The F/A-18 has an old airframe, and is outclassed by every modern Russian and European plane... The only reason any of them sell is the US' political clout.
Technically, the Super Hornet airframe is quite new. While certainly a development out of the older Hornet platforms, its fair to say that aerodynamically anyways, the Super Hornet has a pretty recent (development started in early 90s) airframe.
Further, it lost its bid to the Gripen, which is approximately as old as the Super Hornet (airframe-wise anyways).
You are right to say that the Super-Hornet is outclassed in a huge variety of roles by modern planes from every country, but those are hardly the only considerations. As you say, political clout is important, but it's not just an American thing.
[1] is the leaked report for the Swiss Air Force from their procedurement program between the Gripen, Eurofighter, and Rafale. In summary, the Rafale was the clear winner by all metrics. The Swiss went with the Gripen. We don't have a leaked report on how -that- came to be, but likely a combination of realizing that they don't in fact need the best possible platform (likely what Brazil did as well... their final three airframes were the Gripen, Rafale, and Super Hornet, and I cannot believe that the Super Hornet can do anything better than the Eurofighter (or the Rafale)), and some political maneuvering.
The Gripen has some unique advantages. It's ease of operating, servicing, and STOL capability allows it to be deployed from just about anywhere - you can land it on a forest road, service it, and it can take off from a very short runway again. And it still has great performance.
It's really the perfect fighter for Switzerland - a country which doesn't really need a 2-engine fighter. The Rafale's main advantages are range and payload, which does nothing for a small country whose only need is self-defence...
Agreed. The reason I put that example in there was to point out that airframe performance is not the only axis by which fighters can be measured, and there could be reasons unrelated to US political pressure that a country would purchase a Super Hornet over more modern platforms.
Which is the main issue with Brazil's choice of the Gripen -- range. Brazil is huge, larger than the US's lower 48. From this point of view, the Rafale was a clear winner.
The BIG reasons seem to be the transfer of technology and the fact that Sweden hasn't any presence or interests in South America or South Pacific, while France and USA certainly do. So, with the Swedish fighter they have no strings attached.
You just have to deploy them wisely. Brazil is buying 35 jets now but the expectation is we'll buy 120. You don't have to station them all in one place.
This is highly misleading. Avionics and SW play a very critical role, and many "old airframes" are suprisingly capable in the right hands. "Outclassed" is also irrelevant in many actual theatres of conflict. Very few military forces can afford to field, not to mention, lose in combat, the types of planes that "outclass" the F/A 18. So maintaining a local air-superiority quickly gets into questions of mobility and sustained localized logistics. When considering carrier-based planes in particular...its irrelevant if you have planes but not carrier battlegroups. Just look at the UK. The airframe is only one part of projecting the force for a modern war.
This is true. But in every 'performance' metric the Rafale wins, in every 'maintainability' metric the Gripen wins. The Gripen is the easiest to service, to put into action (STOL capability), the most affordable, while having advanced avionics and great performance.
The Rafale and the Gripen? The difference in performance between most the Cat-4 aircraft is minor. And are we talking about performance in BVR or WVR. In a dogfight an F22 will fall to a hornet with 9x and HMCS. But are dogfights even relevant. I know Topgun loves to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on it, but the reality is BVR is where any air war will be won and lost. And any cat-4 is going to fall to an invisible cat-5 aircraft. And missiles, radar, ea, etc. matter so much more than the differences in performance. Sure it’s nice to cap in the stratosphere and turn on a dime but that’s not going to win the fight. But is the best strategy expensive super planes or cheap missile trucks and drones? Perhaps cheaper aircraft designed for the various missions: Strike, Air to Air, Close Air Support, Electronic Attack…? Maybe Patriots or SA-20s or some other SA options? Outside of a few countries these questions hardly matter as the purchase of planes is more a vanity project then anything else. Sure, buy a Gripen or Rafale and have fun flying circles in the sky or use plane purchases for political statements, but I wouldn’t ask people to believe either of these planes is a key part of their countries defense strategy.
Brazil has no war to fight, doesn't plan to start one and usually does everything to avoid it at all. When we get involved we usually send parachutists and medical staff. So all the technical details aside, our air force really wants something that will allow them to patrol the borders and not cost a arm and leg to service when it breaks (otherwise it'll become a skeleton in the parking lot).
The f/a 18 has weaknesses but technical capability isn't one of them. It has the best production radar and mult-role capability of any fighter in the world. It doesn't need upgrades down the road to integrate new weapon systems or perform precision ground attack(looking at you eurofighter) it does it already.
As for political clout the main risk of purchasing a fighter that doesn't have a large primary user is the risk that new capabilities won't become available as they are developed. That simply doesn't exist and explains the f-35s and f/a-18 attractiveness.
Comments
The F/A-18 has an old airframe, and is outclassed by every modern Russian and European plane... The only reason any of them sell is the US' political clout.
Technically, the Super Hornet airframe is quite new. While certainly a development out of the older Hornet platforms, its fair to say that aerodynamically anyways, the Super Hornet has a pretty recent (development started in early 90s) airframe.
Further, it lost its bid to the Gripen, which is approximately as old as the Super Hornet (airframe-wise anyways).
You are right to say that the Super-Hornet is outclassed in a huge variety of roles by modern planes from every country, but those are hardly the only considerations. As you say, political clout is important, but it's not just an American thing.
[1] is the leaked report for the Swiss Air Force from their procedurement program between the Gripen, Eurofighter, and Rafale. In summary, the Rafale was the clear winner by all metrics. The Swiss went with the Gripen. We don't have a leaked report on how -that- came to be, but likely a combination of realizing that they don't in fact need the best possible platform (likely what Brazil did as well... their final three airframes were the Gripen, Rafale, and Super Hornet, and I cannot believe that the Super Hornet can do anything better than the Eurofighter (or the Rafale)), and some political maneuvering.
[1] http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf
The Gripen has some unique advantages. It's ease of operating, servicing, and STOL capability allows it to be deployed from just about anywhere - you can land it on a forest road, service it, and it can take off from a very short runway again. And it still has great performance.
It's really the perfect fighter for Switzerland - a country which doesn't really need a 2-engine fighter. The Rafale's main advantages are range and payload, which does nothing for a small country whose only need is self-defence...
Agreed. The reason I put that example in there was to point out that airframe performance is not the only axis by which fighters can be measured, and there could be reasons unrelated to US political pressure that a country would purchase a Super Hornet over more modern platforms.
Which is the main issue with Brazil's choice of the Gripen -- range. Brazil is huge, larger than the US's lower 48. From this point of view, the Rafale was a clear winner.
The BIG reasons seem to be the transfer of technology and the fact that Sweden hasn't any presence or interests in South America or South Pacific, while France and USA certainly do. So, with the Swedish fighter they have no strings attached.
You just have to deploy them wisely. Brazil is buying 35 jets now but the expectation is we'll buy 120. You don't have to station them all in one place.
This is highly misleading. Avionics and SW play a very critical role, and many "old airframes" are suprisingly capable in the right hands. "Outclassed" is also irrelevant in many actual theatres of conflict. Very few military forces can afford to field, not to mention, lose in combat, the types of planes that "outclass" the F/A 18. So maintaining a local air-superiority quickly gets into questions of mobility and sustained localized logistics. When considering carrier-based planes in particular...its irrelevant if you have planes but not carrier battlegroups. Just look at the UK. The airframe is only one part of projecting the force for a modern war.
This is true. But in every 'performance' metric the Rafale wins, in every 'maintainability' metric the Gripen wins. The Gripen is the easiest to service, to put into action (STOL capability), the most affordable, while having advanced avionics and great performance.
The Rafale and the Gripen? The difference in performance between most the Cat-4 aircraft is minor. And are we talking about performance in BVR or WVR. In a dogfight an F22 will fall to a hornet with 9x and HMCS. But are dogfights even relevant. I know Topgun loves to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on it, but the reality is BVR is where any air war will be won and lost. And any cat-4 is going to fall to an invisible cat-5 aircraft. And missiles, radar, ea, etc. matter so much more than the differences in performance. Sure it’s nice to cap in the stratosphere and turn on a dime but that’s not going to win the fight. But is the best strategy expensive super planes or cheap missile trucks and drones? Perhaps cheaper aircraft designed for the various missions: Strike, Air to Air, Close Air Support, Electronic Attack…? Maybe Patriots or SA-20s or some other SA options? Outside of a few countries these questions hardly matter as the purchase of planes is more a vanity project then anything else. Sure, buy a Gripen or Rafale and have fun flying circles in the sky or use plane purchases for political statements, but I wouldn’t ask people to believe either of these planes is a key part of their countries defense strategy.
Brazil has no war to fight, doesn't plan to start one and usually does everything to avoid it at all. When we get involved we usually send parachutists and medical staff. So all the technical details aside, our air force really wants something that will allow them to patrol the borders and not cost a arm and leg to service when it breaks (otherwise it'll become a skeleton in the parking lot).
The f/a 18 has weaknesses but technical capability isn't one of them. It has the best production radar and mult-role capability of any fighter in the world. It doesn't need upgrades down the road to integrate new weapon systems or perform precision ground attack(looking at you eurofighter) it does it already.
As for political clout the main risk of purchasing a fighter that doesn't have a large primary user is the risk that new capabilities won't become available as they are developed. That simply doesn't exist and explains the f-35s and f/a-18 attractiveness.