Why?

[SilverFox441]

One '18 drops the Bucc, Lightning, Vulcan and Harrier with BVR AMRAAM shots and then switches to A/G to crater the runway.

The old "Speed is Life" design theory is gone...the Hornet doesn't need to go fast to do what it does. What matters now is the ability to point your nose on target.

Nothing does that better than a Hornet...at least nothing that doesn't have vectored thrust.

[Mobius]

Second

Well F-15E maybe, but that's a whole different discussion...

[C]

One '18 drops the Bucc, Lightning, Vulcan and Harrier with BVR AMRAAM shots and then switches to A/G to crater the runway.

Thats cause they're all in museums... ok, except the Harrier, which will probably be at the Brit version of low level which could cause a problem...

The old "Speed is Life" design theory is gone...the Hornet doesn't need to go fast to do what it does. What matters now is the ability to point your nose on target.

Which in a BVR fight means you don't need to be all that manourvable...

Nothing does that better than a Hornet...at least nothing that doesn't have vectored thrust.

I'll have an F-15E please.... or a Typhoon...

[Ivan]

Su-30MKI (early batch, pre mod whitout TVC) does better compared to the F/A-18.

But as they are being upgraded to Su-30MKI standard (as they wanted it, with TVC, because Lyuka was still testing the TVC engines when the first ones were delivered) they probably don't count

[beefhole]

Whether or not (YOU PEOPLE think) this or that individual aircraft would do better against the F/A-18 (which I still stress it's the best fighter available), I would like to extend a reminder as to who would have air superiority in any war ever

And I'm just messin around (although it's true), let's not take offense

And the brits can share the air superiority if they really wanna

[Ivan]

I think you would be surprised...

While iraq didn't have that much to throw at you uality wise, India and China are a different story (as is Iran), Changing to a commercial business model doesn't allow you to give the customer second-best quality...

Let's list some of the aqircraft in sevice there and compare these to the F/A-18

Iran

• F-14A with upgraded radar, Air-Ground capabilities and glass cockpit. Even with 25 of these around, the US tends to hate these so much that they shot down a passenger liner in confusion...
• MiG-29, some 1990's export spec and some new. Your usual average MiG-29
• Su-27, mostly new. No TVC, but modern missiles
• F-5 and it's modified versions. A few stealth versions hanging around lately
• MiG-21 or the chinese version of it, with new missiles

China (only the well known ones)

• MiG-21, export and own produced, with a lot of upgrades
• MiG-29, early export, late export and own production
• Su-27, late export and own produced
• J-10, own produced ef2000 lookalike
• MiG-25
• MiG-31

India

• Su-27, late export
• MiG-25, early and late export
• Su-30MKI, late export with and without TVC

Of these, China and India will kick your ass in air superiority and don't underestimate the S300 SAM (which all of them have)

[beefhole]

LOL. I'll stop at reminding you air superiority isn't all about the aircraft, friend .

[C]

LOL. I'll stop at reminding you air superiority isn't all about the aircraft, friend .

Seconded...

[Woodlouse2002]

So what is air superiority about if not having more, better aircraft than your opponent with which to wipe the skies clear?

[C]

Air superiority is just a state of affairs - ie, better than a Favourable Air Situation (where enemy air effort can hinder, but not prohibit, friendly land, sea or air ops), but not as good as Air Supremacy (the situation where the opposing force is incapable of effective interference against joint operations).

Against any nation with very large numbers of aircraft and personnel it would be very difficult to achieve anything above air superiority, unless you achieve enough success as to cause any remaining enemy aircrew to think better of the idea of resistance, or you destroy their capabilities completely on the ground...

Charlie

[beefhole]

Aye exactly-I'm gonna list all the factors I can think of

1)AA units! They count too!
2)Numbers are great, but I'll take one advanced fighter against two middle-aged soviets any day (don't know about 1:3 odds though)
3)Ability to get those fighters in the air
4) Mobility (carriers)
5)Intel (when it counts, yes, it is reliable-assuming it's a wedding party we're trying to blow up )
6) Technology (The ALQ-something, supposed to be super-effective against AA missiles-guess who has it?)
7)Personnel (best programs are generally run by US-friendly countires, UK, France, Germany, etc.)
8 ) Ground forces! They help too, you can't capture airfields from the cockpit.

I had more, can't think of them now...

The only countries we would ever face a serious (I mean like, serious, of course the other countries would be trouble) are ones that simply have massive armies and amounts of aircraft, which eliminates Iran-for some odd reason i doubt we'll be getting into a fight with India, which leaves just China. Whew, would that be interesting.

[C]

Command and Control's the biggie...

1)AA units! They count too!

If you meant AAA, then the defence really is to avoid them, or take the risk...

2)Numbers are great, but I'll take one advanced fighter against two middle-aged soviets any day (don't know about 1:3 odds though)

This ratio could probably be higher. When the four ship of middle aged Eastern Bloc fighters see's their leader blown away by a BVRAAM from F-22 or Typhoon, it quite possible the other three may well just bugger off somewhere else - if they haven't suffered the same fate...

3)Ability to get those fighters in the air

Probably not a problem for a large industrial nation...

4) Mobility (carriers)

The US win that one. Of course the British would do though if we had more than 2 carriers in service at a time...

5)Intel (when it counts, yes, it is reliable-assuming it's a wedding party we're trying to blow up )

The US COS has made it well known that he wants the time between detection and desruction to be a single figure number - Satellites and UAVs rule the roost...

6) Technology (The ALQ-something, supposed to be super-effective against AA missiles-guess who has it?)

You're thinking of the various jamming equipment/decoys used to disrupt radar guided missiles. Of course we still use the most rudimentary technology for this too, chaff and flares (for IR missiles). DIRCM is a bit more exciting though...

7)Personnel (best programs are generally run by US-friendly countires, UK, France, Germany, etc.)

Does that include the US

Charlie

[beefhole]

Lol I was considering adding in a "and of course the US too", but didn't. Yea, that's what I meant.

And I just realized that I said "one advanced fighter against two middle-aged soviets". I'm talking about middle-aged soviet FIGHTERS, not people. My b

[C]

And I just realized that I said "one advanced fighter against two middle-aged soviets". I'm talking about middle-aged soviet FIGHTERS, not people. My b

[Woodlouse2002]

Of course, AAA can be left blind once a Buccaneer with a laser designator and a Tornado with radar seeking missiles have done what the RAF does best....