No it isn’t. The most important mission for Rafale stopping other country’s nuclear bombers getting to Paris. The ASMP-A is a tactical nuke and of secondary importance as the SSBNs provide the strategic deterrent for France.

You are very deluded. The best way to ensure than no other country’s bombers get to Paris (or anywhere else in France) is to convince them that if they do they can be sure to get a nuke on their capital in return. Keeping a air and sub nuclear force is the best way to make sure that they don’t feel confident that they could prevent it. Because if they somehow manage to stop one, there is always the risk they can’t stop the other.

Thanks for making our point though.

But I am willing to accept the statement by Blue Apple that Rafale is to be considering a low level bomb truck first, with secondary fighter capabilities.

Are you also willing to accept that even though it was designed to be truly multirole, it is capable of giving a good spanking to a fighter that was designed with pure air superiority in mind? Ouch.

Nic

Is there any plan to install a towed array onto the rafale

I think there isn’t. The idea is that the AESA antennas of spectra are able to accurately pinpoint and jam adverse radars. I think the TRD doesn’t fit in the philosophy of SPECTRA at all.

Nic

The machine translation’s atrocious 😮 But everyone should get the general gist : the stuff on show is vetted so that spies can’t get away with sensitive information just by looking at it (or worse, stealing it…).

I was also going to say that the translation is atrocious.

It says that the tire of a vehicle was even stolen at some show. But hopefully it was a fake. If even tires of land vehicles are fake, then the module counting is futile at best. But heck I guess it was logical for most of us anyway :rolleyes:

Nic

If bugs carried Berettas, birds would not eat them…:rolleyes:

Who possesses operational VLO ISR UAVs that can perform third party targeting other than USAF?

Or who even has a plan to build a fleet of operational VLO ISR UAVs? Demonstrators do not count because they are not operational assets and only 2-3 in number.

How many decades will it take for an Air Force (other than USAF) to build a fleet of operational VLO ISR UAVs when there is no political will?

A better question would be. Why would the USAF need something like F35, when they have a fleet of VLO ISR UAV at their disposal.

Nic

The AdA want a low colateral damage solution for yesterday.

From this point of view the Scalpel is the fastest solution available because it’s derivated from a training weapon for PavewayII (same wiring, etc)

The Brandt 68mm guided rocket aren’t ready now, nor is the Brimstone (the one I prefer personaly … especially if the Brits buy AASMs)

The AASM 125kg can be ready quicky too I guess but they have to make an effort on the price (if they can).

True but it doesn’t mean that they can’t integrate something better in the future.

I think the best would be the 125kg AASM and the laser guided rockets. The light AASM would be nice for CAS work, as it would probably have even more range than the 250 kg, and could also be used when low collateral damage is needed. The guided rockets would complement it nicely.

Nic

Yes laser guided rockets would be a good solution, albeit limited in range they would be fast and such a pod could hold a number of rockets, I think it’s definitely a better solution than the Scalpel which looks like an unpowered rocket.

Yes it looks like there would be a quite narrow shooting pattern to drop it accurately, which would probably increase reaction time. Brimstone would be nice too, but probably more expensive, and I’m not sure you could carry as many.

Nic

A non-VLO Gen 4 airplane flying a Hi-Lo-Hi profile is not tactically useful. With increasing frequency, legitimate military targets are mobile: C2I centers, TBM launchers, SAM batteries, artillery, armored divisions and mechanized infantry. For potential targets, their mobility greatly improves survivability. As an attacker with your sensors blinded due to nap-of-earth flight, you will rarely find mobile targets. Your enemy wins because you cannot stop what you cannot find.

To find mobile targets, you need useful sensor field of regard measured in dozens of kilometers, and sufficient data processing time to prosecute the mobiles. That is not easy to accomplish in a non-VLO Gen 4 because sensor field of regard = high altitude = SAM shots at you = mission kills against you because you have to dodge SAMs or be destroyed.

The bottom line…Equating a Gen 4 using Hi-Lo-Hi versus a Gen 5 which is survivable at altitude is laughable unless your only target set is SAM-less Taliban. Your Gen 4 will sit out the tough battles against a capable adversary, but will look good during air shows and flyovers for national holiday celebrations.

VLO will be detected by lower frequency ground radars and then other means of aiming can be directed at them to shoot them down (IRST or whatever). In a few years the most dangerous countries will be so equipped IMHO. So either you have to use expendable UCAVs, or you need something fast enough to remain out of harm’s way once detected (future stealth bomber?).

In neither case does the F35 cut it.

Nic