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.
Comments
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.