​1​0​4​0​7​8​7​/​F​i​g​h​t​e​r​-​C​o​n​cep

The Brazilian Air Force has said they want the Gripen NG. Because of up front costs & long term maintenance costs being 1/2 of all other contenders. Plus they like the fact that they can land on 800 meters of highway or conventional small austere landing strips ( small non paved runways ) and be rearmed and refueled by truck in 10 minutes. Plus the SEA Gripen currently being designed in Britain ( Hmmm ) would also be available for their Aircraft Carrier. IMHO the US Marines should be looking at this aircraft as well. Since they could get 5 Gripen NG’s for the price of 1 F-35B.

The Gripen may well be a “good enough” aircraft for Brazil. It is not good enough for a 1st world super power. It is also by no means an F/A-18 Super Hornet…and Brazil would benefit from production agreements, etc.…whereas to what benefit would it be to the USMC to stray from a proven Boeing product to a Swedish aircraft? Gripen is a fine 2nd world aircraft…but no place in the American arsenal.

Posts are appearing and disappearing. I’d refer folks to our discussion in the navy thread. http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​4​/​2​0​/​t​o​m​o​r​r​o​w​s​-​r​e​con

Your write up misses alot and a lot of people agreed based on the positives, negatives and other comments.

Sell Philippines alot of retired but refurbished F-15As and F-16As since all Alpha models are out of US service.

Overall be better to sell them Boeing F-15SE over the Super Hornet. These planes are for land based use. The F-15SE is faster stealthier and is oped for air superiority. And even the Hornet is a better deal then the F-35 which is so screwed up by politics and the ill performance B version. Brazil’s is smart not jumping into that band wagon.

Umm, not necessarily. Technology transfer, sovereignty over systems and strategic benefits (nuclear/missile tech) would be an issue if you buy from the US? And it’s not like countries like Brazil and India are not buying the latest technology available including from the US. It’s a question of getting the best possible deal and the Super Hornet is not exactly a hot rod of the skies.

The Gripen is the only aircraft that has be able to sneak up on the F-22 at Red Flag and Green Flag, and the F-22 was only able to get away by kicking in after burners. The F-22 couldn’t see the Gripen till it was in range. They have not been invited back to either since they did that. Do some research on the Gripen. It has 1/4 the radar signature of an F-16 and that’s the older C/D model. The new Gripen NG is made up of over 60+% composites and has a even smaller signature which is classified. F-15’s, F-18’s and F-16’s haven’t been able to do that. So it’s far from a second world aircraft.

Your logic is twisted. At one point i your paper you crticize the Harrier’s performance and then in another promote it’s overhaul “if” its necessary (acknowledging you might not be right in your determination that STVOLs aren’t worth it.

The point that the Brits only had the Harrier in the Falklands because of a lack of larger carriers is EXACTLY the same as having amphib ships at a hotspot without a carrier. You want to insist a carrier will be there when clearly that may not be the case. the enemy get’s a vote.

You still disregard any positive comments by Harrier pilots or its superior performance in the Falklands campaign. I’ve already told you forard based Harriers in Iraq had a 23 minute rearm/refule time unmatched by ant other aircraft. I’ve told you during desert storm that harriers conducted counterbattery missions for the Marines who lacked the heavier systems the army had at the time. You contest Marine comments out of hand about the utility of harriers and their responsiveness because its a ploy to get more aircraft. That’s scholarship? Uh, the actions and comments happened years before the F35 controversy. Revisit.

The F35 might not be the right tool. You didn’t make the case in your article yet you demonstrated either you don’t understand Marine doctrine or you think you know better.

If true, and I am not disputing your claim (except maybe the “you’re not invited back because you almost won argument”), it does not address the fundamental advantage for the US to maintain use of the Super Hornet. It is a weapons platform…it is a system…but, it is also a piece to the American warfare architectture. All of these “systems” have roles.…and that is how the US will dominate the air space using an aircraft such as the Super Hornet against anything presently in the world today. The Hornets operate in tandem with every other asset, system, weapon, etc…how the Gripen would fit into this model better than a Super Hornet escapes me. As for Brazil…I think they should have at it. They will lose out on developing the netcentric style of waging battle that the US has developed over the last 30+ years and on perfectly capable systems for operations both within and outside of this paradigm if the Gripen were selected…but, then again…Brazil is also not on the verge of entering the domain of “military powerhouse”. A stronger and more American-Allied Brazilian AF would benefit the entire region though…and would certainly counter the fighters Chavez has been putting in his stable.

Yes, I criticized the Harrier’s performance, but I do recognize that it can be used effectively and that the STOVL fighter capability has some strengths. I’m saying that our other capabilities can completely replace it with little to no difference. Also, the STOVL design strengths don’t outweigh its weaknesses and don’t justify large amounts of money being spent on it. Fixed wing aircraft can replace them and it wouldn’t make any difference except an increase in the use of long range strikes and cruise missile strikes. If the STOVL fighter was gone it wouldn’t make our forces lose much.

Read my paper again. You would clearly say that I said, “If the Marines want a STOVL fighter they should…” I merely said that if the Marines want a STOVL fighter then the best option would be a Super Harrier.

You do raise a point about the fact that the Brits didn’t have a super carrier in the region, but they also didn’t have long range refueled fighters in nearly the scale that we do nore did they have Tomahawk cruise missiles like we do now. We could have accomplished that mission with Tomahawks and long range refueled strikes that would have lasted long enough for a CVN to arrive. The Falklands is simply not a good example because the British don’t have our same capabilities.

I don’t use positive comments from Harrier pilots about the Harrier simply because they can easily be perceived as too biased, just as Super Hornet pilot comments about the Super Hornet could be perceived as too biased. If you’ll notice in my paper I pointed out some Marine legacy Hornet pilots’ comments on the Super Hornet only. I think positive comments about the Harrier from pilots of another tactical airframe would be credible.

In regards to the Harrier operating in Desert Storm they are extremely lucky that they didn’t encounter enemies with skilled special forces or decent artillery. In that role the Harrier STOVL capability was used uniquely and effectively, but there was a great amount of risk taken in doing that. If just one of those Harrier was hit with a MANPAD fired from an obscure location during take off or landing, then I doubt the Marines would have continued such operations. Also it’s worth noting that the Harrier also sustained the highest casualty rate of major US combat aircraft.

In fact, this youtube video explains it much better than I could: http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​j​h​-​Y​i​Y​P​k​T​C​8​&​a​m​p​;fe

I actually do know something of the Marine doctrine, but there are areas of it that are simply not necessary. STOVL fighters are one of those things that simply don’t perform what they cost.

In my opinion I agree the US has vastly superior AEW and Stand off weapons. All the more reason to get the US product. The plane is for war not air shows. Pretty sure a prop plane can turn a tighter corner then a f-18, doesn’t mean that it can out turn a sidewinder or a amraam.

I just don’t understand some peoples over emphasis on manueverablility, not saying it’s not important, but how much does that buy you in combat?

Another note, what technology is specifically withheld? If it is technology that the other competitors aren’t offering because they don’t have active copies, such as aesa, then what is the complaint?

I am curious to know under which condition, and I am very skeptical about the gripen being able to sneak up the f-22, unless most of its classified feature have been turned off. That would be a great reason to make upgrade on the f-22 though. :)

I have always suspected that those match of f-15 vs f-22 were a little tricked, but to have a grippen doing better would surprise me a lot. I mean really a lot…

It’s because of the Gripen’s small size and the C/D models are made up of 30% composites that aren’t picked up by radar. Do some research it’s pretty amassing what this little aircraft can do. And it’s fully NATO compatible, and “Link 16″ is available as a option. In 2015 the New Sea Gripen will roll out with added Stealth Intakes and weapons pods, and it’s going to be made up from 60+ % composites. That’s one reason the maintenance cost are much lower than conventionally built aircraft ( metal frames) It’s a Joint venture between Saab & the Britt’s ( Saab has been on Time and on Budget Every time so far with this aircraft). IMHO the Britt’s are covering their butts in case the F-35 becomes undo-able because of costs & the fact that Scotland may vote for ” Independence” which would negatively affect their tax base considerably. Something here in the US isn’t talked about much., but will greatly affect Britons Military if they do.

An EA-18G Growler also “shot down” an F-22 in an exercise: http://​www​.flightglobal​.com/​b​l​o​g​s​/​t​h​e​-​d​e​w​l​i​n​e​/​200… Whether the EA-18G “snuck up” on the F-22 or not isn’t revealed, but whatever tactics were employed worked.

Definitely not exact! The eurofighter is made of more that 80% of composites, and I am not sure about the super hornet, but it’s very likely to be similar. Heck even the legacy hornet was made of more that 24% of composite per weight.

While I am not a mathematician nor a physicist, material and size only play a partial role in radar signature, I think to have understood that the shape is the most important of them. Anyway here is what I have found (from reliable source I hope).
Grippen RCS: <2m^2
Eurofighter RCS: < 1m^2 (I think to have read 0.1m^2 elsewhere, just like most plane with frontal radar signature reduction)

Link :http://​z9​.invisionfree​.com/​2​1​c​/​a​r​/​t​9​1​9​.​htm
“According to SAAB, the RCS of the Gripen Plus is under two square meters.“
http://​typhoon​.starstreak​.net/​E​u​r​o​f​i​g​h​t​e​r​/​s​t​r​u​ctu
“The Typhoon features foreplanes, and lightweight construction (82% composites = 70% carbon fibre composites + 12% glass reinforced composites).
.….….
The Eurofighter is thought to have an RCS of less than one square meter in a clean configuration by author Doug Richardson, although no official value is available. This compares with the estimated RCS of the Rafale of 2 square meters, and the American F-117 of 0.025 square meters. The manufacturers claim the RCS of the Eurofighter to be the smallest of all aircraft currently in production. ”

You can’t just say, “the STOVL design strengths don’t outweigh its weaknesses and don’t justify large amounts of money being spent on it.” without making the case. Well you can but it’s a house on sand.

If you are going to use comments of pilots an unbiased writer would cite contradictions. You don’t have to be unbiased but don’t try to imply you are.

Tomahawks have some challenegs with fleeting and hardened targets. They aren’t the “be all end all”. I’m suspecting you’re a techno guy. There’s a lot more to war.

The Harriers are no more vulnerable than helicopters and FARPs. Using your logic we should can all the helos also. 23 minute turn around? Tough to beat and aircraft doing CAS typically have higher casualties especially when there no air to air fight.

I read your paper once. I’ve addressed its shortcomings. You haven’t fixed them. I don’t recommend the paper.

Though I am convinced that specifically designed drones could fill something like 80% of the intended role of any STOVL in the very near future, before going even further. Not to mention its very low cost, which would make it somewhat expendable, and more importantly, it have a much better endurance than manned aircraft.

Yeah you’re right. But it wouldn’t hurt.

RCS for the Gripen C ( 0, 1 m2. )
South African Air Force C Model http://​www​.saairforce​.co​.za/​f​o​r​u​m​/​v​i​e​w​t​o​p​i​c​.​p​h​p?f

The new models are even smaller

Do you realize that you take your data from a forum? And more interestingly the third post say this: ‘
…here is another scan of a report from May 2005 talking about RCS reduction work!’

If I were to only refer to forum, then I would get a post saying that only the f-35 and f-22 have a smaller RCS than the eurofighter.

So many claims, so little reliable source.

Also don’t know how reliable these numbers are from the Indian version of this site, but I’ll bet they are pretty close. And it backs up your numbers on the Eurofighter
http://​www​.indiandefence​.com/​f​o​r​u​m​s​/​d​e​f​e​n​c​e​-​m​i​lit

Again, you are generalising. Buying US platforms does not give you access to force multipliers; so while Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Finland and even Israel operate US warplanes, they don’t have US cruise missiles or offensive EW systems. In other words, they are not essentially on the same level as a US unit equipped with the same system.

About agility, well higher supersonic performance for aircraft like the Rafale and Typhoon mean the ability to get in and out of trouble quicker and also launch their air to air and air to ground munitions at higher ranges and altitudes for optimum performance. you just dont have that capability with the Super Hornet. About why manueverability matters, why do you think the USAF went the whole hog with the F-22?

Technology transfer is a matter of bargaining, so it’s relative to specific cases. The US usually doesn’t part with source codes for weapons, radar technology, engine tech among others. These things are also on offer by other countries like Russia (not very reliable) and France/UK-Germany (reliable but very expensive); why buy an older US platform if you can get a newer system with newer technology to boost your industry.

The more I try to read that document, the less I can say any data about its RCS.
www2​.foi​.se/​r​a​p​p​/​f​o​i​r​0​3​3​8​.​pdf

I think to have understood that the RCS of 1m^2 specified in that document is about an hypothetical attacker, and the RCS of 0.1m^2 is about a missile or a weapon used.

I could be wrong though. Can you enlighten me please, I don’t know that language.
Traduction of page numeroted as 47:

Objects
The adversary
Attack Aircraft, Attackrobotar1
Four pieces heavy attack aircraft, each with 4 attack missiles and 4 IR missiles for close combat.
Countermeasure capsules. Multimodradar to the detection distance of 100 km against a target of 1 m2
radar cross. Radar cross section 1 m2. Cruising range 1500 km. Speed ​​1000 km / h
Medium weight long-range attack missile designed against fixed targets. The robot occurs autonomously after
precipitation. The robot is equipped with ramjetmotor. Average speed M3. Range 300 km. radar cross
0.1 m2.

What are you asking about? I was pointing out the photocopy from the SAAF about the Gripen C model, thats all.

Once again it come from a forum. And even if it was to be the right number, then there are no conclusion to take except that those modern 4.5 generation fighter does have about the same reduced frontal signature.

Because taking a approximate fraction of an approximation and yet getting a number in the similar range mean that you can’t really determine which is the best.

I mean they all employ similar technology. Some are slightly better than other, some are more cost effective. But having definitive number is just impossible.

Well a piece of information from a document that may or may not be authentic. Since the url was provided, verifying that information is possible.

I was just trying to find back the piece of information posted on the forum. I just found it, by looking for the right swedish word. It seems that its frontal RCS is really 0.1m^2.

Hunting Aircraft
JAS 39 which has hull where signature reduction measures have been taken. Radar cross 0.1 m2.
Cruising range 500 km. Speed ​​1000 km / h Fpl can start 10 minutes after order.
The grapple can be equipped with a wide range and missiles. It is also possible to hang on an extra
tank on the bottom to increase the range. Gripen has always been a basic armament whatever mission.
It consists of an AIM-9 Sidewinder in each wingtip and a cannon from Germany
mark Mauser-Werke type Akan m/85.

And F22’s to the Auzies.

Kills are kills; and are all that matter. Benchmark arguments by armchair experts mean nothing. Smoldering wreckage is all that matters.

WE should buy some of those nasty little prop fighters Brazil flies. I’ve seen them in action and it’s like a “Super P-51″

Kills made against adversaries with vastly inferior equipment and numbers are not the same as those made against those with comparable systems such as China, Iran or Pakistan.

Armchair experts and pilots would both agree on that.

So you’re discounting accounts from the pilots who are the most qualified to talk about the strengths of the aircraft they’ve trained years to fly?

The P-51 is superior to those planes performance wise in ever way. They might be lighter and more fuel efficent but as far as killing.put modern avionics in a P-51 and the Tucano would be like a Slopwith camel fighting a.…well P-51.

I have heard rumors the Brazilian military really wants the F-18SH however there is political pressure for them to buy Europeans among the rulers there.

Could be .….…. I’d like to see this contest .… even in a simulation.

The Philipines can’t afford them. The F-16 is probably more in there range.

Check out this link with more updated info on the Gripen. http://​www​.the​-desert​-fox​.com/

They are broke as a joke, I’m not sure their military industrial complex could support the aircraft anyways. They are in serious need of attention.

I got to disagree with you. The F/A-18 I think would be the worst choice in this case. It would cost a lot of money to bring a new type of aircraft (F/A-18) into there Air Force for a minimal improvement over what they can do to the F-16 or IDF. AESA and other improvements can be added to both of those fighters without having to heavily retrain the pilots. If Taiwan wanted a new aircraft the F-35B would be the best choice because of its short field capability.

Every advanced airplane in history has been “beat” by the previous generation at some point. F-86 getting beat by a P-51, F-14/15 getting beat by an F-8 or F-4. I’m sure there are stories of a Curtis Helldiver beating a Hellcat. It usually has a lot more to do with skill (or lack of skill) of the pilots, and a little luck. I guarantee none of those pilots would willingly trade their newer more advance airplane in for the old model if going into combat. There is another lesson to be learned however. Any fighter, no matter how advanced, can get shot down.

I believe it… an F-5/T-38 killed an F-22 in a training exercise a few years back. And there’s more than a generation of age difference between the two aircraft. I don’t recall the details, but I’m certain it was due to the F-22 pilot overestimating his skills, and underestimating the skills of the aggressor pilot and abilities of the aircraft.

They have oil resources still needed to be develop and protected. They need help on developing their military and oil research, exploration and development. They are our 100% ally.

France’s Dassault Rafale,Ha! Ha! Ha! does it retreat faster then normal?

american evolution don’t was similar to others, 70 years of retards
For the moment the rafale was in better place than many others plane.
How many country will buy by his own hand (without pressure) american plane?

People miss out on the overriding factor in this buy and like the Indian buy. The Winner isnt the best aircraft. Its the best aircraft at the best price with the most technology shared.

The US doesnt want to share the design around as the Brazilians really want to build it themselves.

What happens if in 5–10 years the Brazilians under new leadership decide they should be able to share tech and sell aircraft to people like russia, Iran, China etc? Or sell them to Chavez…

Panetta, is just like his buddy Obama, trying to destroy our country. Panetta the military, Obama the entire
country.

I did make a good case.

Also, think about multiple Tomahawks or Tomahawks with armor piercing directed explosives. You’ve suspected wrong. I’m not a techno guy. I’m a tactics guy.

Helicopters are different. They don’t have as big a heat signature as the Harrier and honestly they don’t cost as much or contain nearly as much classified tech so there’s less risk involved. By the logic of CAS having high casualty rate: Explain to me why the A-10 doesn’t have as high a casualty rate as the AV-8? See where I’m going with this?

I could care less if you recommend my paper. You’re short comings don’t have enough of a compelling argument and thusly I don’t need to fix them. There is simply no need for the STOVL fighter.

You’re a tactics guy?

You get one use out of a tomahawk. They are not the “be all end all”. They augment but do not replace fixed wing.

Helos are great. They don’t carry as much ordnance as fixed wing. You mentioned the Harrier’s vulnerable when its forward based. I’m showing the absurdity of that observation by comparing helos get lost when they are based forward. You’re ignoring the advantages to forward based A/C and Marine doctrine.

The A10’s casualty rate is less because the A/C is hardened. The downside is it can’t fly from carriers. Again not understanding Marine doctrine or the requirement for Marines to support themselves without a carrier nearby.

It’s OK if you don’t care if I recommend your paper just don’t ask me to reread it and waste my time again.

As a brazilian citizenr i most be very greatfull if our AF buy the hornets.Put Brazil and USA together and we´ll get the worldwide superpower state.
With our resources, strength and youth will release the groundwork for a new era with the spatial domain, high medical technology and energy

It’s more like a Super-P47 I would say, for it’s land attack capabilities. P-51 is mainly a dog fighter!

Rather than the Super Tucano, I’d rather see procurement of a folding wing CATOBAR compatible single engine turboprop light ground attack aircraft. Dust off the engineering drawings of the Douglas A2D Skyshark (cancelled turboprop successor to to the Douglas A1D Skyraider) and modify the design to use the same turboprop engine and propellor used in the C-130J (the 4,637 shp Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprop and the Dowty R391 6-blade 13 ft 7 in diameter composite propeller).

I could go with that.

I think the F-18 Super Hornet would be an excellant asset for Taiwan. As there is no way the U.S.A would ever sell F-35s to Taiwan due to the high probabilty of the F-35 schematics falling into the hands of P.L.A intelligence. I was thinking since the F-18 has been designed to be launched by catapault and ramp from carriers it would be plausible for Taiwanese F-18s to be launched from land catapaults and ramps on Taiwanese highways. Which would be of great advantage in the scenario of a conflict between the People’s Republic of China (P.R.C) and Taiwan entering into advanced stages resulting in Taiwan’s runways falling victim to P.R.C missile attack. Another thing is that the F-18 is designed to be a fighter unlike the Harrier which was only ever designed to be a close air support aircraft. Anyway I think the danger is that due to Beijing’s objections to any form of Taiwanese seld determination that Beijing will seek to poison Taiwan’s military capability.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.