F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post16 Oct 2007, 16:32

Thumper3181 wrote:
Partial agreement. Kinematics-if you take thrust to weight and wing loading as the two main factors (stop me here if I am wrong) then Typhoon by a very slight edge. Consider both thrust o weight is around 1.15 (F-15C with PW200s) and the difference in wing loading is about 50Kg.


Wing loading and TWR aren't the only factors and a very important factor to consider is the fact that engine thrust decreases with altitude. The question is how do both engines perform at various altitudes. Aerodynamics are highly important as well and you can add as much thrust as you wont, this won't improve aerodynamics. This means even with stronger engines the F-15 will never achieve the same performance as the Typhoon in some areas.

One other question before I go on. Who carries more fuel? Who will have fuel enough to fly their plane aggressively for a longer period of time? I admit I do not know the answer to that but I think that has to be considered right up there with everything else.


What a question. Look at the size of both and you shuld know who carries more fuel. But you have to consider the consumption and the need for using the AB as well.

None of that is the point though. You mention it's not fair to compare the two. Well the point is all of the F-15s are now funded to receive AESA and a good portion of them are to receive a data link, AIM-9X, and helmet mounted sight. All of this should be complete by 2012. Keep in mind these planes will also carry AIM-120D.

Are all the goodies everyone is talking about for the EF going to be funded? When do we think they will get a working AESA out in the field? How about Meteor. Will it work as advertised and be ready by 2012 as promised? Who knows.


And who knows if the AIM-120D will work as expected etc.? You seem to consider the worst cases for the Typhoon, but the best for the F-15.Really "good" and "fair" base to start with :roll:

Assume all this happens what is the incremental cost for these improvements? We are already talking about a $120 million/plane mind you. What kind of weight increase is there for these goodies. How does that effect its performance?


You still don't get he point of the costs and what they include. BTW is the F-15 really cheaper to purchase? And don't forget about the operational costs!

Lets take it further. What I described for the F-15 is only for US birds. Consider an export opportunity. Japan comes to mind. The competition is the EF. What is to stop Boeing from adding fast pack capability, the 29,000 lb thrust (there goes the kinematic advantage), AESA, helmet mounted sight, aim-9x, data link, and whatever other goodies they have been putting into the Super Hornet. Much of the development work has been done. There would be some integration testing of some of the newer items from the Super Hornet but that's it.


And what is stopping Eurofighter from adding stronger TVC engines etc.. :roll: Again you look at the things very one sided.
Offline

donk14N

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2006, 01:42

Unread post16 Oct 2007, 16:55

Hmmm...

I thought this was a F-35 vs. Rafale topic. When did it become a F-15 vs. Eurofighter topic? For that matter, why does every topic seem to turn into that? Why don't you guys just create a damn Eurofighter vs. F-15, F-18, F-22, & F-35 topic already and argue there? Quit hijacking these threads by talking about non-topic aircraft. 'Cause, quite frankly, I could care less which is better between the F-15 and the Eurofighter (although by looking at all current and future capabilities it should be obvious), I came here to see a Rafale and JSF comparison, and read people's comments on that topic.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post16 Oct 2007, 22:12

@donk14n,
yes it was a F-35 vs Rafale thread :P . No honestly you are right about that and I admit a partitial responsibility for this development. It would probably be better to create a separate F-15 vs Eurofighter thread in the "other military aircraft" section, if there is any interest in continuing this debate.


About the F-35 vs Rafale, well what do you expect from an aircraft which is some 15 years younger, taking the date of the series prototypes first flights as reference. The F-35 provides stealth, a very sophisticated MMI, a highly advanced and comprehensive avionics suite and an impressive sensor package with an unmatched array of different systems. The F-35s flight performance is probably compareable to that of the F-16 maybe a little bit better here or there and maybe a little bit inferior in the one or other area. I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occassions, but it's the combat configuration that matters and here the F-35 has a good chance to close up. But the F-35s versatility and fire power is limited with internal weapons only, while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance. I'm not very optimistic about the F-35 being a low cost fighter as originally intended.
Where I completly disagree with some previous posters is that the F-35 will have a superior jamming capability. This might be the case, but it's not for sure and any claims in that direction are very bold as they are unproven and difficult to back up as well.
One should also take into account that the Rafale is in service right now, while the F-35 is still under development and some years away from entering service. At the time the F-35 will enter service, the Rafale will be further developed and not be the same aircraft as it is now.
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post17 Oct 2007, 04:14

The F-35s flight performance is probably compareable to that of the F-16 maybe a little bit better here or there and maybe a little bit inferior in the one or other area. I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occassions, but it's the combat configuration that matters and here the F-35 has a good chance to close up. while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance.


The F-35 carries her war load internally. So sure if you compare an F-16 (or any other non stealth fighter) to the F-35 you need to assume it is carrying a comparable payload and the F-35 is only carrying half of it's fuel. Do the math then. Do it for the Rafale or F-16. There is no comparison when you start carrying 5000 pounds of ordinance which is what the F-35 carries internally.

But the F-35s versatility and fire power is limited with internal weapons only,



5000 pounds is not exactly limited, especially when you take the amount of fuel it carries internally into account. The entire "limited" internal weapons argument is bogus. It carries enough fuel and ordinance internally when it need to.

while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance.


Isn't that true with any aircraft?

I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occassions,

Even when the Rafale has a full load of fuel and the F-35 only has around half of it's fuel on board? Are you really sure about that one? You do have to compare similar configurations don't you?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4821
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Oct 2007, 12:19

The other thing people need to realize is that the F-35, while having limited VARIETY of wepons in can carry on a single mission internally (two to the best of my knowlege) it will carry a great number of them. Two 2,000 lbs bombs seems like a small load, but very few a/c carry more than that operationally. Higher number of small bombs is the way warefare is going. Most sorties will likey be flown with 8 SDBs and 2 AAMs. so lets say a flight of 2 goes on a mission ( thats the minimum number). Two VLO a/c with currently the best SA and sensor fusion available that can defend themselves from up to 4 enemy a/c if needed and they have F-15 assisted by F-22 for A2A cover, so are therefor pretty much free to engage whatever 16 ground targets they need to. And this strike package has 18,000lbs of fuel.

Quick review: VLO, SA, A2A support, 16 PGMs, 4 AAMs, 9 tons of fuel each, on CLEAN airframes. Sounds pretty darn good to me. And once air defence assets are out of the picture there are now 8 pylons on this strike package waiting for ordnance to put on target. I imagine the pylons will be jetisonable like the Raptors to drop RCS to a minimum at a moments need.

The thing to remember here is how many a/c fly CAP in a group, 2-4? And they only need to be engaged in a last ditch effort, i.e. the F-35 strike force cannot stay more then 15 miles away from them, (arbitrary number for VLO vs. advanced sensors)

And dont forget that there is surely room for thrust growth for the F-35. Its a hell of a plane.
Offline

Pilotasso

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 03:35

Unread post17 Oct 2007, 14:45

Scorpion82 wrote:@Pilotasso,
where do you get the info that already 32 F-15s has been retrofitted with the AN/APG63V3? AFAIK only 18 F-15C of the 3rd FW at Elmsdorf are equipped with the V2 which is virtually the same as the V1 except for the MSA being replaced by an AESA. The V2 neither provides new modes, nor new capabilities. I read that the pilots weren't even much impressend by the V2. The V3 will for sure be much more capable, but details are unknown and it will not be fitted to any operational F-15 before 2008.


Well then my bad, :wink: I saw a news flash from airforces monthly months ago with the AESA plate, thought it was APG-63V3. I was at work when I poted my last message and was resorting to long term memory on a small magazine column.
But then again this reinforces my point of view.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post17 Oct 2007, 15:54

Thumper3181 wrote:The F-35 carries her war load internally. So sure if you compare an F-16 (or any other non stealth fighter) to the F-35 you need to assume it is carrying a comparable payload and the F-35 is only carrying half of it's fuel. Do the math then. Do it for the Rafale or F-16. There is no comparison when you start carrying 5000 pounds of ordinance which is what the F-35 carries internally.


Thumber you should really start to read more carefully what I wrote and make sure you understand it before giving such answers. Just take a look again at my post.

5000 pounds is not exactly limited, especially when you take the amount of fuel it carries internally into account. The entire "limited" internal weapons argument is bogus. It carries enough fuel and ordinance internally when it need to.


An air force with fewer aircraft might require an aircraft to carry more. Depends on the available weapons as well. The F-35 can't carry all of its intended weapons internal.

Isn't that true with any aircraft?


It is, did I say something different?

Even when the Rafale has a full load of fuel and the F-35 only has around half of it's fuel on board? Are you really sure about that one? You do have to compare similar configurations don't you?


Again read what I wrote more carefully before you answer. I compared both aircraft clean and noted that it is in the end the combat performance which matters and that the F-35 should have an advantage here due internal weapons carriage
Offline

Satorian

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 21:04

Unread post18 Oct 2007, 02:30

Thumper3181 wrote:Well Satorian since you butted in why don't you ask Scorpion the same question? Maybe for once you should read the thread before you stick your two cents in?


Oh, so you are back to your bullying again? I'm in no specific league with Scorpion, so how about you keep this between you and me? If you have a problem with him, then feel free to keep asking him for proof and backup. Personally, I am asking you.

In the meantime, please provide sourced statements of pilots that were able to compare the F-15, Super Hornet, SU-30MKI, Rafale and Typhoon in depth and then shared their evaluation and opinion, specifically putting the Typhoon last (being "no match").

And before you start screaming that I should do the same in favour of the Typhoon to counter your claim, you should note that I didn't claim a single thing about their comparative performance levels, nor did I reference any supposed pilot statement.

I'm still waiting for your backup to your claims.

You went out on a limb, you bring the proof. Are you up to the challenge or will this result in more name-calling, insults, bullying and evasion from your side?

Please, just post the proof. Wouldn't it be nice to make me look silly by posting proof? Please, just do it: Post proof.
Offline

Ozzy_Blizzard

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2007, 14:53

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 07:49

Scorpion82 wrote:@donk14n,
yes it was a F-35 vs Rafale thread :P . No honestly you are right about that and I admit a partitial responsibility for this development. It would probably be better to create a separate F-15 vs Eurofighter thread in the "other military aircraft" section, if there is any interest in continuing this debate.


Thats not a bad idea, since this is an interesting topic.


About the F-35 vs Rafale, well what do you expect from an aircraft which is some 15 years younger, taking the date of the series prototypes first flights as reference.


Well thats the comparison isn't it? However just because a platform is slightly younger doesn't automatically mean its inferior. Is the F22 inferior to the F35 in A2A, interception or strategic strike? Is the F15E inferior to the F16 in BVR A2A or strike?

The F-35 provides stealth, a very sophisticated MMI, a highly advanced and comprehensive avionics suite and an impressive sensor package with an unmatched array of different systems. The F-35s flight performance is probably compareable to that of the F-16 maybe a little bit better here or there and maybe a little bit inferior in the one or other area.


Not to mention its offensive EW suite which is claimed to be the most sophisticated in the current US inventory.

I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occasions, but it's the combat configuration that matters and here the F-35 has a good chance to close up. But the F-35s versatility and fire power is limited with internal weapons only, while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance. I'm not very optimistic about the F-35 being a low cost fighter as originally intended.
Where I completly disagree with some previous posters is that the F-35 will have a superior jamming capability. This might be the case, but it's not for sure and any claims in that direction are very bold as they are unproven and difficult to back up as well.


Even when clean I'm not sure it would in all parameters. In terms of kinematics, the F35 would be a better performer. It has a comperable (slightly better) TWR at a similar percentile of internal fuel. That 40klb thrust F135 engine is no joke. Plus it has more fuel to play with. More fuel doesn't just mean more range, it equates to more energy. More time on afterburner, more time at full dry thrust, more opportunities to gain an advantage. their top speeds may be similar but the F35 can stay at AB for longer with comparable or better (depending on the fuel loads) acceleration. All this is of cource against a clean rafale.

However with a wing loading as low as 326kgm/2 the Rafale should be able to out "dogfight" an F35 if they both ran out of missiles and went to guns. Thats without delveing into the various aerodynamic benefits a delta/canard design such as roll rates and high alfa performance, a clean rafale should be able to out turn an F35 any way you look at it.

As for your disagreement with the statement that the F35 will have better 'jamming" capabilities i guess you will have to disagree with me to. The F35's EW suite will be the most comprehensive and sophisticated yet produced in a fighter, apart from EA 18G (if you can call it a fighter). The level of integration of its ESM, ECM, Radar, IR/EO equipment and nav/comms with ts offencive EW capabilities is higher than the F22 or F18E/F. As far as the Rafale is concerned, the SPECTRA system seems to be a very sophisticated ECM/ESM suite. the notion of active cancellation is a very impressive self protection counter measure when the technology matures. I have no problem considering the Rafales defensive EW suite as equal to the F35's. However in terms of offensive "jamming" or EW, the F35 is a long way ahead of Rafale. As impressive as SPECTRA is, it can not reach out and offensively disrupt enemy systems. It is a defensive ECM system. on the other hand the F35's EW suite in conjunction with the APG 81 can actively degrade an enemy's radar's total performance, not just its own echo, it can overload an incoming ARH missiles sensors or possibly fry its internal circuits at close range. It can disrupt enemy datalinks at ranges that have been described as "extremely tactically significant", so i would guess well in excess of 100km's. the combination of VLO, passive launch and disruption of enemy communications will mean the F35 is one lethal beast in BVR combat. Its a "jamming" capability that at the Rafale will not be able to match in the foreseeable future.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categor ... y/845.html

One should also take into account that the Rafale is in service right now, while the F-35 is still under development and some years away from entering service. At the time the F-35 will enter service, the Rafale will be further developed and not be the same aircraft as it is now.


F35 Block 4 should be operational in 6~7 years. So i guess we can consider any future developments to rafale that are funded and available within that time-frame.

On another note i doubt the F35 will only carry 4 AAM's internally. there is room in the A/C versions for at least 6, with a double rail launcher on the belly hardpoint, if not both weapons stations. The problem is clearance of the inboard weapons station, however i dont think this will be a problem that can not be solved. The missile just needs to be ejected or levered out of the bay. Given the fact that there is more than enough room, an internal war load of 6~8 AAM's is pretty likely. I do remember rading an article that LM had done ground testing of 6 AAM's in the payload bay, i'll try and dig it up.

Also the only munition the F35A has to carry externally is JASSM, which is stealthy anyway. Everything else will fit into the weapons bay.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 12:20

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:@donk14n,
yes it was a F-35 vs Rafale thread :P . No honestly you are right about that and I admit a partitial responsibility for this development. It would probably be better to create a separate F-15 vs Eurofighter thread in the "other military aircraft" section, if there is any interest in continuing this debate.


Thats not a bad idea, since this is an interesting topic.


Ok I will start such a topic later. with a comprehensive opening post to reflect my point of view. Check it out later.



Well thats the comparison isn't it? However just because a platform is slightly younger doesn't automatically mean its inferior. Is the F22 inferior to the F35 in A2A, interception or strategic strike? Is the F15E inferior to the F16 in BVR A2A or strike?


You are basically right, but ~15 years or lets say 10 years is already a difference and might have some impact due technology evolution.

Not to mention its offensive EW suite which is claimed to be the most sophisticated in the current US inventory.

As for your disagreement with the statement that the F35 will have better 'jamming" capabilities i guess you will have to disagree with me to. The F35's EW suite will be the most comprehensive and sophisticated yet produced in a fighter, apart from EA 18G (if you can call it a fighter). The level of integration of its ESM, ECM, Radar, IR/EO equipment and nav/comms with ts offencive EW capabilities is higher than the F22 or F18E/F. As far as the Rafale is concerned, the SPECTRA system seems to be a very sophisticated ECM/ESM suite. the notion of active cancellation is a very impressive self protection counter measure when the technology matures. I have no problem considering the Rafales defensive EW suite as equal to the F35's. However in terms of offensive "jamming" or EW, the F35 is a long way ahead of Rafale. As impressive as SPECTRA is, it can not reach out and offensively disrupt enemy systems. It is a defensive ECM system. on the other hand the F35's EW suite in conjunction with the APG 81 can actively degrade an enemy's radar's total performance, not just its own echo, it can overload an incoming ARH missiles sensors or possibly fry its internal circuits at close range. It can disrupt enemy datalinks at ranges that have been described as "extremely tactically significant", so i would guess well in excess of 100km's. the combination of VLO, passive launch and disruption of enemy communications will mean the F35 is one lethal beast in BVR combat. Its a "jamming" capability that at the Rafale will not be able to match in the foreseeable future.As for your disagreement with the statement that the F35 will have better 'jamming" capabilities i guess you will have to disagree with me to. The F35's EW suite will be the most comprehensive and sophisticated yet produced in a fighter, apart from EA 18G (if you can call it a fighter). The level of integration of its ESM, ECM, Radar, IR/EO equipment and nav/comms with ts offencive EW capabilities is higher than the F22 or F18E/F. As far as the Rafale is concerned, the SPECTRA system seems to be a very sophisticated ECM/ESM suite. the notion of active cancellation is a very impressive self protection counter measure when the technology matures. I have no problem considering the Rafales defensive EW suite as equal to the F35's. However in terms of offensive "jamming" or EW, the F35 is a long way ahead of Rafale. As impressive as SPECTRA is, it can not reach out and offensively disrupt enemy systems. It is a defensive ECM system. on the other hand the F35's EW suite in conjunction with the APG 81 can actively degrade an enemy's radar's total performance, not just its own echo, it can overload an incoming ARH missiles sensors or possibly fry its internal circuits at close range. It can disrupt enemy datalinks at ranges that have been described as "extremely tactically significant", so i would guess well in excess of 100km's. the combination of VLO, passive launch and disruption of enemy communications will mean the F35 is one lethal beast in BVR combat. Its a "jamming" capability that at the Rafale will not be able to match in the foreseeable future.


The F-35 isn't in service right now neither is its EWS. I have no doubt that its EWS will be a highly capable system. It might be superior as well and I see good chances for it to be supperior. The problem is that EW suites are a well guarded secrets and you never know about the exact capabilities. A really fair comparison isn't possible for such systems ,though you can weight the one or other parameter against each other and make some fair assumptions. BTW Rafale's ECM provides both, defensive and offensive modes according to the french guys. Until the F-35 will enter service and its capabilities are available the Rafale has enough time to compensate potential short comings, this is of course no guarantee for being "better". A strong advantage for the F-35 is that a number of nations can provide their expertise in these fields which is valueable.


Even when clean I'm not sure it would in all parameters. In terms of kinematics, the F35 would be a better performer. It has a comperable (slightly better) TWR at a similar percentile of internal fuel. That 40klb thrust F135 engine is no joke. Plus it has more fuel to play with. More fuel doesn't just mean more range, it equates to more energy. More time on afterburner, more time at full dry thrust, more opportunities to gain an advantage. their top speeds may be similar but the F35 can stay at AB for longer with comparable or better (depending on the fuel loads) acceleration. All this is of cource against a clean rafale.

However with a wing loading as low as 326kgm/2 the Rafale should be able to out "dogfight" an F35 if they both ran out of missiles and went to guns. Thats without delveing into the various aerodynamic benefits a delta/canard design such as roll rates and high alfa performance, a clean rafale should be able to out turn an F35 any way you look at it.


I basically agree with your conclusions. Remains to wait for how the Rafale will be further developed. Stronger engines would provide some improvments, but not in every area. The F-35s main strength is its huge range and aerodynamic cleaness in a combat configuration.

F35 Block 4 should be operational in 6~7 years. So i guess we can consider any future developments to rafale that are funded and available within that time-frame.


Just to be up to date. Is block 4 the intended definitive configuration? I mean to remember that due costs some of the planned capabilities won't be available before 2016.

On another note i doubt the F35 will only carry 4 AAM's internally. there is room in the A/C versions for at least 6, with a double rail launcher on the belly hardpoint, if not both weapons stations. The problem is clearance of the inboard weapons station, however i dont think this will be a problem that can not be solved. The missile just needs to be ejected or levered out of the bay. Given the fact that there is more than enough room, an internal war load of 6~8 AAM's is pretty likely. I do remember rading an article that LM had done ground testing of 6 AAM's in the payload bay, i'll try and dig it up.



I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12. This would be really impressive and I prefer to wait for official confirmation. 6-8 missiles should be possible taking into account the design of the F-35s weapon bays. They provide more room than the F-22s so I see no real problem to fit at least 6 or 8 missiles in total.


Also the only munition the F35A has to carry externally is JASSM, which is stealthy anyway. Everything else will fit into the weapons bay.


I try to find the link for the graphic I have on my HD. These show the weapons which can be carried internal and external.
Offline

boff180

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 963
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58

Unread post21 Oct 2007, 16:06

Scorpion82 wrote:I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12. This would be really impressive and I prefer to wait for official confirmation. 6-8 missiles should be possible taking into account the design of the F-35s weapon bays. They provide more room than the F-22s so I see no real problem to fit at least 6 or 8 missiles in total.


Me and dwight had a set to over this a few months ago; I had it confirmed by the JSF team that the eventual load-out of missiles in each bay will be 3. HOWEVER as I have discovered recently, if you are a Meteor user... she only fits the primary pylon in the weapons bay and only one of them. She doesn't fit the shoulder pylon, so when carrying A-G ordnance internally you cannot carry a BVR missile if a Meteor using nation. That also severely limits combat persistence in a stealthy air-air config.

Also the only munition the F35A has to carry externally is JASSM, which is stealthy anyway. Everything else will fit into the weapons bay.


I try to find the link for the graphic I have on my HD. These show the weapons which can be carried internal and external.


Lots of weapons only fit externally, most of them not stealthy.

Andy
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post21 Oct 2007, 16:51

Here is the link with graphics for the internal/external weapons carriage.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post21 Oct 2007, 21:54

Scorpion82 wrote:[I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12.


Can you say not a chance in hell? Any graphics you saw that showed 6 AAM's per bay was made up in a fairytale land.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Oct 2007, 22:34

checksixx wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:[I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12.


Can you say not a chance in hell? Any graphics you saw that showed 6 AAM's per bay was made up in a fairytale land.



I believe they are referring to 3-per bay! (i.e. 6 total)
Offline

Ozzy_Blizzard

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2007, 14:53

Unread post22 Oct 2007, 05:30

checksixx wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:[I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12.


Can you say not a chance in hell? Any graphics you saw that showed 6 AAM's per bay was made up in a fairytale land.


I saw that graphic to, it had double rails on both hardpoints and 2 more on the outboard doors, which is probably crap. It added up to 12


@ boff...

Lots of weapons only fit externally, most of them not stealthy.


Like what? And i do mean that have been cleared for use on the F35. Strom shadow is annother i can think of. Everything else is in the 2000lb class range AFAIK and CAN be carried internally.

On annother note i wonder if there is any chance of a double rail for WVRAAM's on the inboard weapons station, allowing 8????
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests