The vast majority of today’s targets are mobile, not fixed sites like bridges or buildings that can be pre-targeted for cruise missiles. To find the mobile TBM TEL, or mobile AShM launcher, or mobile SAM battery, or mobile artillery battery, or mobile C3…you need to be able to get close enough to find, fix, target, and track with your sensors. A Gen 4 airplane cannot get close enough without becoming a SAM magnet. So the enemy uses his constantly moving, long range weaponry to threaten you (while hiding under his umbrella of SAMs) and your Gen 4 air armada can do nothing about it.

That’s why stealthy UAV/UCAVs are developped and start to see widespread use. If you you need a SAM magnet to localise enemy air defense, you may want to send unmanned assets, because your 5th gen fighters are going to be detected anyway, and even if SAMs can’t target them, they are going to be attacked by other means (fighters with IRST coming to mind, or maybe future generation of SAMs).

In 20 years, a fleet of Neuron/Rafale seems to be as it will be just as efficient as a fleet of JSF/X47, don’t you think?

Nic

Low band radars would be high priority targets for both kinetic and non-kinetic strikes, which is frequently ignored in these discussions.

So even the F35 would need exterior support to attack a modern IADS. It’s not the magic silver bullet some tend to beieve (not talking about you there).

Nic

Flying nap of the earth, means that you have much less situational awareness though, especially if you’re looking for moving targets.

True but in the beginning you’re going to go at pre planned targets most of the time. Unless you like to attack a country without knowing where they stationned their SAMs and other vital assets. I also doubt the JSF is going to be able to roam freely at their altitude of choice, because low band radars are going to detect them and fighters/other sensors can then be directed at them if they are detected at all.

Nic

No, a combat loaded F-35 compares with a clean fighter, was the point being made.

More like: A lightly loaded F35 compares with a 30 year old clean fighter.

Nic

Nope, weapon system cost, not flyaway…

So weapon system cost of the F35 is lower that it’s flyaway cost? Intersting 😀

And I questioned this, unless we are talking about COIN. I wans’t rude.

You can question it all you want it’s good until you pretend that I said a Rafale would be better at it than a F35.

Anyway the Rafale is optimised to fly nap of the earth profiles at high speed with both a terrain following radar and an autonomous GPS/INS digital terrain following system. Combined with the impressive spectra EW suite, it should definately be enough to come in the range of the Scalp EG which is a stand-off stealthy cruise missile that is going to be used to dig a hole in the enemy IADS. All the while Spectra is going to provide ELINT/SIGINT for the next step.

Then 125 kg AASM (125kg for added standoff range) are going to be used for DEAD to eliminate the rest of the enemy air defense from stand off range. Those could be targeted by spectra directly or by information from other Rafale’s spetra’s singint/elint capabilities.

Nic

This figure is for stealth mode (weapon inside weapon bay). We were talking about an Ass-crapistan scenario. Again, the F 35 can carry ~ 8 ton of weapons and 8.3 ton of fuel. The 9 ton of the rafale should be divided between weapon/ext. fuel.

The more you are going to add weapons externally the shorter the range. If you add 6 tons of weapons to your beloved F35 the range will be cut dramatically from the 700NM maximum on internal fuel. Its exactly the same thing as removing external tanks from the Rafale to add weapons instead.

Nic