f4u7_corsair wrote:No need to be salty or aggressive ricnunes.
Really??
After saying this:
I think that a SH carrying 10-12 AAM would just happen in SH fanboys wet dreams considering the drag and the lack of endurance.
You're accusing me of being "salty or aggressive". Guess you're having short-memory loss problems, no?
f4u7_corsair wrote:It's quite known that the SH is quite a draggy aircraft as designed. It's somewhat mediocre supersonic performance is well-known. It wasn't built for that.
.....
And where's sources that state that a similiary loaded SH is much more draggy than a Rafale. Or, where is the source that state that a clean Super Hornet is much more draggy than a clean Rafale?
Because last time I checked both aircraft (Super Hornet and Rafale) had pretty much the same Top Speed ( Mach 1.8 ) when clean, so my guess would be that the drag diference between both aircraft shouldn't be that big as you seem to imply. So execuse my if I have my doubts about your rambling above.
f4u7_corsair wrote:Do you know the DI of this 10 GBU loadout? Just for a good laugh.
My statement was about drag. Not if it can carry then or not - I know it can. Why are you getting mad?
No, I don't know the DI of that 10xGBU loadout. However what I do know is that same loadout was used operationally over a real combat area - Syria. So whatever DI that Super Hornet was subjected to with that same loadout, it was manageable enough for that same Super Hornet to be sent over an actual combat mission and that a Super Hornet with a 10-12 air-to-air missile loadout would have a far lower DI than that 10xGBU loadout.
So stop pretending that such heavy loadouts aren't or can't used operationally on the Super Hornet while for some "miracle" they can in the case of the Rafale!
And no, I'm not getting mad. I just hate when people try to distort facts in the namesake of "fanboyism".
P.S - just to be clear I'm not saying that a clean Super Hornet has the same/similar drag as an also clean Rafale. It's quite possible that the Super Hornet may be draggier than the Rafale. What I'm saying is that the diference isn't that big as it seems to be implied above.
f4u7_corsair wrote:Or resuming, the AIM-120C for the Super Hornet will be the same as current MICA versions are for the Rafale while the AIM-120D is currently for the Super Hornet what the Meteor is for the Rafale.
Heck, I'm pretty much sure that there are quite more AIM-120D available for the USN Super Hornet compared to the number of Meteors available for the French Rafales, considering that the AIM-120D reached IOC with the US Navy in January 2015 while the Meteor only reached IOC with the French forces quite recently.
Well I never said the opposite. Breathe slowly and take your medication...
Really? Then what was this:
8 AAM (including 4 METEOR and 3 tanks) loadout is qualified by Dassault and the DGA. Can be operationally qualified if needed. Centerline hardpoints could be qualified (if they are wired), but unlikely and probably no use for them.
I think that a SH carrying 10-12 AAM would just happen in SH fanboys wet dreams considering the drag and the lack of endurance.
If this isn't saying otherwise then I wonder what would be? But hey, this is not the first time that you post something only then to say later on that you didn't.
So I retort you the medication advise and now I advise you to check a doctor about your aparent memory loses

“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.