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).
Comments
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).