Although the F/A-18E/F Super hornet remained Americas best shot at making the down-select in the MMRCA competition, the IAF ultimately rejected this aircraft on four grounds: the maturity of its engine design, the growth potential of its engine, assorted performance shortfalls, and issues related to special preventative maintenance. Unlike the case of the F-16IN, where IAF reservations are easier to appreciate, the case against the F/A-18E/F Super hornet is more blurry, raising some doubts about whether the IAF gave the twin-engined fighter an equitable shot. These concerns arise in part because of the way the F/A-18E/Fs General Electric F414 Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) was scored during the competition. Boeing offered this engine, which is in its final development stage, as the standard power-plant for the production version of the F/A-18E/F Super hornet because its 20 per cent greater thrust and advanced design involving a two-stage integrated blade and disk fan, an advanced six-stage highpressure compressor, and a new highpressure turbine design mitigated many of the flight envelope deficiencies that had hampered the airplane when equipped with the older F414-GE-400 engine. Thanks to the EPE, the F/A-18E/Fs climb performance, its transonic acceleration, its maximum sustained G, its maximum sustained turn rates, and its top-end speed all improve considerably, with beneficial impact on its performance in both the air-to-air and the air-to-ground regimes.The IAF, however, held the engines development status as proof of its immaturity, despite the fact that when it enters service it will be a substantially new engine with greatly improved performance and decades of active life ahead of it. That the IAF was unwilling to accept the engineering test results of the F414 EPE where the F/A-18E/F was concerned, even as it accepted the bench test results of the developmental AESA radars proposed by the Europeans, raises questions about whether the service may have interpreted compliance with some ASQRs a tad subjectively. The IAFs judgment about the limited growth potential of the G414 EPE may also have been premature, given the significant increases in thrust that have been gained already by new technological insertions but on this score at least, the IAFs assessment is easier to concede in contrast to its judgments about the viability of the engines design. These judgments should not have been affected in any case by the F/A-18E/Fs engine start-up trouble during the highaltitude trials because the demonstration aircraft was still equipped with the F414-GE-400 engine. Most significantly, the F/A-18E/F was perceived to have fallen short in aerodynamic performance, especially with respect to those parameters that distinguish the nimblest of fighters from the rest. These assessments are not surprising. Although the Super hornet remains one of the most carefree aircraft in the world where handling is concerned, with a high alpha performance to boot, it has traditionally been hampered by weaker energy addition compared to its contemporaries. Further, it still remains qualified only for manoeuvres up to 7.5G, in contrast to the IAFs ASQRs which specified a criterion of 9G.
-
