Then that reinforces my point that it is a pity that the EPE was not available during the Indian MRCA trials. With 20% additional thrust, they may very well have taken off from Leh, and performed better at A2A maneuvering, which was sited as a weakness for the super hornet in IAF's evaluation.
What is your opinion of the superbug as a multirole fighter? How does it compare to the USAF's non stealth fighters? I mean, assuming all the bells and whistles on the F-15, F-16 and F-18 SH, all the upgraded electronics and engines for all, how does the USN's super hornet compare with the USAF's F-teens? As a multirole platform?
My opinion is secondary to the US Navy's.
Top is old. Bottom is current.
Keep in mind that the SH is related to the older -18 pretty much only in shape and planform, but hardly anything else. The SH is longer in fuselage, larger in wing area, and have about 40% less structural members. This alone made the SH quite a distinct design from the older version. Then take into consideration newer avionics and a lot of RCS control/reduction measures.
An aircraft carrier strike group is expeditionary force. Does not matter if the range is global or regional. As long as a part of an army (a general term) is sent to conduct military operations designed to be logistically independent for a certain amount of time, this unit is expeditionary and nothing is more representative of this than an aircraft carrier strike group.
For the top carrier, we see the F-14 for long range fleet defense, F-18 and E/A-6 for strike and electronic warfare, S-3 for assorted support missions ranging from ASW to air refuel, and E-2 for air control. You need not be a logistics or human resources expert, let alone a military version, to see the complexities of supporting such an organization far from home base.
The older F-18 already proved itself with the USN and USMC with its versatility. The SH will be no different and will surpass its older brother.
If only one of these was available to your country's AF, which one would you pick?
It is a tough call. Since I came from the F-16, I could make it obvious and favor the -16. But objectively speaking, the SH is the better choice even though the -16 is more agile and maneuverable. Both aircrafts were designed to be the proverbial jack-off-all-trades/master-of-none fighters with the -16 more so than the -18. But what make them different than the previous generations of jack-off-all-trades/master-of-none fighters, from any country, is that they raised the bars for those trades. This fact is not missed by those who need to defend themselves but cannot afford the development time and faces urgent if not dire threats.
The -18's more robust landing gear make it ideal for countries that have less than optimal airfields. If the country is mountainous, it is agile and maneuverable enough to take advantage of mountains for cover and its larger fuel capacity is better for such flights. If the country is small enough to make coverage possible by a high subsonic dash, may be only one external fuel tank is needed instead of two thereby freeing up two hard points for weapons. Just a few examples and there are many more factors that each country must take into account before settling on a fighter, but for now, the SH seems to be at least the standard to match, if not the best choice among the competition.
Just an aside: The original intent for the USAF was for the -15 to be in support of the -16 in air superiority. The intention was to have the -15's larger radar to find targets for the -16 and vector the smaller fighter in for the fight. The -16's smaller radar is good enough for that task and with its 9 gs capability, it would eat anyone foolish enough to stand and fight. But for those who may be smart enough to run, the -15 would give chase and either kill them on the run or scare them back to where they came from. With all due respect to the Raptor, the -16 may very well be the world's last true air combat fighter in the spirit of the breed.
