F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

Tiger05

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 20:13

SpudmanWP wrote:Actually, LRASM came from JASSM-ER, which is a land attack missile. By your logic, LRASM is a land attack missile that was given secondary ASM capability.


That LRASM is a derivative of the JASSM is irrelevant, LRASM was designed to be an ASM and will be employed as such. It is called Long Range Anti-Ship Missile for a reason. It is a Harpoon replacement. Its secondary "land attack capability" is just a marketing gimmick.

skyward wrote:The JDAM family of weapon is clearly better then AASM overall. It have similar stand off range but cost a lot less. Cost is a factor in A2G evaluation. Most of the Rafale munition just cost more.


JDAM doesnt have the kinetic energy nor the excellent manoeuvrability of the AASM. AASM has a better range than the standard JDAM versions as well (JDAM-ER has similar range however).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4057
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 20:17

loke wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:
hat matters the most are FACTS and the FACT is that the Super Hornet has 4 (four) pylons cleared to carry 2000lb bombs while the Rafale has only 3 (three - apparently the centerline fuselage pylon is also cleared for 2000lb)



Sorry, but facts say 5.

eg. Image

2SCALP mssiles, 3 *2200L tanks.

LOL, great picture!

Scalp is actually almost 3,000 lbs....

Clearly it will be impossible to carry a 2,000lbs bomb on that pylon! :doh:



Ok,
I based my post about the 3x2000lb bombs on this diagram (where it shows that it can only carry 3):

Image

But by looking at the picture that you posted I can concede that the Rafale can/could technically carry 4 or 5 2000lb bombs.


loke wrote:
ricnunes wrote:In the image that you can see above, you can see a Super Hornet being prepared for a mission over Syria and you can also see that it's armed with 10 (TEN) 1000lb GPS Guided Bombs - GBU-32s in this case - Therefore an OPERATIONAL LOAD!

AFAIK Rafale can carry up to 8 1000lbs bombs, only 2 less than the SH. Not a huge difference.


Yeah right, and where would you put 8 GBU-32s in the Rafale, may I ask??
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4057
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 20:35

Tiger05 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Actually, LRASM came from JASSM-ER, which is a land attack missile. By your logic, LRASM is a land attack missile that was given secondary ASM capability.


That LRASM is a derivative of the JASSM is irrelevant, LRASM was designed to be an ASM and will be employed as such. It is called Long Range Anti-Ship Missile for a reason. It is a Harpoon replacement. Its secondary "land attack capability" is just a marketing gimmick.


And so what?? The LRASM has land attack capabilities and that's all that matters!
The JSM is also a cruise missile that can be used to both anti-ship missile and land attack missile. JSM fit-check test have been made in the Super Hornet as back as 2013. So this could be an another cruise missile alternative for the Super Hornet.
The JSOW C-1 can also be used an anti-ship weapon as well as land attack weapon.
And we could go on...

Having an anti-ship and land attack capabilities is not being limited to land attack! Actually it's the opposite.
You cannot use the SCALP that you praise so much against ships, only against land targets while the LRASM (which was mentioned to you) CAN BE USED against BOTH ships and land targets and the LRASM is the "limited missile" here?

So lets see, the Super Hornet can carry in terms of cruise missiles against land targets:
- LRASM
- SLAM-ER
- JSOW C
- JSM (potentially)

The Rafale can carry:
- <crickets sound....> SCALP <crickets sound....>
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 20:37

Tiger05 wrote:That LRASM is a derivative of the JASSM is irrelevant, LRASM was designed to be an ASM and will be employed as such. It is called Long Range Anti-Ship Missile for a reason. It is a Harpoon replacement. Its secondary "land attack capability" is just a marketing gimmick.


You have a strange definition of "replacement" or "gimmick".

The LRASM has the same warhead as the JASSM, that being a 1000lb blast frag penetrating warhead. This is more than TWICE the size of the Harpoon. In fact, the LRASM is classified as the AGM-158C and not it's own designation. The simple fact is that this is the JASSM-ER with ASM capabilities added in while NOTHING was subtracted from its capabilities.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1643
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 21:10

f-16adf wrote:I know for a fact that some years later, they even mentioned that the UAE Viper with the GE-132 has more power/acceleration than Rafale. Complaining that they wanted up-rated engines (also, may have been said years earlier against B-30's, too).

This was the interview I was referring to, It was 2010 It has been doctored a bit, there may be a better full interview out there
https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... -IX/page27
With the general Alain SILVY
Deputy Chief Plans within the Staff of the Air Force.

The french government took the pledge with the Rafale manufacturer to ensure, whatever happens, a minimum annual rate of 11 aircrafts. A rate estimated by the manufacturer as the floor below which it would not be possible to go without calling into question the economy of the program, including the unit cost of these aircrafts. The LPM (Law of Military Planning) not providing matching funds for the purchase of these machines for the years 2013 and 2014, either export allow very opportunely to keep the commitment to the industry, or export is lacking and the french state must find the necessary budgets by reducing or eliminating other programs. Is this commitment based on obtaining export orders a dangerous bet?

Alain Silvy: Let's be honest. This "bet", to use your word, on short-term obtaining of export orders for the Rafale, has nevertheless allowed to complete the LPM allowing the planning of a big hole in the shipment for the Air Force and the Navy without questioning the production rate, already reduced to the minimum industrially acceptable by Dassault Aviation. Deliveries to the French armies should be reduced to only 2 or 3 machines per year for a time, the export bringing the complement to reach the threshold of 11 Rafale produced per year. In case of absence of export order, the situation would become obviously complicated.[…] We would have to find a substantial funding of several hundred million euros. […]

But how to find the hundreds of millions euros in question?

The 3 armies have all benefited from the choice made by the planners of the LPM to reduce to a very low level the Rafale deliveries. The amount saved have been reallocated to the 3 armies. I think nobody questions it. We should have to find the funds by making new balancing within the LPM […] we must now hope that will come very quickly a first export order. […] But export is not neutral. Potential customers, including UAE, have specific requirements with developments leaving the French standards - and therefore with budget not taken into account by the LPM - they want cofinanced by the French state. That could require for France to find further funding for the Rafale program […]

What would be the cost for France of these additional co-development to fund with a potential UAE customer?

One hears everything and its opposite. Everything depends on what one includes. Personally, I do not give precise figures. But this is obviously something like several hundreds of millions of euros paid by the french state.

Is the Air force interested by some of the UAE requirements ?

From my point of view, it depends where. We could be potentially interested by the M88-X with 9 tons of thrust because it would be, in the circumstances, an open field. But, on the other hand, we have not yet reached the stage of maturity - which requires about 150,000 flight hours – with the current M88 with 7.5 tonnes thrust. This means that with the M88-X, even if it should presumptively enjoy a good community with the existing M88, we would have to accumulate even more hours to reach the stage of maturity of the engine.
Very clearly, in my opinion, the M88-X is not for the Air force an immediate need. In order to sell the Rafale to the UAE, the Defense may ultimately be asked to acquire the M88-X in a quantity and on terms still to define. And we'll maybe even happy to use it. But today we have no technical or operational reasons to make it available for us.The gain expected from the arrival of a more powerful engine is lower than the risks we would go with the technical immaturity of new modules and the management in parallel - so complicated in terms of logistics and operational employment of aircraft with different performances –of two relatively different parks of M88. All this must be thorough.

Would it be possible to see Safran manufacturing M88-X for UAE and continue to deliver “classic” M88 for the french Rafale? And this notwithstanding that the french government would have co-funded the development of the M88-X

It is not forbidden to imagine it. On condition, however, that to maintain the parallel production of two versions of M88 does not cost more than producing a single model. The support costs must not explode. Safran must tell us very quickly and very frankly what it would be. And again, nothing force us to equip the whole fleet of Rafale, Air and/or Marine.



And about the UAE demand to have a more powerful RBE2 radar, could it answer to some expectations for the Air force?

The Air Force is interested in having a RBE2 with an active antenna. It is now established with the powerful AESA antenna which will equip our tranche 4 Rafale. What the Emirians are calling for is much more complex. They want, in addition to the AESA, to have new functionalities on their Rafale, such as GMTT / GMTI (detection and tracking of moving ground target), interlacing between air/air and air/ground modes, etc.. Even if this is not for us an urgent need, the operational 'plus' obtained could nonetheless eventually interest us. However, the key Emirian demand is about the range of the RBE2. And, with the same antenna diameter, the only way to achieve the 10% range increase (compared with the Basic AESA F3 "roadmap") that wish to obtain the Emirians, is a big boost to the power of the radar.

But more power to the RBE2, could it be a risk to generate serious electromagnetic interference (EMI) with the SPECTRA receptors ?

There is indeed a very real EMI risk to treat. This is the case whenever we want to change aircraft emission systems. There are solutions, obviously, but this will require to reexamine SPECTRA. But the biggest problem we have identified is about electric generation, which could be insufficient. To increase the maximum range of a few nautical miles, we would have to deeply review the electrical generation system of the aircraft.
In short, to conceive what it could be a Rafale-9, that is to say a new aircraft moving away from the similarity you want with french Rafale. The Emirati experts participating in negotiations are well aware of the problem. But they are also used to have very high quality weapons systems. They want to avoid any regression with the Rafale, at least on the radar range, compared to the F-16 Block 60, the Rafale having also many other qualities. The Emirians don’t have AWACS and therefore want - it is a fundamental requirement - that the Rafale can see very far. Beyond the radar, they are showing fairly strong requirements into SPECTRA development with, for example, the expansion of some frequency bands, an increased sensitivity, adding functionalities; in short, they want we push up the current technologies. Of course, to improve the electronic warfare of our Rafale faster than originally planned could be an additional operational advantage for the Air force. However, our current approach is to consolidate the features implemented in SPECTRA, to make them more robust and make it easier for operators and programmers before wanting to go further into addition of new capabilities. The current SPECTRA is working well and even very good. In sum, what separates us, about Spectra, is a matter of timing and calendar […]. In a more general way, we share the same wishes about capabilities, but with very different maturities calendar sometimes. Budgetary constraints remain a dimensioning factor.



The Emirians want a viewfinder-HMD ...

It's true. And ourselves, one way or another, we will. For various reasons, we agreed in the past to not use it initially, but this equipment is now an almost indispensable element for modern combat aircraft. Besides various prospects of the Rafale - the UAE, Brazil and Switzerland – also want it, confirming this analysis.

In the end, what about the eventuality of a Rafale order by the UAE?

Very sincerely, and seen from my place, I think we're really not very far from being able to reach a common ground with our UAE friends. The only pertinent question to be asked is whether the will of similarity expressed by the Emirians will prevail over their performance requirement If performance is what counts, in fact we’ll get two quite different Rafale - as with the Mirage 2000-9 - because the french state can not or do not want to follow it. If the community is paramount, the Emirians will have to reduce their ambitions with regard to performance. The choice is now in their hands. They must see if their operational necessities allow them or not to settle for a weapon system fairly close to the F3 "roadmap" French standard. They must decide whether they consider more important to work very closely with us. I know they have already expressed the wish, in case of order, to be able to send their pilots very quickly in our Rafale units where they could train, learn the Rafale and our tactical employment. To obtain a rapid operational rise of their own Rafale squadron. in that case their Rafale configuration and ours must not be very different. But it remains to be seen ... That is where we are I think
.
How long would require the additional developments required by the UAE?

It is difficult to answer precisely this question, especially since I do not have all the elements of the problematic. The first UAE aircraft would not be delivered before 2014. This period should be sufficient to finish to develop a 9 tons M-88. About the radar, we would not probably have in 2014 all the capabilities and performance expected, but they would, I think, nevertheless be already very close to the target. The problem of electric generation requires also time to be processed. This will be a heavy operation for the aircraft. In the case of an order signed this year, we would therefore have some years to develop the additional features. These years should not be wasted. In any case, I think the discussions with Emirians take place on a sound footing. Their negotiators are experts who know exactly what is fighter plane and are aware of the state of the art and of various constraints. Talking to people at this level is very pleasant for the Air Force. However, now the order must materialize.



What about the UAE Mirage 2000-9 ?

The French authorities have been very clear on this subject. Once the Rafale ordered by UAE, the Mirage 2000-9 will be taken back by France which will issue them to a defeasance agency in charge of their resale export. This means that in this hypothesis, it is not envisaged that they equip the French Army.

But would it be interesting for the Army because these are recent cells with advanced weapons systems ?

We can not say that we feel no interest in these machines, because their weapons system displays really astonishing performance. The Air Force could certainly benefit. However, the indispensable work for NATO compatibility on these weapons systems would be very heavy with a cost probably exceeding the one - 700 millions euros - planned for the renovation of our Mirage 2000D, which is a priority for us.

If the UAE buy the Rafale, could the Rafale Transformation Squadron (ETR), which will be created in Saint-Dizier, be relocated at Al-Dhafra to help UAE pilots and benefit from the excellent local weather conditions ?

Why not? but we are not there yet. […] To install the ETR – as a whole or just a part - at Al-Dhafra could be an asset. Our first participation, last autumn, to the ATLC (Advanced Tactical Leadership Course) organized by the UAE Air Warfare Center, has once again demonstrated the richness of such exchanges. If the UAE order the Rafale, we may have to quickly take charge, in a way or another, of the transformation of their pilots on our weapon system. Doing it at Al-Dhafra would be - and this is only my opinion - interesting.

Interview by Jean-Louis Prome
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4057
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 21:13

Tiger05 wrote:Thats 6x PGMs, 6x AAMs & three large EFTs + targeting pod (not mounted here for some reasons but it can be carried). An SH would simply be unable to carry a similar PGMs/EFTs/AAMs/targeting pod combination.

And i dont necessarily agree that the SH has a better A2G weapons panoply.


Gee, let me see:
- 8xSDBII, 3 large EFTs, 5xAAMs, 1xTGP, plus optionally 2xCTFs
Or,
- 8xSDBII, 9xAAMs, 1 large EFT, 1xTGP, 2xCFTs
Or,
- 8xSDBII, 3 large EFTs, 3xAAMs, 1xTGP, 2xHARMs, plus optionally 2xCTFs
Or,
- 8xSDBII, 7xAAMs, 1 large EFT, 1xTGP, 2xCFTs, 2xHARMs

HARMs, did I say HARMs??
And what about the Rafale? Where is its Anti-Radiation missile? Oh I see, there's none :roll:

Oh, and before someone says that the Rafale doesn't need one due to its SPECTRA or blablabla... let me give you hint:
- Self-protection against pop-up SAMs!


Tiger05 wrote:I see some shortcomings like the lack of a cruise missile in the Scalp/Storm Shadow class as used on the Rafale.


This was already replied to you.

And again, I see some shortcomings on the Rafale due to the lack of an Anti-Radiation missile like the HARM.

While and again, there's a considerable number of cruise missile solutions for the Super Hornet.

In my previous post I mentioned potential JSM and the Super Hornet:

Image



Tiger05 wrote:Guess the SH must have a flight endurance of roughly 5 minutes with that loadout... The SH is already a pig when flown clean, i cant imagine how draggy it must be with all those bombs on those silly canted out pylons. Impressive but not a very realistic/practical loadout for the vast majority of missions.


That SH in that configuration was USED OPERATIONALY over Syria, so I'm pretty sure that it didn't have a flight endurance of 5 minutes... :roll:

Here's that SH being launched:
Image

And again I would like to see a Rafale M being catapulted from a carrier with (an imaginary I believe) loadout of 8 of such bombs (let alone 10) :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4057
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 21:21

optimist wrote:https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... -IX/page27
With the general Alain SILVY
Deputy Chief Plans within the Staff of the Air Force.
And about the UAE demand to have a more powerful RBE2 radar, could it answer to some expectations for the Air force?

..........

The Air Force is interested in having a RBE2 with an active antenna. It is now established with the powerful AESA antenna which will equip our tranche 4 Rafale. What the Emirians are calling for is much more complex. They want, in addition to the AESA, to have new functionalities on their Rafale, such as GMTT / GMTI (detection and tracking of moving ground target), interlacing between air/air and air/ground modes, etc.. Even if this is not for us an urgent need, the operational 'plus' obtained could nonetheless eventually interest us. However, the key Emirian demand is about the range of the RBE2. And, with the same antenna diameter, the only way to achieve the 10% range increase (compared with the Basic AESA F3 "roadmap") that wish to obtain the Emirians, is a big boost to the power of the radar.

.........



First of all thanks the link optimist!

Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but from that I understood the Radar AESA Radar (RBE2 AA):
- Does NOT have a GMT mode (Ground Moving Target mode)
- It is NOT capable of performing Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground modes simultaneously

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

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1643
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 21:40

That's the way I read it. They stuck an aesa antenna on with the same back end. They didn't change the modes or EW/EA it really is a moto flip 2g with an iphone 4g antenna. It doesn't make it an iphone. It didn't even match the UAE f-16 radar
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Tiger05

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 21:47

ricnunes wrote:So lets see, the Super Hornet can carry in terms of cruise missiles against land targets:
- LRASM
- SLAM-ER
- JSOW C
- JSM (potentially)

The Rafale can carry:
- <crickets sound....> SCALP <crickets sound....>


JSOW-C is a glide bomb, not a cruise missile. Try again. So, as of 2018, the SH has only one cruise missile available: SLAM-ER. Basically a bastardized ASM adapted for the land attack mission. Hmm.

And besides the Scalp, the Rafale has the ASMP-A as already pointed out and its pretty much the ultimate cruise missile: 300kt nuclear warhead, 500km range, Mach 3 speed and pretty much uninterceptable... A capability the SH will never have. I know i claimed it was an irrelevant point before but, on second thought, i dont see why i should exclude it when this missile is part of the Rafale weapons panoply and could be used against land targets.
Offline

Tiger05

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 21:56

SpudmanWP wrote:
Tiger05 wrote:That LRASM is a derivative of the JASSM is irrelevant, LRASM was designed to be an ASM and will be employed as such. It is called Long Range Anti-Ship Missile for a reason. It is a Harpoon replacement. Its secondary "land attack capability" is just a marketing gimmick.


You have a strange definition of "replacement" or "gimmick".

The LRASM has the same warhead as the JASSM, that being a 1000lb blast frag penetrating warhead. This is more than TWICE the size of the Harpoon. In fact, the LRASM is classified as the AGM-158C and not it's own designation. The simple fact is that this is the JASSM-ER with ASM capabilities added in while NOTHING was subtracted from its capabilities.


So you deny that LRASM is being procured as a Harpoon replacement? Thats your call on it but it isnt supported by available information. And if its just another version of the JASSM, why was the program called 'LRASM' in the first place? It doesnt add up.
Last edited by Tiger05 on 15 Mar 2018, 22:02, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

Tiger05

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 22:01

ricnunes wrote:
Tiger05 wrote:Thats 6x PGMs, 6x AAMs & three large EFTs + targeting pod (not mounted here for some reasons but it can be carried). An SH would simply be unable to carry a similar PGMs/EFTs/AAMs/targeting pod combination.

And i dont necessarily agree that the SH has a better A2G weapons panoply.


Gee, let me see:
- 8xSDBII, 3 large EFTs, 5xAAMs, 1xTGP, plus optionally 2xCTFs
Or,
- 8xSDBII, 9xAAMs, 1 large EFT, 1xTGP, 2xCFTs
Or,
- 8xSDBII, 3 large EFTs, 3xAAMs, 1xTGP, 2xHARMs, plus optionally 2xCTFs
Or,
- 8xSDBII, 7xAAMs, 1 large EFT, 1xTGP, 2xCFTs, 2xHARMs


SDBs arent in use on SH last i checked. Nor are CFTs. Try again.

HARMs, did I say HARMs??
And what about the Rafale? Where is its Anti-Radiation missile? Oh I see, there's none :roll:


AASM is used for the SEAD mission and it is reportedly effective in that role.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 22:28

Tiger05 wrote:So you deny that LRASM is being procured as a Harpoon replacement?
Not directly. It can do more but does not fit in the same spaces as the Harpoon (ie no quad-deck launchers, etc). It's a complementary weapon, not a replacement.

And if its just another version of the JASSM, why was the program called 'LRASM' in the first place? It doesnt add up.
It is what it is. There is no arguing with its designation, features, stated capabilities, etc.

Further proof of it being complementary is that the USN is in the middle of a Harpoon Blk2+ upgrade which they would not be doing if they were transitioning to a new missile.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Tiger05

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 22:49

SpudmanWP wrote:
Tiger05 wrote:So you deny that LRASM is being procured as a Harpoon replacement?
Not directly. It can do more but does not fit in the same spaces as the Harpoon (ie no quad-deck launchers, etc). It's a complementary weapon, not a replacement.

And if its just another version of the JASSM, why was the program called 'LRASM' in the first place? It doesnt add up.
It is what it is. There is no arguing with its designation, features, stated capabilities, etc.

Further proof of it being complementary is that the USN is in the middle of a Harpoon Blk2+ upgrade which they would not be doing if they were transitioning to a new missile.


My understanding is that LRASM is specifically being procured to plug the gap with Russian and Chinese ASMs that are currently severely outranging Harpoons. This is the primary reason it is being procured. I somewhat doubt that the LRASM will be used in the land attack role given their pricetag ($2 million a pop). Why would the USN waste one of their precious LRASMs when the much cheaper Tomahawk, or even Harpoon Block II, can do the job? As i said, a very secondary capability and probably a marketing gimmick.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4057
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 23:00

Tiger05 wrote:And here is the kid again with one of his emotional posts and name calling... I am sorry but i really got a hard time taking you seriously with your little emotional outbursts and your excessive use of caps, punctuation marks and smileys for more emphasis. You are by far the most immature member on this forum. How old are you?


From what I see I'm probably more than old enough to be your father but "thank god" that I'm not.

My caps are not "emotional outbursts". They are to "emphasize" points which again wasn't apparently enough for you to learn something.


Tiger05 wrote:JSOW-C is a glide bomb, not a cruise missile. Try again. So, as of 2018, the SH has only one cruise missile available: SLAM-ER. Basically a bastardized ASM adapted for the land attack mission. Hmm.


The JSOW has a maximum range of 130 kilometres. While technically not a "cruise missile" in the sense that it doesn't have its own power, the JSOW has an outstanding range and has about the same/similar range of the Harpoon missile, which is a CRUISE MISSILE <-- Here you are an "emphasized outburst" :roll:
So yes, if the Harpoon is considered a cruise missile than the JSOW should be considered one as well, or at least considered a "cruise weapon" if you will!


Tiger05 wrote:And besides the Scalp, the Rafale has the ASMP-A as already pointed out and its pretty much the ultimate cruise missile: 300kt nuclear warhead, 500km range, Mach 3 speed and pretty much uninterceptable... A capability the SH will never have. I know i claimed it was an irrelevant point before but, on second thought, i dont see why i should exclude it when this missile is part of the Rafale weapons panoply and could be used against land targets.


What?? You're know bringing NUKES to the discussion. Speaking about immaturity... :doh:
Last edited by ricnunes on 15 Mar 2018, 23:09, edited 2 times in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4057
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 23:07

Tiger05 wrote:SDBs arent in use on SH last i checked. Nor are CFTs. Try again.


I said SDBII - Note the II in Roman numerals! And then you wonder why sometimes I put a few words on caps, underlines and bold... :roll:
The SDBII or GBU-53/B is being integrated on the Super Hornet as well "speak":
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii

I NEVER mentioned the SDB or GBU-39 integration on the Super Hornet here, capiche?



Tiger05 wrote:
HARMs, did I say HARMs??
And what about the Rafale? Where is its Anti-Radiation missile? Oh I see, there's none :roll:


AASM is used for the SEAD mission and it is reportedly effective in that role.


But it's not an Anti-Radiation missile is it?? It doesn't home on enemy radar sources, doesn't it?
And the Super Hornet also has weapons with similar roles as the AASM, you know like that SDBII that you say that the Super Hornet doesn't carry... :roll:
Last edited by ricnunes on 15 Mar 2018, 23:24, edited 3 times in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests