B-2 with 16 B-83s.
Tu-160 with 12 Kh-15/Kh-15S.
F-111 with 2 AGM-69s.
F-111 can actually carry 6 agm-69 ( 2 in the bay + 4 on the wing )
Tu-160 with 12 AS-16 ( mach 5 , 300 km missiles ) seem very dangerous too , but i have to disagree about the B-2 , B-83 is un guide , and it just a free fall bomb , so B-2 may have to come within 10-12 km near the ship which mean it may get shot down
.
Peoples easily forget P 8 ..but not me
6 External Stations for AShM internal payload of Mines and Torpedoes
It’s something more for Both Anti Surface and Sub Merge Ops
for such big aircraft , it carry such a low number of anti ship missiles , only 4 harpoon

i’d go for disable with as many high speed ARM as can be carried
most aircraft carry very limited number of ARM and they are not really that fast , AGM-88 and ALARM only top out at mach 2 and
system such as AEGIS have been tested to intercept supersonic target many times before
Ex :
intercept Mach 4.7 ( AQM-37 ) using SM-2 , ESSM
intercept Mach 2.5 sea skimming ( GQM-163 Coyote ) using RAM , ESSM
intercept Mach 2.5 ( RIM-8 Talos ) using RAM
intercept Mach 10-20 ( ballistic target ) using SM-3
Only the MN uses the Exocet so far, AdlA Rafales don’t operate it, and MN carries only one for bring back capabilities, which is not an issue if you operate from land bases.
Nic
i know , but the Exocet wing seem really big for the Rafale to carry 4 of them on wing ( feel like they will touch the other )
btw wasnt the inner station of Rafale is wet station ( only for carry fuel ) and you cannot carry weapon on that ? ( same as F-16 you cannot carry AAM or AGM on inner station )
What about B-1B and 24x LRASM?
1Saludo
iam not sure how much the RCS of LRASM going to help again very powerful radar of Aegis destroyer though but B-1 + 24 LRASM seem like a decent combo
I think you could fit up to 3 Exocets from a Rafale, and why not 4 if you go with CFTs + a single 2000L ET, or even 5 if you dispense of the ETs completely. Not too shabby for a medium sized fighter.
Nic
I dont think rafale can carry that much Exocet missiles though ( never seen them actually fit more than 1 Exocet on rafale ) , the missiles wing seem too bif to fit more than 3 of them on rafale
the 2 inner station of rafale are very close
My guess is the Super Etendart with Excocet. AFAIK the only combat proven system.
Exocet while did enjoy great success , it only been used again ship with not very good air defense , and one Super Etendart carry only 2 Exocet ( which mean 4 of them will carry 8 missiles ) , that may be not enough to achieve saturation effect again ship with good air defense ?
Apparently, the B-52 didn’t have the means to find naval targets on her own, until recently:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/transforming-a-b-52-into-a-maritime-patrol-plane-1003488b345a
http://www.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123415848Since the Tu-22 is the only dedicated anti-shipping bomber, it’s probably the best.
but the Tu-22 and AS-4 probably the oldest combo here ( probably except the B-52 + harpoon )
AS-4 have the longest range of 600 km + highest speed of mach 5 + biggest warhead a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter, and was 12 m (40 ft) deep , however it also very big ( almost the size of an F-16 ) thus have enormous RCS + it have very high infrared signature + it fly at very high altitude thus can be detected and intercept much earlier
It can be launched in either high-altitude or low-altitude mode. In high-altitude mode, it climbs to an altitude of 27,000 m (89,000 ft) and makes a high-speed dive into the target, with a terminal speed of about Mach 4.6. In low-altitude mode, it climbs to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and makes a shallow dive at about Mach 3.5, making the final approach at an altitude under 500 m (1,600 ft). The missile is guided by a gyro-stabilized autopilot in conjunction with a radio altimeter.
Tu-22 also carry only 3 of them per aircraft
I find the lack of Tu-22 and Kh-32 disturbing.
It right in there number 7
I’ll go for the 4 B52s launching 48 harpoons.
Nic
why not 4 su-33 with 12 Klub +8 Kh-31A? mach 3 missile are often very good at penetrate defence
or 4 F-35 with 96 SPEAR III, very high resistance to jamming + overwhelming number of low RCS missile are also good at penetrate defense
Rafale also seem good, mixing different kinds of weapon, making intercept task much harder
Yes. I guess I’m back on the thread title subject.
regarding the thread , i still wonder if any other 4 gen like Rafale , EF-2000 , F-18E/F , JAS-39N , F-16 block 60 can actually have great advantage again Mig-31 in a BVR fight
they sure have better electronic but far inferior in kinematic ( fly lower , slower ) , not sure how Meteor compared to R-33/37 though
PAC-3 can. SM-3 and THAAD are BMD only. SM-3 is for exo-atmospheric intercepts only and THAAD is high altitude endo-atmospheric and exo-atmospheric, 20-150km altitude I think. This quite a nice little diagram to show everything:
i can understand why the SM-3 cannot be used again aircraft but why the THAAD are useless again aircraft ? i doesnt use the kinetic exo-Atmospheric Projectile and it can actually turn very tight ( small turn radius ) compared to most missiles i ever seen
btw what is the CMD missiles in the picture ? ( in the left side of AEGIS )
There are other solutions for Mach 4-6 flight with even higher Specific Impulse:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)
it look too complicated to fit into any air to air missiles or even SAM , an aircraft may be
ASM-135 used to be satellite capable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASATSM-3 stuff if you’re interested:
oh actually i was comment about the ability of aim-120 to shot down fast aircraft and bomber at high altitude ( ex : XB-70 )
btw can the SM-3 , THAAD , PAC-3 shot down aircraft or they are only useful again ballistic missiles ?
What the graph doesn’t show is the actual density of the fuel and hence the space it takes up. Whilst the specific impulse is lower for solid fuel, because you can pack more mass into a smaller space it becomes more practical.
cant you explain a bit clearer , i dont quite catch what you trying to say ? ,
Could someone explain why VFDR is capable of lower speeds than a liquid ramjet? Is it something to do with the speed of ignition and combustion wrt the fuel?
VFDR cannot be flame out like ramjet , at lower speed scramjet and ramjet can get flame out ( that why they need a rocket booster ) , also Ramjet often have better range and speed than VFDR cause it dont have to carry the oxygen