[QUOTE=archangelski;2124957]USAF :

She is sitting in front of a Super Hornets fuel tank plus the patches say Gunslingers (VFA-105) so my guess would be USN. :eagerness:

Has it occurred to you that the swiss air force, who didn’t want the Gripen in the first place may be behind the leaks?

Or else who do you have in mind?

Nic

BS. The Swiss Air Force know very well that its either Gripen or nothing at all. I think its safe to say everyone would rather choose the “meager Gripen” as opposed to walking.

btw, one alternative, should the public vote no, would be to lease some Gripens, most likely C/D models. Either way, Rafale is not an option.

Nuclear sharing. They’re just replacing older B61 versions.
Nothing to see here, move on.

Seconded, better use this thread for reference.

As far as external fuel tanks, the problem becomes one of logistics… tanks are expensive, some are even RAM treated. If you can imagine the strain on the logistical train for a squadron of 12 aircraft dropping two drop tanks per sortie, for a campaign like Libya? Even worse, when the aircraft drops it’s tanks, it messes up the tanker scheduling.
With all due respect to TU-22M’s tagline: …. “large internal fuel fraction, because tanks stay on if you want to land in back in the nation you took off from”

You are forgetting one thing: war is expensive. You are planning to drop several bombs per sortie, each costing several thousand dollars. Do you really think the odd fuel tank dropped matters? How many bombs dropped over Irak, how many tanks?
As for logistics, sure, can be a problem. The solution: WRM tanks, as in war reserve material. They can be stored and built on site.
But what about carrier aircraft? Simple, don’t make them reliable on drop tanks. Has been done in the past (A-6, A-7 anyone?), not so much with the F-18 series…
Tanker scheduling? Yes, if your aircraft are being shot at, it tends to mess with your scheduling.

What do we learn?

The Rafale can carry 4 anti-ship missiles.(Exocet or Harpoon) The F-35 can carry 6 (NSM)

The Rafale can carry 3 cruise missiles. (Apache) The F-35 can carry 4. (JASSM)

The Rafale can carry 3 2,000 bombs. The F-35 can carry 6.

Etc etc

…but even that is somewhat simplistic because we are ignoring the Rafale’s need to carry external fuel.

The Rafale only has 3 stations capable of carrying a heavy weapon or a 2,000l fuel tank. That means a Rafale with a max load of 3 x 2,000lb bombs has very little fuel available, not a particularly useful loadout.

An F-35 meanwhile can carry its full 6 x 2,000lb bombs, while carrying 18,000 or 20,000lbs of fuel.

Your Rafale chart is outdated.
The Rafale has 5 heavy/wet stations. In theory, this means:
5 anti-ship missiles
5 cruise missiles
5 2000 lbs bombs
5 fuel tanks, 3 2000l plus 2 1250l on the outer wing stations.
Whether all those configurations are cleared I don’t know as they are in practice useless. But 3 2000l tanks plus 2 cruise missiles is f.e.

Additionally, there’s the possibility of CFTs and a nuclear cruise missile. How many nuclear cruise missiles can the F-35 carry? :highly_amused:

Reread my message once again…
The short range of the F-104 was a major issue in combat but also a logistics nightmare, as early Europe based F-104s were airlifted from the States because they were not capable of crossing the Atlantic on their own.

F-104G is a late model, I was referring to early models, for example F-104As of USANG during the Berlin crisis.

Regarding the rest, I can agree that F-104 was a good tactical nuclear striker.. if you didn’t mind throwing nukes at your doorstep, that is. But Luftwaffe hardly purchased 916 Starfighters for this single role only…

F-104C combat radius, “Special Store” mission: 754nm. That covers Frankfurt-Minsk f.e. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-104C_Starfighter_SAC_-_8_December_1958.pdf
That is a high-altitude mission though. For the typical low-level mission, range is about cut in half. google says 385nm for the F-104G, or 1980km range with tanks dropped. Enough for Memmingen-Budapest f.e.
Not what I consider short ranged. Interceptor missions may be different since the 4 tanks really hurt the performance. 150nm on internal fuel only, 250nm with 2 tanks. Still, not that bad.

Block 25 is capable of firing the Sparrow and was in service before the ADF. That would make the F-16C-25 the first F-16 model with Sparrow capability but it wasn’t used.
The F-16A ADF was the first (and only?) model to actually use the AIM-7 in USAF service. I don’t know if any foreign Vipers had the Sparrow before 1989, Egypt and Korea got their first C models in 1986 f.e.